content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Method}
We employ the Eliashberg approach for multiband superconductors~\cite{allen} and calculate the $\xi$-integrated Green's functions $\hat{\mathbf{g}}(\omega_n) = \int d \xi \hat{\mathbf{G}}(\k, \omega_n) =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\hat{g}_{an} & 0 \\
0 & \hat{g}_{bn}
\end{array}
\right)$,
where $\hat{g}_{\alpha n} = g_{0\alpha n} \hat{\tau}_{0}\otimes \hat{\sigma}_{0} + g_{2\alpha n} \hat{\tau}_{2}\otimes \hat{\sigma}_{2}$, indices $a$ and $b$ correspond to two distinct bands, index $\alpha = a,b$ denote the band space, Pauli matrices define Nambu ($\hat{\tau}_{i}$) and spin ($\hat{\sigma}_{i}$) spaces, $\hat{\mathbf{G}}(\k,\omega_n) = \left[\hat{\mathbf{G}}_0^{-1}(\k,\omega_n) - \hat{\mathbf{\Sigma}}(\omega_n)\right]^{-1}$ is the matrix Green's function for a quasiparticle with momentum $\k$ and the Matsubara frequency $\omega_n = (2 n + 1) \pi T$ defined in the band space and in the combined Nambu and spin spaces, $\hat{G}_0^{\alpha \beta}({\mathbf{k}},\omega_n)=\left[ \ii \omega_n \hat{\tau}_{0}\otimes \hat{\sigma}_{0}-\xi_{\alpha \k}\hat{\tau}_{3}\otimes \hat{\sigma}_{0}\right]^{-1} \delta_{\alpha \beta}$ is the bare Green's function,
$\hat{\mathbf{\Sigma}}(\omega _{n}) = \sum_{i=0}^{3} \Sigma_{\alpha \beta}^{(i)}(\omega_n)\hat{\tau}_i$ is the self-energy matrix, $\xi_{\alpha, \k} = v_{\alpha, F} (k-k_{\alpha, F})$ is the linearized dispersion, $g_{0\alpha n}$ and $g_{2\alpha n}$ are the normal and anomalous $\xi$-integrated Nambu Green's functions,
\beq
g_{0\alpha n}=-\frac{\ii \pi N_{\alpha} \tilde{\omega}_{\alpha n}}{\sqrt{\tilde{\omega}_{\alpha n}^{2}+\tilde{\phi}_{\alpha n}^{2}}}, \;\;\; g_{2\alpha n}=-\frac{\pi N_{\alpha} \tilde{\phi}_{\alpha n}}{\sqrt{\tilde{\omega}_{\alpha n}^{2}+\tilde{\phi}_{\alpha n}^{2}}},
\label{g}
\eeq
depending on the density of states per spin of the corresponding band at the Fermi level $N_{a,b}$ and on renormalized (by the self-energy) order parameter $\tilde{\phi}_{\alpha n}$ and frequency $\tilde{\omega}_{\alpha n}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\ii \tilde\omega_{a n} &=& \ii \omega_n - \Sigma_{0a}(\omega_n) - \Sigma_{0a}^{\imp}(\omega_n), \label{eq.omega.tilde} \\
\tilde\phi_{a n} &=& \Sigma_{2a}(\omega_n) + \Sigma_{2a}^{\imp}(\omega_n). \label{eq.Delta.tilde}
\end{eqnarray}
It is also convenient to introduce the renormalization factor $Z_{\alpha n} = \tilde{\omega}_{\alpha n} / \omega_n$ that enters the gap function $\Delta_{\alpha n} = \tilde{\phi}_{\alpha n} / Z_{\alpha n}$. The self-energy due to the spin fluctuation interaction is then given by
\bea
\Sigma_{0\alpha}(\omega_n) &=& T \sum\limits_{\omega_n',\beta} \lambda^{z}_{\alpha\beta} (n-n') \frac{g_{0\beta n}}{N_\beta}, \label{eq.DeltaN2} \\
\Sigma_{2\alpha}(\omega_n) &=& -T \sum\limits_{\omega_n',\beta} \lambda^{\phi}_{\alpha\beta}(n-n') \frac{g_{2\beta n}}{N_\beta},
\label{eq.DeltaN1}
\eea
The coupling functions $\lambda^{\phi,z}_{\alpha\beta}(n-n') = 2 \lambda^{\phi,z}_{\alpha\beta} \int^{\infty}_{0} d\Omega \Omega B(\Omega) / \left[(\omega_n-\omega_{n'})^{2} + \Omega^{2}\right]$ depend on the normalized bosonic spectral function
$B(\Omega)$ used in Refs.~\onlinecite{efremov,Efremov2013}.
While the matrix elements $\lambda^\phi_{\alpha \beta}$ can be positive (attractive) as well as negative (repulsive) due to the interplay between spin fluctuations and electron-phonon coupling~\cite{BS,parker}, the matrix elements $\lambda^z_{\alpha \beta}$ are always positive. For simplicity we set $\lambda^z_{\alpha \beta}=|\lambda^\phi_{\alpha \beta}|\equiv|\lambda_{\alpha \beta}|$ and neglect possible anisotropy in each order parameter $\tilde\phi_{\alpha n}$. Latter effects can lead to changes in the response of the two-band $s_\pm$ system to disorder and have been examined, e.g. in Ref.~\onlinecite{Mishra}.
We use the $T$-matrix approximation to calculate the average impurity
self-energy $\hat{\mathbf{\Sigma}}^{\imp}$:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathbf{\Sigma}}^{\imp}(\omega_n) = n_{\imp} \hat{\mathbf{U}} + \hat{\mathbf{U}} \hat{\mathbf{g}}(\omega_n) \hat{\mathbf{\Sigma}}^{\imp}(\omega_n),
\label{eq.tmatrix}
\end{equation}
where $n_{\imp}$ is the impurity concentration. Impurity potential for the non-correlated impurities can be written as $\hat{\mathbf{U}}=\mathbf{V} \otimes \hat{S}$, where
$ \hat{S} = \mathrm{diag}\left[\vec{\hat{\sigma}} \cdot \vec{S}, -(\vec{\hat{\sigma}} \cdot \vec{S})^{T}\right]$
is the $4 \times 4$ matrix with $(...)^{T}$ being the matrix transpose and $\vec{S} = \left( S_x, S_y, S_z \right)$ being the spin vector~\cite{ambeg}. The vector $\vec{\hat{\sigma}}$ is composed of $\tau$ matrices, $\vec{\hat{\sigma}} = \left( \hat{\tau}_1, \hat{\tau}_2, \hat{\tau}_3 \right)$. The potential strength is determined by $(\mathbf{V})_{\alpha \beta} = V_{\mathbf{R}_i = 0}^{\alpha \beta}$.
For simplicity intraband and interband parts of the potential are set equal to $\iM$ and $\jM$, respectively, such that $(\mathbf{V})_{\alpha \beta} = (\iM-\jM) \delta_{\alpha \beta} + \jM$.
Components of the impurity potential matrix $\hat{\mathbf{U}}$ is then $\hat{U}_{aa,bb} = \iM \hat{S}$ and $\hat{U}_{ab,ba} = \jM \hat{S}$.
Coupled $T$-matrix equations for $aa$ and $ba$ components of the self-energy become
\bea
\hat{\Sigma}_{aa}^{\imp} &=& n_{\imp} \hat{U}_{aa} + \hat{U}_{aa} \hat{g}_a \hat{\Sigma}_{aa}^{\imp} + \hat{U}_{ab} \hat{g}_b \hat{\Sigma}_{ba}^{\imp},
\label{eq.Sigma_aa} \\
\hat{\Sigma}_{ba}^{\imp} &=& n_{\imp} \hat{U}_{ba} + \hat{U}_{ba} \hat{g}_a \hat{\Sigma}_{aa}^{\imp} + \hat{U}_{bb} \hat{g}_b \hat{\Sigma}_{ba}^{\imp}.
\label{eq.Sigma_ba}
\eea
Renormalizations of frequencies and gaps come from $\Sigma^{\imp}_{0a} = \frac{1}{4} \mathrm{Tr}\left[\hat{\Sigma}_{aa}^{\imp} \cdot \left( \hat{\tau}_0 \otimes \hat{\sigma}_0 \right) \right]$ and $\Sigma^{\imp}_{2a} = \frac{1}{4} \mathrm{Tr}\left[\hat{\Sigma}_{aa}^{\imp} \cdot \left( \hat{\tau}_2 \otimes \hat{\sigma}_2 \right) \right]$.
\section{Results}
Following results were obtained by solving self-consistently frequency and gap equations~(\ref{eq.omega.tilde}) and (\ref{eq.Delta.tilde}) with the impurity self-energy from the solution of Eqs.~(\ref{eq.Sigma_aa}), (\ref{eq.Sigma_ba}) for both finite temperature and at $T_c$. Expressions for $\Sigma^{\imp}_{0\alpha}$ and $\Sigma^{\imp}_{2\alpha}$ are proportional to the effective impurity scattering rate $\Gamma_{a,b}$ and as in Ref.~\onlinecite{efremov} contain the generalized cross-section parameter $\sigma$ that helps to control the approximation for the impurity strength ranging from Born (weak scattering, $\pi \jM N_{a,b} \ll 1$) to the unitary (strong scattering, $\pi \jM N_{a,b} \gg 1$) limits,
\bea
\Gamma_{a,b} &=& \frac{2 n_{\imp} \sigma}{\pi N_{a,b}} \to \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
2 \pi \jM^2 s^2 n_{\imp} N_{b,a}, \text{Born}\\
\frac{2 n_{\imp}}{\pi N_{a,b}}, \text{unitary}
\end{array}
\right.
\\
\sigma &=& \frac{\pi^2 \jM^2 s^2 N_a N_b}{1 + \pi^2 \jM^2 s^2 N_a N_b}
\to \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
0, \text{Born}\\
1, \text{unitary}
\end{array}
\right.
\eea
Note that $\Gamma_{\alpha}$ here is twice as large as defined in Ref.~\onlinecite{efremov}. We assume that spins are not polarized
and $s^2 = \la S^2 \ra = S(S+1)$.
Also, we introduce the parameter $\eta$ to control the ratio of intra- and interband scattering potentials, $\iM = \jM \eta$.
\begin{figure}[t
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{spmsppTcDeltaPade}
\caption{(color online). $T_{c}$ dependence on the scattering rate $\Gamma_a$ (a,b) and frequency dependence of gaps $\mathrm{Re}\Delta_\alpha(\omega)$ (c,d) for various values of $\Gamma_a$ for the $s_\pm$ (a,c) and the $s_{++}$ (b,d) superconductors. $N_{b}/N_{a}=2$ and coupling constants are $(\lambda_{aa},\lambda_{ab},\lambda_{ba},\lambda_{bb}) = (3,-0.2,-0.1,0.5)$ so that $\la \lambda \ra < 0$ for the $s_\pm$ state and $(3,0.2,0.1,0.5)$ for the $s_{++}$ state.}
\label{fig:spmsppTc}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{spmsppDelta}
\caption{(color online). Matsubara gap $\Delta_{\alpha n=1}$ dependence on the scattering rate $\Gamma_a$ for the $s_\pm$ (a,b) and the $s_{++}$ (c,d) superconductors with only interband scattering, $\iM=0$ (a,c), and with $\iM=\jM/2$ (b,d). Parameters are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:spmsppTc}.}
\label{fig:spmsppDelta}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:spmsppTc}(a,b) and~\ref{fig:spmsppDelta} we plot $T_c$ and the gap function $\Delta_{\alpha n}$ for the first Matsubara frequency $\omega_{n=1} = 3 \pi T$
vs. $\Gamma_a$ for a set of $\sigma$'s for both $s_\pm$ and $s_{++}$ superconductors. Real part of the analytical continuation of $\Delta_{\alpha n}$ to real frequencies, the gap function $\mathrm{Re}\Delta_\alpha(\omega)$, is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:spmsppTc}(c,d). First, we discuss the $s_\pm$ state. $T_c$ becomes insensitive to impurities for the pure interband scattering, $\iM = 0$. This partially confirms qualitative arguments that $s_\pm$ state with magnetic disorder behave like the $s_{++}$ state with non-magnetic impurities~\cite{golubov97} and agrees with the quantitative theoretical calculations in the Born limit~\cite{Li2009}. For the finite $\iM$, intraband scattering on magnetic disorder average gaps to zero thus suppressing $T_c$. On the other hand, in the unitary limit ($\sigma=1$) at $T \to T_c$ we have $\tilde\omega_{a n} = \omega_n + \ii \Sigma_{0a}(\omega_n) + \frac{\Gamma_a}{2} \sgn{\omega_n}$ and $\tilde\phi_{a n} = \Sigma_{2a}(\omega_n) + \frac{\Gamma_a}{2} \frac{\tilde\phi_{a n}}{\left|\tilde\omega_{a n}\right|}$ for any value of $\eta$ including the case of intraband-only impurities,
$1/\eta = 0$. This form is the same as for non-magnetic impurities and thus analogously to the Anderson theorem there is no impurity contribution to the $T_c$ equation. The only exception here is the special case of uniform impurities, $\eta = 1$, when $\tilde\omega_{a n} = \omega_n + \ii \Sigma_{0a}(\omega_n) + \frac{n_{\imp}}{\pi \left(N_a+N_b\right)} \sgn{\omega_n}$ and $\tilde\phi_{a n} = \Sigma_{2a}(\omega_n) + \frac{n_{\imp}}{\pi \left(N_a+N_b\right)^2} \left(N_a \frac{\tilde\phi_{a n}}{\left|\tilde\omega_{a n}\right|} + N_b \frac{\tilde\phi_{b n}}{\left|\tilde\omega_{b n}\right|} \right)$. Both gaps are mixed in equation for $\tilde\phi_{a n}$, thus they tend to zero with increasing amount of disorder. That's also true away from the unitary limit and that's why there is a special case of uniform potential of the impurity scattering, $\iM = \jM$, when the strongest $T_c$ suppression occurs. For the initially unequal gaps, $|\Delta_a| \neq |\Delta_b|$, there is an initial decrease of $T_c$ for small $\Gamma_a$ until the renormalized gaps become equal and then $T_c$ saturate since the analog of Anderson theorem achieved.
\begin{figure}[t
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{spmNDlambdaTorigin2}
\caption{(color online) Density of states $N$ as a function of frequency $\omega$ and interband magnetic impurities scattering rate $\Gamma_a$ (a) and inverse squared penetration depth $1/\lambda_{L}^2$ vs. $\Gamma_{a}$ and $T$ (b) for the $s_{\pm}$ superconductor with $\iM=\jM/2$, $\sigma=0.5$, and parameters as in Fig.~\ref{fig:spmsppTc}.}
\label{fig:dosspm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{sppNDlambdaTorigin2}
\caption{(color online) Density of states $N$ as a function of frequency $\omega$ and $\Gamma_a$ (a) and inverse squared penetration depth $1/\lambda_{L}^2$ vs. $\Gamma_{a}$ and $T$ (b) for the $s_{++}$ superconductor with $\iM=\jM/2$, $\sigma=0.5$, and parameters as in Fig.~\ref{fig:spmsppTc}. Note the $s_{++}$ to $s_\pm$ transition at $\Gamma_a \sim 100$~cm$^{-1}$ and the gapless region right after that.}
\label{fig:dosspp}
\end{figure}
In general, multiband $s_{++}$ state should always be fragile against paramagnetic disorder since magnetic scattering between bands of the same sign effectively equivalent to the pairbreaking scattering within the single (quasi)isotropic band. Surprisingly, we find a regime with the saturation of $T_c$ for the finite amount of disorder right after the initial AG downfall, see Fig.~\ref{fig:spmsppTc}(b). The saturation of $T_c$ is observed for the interband-only impurities; presence of the intraband magnetic disorder finally suppress $T_c$ to zero. But depending on the ``strength'' of scattering $\sigma$, decrease of $T_c$ may be quite slow compared to the AG law.
To understand the origin of the $T_c$ saturation we analyzed the gap function dependence on the scattering rate $\Gamma_a$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:spmsppDelta}. For the $s_{++}$ state after the certain value of the scattering rate the smaller gap, $\Delta_b$, becomes negative. What we see is the $s_{++} \to s_\pm$ transition. As soon as system becomes effectively $s_\pm$, the scattering on magnetic impurities cancels out in the $T_c$ equation similar to the Anderson theorem and $T_c$ saturates. Before saturation, the initial AG downfall takes place. The transition is also seen in the gap function on real frequencies, Fig.~\ref{fig:spmsppTc}(d).
Similar to the $s_\pm \to s_{++}$ transition for the non-magnetic disorder, there is a simple physical argument behind the $s_{++} \to s_\pm$ transition here. Namely, with increasing interband magnetic disorder, the gap functions on the different Fermi surfaces tend to the same value and if one of the gaps is smaller than another, it cross zero and change sing. A similar effect has been mentioned in Refs.~\cite{scharnberg,golubov97} for a two-band systems with $s_{++}$ symmetry in the Born limit. Note that here we do not consider possible time-reversal symmetry broken $s_\pm + \ii s_{++}$ state that may be energetically favorable below $T_c$ in cases when translational symmetry is broken~\cite{Stanev2012}.
Since one of the gaps changes sign it necessary goes through zero. That corresponds to the gapless superconductivity. Therefore, the transition should manifest itself in the density of states measurable by tunneling and ARPES $N(\omega) = -\sum_{\alpha} \mathrm{Im} g_{0\alpha}(\omega)/\pi$, where $g_{0\alpha}(\omega)$ is the retarded Green's function, and in the temperature dependence of the London penetration depth $\lambda_{L}$, $\frac{1}{\lambda_{L}^2} = \sum\limits_{\alpha} \frac{\omega_{P\alpha}^2}{c^2} T \sum\limits_{n} \frac{ g_{2\alpha n}^2}{\pi N_{\alpha}^2 {\sqrt{\tilde{\omega}_{\alpha n}^{2}+\tilde{\phi}_{\alpha n}^{2}}} }$, where $\omega_{P\alpha}/c$ is the ratio of the plasma frequency to the sound velocity that we set to unity for simplicity.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:dosspm} and~\ref{fig:dosspp} we show $N(\omega)$ and $1/(\omega_{p}\lambda_{L})^{2}$ for the case of $\iM = \jM/2$ and $\sigma = 0.5$ for $s_\pm$ and $s_{++}$ superconductors. In the former case, Fig.~\ref{fig:dosspm} reflects the expected situation of the gradually decreasing gaps. The gapless superconductivity with a finite residual $N(\omega=0)$ appears for $\Gamma_a > 300$~cm$^{-1}$ when $\mathrm{Re}\Delta_{\alpha}(\omega=0)$ vanishes, see~\ref{fig:spmsppTc}(c). As for the $s_{++}$ case in Fig.~\ref{fig:dosspp}, with increasing impurity scattering rate $\Gamma_a$, the smaller gap vanishes leading to a finite residual $N(\omega=0)$. Then the gap reopens and $\Delta_{b n} \neq 0$ until $T_c$ reaches zero for $\Gamma_a \sim 600$~cm$^{-1}$, but the superconductivity remains gapless with finite $N(0)$ due to the $\mathrm{Re}\Delta_{\alpha}(\omega=0) \to 0$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:spmsppTc}(d). Penetration depth in the clean limit shows the activated behavior controlled by the smaller gap. For the $s_{++}$ superconductor it goes to the $T^{2}$ behavior in the gapless regime showing a pronounced dip in Fig.~\ref{fig:dosspp} around $\Gamma_a=100$~cm$^{-1}$ and crosses over to a new activated behavior in the $s_{+-}$ state after the transition.
\section{Conclusions}
We have shown that contrary to the common wisdom in two-band models few exceptional cases exist with the saturation of $T_c$ for the finite amount of magnetic disorder. The particular case is the $s_\pm$ state in the unitary limit or with the purely interband impurity scattering potential. The latter satisfies qualitative assessment of direct relation between magnetic impurities in $s_\pm$ state and non-magnetic impurities in isotropic $s$-wave state. We demonstrate that $s_{++}$ superconductivity may be robust against magnetic impurities with the purely interband scattering due to the transition to the $s_\pm$ state. Since this transition goes through the gapless regime, there should be clear signatures in the thermodynamics of the system. Therefore, it may manifest itself in optical and tunneling experiments, as well as in a photoemission and thermal conductivity on FeBS and other multiband systems.
The authors are grateful to S.-L. Drechsler, P.J. Hirschfeld, K. Kikoin, and S.G. Ovchinnikov for useful discussions. We acknowledge partial support by the Dynasty Foundation and ICFPM (MMK), the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (Grant No. 14Y26.31.0007), RFBR (Grants 12-02-31534 and 13-02-01395), President Grant for Government Support of the Leading Scientific Schools of the Russian Federation (NSh-2886.2014.2), DFG Priority Program 1458, and FP7 EU-Japan program IRON SEA.
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain (i.e. a bounded connected open set) of class $C^2$ in $\mathbb R^N$, $N\geq 2$. We consider the Steklov
eigenvalue problem for the Laplace operator
\begin{equation}\label{Ste}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\Delta u =0 ,\ \ & {\rm in}\ \Omega,\\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu }=\lambda\rho u ,\ \ & {\rm on}\ \partial \Omega,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
in the unknowns $\lambda$ (the eigenvalue) and $u$ (the eigenfunction). Here $\rho $ denotes a positive function on $\partial \Omega$ bounded away from zero and infinity and $\nu$ the unit outer normal to $\partial\Omega$.
Keeping in mind important problems in linear elasticity (see e.g. Cou\-rant and Hilbert \cite{cohi}), we shall think of the weight $\rho$ as a mass density.
In fact, for $N=2$ problem (\ref{Ste}) arises for example in the study of the vibration modes of a free elastic membrane the total mass of which is concentrated at the boundary. Note that the total mass is given by $\int _{\partial \Omega}\rho d\sigma $. This mass concentration phenomenon can be
described as follows.
For any $\epsilon >0$ sufficiently small, we consider the $\epsilon$-neighborhood of the boundary
$
\Omega_{\epsilon}=\{x\in\Omega:d(x,\partial\Omega)<\epsilon\}
$
and for a fixed $M>0$ we define a function $\rho_{\epsilon}$ in the whole of $\Omega$ as follows
\begin{equation}\label{dens}
\rho_{\epsilon}(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\epsilon,& {\rm if\ }x\in \Omega\setminus\overline\Omega_{\epsilon},\\
\frac{M-\epsilon\abs{\Omega\setminus\overline\Omega_\epsilon}}{\abs{\Omega_{\epsilon}}},& {\rm if\ }x\in \Omega_\epsilon.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Note that for any $x\in\Omega $ we have $\rho_{\epsilon}(x)\to 0$ as $\epsilon \to 0$, and $\int_{\Omega}\rho_{\epsilon}dx=M$ for all $\epsilon>0$. Then we consider the following eigenvalue problem
for the Laplace operator with Neumann boundary conditions
\begin{equation}\label{Neu}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
-\Delta u =\lambda \rho_{\epsilon} u,\ \ & {\rm in}\ \Omega,\\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu }=0 ,\ \ & {\rm on}\ \partial \Omega.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
We recall that for $N=2$ problem (\ref{Neu}) provides the vibration modes of a free elastic membrane with mass density $\rho_{\epsilon }$ and total mass
$M$.
It is not difficult to prove that the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of problem (\ref{Neu}) converge as $\epsilon$ goes to zero to the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of problem (\ref{Ste}) with $\rho =\frac{M}{\abs{\partial\Omega}}$. Thus the Steklov problem can be considered as a limiting Neumann problem. We refer to \cite[Arrieta, Jim\'{e}nez-Casas, Rodr\'{\i}guez-Bernal]{arr} for a general approach to this type of problems.
The aim of this paper is to highlight a few properties of the Steklov problem which, compared to the Neumann problem, reveals a critical nature.
First, we study the asymptotic behavior of the eigenvalues of problem (\ref{Neu}) as $\epsilon \to 0$, when $\Omega$ is a ball. We prove that such eigenvalues are differentiable with respect to $\epsilon \geq 0$ and establish formulas for the first order derivatives at $\epsilon =0$, see Theorem~\ref{deriv}. It turns our that such derivatives are positive, hence the Steklov eigenvalues minimize the Neumann eigenvalues of problem (\ref{Neu}) for $\epsilon$ sufficiently small, see Remark~\ref{monrem}.
Second, we consider the problem of optimal mass distributions for problem (\ref{Ste}) under the condition that that the total mass is fixed. This problem has been largely investigated in the case of Dirichlet boundary conditions, see e.g. Henrot~\cite{he} for references. As for Steklov boundary conditions, we quote
the classical paper by Bandle and Hersch~\cite{banher}.
By following the approach developed in \cite{lam}, we prove that simple eigenvalues and the symmetric functions of the multiple eigenvalues of (\ref{Ste}) depend real analytically on $\rho$ and we characterize the corresponding critical mass densities under mass constraint. See Theorem~\ref{sym} and Corollary~\ref{crit}. Again, the Steklov problem exhibits a critical behavior and violates the maxi\-mum principle discussed in \cite{lampro} for general elliptic operators of arbitrary order subject to homogeneous boundary conditions of Dirichlet, Neumann and intermediate type for which critical mass densities do not exist. Indeed, it turns out that if $\Omega$ is a ball then the constant function is a critical mass density for the Steklov problem (\ref{Ste}), see Corollary~\ref{critste}, Remark~\ref{rembandle} and Theorem~\ref{teobandle}.
\section{Asymptotic behavior of Neumann eigenvalues}
Given a bounded domain $\Omega$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ of class $C^2$ and $M>0$ we denote by
$\lambda_j$, $j\in\mathbb N$, the eigenvalues of problem (\ref{Ste}) corresponding to the constant surface density $\rho=\frac{M}{\abs{\partial\Omega}}$. Similarly, for $\epsilon >0$ sufficiently small, we denote by
$\lambda_j(\epsilon )$, $j\in\mathbb N$, the eigenvalues of problem (\ref{Neu}). Note that in this paper we always assume that $N\geq 2$. Moreover, by ${\mathbb{N}}$ we denote the set of natural numbers including zero, hence $\lambda_0(\epsilon)=\lambda_0=0$ for all $\epsilon >0$.
As is well-known, by the Min-Max Principle we get the following
variational characterization of the two sequences of eigenvalues:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\lambda_{j}(\epsilon )=\inf_{\substack{E\subset H^{1}(\Omega) \\{\rm dim}E=j+1}}\sup_{0\ne u\in E}\frac{\int_\Omega\abs{\nabla u}^2 dx}{\int_{\Omega} u^{2}\rho_{\epsilon}\,dx},\ \ \ \mathcal8 j\in\mathbb N,\\
&&\lambda_{j}=\inf_{\substack{ E\subset H^{1}(\Omega)\\{\rm dim} E=j+1}}\sup_{\substack{ u\in E \\ {\rm Tr}\, u\ne 0 }}\frac{\int_\Omega\abs{\nabla u}^2 dx}{\int_{\partial\Omega} ({\rm Tr}\, u) ^{2}\frac{M}{|\partial \Omega |}\,d\sigma},\ \ \ \mathcal8 j\in\mathbb N.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here $H^1(\Omega )$ denotes the standard Sobolev space of real-valued functions in $L^2(\Omega)$ with weak derivatives up to first order in $L^2(\Omega)$ and ${\rm Tr}\, u$ denotes the trace in $\partial \Omega$ of a function $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ .
We note that, for each fixed $u\in H^{1}(\Omega)$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{limray}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\frac{\int_\Omega\abs{\nabla u}^2 dx}{\int_{\Omega} u^{2}\rho_{\epsilon}\,dx}=\frac{\int_\Omega\abs{\nabla u}^2 dx}{\int_{\partial\Omega}({\rm Tr}\, u)^{2}\frac{M}{|\partial \Omega|} \,d\sigma}.
\end{equation}
By looking at (\ref{limray}) one could expect the spectral convergence of the Neumann problems under consideration to the Steklov problem. In fact the following statement holds.
\begin{thm}\label{arrietaanibal} If $\Omega $ is a bounded domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ of class $C^2$ then $\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\lambda_j(\epsilon )=\lambda_j$ for all $j\in\mathbb N$.
\end{thm}
\noindent This theorem can be proved directly by using the notion of compact convergence for the resolvent operators but can also be obtained as a consequence of the more general results proved in \cite[Arrieta, Jim\'{e}nez-Casas, Rodr\'{\i}guez-Bernal]{arr}.
By Theorem \ref{arrietaanibal}, it follows that the function $\lambda_j(\cdot )$ can be extended with continuity at $\epsilon =0$ by setting $\lambda_j(0)=\lambda_j$ for all $j\in {\mathbb{N}}$. This will be understood in the sequel.
If $\Omega$ is a ball then we are able to establish the asymptotic behavior of $\lambda_j(\epsilon )$ as $\epsilon \to 0$. Indeed, we can prove that
$\lambda_j(\epsilon )$ is differentiable with respect to $\epsilon$ and compute the derivative $\lambda_j'(0)$ at $\epsilon =0$.
\begin{thm}\label{deriv}
If $\Omega$ is the unit ball in $\mathbb R^N$ then $\lambda_j(\epsilon )$ is differentiable for any $\epsilon \geq 0$ sufficiently small and
$$
\lambda_j'(0)=\frac{2M\lambda_j^2(0)}{3N|\Omega |}+\frac{2\lambda^2_j(0)|\Omega|}{2M\lambda_j(0)+N^2|\Omega|}.
$$
\end{thm}
\noindent The proof of this theorem relies on the use of Bessel functions which allow to recast the Neumann eigenvalue problem in the form of an equation
$F(\lambda , \epsilon)=0$ in the unknowns $\lambda ,\epsilon$. Then, after some preparatory work, it is possible to apply the Implicit Function Theorem and conclude. We note that, despite the idea of the proof is rather simple and used also in other contexts (see e.g. \cite{lape}), this method requires standard but lengthy computations, suitable Taylor's expansions and estimates on the corresponding remainders, as well as recursive formulas for the
cross-products of Bessel functions and their derivatives. We refer to \cite{proz} for details.
\begin{rem}\label{monrem} By Theorem \ref{deriv} it follows that for $\epsilon > 0$ sufficiently small the functions $\epsilon \mapsto \lambda_j(\epsilon )$ are strictly increasing.
In particular, it follows that for all $\epsilon >0$ sufficiently small, we have that
$
\lambda_j(0)< \lambda_j(\epsilon)$.
It is interesting to compare our result with the monotonicity result by Ni and Wang~\cite{niwa} who have proved that if $\Omega$ is the unit disk in the plane then the first positive eigenvalue
of the Neumann Laplacian in $\Omega_{\epsilon}$, i.e. the first positive eigenvalue of the problem
\begin{equation}\label{Neuniwa}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
-\Delta u =\lambda u,\ \ & {\rm in}\ \Omega_{\epsilon },\\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu }=0 ,\ \ & {\rm on}\ \partial \Omega_{\epsilon},
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
is a strictly increasing function of $\epsilon >0$.
\end{rem}
\section{Existence of critical mass densities for the Steklov problem} \label{subcrit}
Given a bounded domain $\Omega$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ of class $C^2$, we denote by ${\mathcal R}$ the subset of $L^{\infty}(\partial\Omega)$ of those functions $\rho\in L^{\infty}(\partial\Omega)$ such that ${\rm ess }\inf _{\partial\Omega }\rho >0$. For any $\rho \in {\mathcal{R}}$, we denote by $\lambda_j[\rho ]$, $j\in {\mathbb{N}}$, the eigenvalues of problem
(\ref{Ste}). By classical results in perturbation theory, one can prove that $\lambda_j[\rho]$ depends real-analytically on $\rho$ as long as $\rho $ is such that
$\lambda_j[\rho ]$ is a simple eigenvalue. This is no longer true if the multiplicity of $\lambda_j[\rho]$ varies. As it was pointed out in \cite{lam, lala2004}, in the case of multiple
eigenvalues, analyticity can be proved for the symmetric functions of the eigenvalues. Namely, given a finite set of indexes $F\subset {\mathbb{N}}$, one can consider
the symmetric functions of the eigenvalues with indexes in $F$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{sym1}
\Lambda_{F,h}[\rho ]=\sum_{ \substack{ j_1,\dots ,j_h\in F\\ j_1<\dots <j_h} }
\lambda_{j_1}[\rho ]\cdots \lambda_{j_h}[\rho ],\ \ \ h=1,\dots , |F| \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and prove that such functions are real-analytic on
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal { R}}[F]\equiv \left\{\rho\in {\mathcal { R}}:\
\lambda_j[\rho ]\ne \lambda_l[\rho ],\ \forall\ j\in F,\, l\in \mathbb{N}\setminus F
\right\}.
\end{equation}
In fact, we can prove the following theorem where in order to establish formulas for the Frech\'{e}t differentials, we find it convenient to set
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Theta [F]\equiv \left\{\rho\in {\mathcal { R}}[F]:\ \lambda_{j_1}[\rho ]
=\lambda_{j_2}[\rho ],\, \
\forall\ j_1,j_2\in F \right\} .
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{thm}
\label{sym}
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in $\mathbb R^N$ of class $C^2$ and $F$ a finite subset of ${\mathbb{N}}$. Then ${{\mathcal { R}}}[F]$ is an open set in $L^{\infty}(\partial\Omega )$ and the functions
$\Lambda_{F,h}$
are real-analytic in ${{\mathcal { R}}}[F]$. Moreover, if $F=\cup_{k=1}^nF_k$ and
$\rho\in \cap_{k=1}^n\Theta [F_k]$ is such that for each $k=1,\dots , n$ the eigenvalues $\lambda_j[\rho ]$ assume the common value $\lambda_{F_k}[\rho ]$
for all $j\in F_k$, then the differentials of the functions $\Lambda_{F,h}$
at the point $\rho$ are given by the formula
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{sym2}
d\Lambda_{F,h}[\rho][\dot{\rho}] =-\sum_{k=1}^n
c_k
\sum_{l\in F_k}
\int_{\partial\Omega}({\rm Tr}\, u_l)^2\dot{\rho}d\sigma\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
for all $\dot{\rho}\in L^{\infty }(\partial\Omega)$, where
$$ c_k=
\sum_{\substack{0\le h_1\le |F_1|\\ \dots\dots \\ 0\le h_n\le |F_n|\\ h_1+\dots +h_n=h }}
{ |F_k|-1 \choose h_k-1 }\lambda_{F_k}^{h_k}[\rho] \prod_{\substack{j=1\\ j\ne k}}^n { |F_j| \choose h_j }\lambda_{F_j}^{h_j}[\rho] ,
$$
and for each $k=1,\dots , n$, $\{ u_l\}_{l\in F_k}$ is a basis of the eigenspace of $\lambda_{F_k}[\rho ]$ normalized by the condition $\int_{\partial \Omega}{\rm Tr}\, u_i{\rm Tr}\, u_j\rho d\sigma=\delta_{ij}$ for all $i,j\in F_{k}$.
\end{thm}
The proof of this theorem follows the lines of the corresponding result proved in \cite{lampro} for general elliptic operators subject to homogeneous boundary conditions of Dirichlet, Neumann and intermediate type. In the same spirit of \cite{lampro}, we can use formula (\ref{sym2}) in order to investigate the existence of critical mass densities for the eigenvalues of the Steklov problem subject to mass constraint.
We note that a typical optimization problem in the analysis of composite materials consists in finding mass densities $\rho$, with given total mass, which minimize a cost functional $F[\rho ]$ associated with the solutions of suitable partial differential equations depending on $\rho$. Namely, in the case of Steklov boundary conditions one can consider the following problems
$$
\min_{\int_{\partial \Omega}\rho d\sigma ={\rm const.}}F[\rho ]\ \ \ {\rm or}\ \ \ \max_{\int_{\partial \Omega }\rho d\sigma ={\rm const.}}F[\rho ].
$$
More in general, setting $M[\rho ]=\int_{\partial \Omega}\rho d\sigma $ one can consider the problem of finding critical mass densities $\rho$ under mass constraint, i.e. mass densities $\rho$ which satisfy the condition
$
{\rm Ker }dM[\rho ]\subset {\rm Ker }dF[\rho ].
$
As in \cite{lampro} we can give a characterization of critical mass densities which immediately follows by formula (\ref{sym2}) combined with the Lagrange Multipliers Theorem.
\begin{cor}\label{crit}
Let all assumptions of Theorem \ref{sym} hold. Then, $\rho\in {\mathcal {R}}$ is a critical mass density for $\Lambda_{F,h}$ for some $h=1,...,\abs{F}$, subject to mass constraint if and only if there exists $c\geq 0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{overd}
\sum_{k=1}^nc_k\sum_{l\in F_k}({\rm Tr}\, u_l)^2 =c, \ \ {\rm a.e.\ on }\ \partial \Omega.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{cor}
The analysis carried out in \cite{lampro} has pointed out that for a large class of non-negative elliptic operators subject to homogeneous boundary conditions of intermediate type (including the case of Dirichlet boundary conditions), there are no critical mass densities for simple eigenvalues and the symmetric functions of multiple eigenvalues. For example, in the case of Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions,
(\ref{overd}) has to be replaced by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{overdbis}
\sum_{k=1}^nc_k\sum_{l\in F_k}u_l^2 =c, \ \ {\rm a.e.\ in }\ \Omega.
\end{eqnarray}
which is clearly not satisfied in the Dirichlet case. As for Neumann boundary conditions the same non existence result can be easily proved for simple eigenvalues in which case only a summand appears in (\ref{overdbis}). The situation is not completely clear for multiple eigenvalues. Under suitable regularity assumptions on the eigenfunctions $u_1$ and $u_2$ associated with the same Neumann eigenvalue $\lambda$ one can prove that the condition $u_1^2+u_2^2=c$ in $\Omega$ implies that $\lambda=0$, but the proof in the case of multiplicities higher than two seems not straightforward. However, well-known explicit formulas for the eigenfunctions of the Neumann Laplacian in the ball clearly show that condition (\ref{overdbis}) is not satisfied, hence {\it no critical mass densities exist for the Neumann Laplacian in the ball}.
In the case of Steklov boundary conditions the situation is much different. Indeed, if $\Omega$ is a ball then a critical mass density exists.
\begin{cor}\label{critste}
Let $\Omega$ be the unit ball in $\mathbb R^N$, $M>0$ and $F\subset {\mathbb{N}}$ be a finite set such that the constant mass density $\rho=M/|\partial \Omega |$ belongs to ${\mathcal{R}}[F]$. Then $\rho=M/|\partial \Omega |$ is critical for $\Lambda_{F,h}$ for all $h=1,...,|F|$ under the constraint $M[\rho ]=M$.
\end{cor}
\noindent The proof can be carried out as in \cite{lalacri}. Namely, assume that $\lambda $ is an eigenvalue of problem (\ref{Ste}) with multiplicity $m$ and consider a
basis $u_1, \dots , u_m$ of the corresponding eigenspace. Assume that this basis is orthonormal in $L^2(\partial \Omega)$ with respect to the scalar product defined by $\int_{\partial \Omega}{\rm Tr}\, u{\rm Tr}\, v\rho d\sigma$. Then for any isometry $R$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ also $u_1\circ R, \dots , u_m\circ R$ is an orthonormal
basis of the same eigenspace, hence $\sum_{i=1}^mu_i^2= \sum_{i=1}^mu_i^2\circ R$. It follows that $\sum_{i=1}^mu_i^2$ is constant on $\partial \Omega$.
\begin{rem} \label{rembandle}
It is interesting to compare Corollary~\ref{critste} with a classical result proved by Bandle and Hersch~\cite{bandle} in the case of a class of symmetric planar domains. For the convenience of the reader we formulate such result assuming directly that $\Omega $ is the unit disk in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ centered at zero.
For any $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ we set
$$
{\mathcal{R}}_{n}=\{\rho \in {\mathcal{R}}:\ \rho (e^{2\pi i/n}z)=\rho (z),\ \forall \ z\in \partial \Omega \},
$$
where the use of the complex variable $z$ is clearly understood. Then we have the following result
\begin{thm}[Bandle and Hersch]\label{teobandle}
Let $\Omega $ be the unit disk in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ centered at zero, $M>0$, $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Then
$$
\lambda_j[\rho]\le \lambda_j\left[\frac{M}{2\pi}\right]
$$
for all all $j=0,\dots , n$ and $\rho \in {\mathcal{R}}_{ n}$ such that $M[\rho]=M$ . Equality holds only if $\rho =M/2\pi$.
\end{thm}
\noindent Thus in the case of a ball in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ the constant mass density is in fact a maximizer among all mass densities satisfying the symmetry condition above. We refer to Bandle~\cite{bandle} for further discussions.
\end{rem}
{\bf Acknowledgments}: We acknowledge financial support by the research pro\-ject ``Singular perturbation problems for differential operators", Progetto di Ateneo
of the University of Padova.
\\
|
\section{Introduction}
The research that led to the present paper was motivated by a question from
the analysis of algorithms, specifically of the famous \textsc{Quicksort} and the closely
related binary search tree (BST) algorithms. The question concerns the second-order
(distributional) asymptotics of the number of comparisons needed by \textsc{Quicksort} or,
equivalently, of the total path length of the associated random binary search trees, if the
input to the algorithm is random.
Let the input sequence consist of independent random variables $U_1,U_2,\ldots$ distributed uniformly on the interval
$[0,1]$. In the version considered here the \textsc{Quicksort} algorithm applied to the list $U_1,\ldots,U_n$ proceeds
as follows. It places $U_1$, the first element of the list, at the root of a binary tree and divides the remaining
elements into two sublists: The elements that are smaller than $U_1$ are collected into a sublist located to the left of
$U_1$, whereas the elements larger than $U_1$ are put into a sublist located to the right of $U_1$. (Hence
the first element of the list serves as the pivot, that is, the element used to subdivide the list). The
procedure is then applied recursively to both sublists until only sublists of size $1$ remain. The random tree which is
created in this way is called the \textit{binary search tree} (BST); a more detailed description will be provided in
Section~\ref{subsec:BST}.
For the analysis of the complexity of \textsc{Quicksort} the number $K_n$ of comparisons needed to sort
the list $U_1,\ldots,U_n$ is of major interest. In terms of the tree structure of sublists this is the sum
of the depths of the nodes (also called the internal path length) of the binary search tree. As shown
by~\citet{regnier}, a suitable rescaling of $K_n$ leads to a martingale $Z_n$ that converges almost surely
to some limit variable $Z_\infty$ as $n\to\infty$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:regnier}
Z_n:=\frac{K_n - \E K_n}{n+1} \toas Z_{\infty}.
\end{equation}
The law $\cL(Z_\infty)$ of the limit is known as the \textsc{Quicksort} distribution; it has been
characterized in terms of a stochastic fixed point equation by~\citet{roesler}.
Very recently \citet{neininger} obtained a central limit theorem (CLT) accompanying~\eqref{eq:regnier} by proving
the distributional convergence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:QS2}
\sqrt{\frac{n}{2\log n}} (Z_{\infty}-Z_n) \todistr \Normal_{0,1},
\end{equation}
where $\Normal_{0,1}$ is the standard normal distribution. Neininger used the contraction method, which in the
present context has been introduced by~\citet{roesler} in connection with the distributional convergence
in~\eqref{eq:regnier}. A proof based on the method of moments followed shortly~\cite{fuchs}.
The result~\eqref{eq:QS2} is surprising as for many martingales the step from a
strong convergence result to a second-order distributional limit theorem leads to a \textit{variance mixture} of normal
distributions; see~\citet{hall_heyde_book}. Quite generally, whenever one has a martingale convergence
result $Z_n\toas Z_{\infty}$ it is natural to ask whether there is a corresponding distributional limit theorem in the sense that, for some
normalizing sequence $b_n\to \infty$ and some non-degenerate random variable $Y$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:CLT_martingale_intro}
b_n (Z_{\infty}-Z_{n}) \todistr Y.
\end{equation}
Indeed, provided that appropriate technical conditions (which can be found in the references cited below) are satisfied,
a distributional limit theorem of the type~\eqref{eq:CLT_martingale_intro} is known to hold if
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] $Z_n$ is the proportion of black balls in the P\'olya urn after $n$ draws; see~\citet[pp.~80--81]{hall_heyde_book}.
\item[(b)] $Z_n=\sum_{i=1}^{n} a_i \xi_i$, where $\xi_1,\xi_2,\ldots$ are i.i.d.\ random variables with zero mean,
unit variance, and $a_1,a_2,\ldots$ is an appropriate square summable deterministic sequence; see~\citet{loynes}.
\item[(c)] $Z_n=N_n/m^n$, where $N_n$ is a supecritical Galton--Watson process with mean number of offspring $m$;
see~\citet{athreya} and~\citet{heyde}.
\item[(d)] $Z_n$ is the Biggins martingale of the branching random walk; see~\citet{roesler_topchii_vatutin1}.
\end{enumerate}
In this list, (a), (c) and (d) can be related to the analysis of \textsc{Quicksort}, and in all three cases, the limit
distribution is a nondegenerate mixture of normals.
We will use the well-known connection between the BST algorithm and the continuous-time branching random walk (BRW) to
explain the degeneracy phenomenon. The state at time $t$ of a BRW is a random point measure $\pi_t$ recording the
particle positions at that time; see Section~\ref{sec:BRW} for a detailed description. A specific choice of branching
mechanism and shift distribution leads to a representation of the point measure given by the depths of the external
nodes in the BST with input size $n$ as the value $\pi_{T_n}$ at the random time
$T_n$ of the birth of the $n$th particle; see~\citet{chauvin_etal}, \cite{chauvin_rouault}, as well as the earlier work
by~\citet{devroye} that connected Galton--Watson processes and random search trees. The BRW detour provides a new and
independent proof of Neininger's result. In addition we obtain a stronger mode of convergence. Again, this is a topic
familiar in connection with martingale central limit theorems, where it is known that a strengthening of distributional
convergence to R\'enyi's concept of stable convergence is often possible. In our situation we can go beyond even the
stable convergence, obtaining what we call \emph{almost sure weak convergence}: With $(\cG_n)_{n\in\bN}$ the
martingale filtration we regard the conditional distribution of the left hand side
of~\eqref{eq:CLT_martingale_intro} given $\cG_n$ as a random variable with values in the set of Borel probability measures
on the real line, on this set we take the topology of weak convergence, and we show that the conditional distribution
converges almost surely in this space as $n\to\infty$. In the \textsc{Quicksort} context, with $\cG_n$ the
$\sigma$-field generated by $U_1,\ldots,U_n$, this results in
\begin{equation}\label{eq:QS3}
\cL\left\{\sqrt{\frac{n}{2\log n}} (Z_{\infty}-Z_n) \Bigg | \cG_n\right\} \toasw \{\omega\mapsto \Normal_{0,1}\}.
\end{equation}
This can be applied to obtain strong prediction intervals; see Remark~\ref{rem:prediction}.
It turns out that in our context the familiar encoding of the BRW point measures by the Biggins martingale can best be
exploited via a suitable \emph{functional} central limit theorem for the latter. The Biggins martingale arises as a
suitably standardized moment generating function of the point measures of particle positions and may thus be regarded,
together with its limit, as a stochastic process indexed by a complex parameter $\beta$ that varies over some open set
containing~$0$. For $\beta$ fixed, an associated second order distributional limit has already been obtained
by~\citet{roesler_topchii_vatutin1}, see (d) in the above list. Noting that the R\'egnier martingale appears as the
derivative at $\beta=0$ of this process we are lead to rescale $\beta$ locally in order to obtain a the functional
version that captures the local behaviour. Of course, we also want a non-trivial limit.
This is indeed possible and leads to Theorems~\ref{theo:FCLT} and~\ref{thm:mainlim}, which we regard as our main results.
Again, we obtain almost sure weak convergence, now on a suitable space of analytic functions. Further,
the distribution of the limit can be represented as the distribution of the Gaussian random analytic function given by
\begin{equation*}
\xi(u)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty \xi_k \frac{u^k}{\sqrt{k!}},\quad u\in\bC,
\end{equation*}
where $\xi_0,\xi_1,\ldots$ is a sequence of independent standard normals. Much as in the
classical case of Donsker's theorem, see~\citet{billingsley_book}, this may serve as the starting point for
distributional limit theorems for various functionals of the processes, but we believe that, apart from its applicability to the
question that we started with, the BRW functional limit theorem is of interest in its own.
Finally, the above approach is not limited to binary search trees: We also obtain an analogue of Neininger's result for
random recursive trees (RRTs). In fact, we obtain a new result even in the setting of the P\'olya urn, see
Section~\ref{subsec:polya}, and we treat Galton-Watson processes, BRW, BST, RRT with a unified method.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:BRW} we define the branching random walk and introduce the basic
notation. The functional central limit theorem for the BRW is stated in Section~\ref{sec:FCLT}. In Section~\ref{sec:asw}
we define the almost sure weak convergence and prove some of its properties. A stronger version of the functional CLT
involving the notion of the a.s.w.\ convergence is stated in Section~\ref{sec:FCLT_strong}. In the same section, we
state a number of applications of the functional CLT including~\eqref{eq:QS2} and its analogues for other random
trees. Proofs are given in Sections~\ref{sec:moment_estimate_Biggins}, \ref{sec:proof_FCLT},
and~\ref{sec:proof_random_tree}.
\section{Branching random walk}\label{sec:BRW}
\subsection{Description of the model}
An informal picture of a \textit{branching random walk} (BRW) is that of a time-dependent random cloud of particles
located on the real line and evolving through a combination of splitting (branching) and shifting
(random walk). The particles are
replaced at the end of their possibly random lifetimes by a random number of offspring, with locations relative
to their parent being random too.
Our results will be valid for branching random walks both in discrete and continuous time. Let us describe both models.
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent
\textit{Discrete-time branching random walk.} At time $0$ we start with one particle located at zero. At any time $n\in\N_0$ every particle which is alive at this time disappears and is replaced (independently of all other particles and of the past of the process) by a random, non-empty cluster of particles whose displacements w.r.t.\ the original particle are distributed according to some fixed point process $\zeta$ on $\R$. The number of particles in a cluster $\zeta$ is (in general) random and is always assumed to be a.s.\ finite.
Let $N_n$ be the number of particles which are alive at time $n\in \N_0$. Note that $\{N_n\colon n\in\N_0\}$ is a Galton--Watson branching process. Denote by $z_{1,n}\leq \ldots \leq z_{N_n,n}$ the positions of the particles at time $n$. Let
$$
\pi_n=\sum_{j=1}^{N_n} \delta_{z_{j,n}}
$$
be the point process recording the positions of the particles at time $n$. The only parameter needed to identify the law of the discrete-time BRW is the law of the point process $\zeta$ encoding the shifts of the offspring particles w.r.t.\ their parent.
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent
\textit{Continuous-time branching random walk.}
At time $0$ one particle is born at position $0$. After its birth, any particle moves (independently of all other particles and of the past of the process) according to a L\'evy process. After an exponential time with parameter $\lambda>0$, the particle disappears and at the same moment of time it is replaced by a random cluster of particles whose displacements w.r.t.\ the original particle are distributed according to some fixed point process $\zeta$. The new-born particles behave in the same way. All the random mechanisms involved are independent. Denote the number of particles at time $t\geq 0$ by $N_t$ and note that $\{N_t\colon t\geq 0\}$ is a branching process in continuous time. Let $z_{1,t} \leq \ldots \leq z_{N_t,t}$ be the positions of the particles at time $t$. Let
$$
\pi_t=\sum_{j=1}^{N_t} \delta_{z_{j,t}}
$$
be the point process recording the positions of the particles at time $t$. The law of the continuous-time BRW is determined by the parameters of the L\'evy process, the intensity $\lambda$, and the law of the point process $\zeta$.
\vspace*{2mm}
Both models can be treated by essentially the same methods. To simplify the notation, we will henceforth deal with the discrete-time BRW and indicate, whenever necessary, how the proofs should be modified in the continuous-time case.
\subsection{Standing assumptions and the Biggins martingale}\label{subsec:biggins_martingale}
Let us agree that $\sum_{z\in \zeta}$ means a sum taken over all points of the point process $\zeta$, where the points are counted \textit{with multiplicities}.
We make the following \textit{standing assumptions} on the BRW.
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent
\textsc{Assumption A:}
The cluster point process $\zeta$ is a.s.\ non-empty, finite, and the probability that it consists of exactly one particle is strictly less than $1$.
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent
\textsc{Assumption B:} There are $p_0>2$ and $\beta_0>0$ such that for all $\beta\in (-\beta_0,\beta_0)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:standing_assumption}
\E \left[\left(\sum_{z\in\pi_1} \eee^{\beta z} \right)^{p_0}\right]<\infty.
\end{equation}
\vspace*{2mm}
It follows from~\eqref{eq:standing_assumption} that the function
\begin{equation}\label{eq:m_beta_def}
m(\beta) = \E \left[ \sum_{z\in \pi_1} \eee^{\beta z}\right]
\end{equation}
is well-defined and analytic in the strip $\{\beta\in \C\colon |\Re \beta|<\beta_0\}$. Note that $m(\beta)$ is the moment generating function of the intensity measure of $\pi_1$.
Assumption~A implies that the BRW under consideration is \textit{supercritical}, that is the mean number of particles at time $1$ satisfies
$$
m:=m(0)>1.
$$
In a sufficiently small neighborhood of $0$ the function
\begin{equation}\label{eq:varphi_def}
\varphi(\beta) =\log m(\beta)
\end{equation}
is well-defined and analytic, and
the restriction of $\varphi$ to real $\beta$ is convex. By the martingale convergence theorem, there is a random variable $N_{\infty}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:N_infty_def}
\frac{N_n}{m^n} \toas N_{\infty}.
\end{equation}
Since $\E N_1^2<\infty$ (by Assumption~B) and the BRW never dies out (by Assumption~A), we have $N_{\infty}>0$ a.s.
The assumption that $\zeta$ is non-empty could be removed (while retaining supercriticality); all results would then hold on the survival event.
A crucial role in the study of the branching random walk is played by the \textit{Biggins martingale}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:biggins_martingale_def}
W_{n}(\beta) = \frac1 {m(\beta)^n} \sum_{z\in \pi_n} \eee^{\beta z}.
\end{equation}
\citet{uchiyama} and~\citet{biggins_uniform} proved that if Assumption~\eqref{eq:standing_assumption} holds with some $p_0\in (1,2]$, then there is $\delta_0>0$ such that the martingale $W_n(\beta)$ is bounded in $L^p$, $0< p\leq p_0$, uniformly over all $\beta\in \C$ with $|\beta|\leq\delta_0$. Furthermore, there is a random analytic function $W_{\infty}(\beta)$ defined for $|\beta|\leq \delta_0$ such that a.s.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:biggins_martingale_converges}
\lim_{n\to \infty} \sup_{|\beta|\leq \delta_0} |W_{\infty}(\beta) - W_n(\beta)|=0.
\end{equation}
Note that $W_n(0)=\frac{N_n}{m^n}$ and $W_{\infty}(0)=N_{\infty}$, so that~\eqref{eq:biggins_martingale_converges} contains~\eqref{eq:N_infty_def} as a special case.
\subsubsection*{Notation} We denote by $\Normal_{0,\sigma^2}$ the normal distribution with mean $0$ and variance $\sigma^2$. Given a non-negative random variable $S^2$ we denote by $\Normal_{0, S^2}$ the mixture of zero mean normal distributions with random variance given by $S^2$. Throughout the paper we will use the notation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_sigma_tau}
\sigma^2=\Var N_{\infty} \geq 0,
\quad
d=\varphi'(0),
\quad \tau^2 =\varphi''(0)\geq 0.
\end{equation}
A generic constant which may change from line to line is denoted by $C$.
\section{Functional Central Limit Theorem for the Biggins martingale}\label{sec:FCLT}
\subsection{Statement of the FCLT}\label{subsec:FCLT_statement}
Under suitable conditions, \citet{roesler_topchii_vatutin1} proved for real $\beta$ in a certain interval around $0$ a CLT of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:CLT_for_W_n}
\frac{m^{\frac 12 n}}{\sqrt{\Var W_{\infty}(\beta)}}(W_{\infty}(\beta) - W_{n}(\beta)) \todistr \Normal_{0, W_{\infty}(\beta)}.
\end{equation}
Taking here $\beta=0$ and recalling that $W_n(0) = \frac{N_n}{m^n}$ one recovers the CLT for Galton--Watson processes~\cite{athreya,heyde}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:heyde_clt}
m^{\frac 12 n} \left(N_{\infty} - \frac{N_n}{m^n}\right) \todistr \Normal_{0, \sigma^2 N_{\infty}}.
\end{equation}
See also~\cite[p.~53]{athreya_ney_book} (discrete time case), \cite[p.~123]{athreya_ney_book} (continuous time case), \cite[Thm.~3.1, p.~28]{asmussen_hering_book} (a statement with a stronger mode of convergence), \cite[Ch.~9.2]{luschgy_book} (statistical aspects).
We will prove a \textit{functional} version of~\eqref{eq:CLT_for_W_n}. That is, we will consider the left-hand side of~\eqref{eq:CLT_for_W_n} as a random analytic function and prove weak convergence on a suitable function space. In order to obtain a non-degenerate limit process it will be necessary to introduce a spatial rescaling into the Biggins martingale. Namely, we consider
\begin{equation}\label{eq:D_n_u_def1}
D_n(u) = m^{\frac 12 n} \left(W_{\infty}\left(\frac{u}{\sqrt{n}}\right) - W_{n}\left(\frac{u}{\sqrt{n}}\right)\right).
\end{equation}
We have to be explicit about the function space to which $D_n$ belongs. Given $R>0$ let $\bD_R$ (resp.,\ $\overline \bD_R$) be the open (resp.,\ closed) disk of radius $R$ centered at the origin. Denote by $\bA_R$ the set of functions which are continuous on $\overline \bD_R$ and analytic in $\bD_R$. Endowed with the supremum norm, $\bA_R$ becomes a Banach space. Note that $\bA_R$ is a closed linear subspace of the Banach space $C(\overline \bD_R)$ of continuous functions on $\overline \bD_R$. Being closed under multiplication, $\bA_R$ is even a Banach algebra. We always consider $D_n$ as a random element with values in $\bA_R$ (which is endowed with the Borel $\sigma$-algebra generated by the topology of uniform convergence). Recall that $W_n$ and $W_{\infty}$ are well defined on the disk $\overline \bD_{\delta_0}$ for some $\delta_0>0$, so that $D_n$ is indeed well defined as an element of $\bA_R$ for $n>(R/\delta_0)^2$. Our results remain valid for some other choices o
f the function space, for
example one could replace $\bA_R$ by the Hardy space $H^2(\bD_R)$. Recall that $\sigma^2=\Var N_{\infty}$ and $\tau^2=\varphi''(0)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{theo:FCLT}
Fix any $R>0$. The following convergence of random analytic functions holds weakly on the Banach space $\bA_R$:
\begin{equation}
\{D_n(u)\colon u\in \overline \bD_{R}\} \toweak \{\sigma\, \sqrt {N_{\infty}}\, \xi(\tau u)\colon u\in \overline \bD_R\},
\end{equation}
where $\xi$ is a random analytic function which is defined in Section~\ref{subsec:GAF} below, and which is independent of $N_{\infty}$.
\end{theorem}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{theo:FCLT} will be given in Section~\ref{sec:proof_FCLT}. In fact, we will prove a stronger statement (Theorem~\ref{thm:mainlim}, below) in which weak convergence is replaced by the almost sure weak convergence of conditional distributions. This mode of convergence will be studied in detail in Section~\ref{sec:asw}.
\subsection{Gaussian analytic function}\label{subsec:GAF}
The random analytic function $\xi$ appearing in Theorem~\ref{theo:FCLT} is defined as follows. Let $\xi_0,\xi_1,\ldots$ be independent real standard normal variables. Consider the random analytic function $\xi:\bC\to\bC$ defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:xi_def}
\xi(u) = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \xi_k \frac{u^k}{\sqrt{k!}}.
\end{equation}
With probability $1$, the series converges uniformly on every bounded set because $\xi_n=O(\sqrt{\log n})$ a.s. Note that for every $d\in\N$ and $u_1,\ldots,u_d\in\C$, the $2d$-dimensional real random vector $(\Re \xi(u_1), \Im \xi(u_1), \ldots, \Re \xi(u_d), \Im \xi(u_d))$ is Gaussian with zero mean. The covariance structure of the process $\xi$ is given by
$$
\E [\xi(u)\xi(v)] = \eee^{uv},
\quad
\E [\xi(u)\overline{\xi(v)}] = \eee^{u\bar{v}},
\quad
u,v\in\C.
$$
It follows that $\tilde \xi(u):=\eee^{-u^2/2} \xi(u)$, $u\in\R$, is a stationary real-valued Gaussian process with covariance function
$$
\E [\tilde \xi(u)\tilde \xi(v)]
= \eee^{-\frac 12 (u-v)^2}, \quad u,v\in\R.
$$
The spectral measure of $\tilde \xi$ is the standard normal distribution.
We can view the process $\xi$ as an analytic continuation of the process $\eee^{u^2/2} \tilde \xi(u)$, $u\in\R$, to the complex plane.
A modification of $\xi$ in which the variables $\xi_0,\xi_1,\ldots$ are independent \textit{complex} standard normal is a fascinating object called the plane Gaussian Analytic Function (GAF)~\cite{sodin_tsirelson}. A remarkable feature of the plane GAF is that its zeros form a point process whose distribution is invariant with respect to arbitrary translations and rotations of the complex plane. The law of the zero set of $\xi$ as defined in the present paper is invariant with respect to real translations only. The function $\xi$ and its complex analogue appeared as limits of certain random partition functions; see~\cite{kabluchko_klimovsky1,kabluchko_klimovsky2}.
\section{Almost sure weak convergence of probability kernels}\label{sec:asw}
Our results are most naturally stated using the notion of \textit{almost sure weak} (a.s.w.)\ convergence of probability kernels. This mode of convergence seems especially natural when dealing with randomly growing structures. In this section we define a.s.w.\ convergence and study its relation to other modes of convergence.
\subsection{Basic definitions}
Let $E$ be a complete separable metric (Polish) space endowed with the Borel $\sigma$-algebra $\cE$. Let $\cM_1(E)$ be the space of probability measures on $(E, \cE)$. The weak convergence on $\cM_1(E)$ is metrized by the L\'evy--Prokhorov metric which turns $\cM_1(E)$ into a complete separable metric space.
\subsubsection*{Probability kernels} A \textit{(probability transition) kernel} is a random variable $Q:\Omega\to \cM_1(E)$ defined on a probability space $(\Omega, \cF, \P)$ and taking values in $\cM_1(E)$. We will write $Q(\omega)$ for the probability measure on $E$ corresponding to the outcome $\omega\in\Omega$, and $Q(\omega; B)=Q(\omega)(B)$ for the value assigned by the probability measure $Q(\omega)$ to a set $B\in\cE$. Instead of the above definition of kernels we can use the following: A kernel from a probability space $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$ to $(E,\cE)$ is a function $Q:\Omega\times \cE\to \bR$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] for every set $B\in\cE$, the map $\omega\mapsto Q(\omega;B)$ is $\cF$-Borel-measurable;
\item[(ii)] for every $\omega\in\Omega$, the map $B\mapsto Q(\omega;B)$ defines a probability measure on $(E,\cE)$.
\end{itemize}
Probability kernels are also called random probability measures on $E$.
\subsubsection*{Conditional distributions}
In this paper, kernels will mostly appear in form of a conditional distribution of a random variable given a $\sigma$-algebra. Let $X:\Omega\to E$ be a random variable defined on $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$ and taking values in a Polish space $E$. Given a $\sigma$-algebra $\cG\subset \cF$, a kernel $Q: \Omega \to \cM_1(E)$ is called (a version of) the \textit{conditional distribution} of $X$ given $\cG$ if
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $Q$ is $\cG$-measurable as a map from $\Omega$ to $\cM_1(E)$,
\item[(ii)] for all bounded Borel functions $f:E\to\R$ and all $A\in\cG$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cond_distr_def}
\int_A f(X(\omega))\, \P(d\omega)
\; = \;
\int_A \left(\int_{E} f(z)\, Q(\omega;dz)\right) \P(\dd\omega).
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
In this case we use the notation $Q=\cL(X|\cG)$.
\subsubsection*{Almost sure weak convergence} A sequence $Q_1,Q_2,\ldots:\Omega\to \cM_1(E)$ of kernels defined on a common probability space $(\Omega, \cF, \P)$ is said to converge \textit{almost surely with respect to weak convergence} \textit{(a.s.w.)}\ as $n\to\infty$ if
there exists a set $A\in\cF$ with $\P[A]=1$ such that, for all $\omega\in A$, the probability measure $Q_n(\omega)$ converges
weakly on $E$ to the probability measure $Q(\omega)$, again as $n\to \infty$.
Let us state the above definition in a slightly different (but equivalent) form. Given a bounded Borel function $f:E\to\R$ and a kernel $Q$ consider the random variable $Q^f:\Omega\to\R$ defined by
$$
Q^f:\omega \mapsto \int_E f(z)Q(\omega;\dd z).
$$
Then, a sequence of kernels $Q_1,Q_2,\ldots:\Omega\to \cM_1(E)$ converges to a kernel $Q$ in the a.s.w.\ sense if and only if for every bounded continuous function $f:E\to\R$ we have
$$
Q_n^f \toas Q^{f}.
$$
In fact, if we know that for every bounded continuous function $f$, the random variable $Q_n^f$ converges to \textit{some} limit in the a.s.\ sense, then there is a kernel $Q$ such that $Q_n$ converges to $Q$ a.s.w.;\ see~\cite{berti_etal}.
\begin{remark}
A.s.w.\ convergence contains a.s.\ convergence as a special case. Indeed, let $X,X_1,X_2,\ldots$ be random variables on the probability space $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$. Then, the sequence $X_n$ converges a.s.\ to the random variable $X$ if and only if the sequence of kernels $Q_n:\omega\mapsto \delta_{X_n(\omega)}$ a.s.w.\ converges to the kernel $Q:\omega\mapsto \delta_{X(\omega)}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
A.s.w.\ convergence contains weak convergence as a special case. Let $\mu, \mu_1,\mu_2,\ldots$ be probability measures on $E$. The sequence $\mu_n$ converges weakly to $\mu$ if and only if the sequence of kernels $Q_n:\omega\mapsto \mu_n$ converges a.s.w.\ to the kernel $Q:\omega\mapsto\mu$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The central limit theorem can be extended to sequences of random variables which are i.i.d.\ conditionally on some $\sigma$-algebra~\cite{grzenda_zieba}. This and some related results~\cite{nowak_zieba} fit into the framework of a.s.w.\ convergence.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection*{Stable and mixing convergence}
The a.s.w.\ convergence is related to the stable convergence which was introduced by~\citet{renyi_sets}, \cite{renyi_stable}, \cite{renyi_revesz_mixing_variables}. We recall the definition of stable convergence referring to~\cite{aldous_eagleson} for more details and references.
A sequence of kernels $Q_1,Q_2,\ldots:\Omega\to \cM_1(E)$ converges \textit{stably} to a kernel $Q:\Omega\to \cM_1(E)$ if for every set
$A\in\cF$ and every bounded continuous function $f:E\to\R$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stable_def_more_general}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \int_A \left(\int_{E} f(z) Q_{n} (\omega; \dd z)\right) \P(\dd\omega) = \int_A \left(\int_{E} f(z) Q (\omega; \dd z)\right) \P(\dd\omega).
\end{equation}
Of particular interest for us will be the following special case of this definition. Let $X_1,X_2,\ldots$ be a sequence of random variables defined on a probability space $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$ and taking values in a Polish space $E$.
We say that $X_n$ converges stably to a kernel $Q:\Omega\to \cM_1(E)$ if the sequence of kernels $Q_n:\omega\mapsto \delta_{X_n(\omega)}$ converges stably to $Q$. That is to say, for every set $A\in\cF$ and every bounded continuous function $f:E\to\R$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stable_def}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \int_A f(X_n(\omega)) \P(\dd\omega)
=
\int_A \left(\int_{E} f(z) Q (\omega; \dd z)\right) \P(\dd\omega).
\end{equation}
Taking in this definition $A=\Omega$ we see that stable convergence implies weak convergence of $X_n$ to the law obtained by mixing $Q(\omega)$ over $\P(\dd \omega)$.
A special case of stable convergence is the mixing convergence. We say that $X_n$ converges to a probability distribution $\mu$ on $E$ in the \textit{mixing} sense if $X_n$ converges stably to the kernel $Q:\omega \mapsto \mu$. In this case, we write
$$
X_n\tomix \mu.
$$
By the above, mixing convergence implies weak convergence to the same limit.
Another way of expressing these definitions is the following: A sequence of random variables $X_n:\Omega\to E$ converges stably if for every event $A\in \cF$ with $\P[A]>0$
the conditional distribution of $X_n$ given $A$ converges weakly to \textit{some} probability distribution $\mu_A$ on $E$. The limiting probability distribution is given by
$$
\mu_A := \frac{1}{\P[A]} \E [Q\ind_A]
$$
and, in general, depends on $A$.
The limiting kernel $Q$ can be seen as the Radon--Nikodym density of the $\cM_1(E)$-valued measure $A\mapsto \P[A] \mu_A$. If the limiting distribution $\mu_A$ does not depend on the choice of $A$, then we have mixing convergence.
\subsection{An example of a.s.w.\ convergence: The P\'olya urn}\label{subsec:polya}
Consider an urn initially containing $b$ black and $r$ red balls. In each step, draw a ball from the urn at random and
replace it together with $c$ balls of the same color. Let $B_n$ and $R_n$ be the number of black and red balls after $n$
draws and let $\cF_n$ be the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the first $n$ draws. It is well-known that
the proportion $Z_n$ of black balls after $n$ draws is a martingale w.r.t.\ to the filtration $\{\cF_n\}_{n\in\N}$ and that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Z_infty_distr}
Z_n:=\frac{B_n}{B_n+R_n}\toas Z_{\infty}\sim \Beta\left(\frac bc, \frac rc\right).
\end{equation}
We claim that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:polya_asw}
Q_n:=\cL\left\{\sqrt n (Z_{\infty} - Z_{n})\Big | \cF_n\right\} \toasw \{\omega \mapsto \Normal_{0,S^2(\omega)}\}=:Q_{\infty},
\end{equation}
where $S^2(\omega)=Z_{\infty}(\omega)(1-Z_{\infty}(\omega))$. The kernel $Q_{\infty}$ on the right-hand side maps an outcome $\omega$ to the centered normal distribution on $\R$ with variance $S^2(\omega)$.
We will prove in Proposition~\ref{prop:asw_weak} and Remark~\ref{rem:prop:asw_weak} below that~\eqref{eq:polya_asw} implies distributional convergence to the normal mixture:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:polya_asw_1}
\sqrt n (Z_{\infty}-Z_n) \todistr \Normal_{0,S^2}.
\end{equation}
One can establish~\eqref{eq:polya_asw_1} as a direct consequence of the de Moivre--Laplace CLT by noting that conditionally on $Z_{\infty}=p$, the results of individual draws are i.i.d.\ Bernoulli variables with parameter $p$. Of course, \eqref{eq:polya_asw_1} is well-known; see~\cite[Section~3]{heyde_CLT_LIL} or~\cite[pp.~80--81]{hall_heyde_book} (where it is deduced as a special case of the CLT for martingales), but~\eqref{eq:polya_asw} is stronger than~\eqref{eq:polya_asw_1}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\eqref{eq:polya_asw}]
The random variables $B_n,R_n,Z_n$ are $\cF_n$-measurable. For the conditional law of $Z_{\infty}$ given $\cF_n$ we have, recalling~\eqref{eq:Z_infty_distr},
$$
\cL(Z_{\infty}|\cF_n) \sim \Beta\left(\frac{B_n}{c}, \frac {R_n}{c}\right).
$$
So, the conditional law $Q_n$ on the left-hand side of~\eqref{eq:polya_asw} is given by the kernel
$$
Q_n: \omega \mapsto \cL\left\{\sqrt{n} \left(B_{\frac 1c B_n(\omega), \frac 1c R_n(\omega)} - \frac{B_n(\omega)}{B_n(\omega)+R_n(\omega)}\right)\right\},
$$
where $B_{\alpha,\beta}$ denotes a random variable with $\Beta(\alpha,\beta)$ distribution.
We will use the following CLT for the Beta distribution. Let $\alpha_n,\beta_n> 0$ be two sequences such that $\alpha_n,\beta_n\to +\infty$ and $\frac{\alpha_n}{\alpha_n+\beta_n}\to p\in (0,1)$, as $n\to\infty$. Then,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Beta_distr_CLT}
U_n:=\sqrt{\alpha_n+\beta_n}\left(B_{\alpha_n, \beta_n} - \frac{\alpha_n}{\alpha_n+\beta_n}\right)\todistr \Normal_{0, p(1-p)}.
\end{equation}
The proof of~\eqref{eq:Beta_distr_CLT} is standard and proceeds as follows. Denote by
$\Gamma_{\alpha_n},\Gamma_{\beta_n}$ independent random variables having Gamma distributions with shape parameters
$\alpha_n$ and $\beta_n$ respectively, and scale parameter $1$. Since $B_{\alpha_n,\beta_n}$ has the same distribution as $\frac{\Gamma_{\alpha_n}}{\Gamma_{\alpha_n}+ \Gamma_{\beta_n}}$, we can rewrite the left-hand side of~\eqref{eq:Beta_distr_CLT} as follows:
$$
U_n\eqdistr \frac{\beta_n\Gamma_{\alpha_n} - \alpha_n \Gamma_{\beta_n}}{\sqrt{\alpha_n\beta_n (\alpha_n+\beta_n)}} \cdot \frac{\sqrt{\alpha_n\beta_n}}{\Gamma_{\alpha_n} + \Gamma_{\beta_n}}.
$$
The first factor converges weakly to the standard normal distribution (as one can easily see by computing its characteristic function), whereas the second factor converges in probability to $1$.
Slutsky's lemma completes the proof of~\eqref{eq:Beta_distr_CLT}.
Now, we apply~\eqref{eq:Beta_distr_CLT} to $\alpha_n =\frac 1c B_n(\omega)$ and $\beta_n=\frac 1c R_n(\omega)$. Noting that for a.a.\ $\omega\in\Omega$, we have $p(\omega):=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\alpha_n}{\alpha_n+\beta_n} = Z_{\infty}(\omega)$ and $\alpha_n+\beta_n\sim n$, we obtain that $Q_n(\omega)$ converges weakly to $\Normal_{0, S^2(\omega)}$, for a.a.\ $\omega\in \Omega$. \end{proof}
\subsection{Properties of the a.s.w.\ convergence}
Taken together, the following proposition and examples show that a.s.w.\ convergence is strictly stronger than stable convergence.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:asw_stable}
Let $Q_1,Q_2,\ldots:\Omega\to\cM_1(E)$ be a sequence of kernels converging to a kernel $Q:\Omega\to\cM_1(E)$ in the a.s.w.\ sense. Then, $Q_n$ converges to $Q$ stably.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $f:E\to\R$ be a bounded continuous function. By definition of the a.s.w.\ convergence, the sequence $Q_n^f(\omega)=\int_{E} f(z) Q_{n} (\omega; \dd z)$ converges to $Q^f(\omega)=\int_{E} f(z) Q (\omega; \dd z)$ for a.a.\ $\omega\in\Omega$. Also, $Q_n^f(\omega)$ is bounded by $\|f\|_{\infty}$. By the dominated convergence theorem, \eqref{eq:stable_def_more_general} holds. So, $Q_n$ converges to $Q$ stably.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
Let us show that, in general, stable convergence does not imply a.s.w.\ convergence. Let $\xi_1,\xi_2,\ldots$ be non-degenerate i.i.d.\ random variables with probability distribution $\mu$. Then, the sequence of kernels $Q_n:\omega\mapsto \delta_{\xi_n(\omega)}$ converges stably (in fact, mixing) to the kernel $Q:\omega\mapsto \mu$. This is equivalent to saying that the i.i.d.\ sequence $\xi_1,\xi_2,\ldots$ is mixing in the sense of ergodic theory. Alternatively, note that by the i.i.d.\ property, $\lim_{n\to\infty} \P[\xi_n\leq x | \xi_k\leq x] =\P[\xi_1\leq x]$ for every fixed $k\in\N$, and apply~\cite[Thm.~2]{renyi_sets}. However, $Q_n$ does not converge a.s.w.\ because the sequence $\xi_n$ does not converge a.s.
\end{example}
Many classical distributional limit theorems hold, in fact, even in the sense of mixing convergence~\cite{renyi_sets,renyi_revesz_mixing_variables}. In particular, this is the case for the central limit theorem.
\begin{example}
Let $\xi_1,\xi_2,\ldots$ be i.i.d.\
random variables with $\E \xi_i=0$, $\Var \xi_i=1$. Consider the random variables $X_n=\frac 1{\sqrt n}
(\xi_1+\ldots+\xi_n)$. Then, the kernels $Q_n:\omega\mapsto \delta_{X_n(\omega)}$ converge stably (in fact, mixing) to
the kernel $Q:\omega\mapsto \Normal_{0,1}$; see~\cite[Thm.~4]{renyi_sets} or~\cite[Thm.~2]{aldous_eagleson}. However,
$Q_n$ does not converge a.s.w.\ because the sequence $X_n$ does not converge a.s. On the other hand, the central limit
theorems for branching random walks which we will state and prove below hold not only stably but even in the a.s.w.\ sense.
\end{example}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:asw_weak}
Let $\{\cF_n\}_{n\in\N}$ be a filtration on a probability space $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$.
Let $X_1,X_2,\ldots$ be a sequence of random variables defined on $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$ and taking values in a Polish space $E$. Assume that for every $n\in\N$, the random variable $X_n$ is measurable w.r.t.\ the $\sigma$-algebra $\cF_{\infty}=\bigvee_{k\in\N} \cF_k$ (but not necessarily w.r.t.\ $\cF_n$).
If the sequence of conditional laws $Q_n=\cL\{X_n|\cF_n\}$ converges to a kernel $Q:\Omega\to \cM_1(E)$ in the a.s.w.\ sense, then $X_n$ converges stably to $Q$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:prop:asw_weak}
In particular, $X_n$ converges in distribution to the probability measure $\E Q$ obtained by mixing the probability measures $Q(\omega)$ over $\P(\dd \omega)$. That is, for every Borel set $B\subset E$,
$$
(\E Q) (B) = \int_{\Omega} Q(\omega; B) \P(\dd\omega).
$$
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:asw_weak}]
Let $f:E\to\R$ be a bounded continuous function. We will show that for every bounded $\cF$-measurable function $g:\Omega\to \R$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:asw_stable_proof}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \int_{\Omega} f(X_n(\omega)) g(\omega) \P(\dd \omega)
=
\int_{\Omega} g(\omega) \left(\int_E f(z) Q(\omega; \dd z)\right) \P(\dd \omega).
\end{equation}
By taking $g=\ind_A$ in~\eqref{eq:asw_stable_proof} we obtain the required relation~\eqref{eq:stable_def}.
Let first $g=\ind_A$ for some $A\in \cF_k$, where $k\in \N$ is fixed. Because of the filtration property, $A\in \cF_n$ for all $n\geq k$. Applying~\eqref{eq:cond_distr_def} to the conditional law $Q_n=\cL(X_n|\cF_n)$, we obtain that for all $n\geq k$,
$$
\int_{A} f(X_n(\omega)) \P(\dd \omega) = \int_{A} \left(\int_{E} f(z)Q_{n} (\omega; \dd z)\right)\P(\dd \omega).
$$
For a.a.\ $\omega\in\Omega$ the probability measure $Q_n(\omega)$ converges weakly to $Q(\omega)$, and hence, the sequence $Q_n^f(\omega)=\int_{E}f(z) Q_n(\omega;\dd z)$ (which is bounded by $\|f\|_{\infty}$) converges as $n\to\infty$ to $Q^f(\omega)=\int_E f(z)Q(\omega; \dd z)$. By the dominated convergence theorem we immediately obtain~\eqref{eq:asw_stable_proof}.
A standard approximation argument extends~\eqref{eq:asw_stable_proof} to all
$\cF_{\infty}$-measurable bounded functions $g:\Omega\to\R$.
Finally, let $g$ be $\cF$-measurable and bounded. In this case, one can reduce~\eqref{eq:asw_stable_proof} to the case of $\cF_{\infty}$-measurable function $\tilde g=\E [g|\cF_{\infty}]$. Namely, since $X_n$ is $\cF_{\infty}$-measurable, we have
$$
\int_{\Omega} f(X_n(\omega)) g(\omega) \P(\dd \omega)
=
\int_{\Omega} f(X_n(\omega)) \tilde g(\omega) \P(\dd \omega),
$$
Similarly, since the $\cM_1(E)$-valued map $\omega\mapsto Q(\omega)$ is $\cF_{\infty}$-measurable (as an a.s.\ limit of $\cF_{\infty}$-measurable maps $\omega\mapsto Q_n(\omega)$),
$$
\int_{\Omega} g(\omega) \left(\int_E f(z) Q(\omega; \dd z)\right) \P(\dd \omega)
=
\int_{\Omega} \tilde g(\omega) \left(\int_E f(z) Q(\omega; \dd z)\right) \P(\dd \omega).
$$
So, it suffices to establish~\eqref{eq:asw_stable_proof} for the function $\tilde g$ instead of $g$, but this was already done above since $\tilde g$ is $\cF_{\infty}$-measurable and bounded.
\end{proof}
We will need the following variant of the martingale convergence theorem; see~\cite[p.~409, 10d]{loeve_book}.
An even more general result can be found in~\cite{landers_rogge}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:X_n_cond_F_n}
Let $\{\cF_n\}_{n\in\N}$ be a filtration on a probability space $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$. Write $\cF_{\infty} = \bigvee_{k\in\N} \cF_k$.
Let $\xi,\xi_1,\xi_2,\ldots$ be random variables defined on $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$
such that $\xi_n\to \xi$ a.s.\ and $|\xi_n|<M$ for some constant $M$. Then,
$$
\E [\xi_n | \cF_n] \toas \E[\xi|\cF_{\infty}].
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:asw_properties}
Let $\{\cF_n\}_{n\in\N}$ be a filtration on a probability space $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$.
Let $X_n,Y_n$, $n\in\N$, be complex-valued random variables defined on $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$. Suppose that for some kernel $Q:\Omega\to \cM_1(\R)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:prop:asw_properties}
\cL(X_n|\cF_n)\toasw Q.
\end{equation}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] If $Y_n\to 0$ a.s., then $\cL(X_n+Y_n|\cF_n)$ converges to $Q$ a.s.w.
\item[(b)] If $Y_n\to 1$ a.s., then $\cL(X_nY_n|\cF_n)$ converges to $Q$ a.s.w.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
Note that we do not assume $Y_n$ to be $\cF_n$-measurable. With this assumption, the proposition would become trivial.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of part (a)]
We can find a sequence of uniformly continuous, bounded functions $f_1,f_2,\ldots:\R\to\R$ with the property that a sequence of probability measures $\mu_1,\mu_2,\ldots$ converges weakly on $\R$ to a probability measure $\mu$ if and only if for every $i\in\N$,
$$
\lim_{n\to\infty} \int_{\R} f_i \dd \mu_n = \int_{\R} f_i \dd \mu.
$$
Fix some $i\in\N$. We know from~\eqref{eq:prop:asw_properties} that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tech1}
\E [f_i (X_n)| \cF_n] \toas Q^{f_i},
\end{equation}
where $Q^{f_i}$ denotes the random variable $\omega\mapsto \int_{\R} f_i(z) Q(\omega; \dd z)$. Since $f_i$ is uniformly continuous and $Y_n\to 0$ a.s.,\ we have
$$
\xi_n := f_i(X_n+Y_n)- f_i(X_n) \toas 0.
$$
Also, $|\xi_n|\leq 2 \|f_i\|_{\infty}$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:X_n_cond_F_n} with $\xi=0$, we have $\E [\xi_n|\cF_n] \to 0$ a.s. and hence, recalling~\eqref{eq:tech1},
$$
\E [f_i (X_n+Y_n)| \cF_n] \toas Q^{f_i}.
$$
This holds for every $i\in\N$. Hence, $\cL(X_n+Y_n|\cF_n)$ converges a.s.w.\ to $Q$.
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent
\textit{Proof of part (b)}. Part (b) can be reduced to part (a) by noting that $X_nY_n = X_n+ X_n(Y_n-1)$ and $Y_n':=X_n(Y_n-1)$ converges a.s.\ to $0$.
\end{proof}
The following result shows that a.s.w.\ convergence of conditional laws is preserved under filtration coarsening.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:asw_total_expectation}
Let $\{\cF_n\}_{n\in\N}$ be a filtration on a probability space $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$.
Let $\xi_1,\xi_2,\ldots$ be random variables defined on $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$ and taking values in a Polish space $E$.
Suppose that the sequence of conditional laws $Q_n:= \cL(\xi_n|\cF_n)$ converges as $n\to\infty$ to the kernel $Q$ in the a.s.w.\ sense. Let $\{\tilde \cF_n\}_{n\in\N}$ be another filtration on $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$ such that $\tilde \cF_n\subset \cF_n$ and let $\tilde \cF_{\infty}=\bigvee_{n=1}^{\infty} \tilde \cF_n$. Then,
$$
\tilde Q_n := \cL(\xi_n | \tilde \cF_n) \toasw \E [Q | \tilde \cF_{\infty}].
$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $f_1,f_2,\ldots:E\to \R$ be bounded continuous functions such that a sequence of probability measures $\mu_1,\mu_2,\ldots$ on $E$ converges weakly to $\mu$ if and only if $\int_E f_i \dd \mu_n$ converges to $\int_E f_i \dd \mu$ as $n\to\infty$, for all $i\in\N$. Let $Q_n^{f_i}:\Omega\to\R$ be the function $\omega\mapsto \int_E f_i(z) Q_n(\omega;\dd z)$ and define $\tilde Q_n^{f_i}$ similarly. Then, $Q_n\to Q$ a.s.w.\ means that $Q_n^{f_i}\to Q^{f_i}$ a.s.,\ for all $i\in\N$. Using the definition of conditional distributions, it is easy to check that $\tilde Q_n^{f_i}=\E[Q_n^{f_i}|\tilde \cF_n]$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:X_n_cond_F_n}, we have
$$
\tilde Q_n^{f_i} = \E[Q_n^{f_i}|\tilde \cF_n]\toas \E[Q^{f_i}|\tilde \cF_{\infty}].
$$
Since this holds for every $i\in\N$ we obtain that $\tilde Q_n \to \E [Q | \tilde \cF_{\infty}]$ a.s.w.
\end{proof}
\section{Conditional Functional Central Limit Theorem and applications to random trees}\label{sec:FCLT_strong}
\subsection{Statement of the conditional FCLT}\label{subsec:FCLT_statement_strong}
We are almost ready to state a stronger version of Theorem~\ref{theo:FCLT}. Consider a branching random walk in discrete or continuous time defined on a probability space $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$ and satisfying the assumptions of Section~\ref{subsec:biggins_martingale}.
Denote by $\cF_t=\sigma\{\pi_j\colon 0\leq j\leq t\}$ the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the BRW up to time $t\in\N_0$ (discrete-time case) or $t\geq 0$ (continuous-time case). For our applications to the analysis of algorithms we need to state a functional CLT valid over an arbitrary increasing sequence of stopping times.
Let $0\leq T_1\leq T_2\leq \ldots$ be a monotone increasing sequence of stopping times w.r.t.\ the filtration $\{\cF_t\}$ such that a.s.,\
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lim_T_n_infty}
\lim_{n\to\infty} T_n=+\infty.
\end{equation}
In the discrete-time case we assume additionally that $T_n$ takes values in $\N_0$.
Two special cases (which make sense both for discrete and continuous time) will be of interest to us:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $T_n=n$.
\item $T_n$ is the time at which the $n$-th particle is born.
\end{enumerate}
The second special case will be needed for the above-mentioned applications. Let $\cF_{T_n}$ be the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the branching random walk up to the stopping time $T_n$.
Fix $R>0$. Consider the following random analytic function on the disk $\overline \bD_R$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:D_n_u_def2}
D_{T_n}(u) = m^{\frac 12 T_n} \left(W_{\infty}\left(\frac{u}{\sqrt{T_n}}\right) - W_{T_n}\left(\frac{u}{\sqrt{T_n}}\right)\right).
\end{equation}
We will prove that the conditional distribution of $D_{T_n}$ under $\cF_{T_n}$ converges to some limiting kernel $Q_{\infty}:\Omega\to \cM_1(\bA_R)$, in the a.s.w.\ sense. To describe the limiting kernel $Q_{\infty}$, we use the random variable $N_\infty$ from~\eqref{eq:N_infty_def} (defined on the same probability space as the branching random walk) and the random analytic function $\xi$ described in Section~\ref{subsec:GAF} ($\xi$ may be defined on a different probability space). For $\omega\in \Omega$ we define $Q_\infty(\omega)$ to be the distribution (on $\bA_R$) of the random analytic function
$$
\Xi(\,\cdot\,;\omega): \overline\bD_R\to\bC, \quad u\,\mapsto\, \sigma \sqrt{N_\infty(\omega)}\, \xi\bigl(\tau u\bigr),
\quad u\in \overline \bD_R,
$$
where we recall that $\sigma^2=\Var N_{\infty}$ and $\tau^2=\varphi''(0)$. Note that the dependence of $\Xi$ on its arguments factorizes.
The following is our main result.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:mainlim}
As $n\to\infty$, the conditional distribution $Q_n:=\cL(D_{T_n}|\cF_{T_n})$ converges to the kernel $Q_\infty$ defined above, almost surely and with respect to weak convergence:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:thm:mainlim}
\cL\left(D_{T_n}(\cdot) \Big |\cF_{T_n}\right)
\toasw
\left\{\omega \mapsto \cL\left(\Xi(\cdot;\omega)\right)\right\}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Recalling Proposition~\ref{prop:asw_weak} and Remark~\ref{rem:prop:asw_weak}, we obtain the following
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:mainlim}
The following convergence of random analytic functions holds weakly on $\bA_R$ for every $R>0$:
\begin{equation*}
\left\{D_{T_n}(u)\colon u\in \overline \bD_{R}\right\}
\toweak
\left\{\sigma \sqrt {N_{\infty}}\, \xi\bigl(\tau u\bigr)\colon u\in \overline \bD_{R}\right\},
\end{equation*}
where $N_{\infty}$ and $\xi$ are independent.
\end{corollary}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:mainlim} will be given in Section~\ref{sec:proof_FCLT}.
\begin{remark}
The function $D_{T_n}(u)$ may not be defined on the event $A_n := \{R/\sqrt{T_n} > \delta_0\}$.
Since we do not assume that $T_n\to\infty$ uniformly, it is possible that the probability of $A_n$ is strictly positive for every $n\in\N$. On the other hand, we have $\ind_{A_n}\to 0$ a.s.\ since $T_n\to \infty$ a.s. Hence, on the event $A_n$ we can define $D_{T_n}(u)$ in an arbitrary way (say, as $0$) and by Proposition~\ref{prop:asw_properties}, part~(a), this does not affect Theorem~\ref{thm:mainlim} and Corollary~\ref{cor:mainlim}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Theorems~\ref{theo:FCLT} and~\ref{thm:mainlim} deal with the behavior of $W_n(\beta)$ in a small neighborhood of $0$. It is possible to obtain analogues of these results in a neighborhood of an arbitrary real $\beta_*$ from an appropriate interval; however, for our applications we need only the case $\beta_*=0$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{CLT for Galton--Watson processes}
In this section we show how Theorem~\ref{thm:mainlim} can be used to rederive and generalize the classical CLT for Galton--Watson processes due to~\citet{athreya} and~\citet{heyde}. Consider a Galton--Watson process $N_n$ starting at time $0$ with one particle. Suppose that $N_1$ has mean $m>1$, variance $\sigma^2>0$ and finite $p_0$-th moment, for some $p_0>2$. Let $\P[N_1=0]=0$ (otherwise, we have to restrict everything to the survival event). The limit
\begin{equation}\label{eq:N_infty_def_1}
N_{\infty}:=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{N_n}{m^n}>0
\end{equation}
exists a.s. By considering a branching random walk in which the particles split according to $N_n$ while not moving away from $0$, we can identify $N_n/m^n$ with $W_n(\beta)$, for every $\beta\in\C$. In this setting, Theorem~\ref{thm:mainlim} takes the form
\begin{theorem}\label{theo:heyde_CLT_very_general}
For every sequence $(T_n)_{n\in\bN}$ of stopping times with $T_n \uparrow\infty$ a.s.\ as $n\to\infty$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:theo:heyde_CLT_very_general}
\cL\left( \sqrt{m^{T_n}} \left(N_{\infty} - \frac{N_{T_n}}{m^{T_n}}\right)\Bigg |\cF_{T_n}\right) \toasw
\left\{\omega \mapsto \Normal_{0, \sigma^2 N_{\infty}(\omega)}\right\}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Indeed, $f\mapsto f(0)$ is a continuous map from $\bA_R$ to $\C$. Observe also that $\xi(0)\sim \Normal_{0,1}$ by~\eqref{eq:xi_def}.
The continuous mapping theorem justifies taking $u=0$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:mainlim} and yields~\eqref{eq:theo:heyde_CLT_very_general}.
One may ask whether it is possible to move $N_{\infty}(\omega)$ from the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:theo:heyde_CLT_very_general} to the left. This would have the advantage that the limiting distribution would be normal rather than a mixture of normals. The question is non-trivial because the random variable $N_{\infty}$ is not $\cF_{T_n}$-measurable. Nevertheless, the answer is positive:
\begin{theorem}\label{theo:heyde_CLT_very_general_1}
For every sequence $(T_n)_{n\in\bN}$ of stopping times with $T_n \uparrow\infty$ a.s.\ as $n\to\infty$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:theo:heyde_CLT_very_general_1}
\cL\left( \sqrt{\frac{m^{T_n}}{N_{\infty}}} \left(N_{\infty} - \frac{N_{T_n}}{m^{T_n}}\right)\Bigg |\cF_{T_n}\right) \toasw
\left\{\omega \mapsto \Normal_{0, \sigma^2}\right\}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Note that by~\eqref{eq:N_infty_def_1} and~\eqref{eq:lim_T_n_infty},
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Y_n_tech1}
\sqrt{\frac{m^{T_n}}{N_{T_n}}} \toas \frac 1{\sqrt{N_{\infty}}}.
\end{equation}
The random variable on the right-hand side is $\cF_{T_n}$-measurable. Applying Slutsky's lemma pointwise to Theorem~\ref{theo:heyde_CLT_very_general} we obtain that
$$
\cL\left(\sqrt{\frac{m^{T_n}}{N_{T_n}}} \sqrt{m^{T_n}} \left(N_{\infty} - \frac{N_{T_n}}{m^{T_n}}\right)\Bigg |\cF_{T_n}\right) \toasw
\left\{\omega \mapsto \Normal_{0, \sigma^2}\right\}.
$$
By Proposition~\ref{prop:asw_properties}\,(b) we can multiply the random variable on the left-hand side by $Y_n:=\sqrt{N_{T_n}/(m^{T_n}N_{\infty})}$ because $Y_n$ converges to $1$ a.s.\ by~\eqref{eq:Y_n_tech1}. This yields~\eqref{eq:theo:heyde_CLT_very_general_1}.
\end{proof}
By Proposition~\ref{prop:asw_weak} and Remark~\ref{rem:prop:asw_weak} we obtain the following corollary of Theorems~\ref{theo:heyde_CLT_very_general} and~\ref{theo:heyde_CLT_very_general_1}.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:heyde_clt}
It holds that
\begin{align}
&\sqrt{m^{T_n}} \left(N_{\infty} - \frac{N_{T_n}}{m^{T_n}}\right) \todistr \Normal_{0, \sigma^2 N_{\infty}},\label{eq:heyde_clt1}\\
&\sqrt{\frac{m^{T_n}}{N_{\infty}}} \left(N_{\infty} - \frac{N_{T_n}}{m^{T_n}}\right) \tomix \Normal_{0, \sigma^2}.\label{eq:heyde_clt2}
\end{align}
\end{corollary}
Taking $T_n=n$ we recover the original CLT for Galton--Watson processes; see~\eqref{eq:heyde_clt}.
Note that we need the condition $\E N_1^{p_0}<\infty$ for some $p_0>2$ (which is slightly stronger than the condition $\E N_1^2<\infty$ needed in the CLT for Galton--Watson processes). This is due to the fact for general $T_n$'s we need to use Lyapunov's CLT in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:mainlim}.
\subsection{Sum of the particle positions in the BRW: Martingale convergence}
In this and the next section we will be interested in the sum of the positions of the particles in a branching random walk at time $n$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_S_n}
S_n
= \sum_{j=1}^{N_n} z_{j,n}.
\end{equation}
Let $d = \varphi'(0)$. The sum $S_n$ is related to the first derivative $W_n'(0)$ via
\begin{equation}
L_n := W_n'(0) = \frac{S_n - dnN_n}{m^n}.
\end{equation}
>From the martingale property of $W_n(\beta)$ it follows that $L_n=W'_n(0)$ is a martingale as well.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:L_n_conv_L_infty}
The limit $L_{\infty}:=W_{\infty}'(0)=\lim_{n\to\infty} L_n$ exists a.s.\ and in $L^p$ for every $0<p\leq p_0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Recall from~Section~\ref{subsec:biggins_martingale} that $W_n$, considered as a random element taking values in the Banach space $\bA_{\delta_0}$, converges a.s.\ to $W_{\infty}$, as $n\to\infty$. The mapping $f\mapsto f'(0)$ is continuous from $\bA_{\delta_0}$ to $\C$ by the Cauchy integral formula. Hence, $L_n=W'_n(0)$ converges to $L_{\infty}=W_{\infty}'(0)$ in the a.s.\ sense.
The proof of the $L^p$-convergence is based on a moment estimate for $W_n(\beta)$ stated in Proposition~\ref{prop:Biggins_Martingale_Lp_bounded} below. It suffices to show that the martingale $L_n=W_n'(0)$ is bounded in $L^{p_0}$. By the Cauchy integral formula, for any sufficiently small $r>0$ we have
$$
\E |W_n'(0)|^{p_0} = \E \left|\frac {1} {2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi} \frac{W_n(r\eee^{i\varphi})}{r\eee^{i\varphi}}\dd \varphi\right|^{p_0}
\leq C \E \int_0^{2\pi} |W_n(r\eee^{i\varphi})|^{p_0} \dd \varphi,
$$
where the last step is by Jensen's inequality. Interchanging the expectation and the integral by the Fubini theorem and applying Proposition~\ref{prop:Biggins_Martingale_Lp_bounded}, we obtain the required $L^{p_0}$-boundedness: $\E |W_n'(0)|^{p_0}\leq C$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Since $\E W_n(\beta)=1$ for all $|\beta|\leq \delta_0$, we have $\E L_n = \E L_{\infty} = 0$. Consequently, $\E S_n = d n m^n$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
With trivial modifications, the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:L_n_conv_L_infty} can be extended to derivatives of arbitrary order $k\in\N_0$. Namely, a.s.\ and in $L^p$, for every $0<p\leq p_0$, we have
\begin{equation}
W^{(k)}_n(0) \ton W_{\infty}^{(k)}(0).
\end{equation}
The $k$-th derivative $W_n^{(k)}(0)$ can be expressed through the ``empirical BRW moments''
$$
S_n^{(l)}=\sum_{j=1}^{N_n} z_{j,n}^l
$$
with $l=0,\ldots,k$. It is possible to generalize the results obtained here for $S_n=S_n^{(1)}$ to such higher moments.
\end{remark}
We will need a generalization of Proposition~\ref{prop:L_n_conv_L_infty} to arbitrary increasing sequences of stopping times. Let $0\leq T_1\leq T_2\leq \ldots$ be stopping times as in Section~\ref{subsec:FCLT_statement_strong}.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:L_n_conv_L_infty_stop_times}
A.s.\ and in $L^p$ for every $0<p < p_0$ it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:prop:L_n_conv_L_infty_stop_times}
L_{T_n} = \frac{S_{T_n} - dT_n N_{T_n}}{m^{T_n}} \ton L_{\infty}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since $T_n\to +\infty$ a.s.,\ we have $L_{T_n}\to L_{\infty}$ a.s.\ by Proposition~\ref{prop:L_n_conv_L_infty}.
We have $|L_{T_n}|\leq \sup_{k\in\N} |L_k|$, and $L_k$ is a martingale bounded in $L^{p_0}$; see the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:L_n_conv_L_infty}. By Doob's inequality, the sequence $L_{T_n}$ is uniformly bounded in $L^{p_0}$. By the Vitali convergence theorem, it follows that~\eqref{eq:prop:L_n_conv_L_infty_stop_times} holds in $L^p$ for all $0<p<p_0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
It remains open what moment assumption on the BRW is necessary and sufficient for Propositions~\ref{prop:L_n_conv_L_infty} and~\ref{prop:L_n_conv_L_infty_stop_times} to hold. Our standing assumption~B is certainly not the best possible. In fact, the proofs given above remain valid if we require~\eqref{eq:standing_assumption} to hold with some $p_0>1$. Anyway, in our applications to the analysis of algorithms condition~\eqref{eq:standing_assumption} is satisfied with arbitrarily large $p_0$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Sum of the particle positions in the BRW: Conditional CLT}
Now we are ready to state a CLT for $L_{T_n}$. Let $0\leq T_1\leq T_2\leq \ldots$ be stopping times as in Section~\ref{subsec:FCLT_statement_strong}.
\begin{theorem}\label{theo:neininger_CLT_discrete}
We have
\begin{align}
\cL\left\{\sqrt{\frac{m^{T_n}}{T_n}} \left(L_{\infty}- L_{T_n}\right)\Bigg | \cF_{T_n}\right\}
\toasw
\left\{\omega \mapsto \Normal_{0, \sigma^2\tau^2 N_{\infty}(\omega)}\right\}. \label{eq:L_n_neininger_asw}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Note that $f\mapsto f'(0)$ is a linear continuous map from $\bA_R$ to $\C$ by Cauchy's integral theorem; we will apply this map to both sides of~\eqref{eq:thm:mainlim}. Note that by~\eqref{eq:D_n_u_def2},
$$
D_{T_n}'(0) = \sqrt{\frac{m^{T_n}}{T_n}} (W_{\infty}'(0) - W_{T_n}'(0))=\sqrt{\frac{m^{T_n}}{T_n}} (L_{\infty} - L_{T_n}).
$$
Observe also that $\xi'(0)\sim \Normal_{0,1}$ by~\eqref{eq:xi_def}. By the continuous mapping theorem, the a.s.w.\
convergence in~\eqref{eq:thm:mainlim} is preserved when applying the derivative map, hence we obtain~\eqref{eq:L_n_neininger_asw}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
With the same justification as in Theorem~\ref{theo:heyde_CLT_very_general_1}, we can move $N_{\infty}$ from the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:L_n_neininger_asw} to the left-hand side.
\end{remark}
In particular, Proposition~\ref{prop:asw_weak} (see also Remark~\ref{rem:prop:asw_weak}) yields the following analogue of Corollary~\ref{cor:heyde_clt}.
\begin{corollary}
We have
\begin{align}
\sqrt{\frac{m^{T_n}}{T_n}} (L_{\infty}- L_{T_n}) &\todistr \Normal_{0, \sigma^2\tau^2 N_{\infty}},\label{eq:L_n_neininger_asw_cor1}\\
\sqrt{\frac{m^{T_n}}{N_{\infty}T_n}} (L_{\infty}- L_{T_n}) &\tomix \Normal_{0, \sigma^2\tau^2}.\label{eq:L_n_neininger_asw_cor2}
\end{align}
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Applications to random trees}\label{subsec:applications_to_trees}
In this section we show how our results can be applied to binary search trees and random recursive trees. These models
are random trees grown by attaching one new node in each step, according to certain random rules. By randomizing the
times $T_1,T_2,\ldots$ at which the new nodes are attached, these random trees can be embedded into a suitable BRW in
continuous time; see~\citet{chauvin_etal,chauvin_rouault}. This procedure can be seen as an instance of poissonization. The embeddings are constructed such that the positions of the particles in
the BRW correspond to the depths of external (or internal) nodes of the random tree. Let $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$ be the
probability space on which the random trees are defined. The times $T_1,T_2,\ldots$ form a Yule process on some other
probability space $(\Omega',\cF',\P')$, and the BRW is then defined on the product space.
Using our results on the BRW we will obtain, after a depoissonization, results on random trees.
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent
\textit{The Yule process.} Fix an intensity $\lambda>0$. Let $(\Omega', \cF', \P')$ be a probability space carrying independent random variables $\tau_1, \tau_2,\ldots$ with
$$
\tau_n\sim \text{Exp}(\lambda n).
$$
We regard $T_{n+1}=\tau_1+\ldots+\tau_{n}$, $n\in\N$, $T_1=0$, as times at which the $n$-th particle in a continuous-time BRW is born. We denote by $N_t=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\ind_{T_n\leq t}$ the number of particles at time $t\geq 0$. Then $\{N_t\colon t\geq 0\}$ is a continuous-time Markov process (called the Yule process) with values in $\N$ and transition rates
$$
n\overset{\text{intensity } \lambda n}{\xrightarrow{\hspace*{1cm}}} n+1.
$$
One can imagine that each particle splits into two new particles with intensity $\lambda$, independently of the other
particles and of the past of the process. Note, however, that the random variables specifying \textit{which} particle splits are \textit{not} defined on the probability space $(\Omega', \cF',\P')$. The expected number of particles at time $t\geq 0$ is $\E N_t=\eee^{\lambda t}$ and hence, $m = \E N_1 = \eee^{\lambda}$. Also, it is known that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:N_infty_cont_time}
N_{\infty} =\lim_{t\to\infty} \frac{N_t}{\eee^{\lambda t}} \sim \Exp(1).
\end{equation}
In particular, in all examples below we have
$
\sigma^2=\Var N_{\infty}=1
$.
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent
\textit{Genealogical structure and displacements.} Consider a continuous-time BRW in which the particles split at times
$T_1,T_2,\ldots$ introduced above. In any such splitting, a particle disappears and generates exactly two new
particles. We assume that the particles do not move between the splittings. In order to specify the BRW we need to
specify the particle that splits at time $T_n$ (genealogical structure), and the displacements of its offspring. We
further assume that the random variables describing the genealogical structure and displacements are defined on a
probability space $(\Omega, \cF, \P)$. Then, the BRW can be defined on the product space $(\overline \Omega, \overline \cF, \overline
\P) = (\Omega', \cF', \P')\otimes (\Omega, \cF, \P)$. Finally, we assume that~\eqref{eq:standing_assumption} holds for
arbitrary $p_0>0$ since, as is easy to verify, this is true in all our examples.
Recall that we denote the positions of the particles at time $T_n$ by $z_{1,T_n}\leq\ldots\leq z_{n,T_n}$. The variable
\begin{equation}
S_{T_n}=\sum_{j=1}^n z_{j, T_n}
\end{equation}
will be interpreted below as the internal or external path length of a random tree. It is easy to see that the random variable $S_{T_n}=S_{T_n(\omega')}(\omega',\omega)$ (which is defined on the product space $\overline \Omega = \Omega'\times \Omega$) depends on the second coordinate $\omega$ only. So, we can consider $S_{T_n}$ as a random variable defined on $\Omega$.
The next theorem (whose proof we defer to Section~\ref{subsec:prop:neininger_BRW_LLN_proof}) differs from
Proposition~\ref{prop:L_n_conv_L_infty_stop_times} by a more convenient choice of normalization.
\begin{theorem}\label{prop:neininger_BRW_LLN}
Under the assumptions of the present section, on the probability space $(\Omega, \cF, \P)$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:neininger_general_brw_asLp}
\tilde L_{T_n} := \frac{S_{T_n}-\frac{d}{\lambda}n\log n} {n} \ton
\tilde L_{\infty}
\end{equation}
a.s.\ and in $L^p$ for every $p > 0$, where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tilde_L_infty}
\tilde L_{\infty} = \frac{L_{\infty}}{N_{\infty}} - \frac{d}{\lambda} \log N_{\infty}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:tilde_L_infty}
In the proof of Theorem~\ref{prop:neininger_BRW_LLN} we will see that the random variable $\tilde L_{\infty}$ (defined originally on the product space $\overline \Omega=\Omega'\times \Omega$) depends only on the second component $\omega\in\Omega$. By discarding the first component we can consider $\tilde L_\infty$ as a random variable on $\Omega$.
\end{remark}
The following central limit theorem is an analogue of Theorem~\ref{theo:neininger_CLT_discrete}. The proof will be given in Section~\ref{subsec:prop:neininger_BRW_proof}. First, we need to introduce several $\sigma$-algebras. Let $\cF_n'\subset \cF'$ be the $\sigma$-algebra on $\Omega'$ generated by $T_1,\ldots,T_n$. This $\sigma$-algebra contains information about the birth times of the particles, but it does not contain information on the genealogical and spatial structure of the BRW. Denote by $\cG_n\subset \cF$ the $\sigma$-algebra on $\Omega$ containing the information about the genealogical structure and the displacements of the first $n$ particles in the BRW. Recall that $\cF_{T_n}\subset \cF'\otimes \cF$ is the $\sigma$-algebra on $\overline\Omega = \Omega'\times \Omega$ generated by the BRW up to time $T_n$. Clearly, $\cF_{T_n} = \cF_n'\otimes \cG_n$.
\begin{theorem}\label{prop:neininger_BRW_CLT}
Under the assumptions of the present section, on the probability space $(\Omega, \cF, \P)$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:neininger_general_brw}
\cL \left\{\sqrt{\frac{\lambda n}{\log n}} \left( \tilde L_{\infty} - \frac{S_{T_n}-\frac{d}{\lambda}n\log n} {n}\right)\Bigg | \cG_n\right\}\toasw \left\{\omega \mapsto \Normal_{0, \sigma^2\tau^2}\right\}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Using Proposition~\ref{prop:asw_weak} we obtain
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:neininger_BRW_CLT}
The following convergence holds in the mixing (and hence, distributional) sense:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cor:neininger_general_brw}
\sqrt{\frac{\lambda n}{\log n}} \left( \tilde L_{\infty} - \frac{S_{T_n}-\frac{d}{\lambda}n\log n} {n}\right)\tomix \Normal_{0, \sigma^2\tau^2}.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}
Note that the variance of the limiting distribution is deterministic, which is in sharp contrast to Theorem~\ref{theo:neininger_CLT_discrete}. See Remark~\ref{rem:why_variance_const} for an explanation.
\end{remark}
Now we are ready to apply these results to random trees.
\subsubsection{Binary search trees}\label{subsec:BST}
This model appears for example in the analysis of the \textsc{Quicksort} algorithm. Let $\bV=\cup_{k=0}^{\infty}\{0,1\}^k$ be the set of all finite words over the alphabet $\{0,1\}$ (including the empty word $\emptyset$). One can consider $\bV$ as the set of nodes of an infinite binary tree with root $\emptyset$. Each node $(\eps_1,\ldots,\eps_k)$ of depth $k$ is connected to two nodes $(\eps_1,\ldots,\eps_k,0)$ and $(\eps_1,\ldots,\eps_k,1)$ of depth $k+1$. A \textit{binary tree} is a non-empty finite subset $X\subset \bV$ with the property that together with every node $(\eps_1,\ldots,\eps_k)\neq \emptyset$ it contains its predecessor $(\eps_1,\ldots,\eps_{k-1})$. The \textit{external nodes} of a binary tree $X$ are those nodes $(\eps_1,\ldots,\eps_k)\in \bV\bsl X$ for which $(\eps_1,\ldots,\eps_{k-1})\in X$. It is easy to see that the number of external nodes of $X$ exceeds the number of nodes of $X$ by $1$.
Consider a growing sequence $X_1,X_2,\ldots$ of random binary trees constructed as follows. Let $X_1$ be the tree with
one node $\emptyset$. Inductively, given $X_n$ (which is a binary tree with $n$ nodes), choose uniformly at random one
of the $n+1$ external nodes of $X_n$ and attach it to the tree. Denote the tree thus constructed by $X_{n+1}$ and
proceed further in the same manner. The random tree $X_n$ is called the \textit{binary search tree} with $n$ nodes. For
more details we refer to~\citet[Ch.~6]{drmota_book}. We will be interested in the \textit{external path length} of
$X_n$, denoted by $\EPL_n$, which is the sum of depths of all $n+1$ external nodes of $X_n$. For example, the number
$K_n$ of comparisons used by the \textsc{Quicksort} algorithm applied to a random permutation of $n$ elements has the
same distribution as $\EPL_n-2n$. Let $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$ be the probability space on which $X_1,X_2,\ldots$ are defined
and let $\cG_n\subset \cF$ be the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $X_1,\ldots,X_n$.
Let us construct an embedding of the binary search trees into a BRW. Consider a continuous-time BRW in which the particles do not move between the splittings and each particle (located, say, at $x$) splits with intensity $\lambda = 1$ into two particles located at $x+1$:
$$
\delta_x \overset{\text{intensity } 1}{\xrightarrow{\hspace*{1cm}}} 2\delta_{x+1}.
$$
The particles of the BRW correspond to the external nodes, and their positions at time $T_n$ correspond to the depths of the
external nodes in the binary search tree with $n$ nodes. Hence, $S_{T_n}$ can be interpreted as the external path length
$\EPL_n$ of the binary search tree with $n$ nodes. We have
$$
\varphi(\beta)=2\eee^{\beta}-1,
\quad
\lambda=\varphi(0)=1,
\quad
d=\varphi'(0)=2,
\quad
\tau^2=\varphi''(0)=2.
$$
From Theorem~\ref{prop:neininger_BRW_LLN} we obtain that there is a limit random variable $\EPL_{\infty}$ such that a.s.\ and in $L^p$, for all $p>0$,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\EPL_n-2n\log n}{n} \ton \EPL_{\infty}.
\end{equation}
For $p=2$, this recovers a result of~\citet{regnier}. In view of the a.s.\ convergence, convergence in $L^p$ for general $p>0$ follows from R\"osler's~\cite{roesler} result on the convergence of the respective distributions in the Wasserstein $d_p$-metric.
From Theorem~\ref{prop:neininger_BRW_CLT} we obtain that on the probability space $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:BST_CLT_conditioned}
\cL\left\{\sqrt{\frac{n}{2\log n}} \left(\EPL_{\infty} - \frac{\EPL_n-2n\log n}{n}\right)\Bigg | \cG_{n}\right\} \toasw \{\omega\mapsto\Normal_{0,1}\}.
\end{equation}
In particular, we obtain the following CLT
\begin{equation}\label{eq:BST_CLT}
\sqrt{\frac{n}{2\log n}} \left(\EPL_{\infty} - \frac{\EPL_n-2n\log n}{n}\right) \tomix \Normal_{0,1}.
\end{equation}
Thus, we recovered the CLT of~\citet{neininger}, but we have a stronger (mixing as compared to weak) mode of convergence. By the properties of mixing convergence, see~\cite[Prop.~2]{aldous_eagleson}, we also have the joint convergence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:BST_CLT_joint}
\left(\sqrt{\frac{n}{2\log n}} \left(\EPL_{\infty} - \frac{\EPL_n-2n\log n}{n}\right), \EPL_{\infty}\right) \todistr (Z, \EPL_{\infty}),
\end{equation}
where $Z\sim \Normal_{0,1}$ is independent of $\EPL_{\infty}$. This is of interest, for example, in connection with the
asymptotic distribution of the ratio of the standardized path length and its limit.
\begin{remark}\label{rem:prediction}
One can use~\eqref{eq:BST_CLT_conditioned} to construct strong prediction intervals for $\EPL_\infty$. By a strong (asymptotic) prediction interval at level $1-\alpha$ for $\EPL_\infty$ we mean two sequences of random variables $\theta_n^-$ and $\theta_n^+$ defined on $(\Omega, \cF, \P)$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\theta_n^-$ and $\theta_n^+$ are measurable w.r.t.\ $\cG_n$;
\item
$\lim_{n\to\infty} \P[\theta_n^- \leq \EPL_\infty \leq \theta_n^+| \cG_n] = 1-\alpha$ a.s.
\end{enumerate}
It follows from~\eqref{eq:BST_CLT_conditioned} that a strong prediction interval for $\EPL_\infty$ is given by
$$
\theta_n^\pm = \frac{\EPL_n-2n\log n}{n} \pm \sqrt\frac{2\log n}{n} z_{1-\frac \alpha 2},
$$
where $z_{1-\frac \alpha 2}$ is the $(1-\frac \alpha 2)$-quantile of the standard normal distribution.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Random recursive trees}
This well-known model, see~\citet[Ch.~6]{drmota_book}, is defined as follows. Consider a sequence of random trees $X_1,X_2,\ldots$ generated as follows. Each $X_n$ is a tree with $n$ nodes labelled by $1,\ldots,n$. The tree $X_1$ consists of one node (root) labelled by $1$. Inductively, given the tree $X_n$, we construct the tree $X_{n+1}$ as follows. Among the $n$ nodes of $X_n$ we choose one uniformly at random, attach to it a new direct descendant labeled by $n+1$, and denote the resulting tree by $X_{n+1}$. Denote by $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$ the probability space on which $X_1,X_2,\ldots$ are defined. Let $\cG_n\subset \cF$ be the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $X_1,\ldots,X_n$.
Let us interpret the depths of the nodes of a random recursive tree in terms of a suitable BRW. Consider a continuous-time BRW in which the particles do not move between the splittings and each particle (located, say, at $x$) splits with intensity $1$ into one particle located at $x$ and one particle located at $x+1$:
$$
\delta_x \overset{\text{intensity } 1}{\xrightarrow{\hspace*{1cm}}} \delta_x + \delta_{x+1}.
$$
It is easy to see that the positions of the $n$ particles of the BRW at time $T_n$ have the same distribution as the depths of the nodes in a random recursive tree with $n$ nodes. Here, the depth means the distance to the node labelled by $1$. The random variable $S_{T_n}$ can be interpreted as the internal path length, denoted by $\IPL_n$, of the random recursive tree with $n$ nodes. We have
$$
\varphi(\beta) = \eee^{\beta},
\quad
\lambda=\varphi(0)=1,
\quad
d=\varphi'(0)=1,
\quad
\tau^2=\varphi''(0)=1.
$$
From Theorem~\ref{prop:neininger_BRW_LLN} we obtain that there is a limit random variable $\IPL_{\infty}$ such that a.s.\ and in $L^p$ for every $p>0$,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\IPL_n - n \log n}{n} \ton \IPL_{\infty}.
\end{equation}
This recovers results of~\citet{mahmoud}, who proved a.s.\ and $L^2$-convergence; $L^p$-convergence for arbitrary $p>0$ has been shown by~\citet{dobrow_fill}, see~\citet{gruebel_mihailow} for a different approach. \citet{dobrow_fill} also obtained a characterization of the
distribution of $\IPL_{\infty}$ in terms of a stochastic fixed-point equation, similar to R\"osler's result~\cite{roesler} for
the \textsc{Quicksort} distribution that we mentioned above.
From Theorem~\ref{prop:neininger_BRW_CLT} we obtain that on the probability space $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LRT_neininger1}
\cL\left\{
\sqrt{\frac{n}{\log n}} \left(\IPL_{\infty} - \frac{\IPL_n - n \log n}{n}\right)
\Big|\cG_{n}
\right\}
\toasw \{\omega\mapsto \Normal_{0,1}\}.
\end{equation}
In particular, we obtain an analogue of Neininger's CLT for random recursive trees:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LRT_neininger2}
\sqrt{\frac{n}{\log n}} \left(\IPL_{\infty} - \frac{\IPL_n - n \log n}{n}\right)
\tomix \Normal_{0,1}.
\end{equation}
The results~\eqref{eq:LRT_neininger1} and~\eqref{eq:LRT_neininger2} seem to be new.
By~\cite[Prop.~2]{aldous_eagleson}, we have the joint convergence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LRT_neininger_joint}
\left(\sqrt{\frac{n}{\log n}} \left(\IPL_{\infty} - \frac{\IPL_n - n \log n}{n}\right), \IPL_{\infty}\right)
\todistr
(Z,\IPL_{\infty}),
\end{equation}
where $Z\sim \Normal_{0,1}$ is independent of $\IPL_{\infty}$.
\subsubsection{Trees and urns} It is well known that random trees of the type considered above are closely related to urn
models; for example, in~\citet{EGW1} the corresponding process boundaries were obtained by regarding the trees as nested P\'olya urns
of the type considered in Section~\ref{subsec:polya}.
Similarly, the process of node depth profiles of the external resp.\ internal
nodes in the case of binary search trees and random recursive trees is the same as the color
distribution process for a suitably chosen urn model with infinitely many colors: If the colors are numbered by the nonnegative
integers then we start at time $0$ with $1$ ball of color $0$ in both cases and proceed as follows.
In the step from $n$ to $n+1$ we choose one of the then available $n+1$ balls uniformly at random; let $j$ be its color. In
the binary search tree case we then put back two balls with color $j+1$, in the recursive tree case we put back the
original ball and add one ball with color $j+1$.
Thus, our approach leads to results for a class of P\'olya type urn models with infinitely many colors.
\subsection{Conjectures: Laws of the iterated logarithm}
A central limit theorem is usually accompanied by a law of iterated logarithm (LIL). For example, the CLT for Galton--Watson processes~\cite{heyde} is accompanied by Heyde's LIL proved in~\cite{heyde_LIL}.
More generally, let a zero mean, $L^2$-bounded martingale $Z_n = \sum_{i=1}^n X_i$ be given. Denote by $Z_{\infty}$ the a.s.\ and $L^2$-limit of $Z_n$ and write $\sigma_n^2=\Var (Z_{\infty}-Z_n)\to 0$. \citet{heyde} provided sufficient conditions for the CLT of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:martingale_tail_CLT}
\frac {Z_{\infty}-Z_n} {\sigma_n} \todistr \Normal_{0,S^2}.
\end{equation}
The most important of these conditions is this one: For some random variable $S^2$,
$$
\frac 1{\sigma_n^{2}} \sum_{i=n}^{\infty} X_i^2 \toprobab S^2.
$$
Under slightly stronger conditions, \citet{heyde} proved a law of the iterated logarithm of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:martingale_tail_LIL}
\limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac{Z_{\infty}-Z_n}{S \sqrt{2\sigma_n^2\log |\log \sigma_n|}} = 1.
\end{equation}
Comparing~\eqref{eq:martingale_tail_CLT} with~\eqref{eq:BST_CLT} suggests that in the setting of binary search trees with $Z_n$ being the R\'egnier martingale $\frac{\EPL_n-2n\log n}{n}$, we should have $S=1$, $\sigma_n^2=\frac{2\log n}{n}$. So, in view of~\eqref{eq:martingale_tail_LIL}, it is natural to conjecture that in the setting of binary search trees the following LIL holds:
$$
\limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac{\sqrt n}{2\sqrt{\log n \log \log n}}\left(\EPL_{\infty} - \frac{\EPL_n-2n\log n}{n}\right)=1.
$$
An analogous conjecture can be stated for random recursive trees:
$$
\limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac{\sqrt {n}}{\sqrt{2\log n \log \log n}}\left(\IPL_{\infty} - \frac{\IPL_n- n\log n}{n}\right)=1.
$$
Similarly, the $\liminf$'s should be equal to $-1$.
\section{A moment estimate for the Biggins martingale} \label{sec:moment_estimate_Biggins}
The aim of this section is to prove that the Biggins martingale $W_n(\beta)$ is $L^p$-bounded uniformly in $|\beta|\leq \eps_0$, for some sufficiently small $\eps_0>0$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:Biggins_Martingale_Lp_bounded}
For every $0 < p \leq p_0$ there exist an $\eps_0>0$ and a constant $C>0$ such that for all $n\in\N$ and $\beta\in \overline \bD_{\eps_0}$ we have
$$
\E |W_n(\beta)|^p < C.
$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
\citet{biggins_uniform} proved this result for $p\in (1,2]$ using the von Bahr--Esseen inequality~\cite{von_bahr_esseen}. For the case $2\leq p\leq p_0$ we will use the Rosenthal inequality~\cite{rosenthal}. It states that for $p\geq 2$ and any independent random variables $X_1,\ldots,X_n\in L^p$ with zero mean we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rosenthal_ineq}
\E |X_1+\ldots+X_n|^p \leq K_p \left(\sum_{j=1}^n \E |X_j|^p + \left(\sum_{j=1}^n \E |X_j|^2\right)^{p/2}\right),
\end{equation}
where $K_p$ is a constant depending only on $p$.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:Biggins_Martingale_Lp_bounded}]
Let $2\leq p\leq p_0$. Decomposing the particles in the $(n+1)$-st generation of the BRW into clusters according to their predecessor $z_{j,n}$, $j=1,\ldots,N_n$, in the $n$-th generation, we obtain
$$
W_{n+1}(\beta) - W_n(\beta) = \sum_{j=1}^{N_n} \frac{\eee^{\beta z_{j,n}}}{m(\beta)^{n}} g_{j,n}(\beta),
$$
where $g_{1,n}(\beta),g_{2,n}(\beta)\ldots$ are i.i.d.\ copies of $W_1(\beta)-1$ which are also independent of the $\sigma$-algebra $\cF_n$ generated by the first $n$ generations of the BRW.
By Jensen's inequality and~\eqref{eq:standing_assumption} we have the estimate, valid for all $\beta\in \C$ with $|\Re \beta|<\beta_0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:g_1_n_beta_moment}
\E |g_{1,n}(\beta)|^p \leq 2^{p-1} (1 + \E |W_1(\beta)|^p) \leq C+ C\E\left(\sum_{z\in \pi_1}\eee^{(\Re \beta) z}\right)^p \leq C.
\end{equation}
Noting that the random variables $\eee^{\beta z_{j,n}}$ and $N_n$ are $\cF_n$-measurable, $\E g_{j,n}(\beta)=0$, and applying the Rosenthal inequality to the conditional distributions, we obtain
$$
\E \Big[|W_{n+1}(\beta) - W_n(\beta)|^p \Big|\cF_n\Big]
= \E \left[\left| \sum_{j=1}^{N_n} \frac{\eee^{\beta z_{j,n}}}{m(\beta)^{n}} g_{j,n}(\beta)\right|^p \Big| \cF_n\right]
\leq K_p (A_n(\beta) +B_n(\beta)),
$$
where $A_n(\beta)$ and $B_n(\beta)$ are two terms (corresponding to the two sums on the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:rosenthal_ineq}) which will be estimated below. The term $A_n(\beta)$ is given by
$$
A_n(\beta) = \sum_{j=1}^{N_n} \frac{\eee^{p (\Re \beta) z_{j,n} }}{|m(\beta)|^{pn}} \E |g_{1,n}(\beta)|^p
\leq
C \left(\frac{m(p\Re \beta)}{|m(\beta)|^{p}}\right)^n W_n(p\Re \beta).
$$
where we used~\eqref{eq:biggins_martingale_def} and~\eqref{eq:g_1_n_beta_moment}. The term $B_n(\beta)$ is given by
$$
B_n(\beta)
=
\left(\sum_{j=1}^{N_n} \frac{\eee^{(2 \Re \beta) z_{j,n} }}{|m(\beta)|^{2n}} \E |g_{1,n}(\beta)|^2\right)^{p/2}
\leq
C \left(\frac{m(2\Re \beta)^{1/2}}{|m(\beta)|}\right)^{pn} |W_n(2\Re \beta)|^{p/2},
$$
where we again used~\eqref{eq:biggins_martingale_def} and the estimate $\E |g_{1,n}(\beta)|^2 <C$ following from~\eqref{eq:g_1_n_beta_moment}. We can choose $\eps_0>0$ so small that for all $|\beta|<\eps_0$,
$$
\frac{m(p\Re \beta)}{|m(\beta)|^{p}} <k <1,
\quad
\frac{m(2\Re \beta)^{1/2}}{|m(\beta)|} <k<1.
$$
Indeed, as $\beta\to 0$, the terms on the left-hand side converge to $m^{1-p}$ and $m^{-p/2}$ which are both smaller than $1$ by the supercriticality assumption $m>1$.
Now, we can estimate the expectation of $A_n(\beta)$ and $B_n(\beta)$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
\E [A_n(\beta)] &\leq C k^n \E W_n(p\Re \beta) =Ck^n,\\
\E [B_n(\beta)] &\leq C k^{pn} \E |W_n(2\Re \beta)|^{p/2}
\leq
Ck^{pn},
\end{align*}
where in the last step we assumed that $p\in (2,4]$ and used the Biggins~\cite{biggins_uniform} estimate $\E |W_n(2\Re \beta)|^{p/2}<C$ valid for sufficiently small $\eps_0>0$ and all $|\beta| \leq \eps_0$. We obtain that for all $n\in\N$,
$$
\E \Big[|W_{n+1}(\beta) - W_n(\beta)|^p \Big] \leq C k^{pn},
$$
which implies the required bound $\E |W_n(\beta)|^p \leq C$ for $p\in (2,4]$.
Now, it is easy to drop the assumption on $p\leq 4$ inductively: If the statement was established for $p\in (2^{k-1}, 2^{k}]$, then one can repeat the above argument to obtain it for $p\in (2^{k}, 2^{k+1}]$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
It is straightforward to state a continuous-time analogue of Proposition~\ref{prop:Biggins_Martingale_Lp_bounded}, just replace $n\in\N$ by $t\geq 0$. The continuous-time case can be handled by considering a discrete skeleton of the process in the same way as in~\cite{biggins_uniform}.
\end{remark}
\section{Proof of the Functional Central Limit Theorem}\label{sec:proof_FCLT}
The aim of this section is to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:mainlim}. The main idea is a decomposition of $W_{\infty}(\beta) - W_{T_n}(\beta)$ stated in~\eqref{eq:basic_decomposition}, below. Similar decompositions appeared in the proof of the CLT for Galton--Watson processes and in the work of~\citet{roesler_topchii_vatutin1}.
\subsection{The basic decomposition}
Let $l\in \N_0$ be fixed. By the Markov property, the behavior of any particle after time $T_n$ depends only on the position of this particle at time $T_n$ but otherwise not on the behavior of the BRW before time $T_n$. In particular, for all $l\in\N$,
$$
m(\beta)^{T_n} W_{T_n+l}(\beta) = \sum_{j=1}^{N_{n}'} \eee^{\beta z_{j, T_n}} W_{j,T_n}^{(l)}(\beta),
$$
where $N_n':=N_{T_n}$ denotes the number of particles at time $T_n$, and $W_{j,T_n}^{(l)}(\beta)$, $j=1,\ldots,N_n'$, are i.i.d.\ random analytic functions (independent of the $\sigma$-algebra $\cF_{T_n}$) with the same distribution as $W_l(\beta)$. Note that these random analytic functions are defined on the same probability space as the BRW. Letting $l\to\infty$ while keeping $n$ fixed, we obtain
$$
m(\beta)^{T_n} W_{\infty} (\beta) = \sum_{j=1}^{N_{n}'} \eee^{\beta z_{j, T_n}} W_{j, T_n}(\beta),
$$
where $W_{j,T_n}$ is the a.s.\ limit of $W_{j,T_n}^{(l)}$ as $l\to\infty$; see~\eqref{eq:biggins_martingale_converges}. Subtracting from both sides $m(\beta)^{T_n} W_{T_n}(\beta)$, we obtain the \textit{basic decomposition}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:basic_decomposition}
m(\beta)^{T_n} (W_{\infty} (\beta)- W_{T_n} (\beta)) = \sum_{j=1}^{N_{n}'} \eee^{\beta z_{j, T_n}} (W_{j, T_n}(\beta)-1).
\end{equation}
In the rest of the proof we exploit the fact that the summands on the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:basic_decomposition} are conditionally independent given the $\sigma$-algebra $\cF_{T_n}$. Essentially, we will prove that conditionally on $\cF_{T_n}$ it is possible to apply the Lyapunov CLT to these summands.
\begin{remark}\label{rem:why_variance_const}
At this point we can explain why the variance of the limiting normal distribution is random in the CLT for Galton--Watson processes~\eqref{eq:heyde_clt} and constant in Neininger's CLT~\eqref{eq:QS2}. In~\eqref{eq:heyde_clt} we observe a Galton--Watson process at the fixed time $T_n=n$, so that the number of summands in~\eqref{eq:basic_decomposition} is random, and this randomness persists in the large $n$ limit. In Neininger's CLT~\eqref{eq:QS2}, we consider a binary search tree with $n$ nodes meaning that the time $T_n$ is such that $N_n'=n$. So, the number of summands in~\eqref{eq:basic_decomposition} is deterministic and there is no reason for the limiting variance to be random.
\end{remark}
\subsection{The conditional distribution}
Recalling the formula for $D_{T_n}(u)$, see~\eqref{eq:D_n_u_def2}, we obtain the representation
\begin{equation}
D_{T_n}(u) = \sum_{j=1}^{N_{n}'} a_{j,n}(u) \left(W_{j, T_n}\left(\frac u {\sqrt {T_n}}\right)-1\right)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:a_j_n_def}
a_{j,n}(u) = m^{\frac 12 T_n} m\left(\frac u{\sqrt {T_n}}\right)^{-T_n}\eee^{\frac{u}{\sqrt {T_n}} z_{j, T_n}}.
\end{equation}
We regard the random analytic function $D_{T_n}$ as a random element with values in the Banach algebra $\bA_R$. Note that the random analytic functions $a_{j,n}$ and the random variables $T_n$, $N_n'$ (``the past'') are $\cF_{T_n}$-measurable, while the random analytic functions $W_{j, T_n}$ (``the future'') are independent of $\cF_{T_n}$ by the Markov property. All these random objects are defined on the same probability space, say $(\Omega, \cF, \P)$, as the branching random walk. We will write $a_{j,n}(u;\omega)$, $T_n(\omega)$, $N_n'(\omega)$ if we want to stress the dependence of these random elements on $\omega\in\Omega$.
We are interested in the conditional distribution $\cL(D_{T_n}|\cF_{T_n})$ of $D_{T_n}$ given the $\sigma$-algebra $\cF_{T_n}$. To describe it, it will be convenient to ``decouple'' the ``future'' from the ``past'' by introducing independent random analytic functions $w_{j,n}(\cdot)$, $j\in\N$, which have the same law as $W_{j, T_n}(\cdot)-1$ (equivalently: the same law as $W_{\infty}(\cdot)-1$), but which are defined on a different probability space, say $(\Omega_*, \cF_*, \P_*)$. With this notation, the conditional law $\cL(D_{T_n}|\cF_{T_n})$ is given by the kernel
\begin{equation}
Q_n:\Omega\to \cM_1(\bA_R),\quad \omega \mapsto \cL_*(S_n(u; \omega)), \quad \omega\in\Omega,
\end{equation}
where $\cL_*$ denotes the law w.r.t.\ the probability measure $\P_*$, and $S_n(u;\omega)$ is a ``decoupled'' version of $D_{T_n}$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:S_n_u_omega}
S_n(u;\omega):=\sum_{j=1}^{N_{n}'(\omega)} a_{j,n}(u;\omega)\, w_{j,n}\left(\frac u{\sqrt{T_n(\omega)}}\right),
\quad u\in \bD_R.
\end{equation}
Keeping $\omega\in \Omega$ fixed, we regard $S_n(u;\omega)$ as a random element, defined on the probability space $(\Omega_*,\cF_*, \P_*)$ and taking values in $\bA_R$. For any fixed $\omega\in\Omega$, decomposition~\eqref{eq:S_n_u_omega} provides a representation of $S_n(u;\omega)$ as a sum of independent (but not identically distributed) random elements defined on $(\Omega_*, \cF_*,\P_*)$.
Our aim is to show that for $\P$-a.a.\ $\omega\in \Omega_0$, $S_n(u;\omega)$ satisfies a central limit theorem in the sense that weakly on $\bA_R$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq_S_n_to_S_infty}
S_n(u; \omega) \toweak S_{\infty}(u;\omega),
\end{equation}
where the limit is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
S_{\infty}(u;\omega) = \sigma\, \sqrt{N_\infty(\omega)}\, \xi\bigl(\tau u\bigr).
\end{equation}
Here, $\xi$ is as in Section~\ref{subsec:GAF}.
Let $\Omega_0\subset \Omega$ be the set of all $\omega\in\Omega$ for which the conditions
\begin{align}
&\lim_{n\to\infty} T_n(\omega) =+\infty, \label{eq:lim_T_n_infty1}\\
&\lim_{n\to \infty} \sup_{|\beta|<\delta_0} |W_{\infty}(\beta) - W_{T_n}(\beta)|=0\label{eq:biggins_martingale_converges1}
\end{align}
are satisfied, cf.\ \eqref{eq:biggins_martingale_converges} and~\eqref{eq:lim_T_n_infty}.
Clearly, $\P[\Omega_0]=1$. For the rest of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:mainlim}
\begin{center}
\textit{we keep $\omega\in\Omega_0$ fixed.}
\end{center}
The probability space $(\Omega_*,\cF_*,\P_*)$ is the only remaining source of randomness.
The proof of~\eqref{eq_S_n_to_S_infty} will be divided into two parts: convergence of finite-dimensional distributions (Section~\ref{subsec:fdd_conv}) and tightness (Section~\ref{subsec:tightness}).
\subsection{Convergence of finite-dimensional distributions}\label{subsec:fdd_conv}
Fix some $u_1,\ldots,u_d\in \C$. Our aim is to prove that
$$
(S_n(u_1; \omega),\ldots, S_n(u_d; \omega)) \tofd (S_{\infty}(u_1;\omega),\ldots, S_{\infty}(u_d;\omega)).
$$
This is done by verifying the conditions of the Lyapunov central limit theorem for the decomposition~\eqref{eq:S_n_u_omega}. We can treat $a_{j,n}(u;\omega)$, $N_n'(\omega)$, $T_n(\omega)$ as deterministic, while $w_{j,n}$ are considered as $\bA_R$-valued random elements defined on the probability space $(\Omega_*,\cF_*,\P_*)$.
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent
\textit{Step 1: Convergence of covariances.} Take some $u,v\in\C$. We show that
\begin{align}
&\lim_{n\to\infty} \E_*[S_n(u;\omega) S_n(v;\omega)] = \sigma^2\, N_{\infty}(\omega)\, \eee^{\tau^2 uv},\label{eq:conv_cov_statement_1}\\
&\lim_{n\to\infty} \E_*[S_n(u;\omega) \overline{S_n(v;\omega)}] = \sigma^2\, N_{\infty}(\omega)\, \eee^{\tau^2 u\bar {v}}. \label{eq:conv_cov_statement_2}
\end{align}
Here, $\E_*$ denotes the expectation operator w.r.t.\ the probability measure $\P_*$. We prove only~\eqref{eq:conv_cov_statement_1} since the proof of~\eqref{eq:conv_cov_statement_2} is analogous. Since $a_{j,n}(u)$ and $a_{j,n}(v)$ are deterministic, we have
$$
\E_*[S_n(u) S_n(v)] = \left(\sum_{j=1}^{N_n'} a_{j,n}(u) a_{j,n}(v)\right) \E_*\left[w_{j,n}\left(\frac{u}{\sqrt{T_n}}\right)w_{j,n}\left(\frac{u}{\sqrt{T_n}}\right)\right]
$$
The proof of~\eqref{eq:conv_cov_statement_1} will be accomplished after we have shown that
\begin{align}
&\lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{j=1}^{N_n'} a_{j,n}(u) a_{j,n}(v) = N_{\infty}\, \eee^{\tau^2
uv},\label{eq:cov_conv_1}\\
&\lim_{n\to\infty} \E_*\left[w_{1,n}\left(\frac{u}{\sqrt{T_n}}\right)w_{1,n}\left(\frac{v}{\sqrt{T_n}}\right)\right] = \sigma^2. \label{eq:cov_conv_2}
\end{align}
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent
\textit{Proof of~\eqref{eq:cov_conv_1}.}
Using first the definition of $a_{j,n}$, see~\eqref{eq:a_j_n_def}, and then the uniformity in~\eqref{eq:biggins_martingale_converges}, we obtain that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j=1}^{N_n'} a_{j,n}(u) a_{j,n}(v)
&=
\eee^{T_n\left(\varphi(0) - \varphi\left(\frac u{\sqrt{T_n}}\right) - \varphi\left(\frac v{\sqrt{T_n}}\right)\right)}
\sum_{j=1}^{N_n'} \eee^{\frac{u+v}{\sqrt n} z_{j,T_n}}\\
&\sim
N_{\infty}\eee^{T_n\left(\varphi(0) - \varphi\left(\frac u{\sqrt{T_n}}\right) - \left(\frac v{\sqrt{T_n}}\right) + \varphi\left(\frac{u+v}{\sqrt{T_n}}\right)\right)}.
\end{align*}
Expanding $\varphi$ into a Taylor series at $0$, we obtain~\eqref{eq:cov_conv_1}.
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent
\textit{Proof of~\eqref{eq:cov_conv_2}.}
Recall that $\lim_{n\to\infty} T_n = +\infty$. Since $w_{1,n}$ has the same law as $W_{\infty}-1$ and as such is continuous at $0$, we have, $\P_*$-a.e.,\
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\to\infty} w_{1,n}\left(\frac{u}{\sqrt {T_n}}\right) w_{1,n}\left(\frac v{\sqrt{T_n}}\right) = w_{1,n}^2(0)
\end{equation}
We have to prove the uniform integrability in order to be able to conclude the convergence of expectations. By Proposition~\ref{prop:Biggins_Martingale_Lp_bounded},
\begin{equation}\label{eq:w_j_n_bounded_L_p}
\E\left|w_{1,n}\left(\frac{u}{\sqrt {T_n}}\right)\right|^{2+\delta} < C,
\quad
\E\left|w_{1,n}\left(\frac{v}{\sqrt {T_n}}\right)\right|^{2+\delta} < C,
\end{equation}
where $C=C(\omega)$ may depend on $\omega$.
By the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality, the sequence $w_{1,n}(u/\sqrt{T_n}) w_{1,n}(v/\sqrt{T_n})$ is bounded in $L^{1+\frac \delta 2}(\Omega_*,\cF_*,\P_*)$, which implies that it is uniformly integrable.
It follows from~\eqref{eq:cov_conv_2} that
$$
\lim_{n\to\infty} \E_* \left[w_{1,n}\left(\frac{u}{\sqrt {T_n}}\right) w_{1,n}\left(\frac v{\sqrt{T_n}}\right)\right] = \E_* [w_{1,n}^2(0)] = \Var W_{\infty}(0) = \sigma^2,
$$
where in the last step we used that under $\P_*$ the random variable $w_{1,n}(0)$ has the same distribution as the random variable $W_{\infty}(0)-1=N_{\infty}-1$ under $\P$.
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent
\textit{Step 2: Lyapunov condition.} We verify that for every $u\in \C$, the Lyapunov condition $\lim_{n\to\infty} R_n(u)=0$ holds, where
$$
R_n(u)
= \sum_{j=1}^{N_n'} \E_*\left|a_{j,n}(u) w_{j,n}\left(\frac{u}{\sqrt{T_n}}\right)\right|^{2+\delta}.
$$
Using~\eqref{eq:w_j_n_bounded_L_p} and recalling the definition of $a_{j,n}$, see~\eqref{eq:a_j_n_def}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
R_n(u)
\leq
C \sum_{j=1}^{N_n'} \left|a_{j,n}(u)\right|^{2+\delta}
=
C \eee^{T_n\left(\frac{2+\delta}{2} \varphi(0) - (2+\delta) \varphi\left(\frac{\Re u}{\sqrt{T_n}}\right)\right)} \sum_{j=1}^{N_n'} \eee^{(2+\delta)(\Re u)\frac{z_{j,T_n}}{\sqrt{T_n}}}.
\end{align*}
Using~\eqref{eq:biggins_martingale_converges1} we obtain that uniformly in $u\in \bD_R$,
\begin{align*}
R_n(u)
\leq
C N_{\infty} \eee^{T_n\left(\frac{2+\delta}{2} \varphi(0) - (2+\delta) \varphi\left(\frac{\Re u}{\sqrt{T_n}}\right) + \varphi\left(\frac{(2+\delta)\Re u}{\sqrt{T_n}}\right)\right)}.
\end{align*}
Expanding $\varphi$ into a Taylor series at $0$, we obtain the estimate
$$
R_n(u) \leq C N_{\infty} \eee^{- \left(\frac {\delta}{2} + o(1) \right)T_n}.
$$
This completes the verification of the Lyapunov condition.
\subsection{Tightness}\label{subsec:tightness}
We prove that for every $\omega\in\Omega_0$, the sequence of random analytic functions $S_n(u;\omega)$, $n\in\N$, is tight on $\bA_R$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:S_n_variance_estimate}
Fix $R>0$. There exist random variables $M:\Omega\to\R$ and $N:\Omega\to \N$ such that for all $\omega\in\Omega_0$, $n>N(\omega)$, $u\in \bD_{R}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tightness_shirai}
\E_* |S_n(u;\omega)|^2 \leq M(\omega).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
The required tightness can be now established as follows. A result of~\citet{shirai} (see Lemma~2.6 in~\cite{shirai} and the remark thereafter) states that if $f_1,f_2,\ldots$ are random analytic functions defined on the disk $\bD_{2R}$ such that for some $q>0$, $C>0$ and all $n\in \N$, $u\in\bD_{2R}$, we have $\E |f_n(u)|^q<C$, then the sequence $f_n$ is tight on the space of analytic functions on the smaller disk $\overline \bD_{R}$. Since Lemma~\ref{lem:S_n_variance_estimate} holds with $R$ replaced by $2R$, the result of Shirai implies that for every $\omega\in \Omega_0$, the sequence $S_n(u;\omega)$, $n\in\N$, is tight on the space of analytic functions on the disc $\overline \bD_{R}$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:S_n_variance_estimate}]
For every $\omega\in\Omega_0$ we have $\lim_{n\to\infty} T_n(\omega)=+\infty$ and hence, we can choose a large enough $N(\omega)$ such that for all $n>N(\omega)$ the argument of the function $w_{j,n}$ in the definition of $S_n(u;\omega)$, see~\eqref{eq:S_n_u_omega}, is small enough so that $S_{n}(u;\omega)$ is well-defined for all $u\in \bD_R$.
Fix some $\omega\in \Omega_0$ and let in the sequel $n>N(\omega)$. Note that $\E_* S_n(u;\omega)=0$. Using the additivity of the variance and~\eqref{eq:w_j_n_bounded_L_p} we obtain that for some $C_1=C_1(\omega)$ and all $n>N(\omega)$,
$$
\E_* |S_n(u)|^2
=
\sum_{j=1}^{N_n'} |a_{j,n}(u)|^2 \, \E_* \left|w_{j,n}\left(\frac{u}{\sqrt{T_n}}\right)\right|^2
\leq
C_1 \sum_{j=1}^{N_n'} |a_{j,n}(u)|^2.
$$
Recalling the definition of $a_{j,n}$, see~\eqref{eq:a_j_n_def}, and using~\eqref{eq:biggins_martingale_converges1}, we obtain that
\begin{align*}
\E_* |S_n(u)|^2
&\leq C_1 \eee^{T_n\left(\varphi(0)-2\Re \varphi\left(\frac{u}{\sqrt{T_n}}\right)\right)} \sum_{j=1}^{N_n'} \eee^{\frac{2(\Re u) z_{j,T_n}}{\sqrt{T_n}}}\\
& = C_1 \eee^{ T_n \left(\varphi(0)-2\Re \varphi\left(\frac{u}{\sqrt{T_n}}\right)+ \varphi\left(\frac{2\Re u}{\sqrt{T_n}}\right) \right)} W_{T_n}\left(\frac{2\Re u}{\sqrt{T_n}}\right).
\end{align*}
Expanding $\varphi$ into a Taylor series at $0$, we see that the argument of the exponential function can be estimated by $C_2=C_2(\omega)$. Also, for all $\omega\in\Omega_0$,
$$
\lim_{n\to\infty} W_{T_n}\left(\frac{2\Re u}{\sqrt{T_n}};\omega\right) = W_{\infty}(0;\omega),
$$
thus proving~\eqref{eq:tightness_shirai}.
\end{proof}
\section{Proofs of the random tree results}\label{sec:proof_random_tree}
This section contains depoissonization arguments justifying the passage from BRW to random trees.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{prop:neininger_BRW_LLN}}\label{subsec:prop:neininger_BRW_LLN_proof}
Recall that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:L_T_n_recall}
L_{T_n} = \frac{S_{T_n} - dn T_n }{\eee^{\lambda T_n}},
\quad
\tilde L_{T_n} = \frac{S_{T_n}-\frac{d}{\lambda}n\log n} {n},
\quad
\tilde L_{\infty} = \frac{L_{\infty}}{N_{\infty}} - \frac{d}{\lambda} \log N_{\infty}.
\end{equation}
We are going to show that on the product probability space $(\overline \Omega, \overline \cF, \overline \P)$ it holds that $\tilde L_{T_n}\to \tilde L_{\infty}$ a.s.\ and in $L^p$ for all $p>0$.
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent
\textit{Step 1: Proof of the a.s.\ convergence.} Let us show that $\tilde L_{T_n}\to \tilde L_{\infty}$ a.s. By~\eqref{eq:L_T_n_recall},
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tech2}
\tilde L_{T_n} = L_{T_n} \frac{\eee^{\lambda T_n}}{n} + \frac d{\lambda}\left(\lambda T_n -\log n\right).
\end{equation}
By Proposition~\ref{prop:L_n_conv_L_infty_stop_times} (in the continuous-time version) we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:aux_L_T_n}
L_{T_n}\toas L_{\infty}.
\end{equation}
The a.s.\ convergence of the martingale $\frac{N_t}{\eee^{\lambda t}}$ to $N_{\infty}$ as $t\to+\infty$ implies, with $t=T_n$, that
\begin{equation}
\frac{n}{\eee^{\lambda T_n}} \toas N_{\infty},
\quad
\lambda T_n = \log n - \log N_{\infty} + o(1)
\quad \text{ a.s.} \label{eq:aux_as0}
\end{equation}
Inserting~\eqref{eq:aux_L_T_n} and~\eqref{eq:aux_as0} into~\eqref{eq:tech2} yields that $\tilde L_{T_n}\to \tilde L_{\infty}$ a.s.
Since $\tilde L_{T_n}$ depends only on $\omega\in\Omega$ (and not on $\omega'\in\Omega'$), the same is true for the limit random variable $\tilde L_\infty$. Hence, we can regard $\tilde L_{T_n}$ and $\tilde L_\infty$ as random variables on the probability space $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$, and the convergence $\tilde L_{T_n}\to \tilde L_\infty$ holds on this probability space as well.
\vspace*{2mm}
In the next two steps we prove that $\tilde L_{T_n}\to \tilde L_{\infty}$ in $L^p(\overline\Omega,\overline \cF,\overline\P)$ for every $p>0$. In fact, by the Vitali convergence theorem, it suffices to prove that the sequence $\tilde L_{T_n}$ is bounded in $L^p$ for every $p>0$.
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent
\textit{Step 2: Proof that $L_{T_n}^*$ is bounded in $L^p$.}
Consider first
$$
L_{T_n}^*:=\frac{S_{T_n} - \frac{d}{\lambda} n\log n}{\eee^{\lambda T_n}}
=
L_{T_n} + \frac{d}{\lambda} \frac{n}{\eee^{\lambda T_n}} (\lambda T_n - \log n).
$$
By Proposition~\ref{prop:L_n_conv_L_infty_stop_times} we know that $L_{T_n}$ is bounded in $L^p$. By the Minkowski and H\"older inequalities it suffices to show that for some $C_p>0$ depending only on $p>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:moments_T_n}
\E \left(\frac{n}{\eee^{\lambda T_n}}\right)^p <C_p,\qquad
\E |\lambda T_n - \log n|^p <C_p.
\end{equation}
Recall that $T_n$ is the time at which the $n$-th particle is born in a Yule process with intensity $\lambda$. This means that
$$
E_k := \lambda k (T_{k+1}-T_{k}), \quad k\in\N,
$$
are i.i.d.\ exponential random variables with parameter $1$.
We have the representation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rep_T_n}
\lambda T_n = \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \frac{E_k}{k}.
\end{equation}
It follows that for every $r>-1$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:moments_T_n_1}
\E \left(\frac{n}{\eee^{\lambda T_n}}\right)^r = n^r\prod_{k=1}^{n-1} \frac{1}{1+ \frac r k} \ton \Gamma(r+1).
\end{equation}
This implies the first estimate in~\eqref{eq:moments_T_n}. Also, for any $0<\eps<1$ we have
$$
\E |\lambda T_n - \log n|^p \leq C \E \left(\frac{n}{\eee^{\lambda T_n}}\right)^{\eps} + C\E \left(\frac{n}{\eee^{\lambda T_n}}\right)^{-\eps} < C_p.
$$
This proves the second estimate in~\eqref{eq:moments_T_n}.
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent
\textit{Step 3: Proof that $\tilde L_{T_n}$ is bounded in $L^p$.}
We proved that the sequence $L^*_{T_n}$ is bounded in $L^p$, but we need a similar statement for the sequence $\tilde L_{T_n}$. Note that the random variables $S_{T_n}$ and $T_n$ are independent. We have, by Step~2,
$$
C_p > \E |L_{T_n}^*|^p = \E \left|\tilde L_{T_n} \frac{n}{\eee^{\lambda T_n}}\right|^p =
\E |\tilde L_{T_n}|^p \, \E \left(\frac{n}{\eee^{\lambda T_n}}\right)^p > c_p \E |\tilde L_{T_n}|^p,
$$
where $c_p>0$ and the last inequality is by~\eqref{eq:moments_T_n_1}. Hence, the sequence $\E |\tilde L_{T_n}|^p$ is bounded.
\hfill $\Box$
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{prop:neininger_BRW_CLT}}\label{subsec:prop:neininger_BRW_proof}
We have to show that on the probability space $(\Omega,\cF,\P)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:neininger_BRW_main}
\cL \left\{\sqrt{\frac{\lambda n}{\log n}} \left( \tilde L_{\infty} - \frac{S_{T_n}-\frac{d}{\lambda}n\log n} {n}\right)\Bigg | \cG_{n}\right\}\toasw \left\{\omega \mapsto \Normal_{0, \sigma^2\tau^2}\right\},
\end{equation}
where we recall from~\eqref{eq:tilde_L_infty} that $\tilde L_{\infty} = \frac{L_{\infty}}{N_{\infty}} - \frac{d}{\lambda} \log N_{\infty}$. Instead, we will show that on the product space $(\overline \Omega,\overline \cF,\overline\P)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:neininger_BRW_main1}
\cL \left\{\sqrt{\frac{\lambda n}{\log n}} \left( \tilde L_{\infty} - \frac{S_{T_n}-\frac{d}{\lambda}n\log n} {n}\right)\Bigg | \cF_{T_n}\right\}\toasw \left\{\omega \mapsto \Normal_{0, \sigma^2\tau^2}\right\}.
\end{equation}
Assuming that we have established~\eqref{eq:neininger_BRW_main1}, let us prove~\eqref{eq:neininger_BRW_main}. Note that $\cF_{T_n} = \cF'_n \otimes \cG_n$, so that Proposition~\ref{prop:asw_total_expectation} allows us to replace $\cF_{T_n}$ in~\eqref{eq:neininger_BRW_main1} by the smaller $\sigma$-algebra $\{\emptyset,\Omega\}\otimes \cG_n$. But since the random variable on the left-hand side of~\eqref{eq:neininger_BRW_main1} (defined on the product space $\overline \Omega=\Omega'\times \Omega$) depends only on the coordinate $\omega\in\Omega$, we can discard the component $\Omega'$ and obtain~\eqref{eq:neininger_BRW_main}. In the sequel, we are occupied with the proof of~\eqref{eq:neininger_BRW_main1}.
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent
\textit{Step 1: Proof strategy.} Recalling that $T_n$ is the time at which the $n$-th particle is born and using~\eqref{eq:aux_as0}, we can write Theorem~\ref{theo:neininger_CLT_discrete} in the following form: On the product space $(\overline \Omega,\overline \cF,\overline\P)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:aux_neininger}
\cL\left\{
\sqrt{\frac{\eee^{\lambda T_n}}{T_n N_{\infty}}}
\left(L_{\infty}- \frac{S_{T_n} - d n T_n }{\eee^{\lambda T_n}} \right)\Bigg | \cF_{T_n}\right\}
\toasw
\left\{\omega \mapsto \Normal_{0, \sigma^2\tau^2 }\right\}.
\end{equation}
Inserting~\eqref{eq:aux_as0} into equation~\eqref{eq:aux_neininger} formally, we obtain the required relation~\eqref{eq:neininger_BRW_main1}. However, in order to obtain~\eqref{eq:neininger_BRW_main1} rigorously we need slightly more precise asymptotics than those given in~\eqref{eq:aux_as0}.
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent
\textit{Step 2: Precise asymptotics for $T_n$.}
We prove that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lil_chow_teicher_1}
\limsup_{n\to \infty} \frac{\left|N_{\infty}\eee^{\lambda T_n} - n\right|}{\sqrt{2n\log\log n}}
=
\limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac{\left|\lambda T_n - \log \frac{n}{N_{\infty}}\right|}{\sqrt{2 n^{-1}\log \log n}}
=
1
\quad
\text{a.s.}
\end{equation}
We need Kendall's theorem; see~\cite[Thm.~2 on p.~127]{athreya_ney_book}. It states that conditionally on $N_{\infty}=y>0$, the points $P_{n}:= y (\eee^{\lambda T_n}-1)$, $n\geq 2$, form a homogeneous Poisson point process on $(0,\infty)$. By the law of the iterated logarithm for the Poisson process, we have
$$
\limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac{|P_n-n|}{\sqrt{2n\log\log n}} = 1.
$$
After standard transformations, we obtain~\eqref{eq:lil_chow_teicher_1}. Alternatively, the second limit in~\eqref{eq:lil_chow_teicher_1} could be computed using Heyde's~\cite{heyde_LIL} law of the iterated logarithm applied to the Yule process $N_t$ evaluated at time $t=T_n$.
\vspace*{2mm}
\noindent
\textit{Step 3: Completing the proof.}
We can represent the random variable on the left-hand side of~\eqref{eq:neininger_BRW_main1} as a sum of three terms:
\begin{multline}\label{eq:aux_dec3}
\sqrt{\frac{\lambda n}{\log n}}\left(\tilde L_{\infty} - \frac{S_{T_n}-\frac{d}{\lambda}n\log n} {n}\right)
\\
=
\sqrt{\frac{\lambda T_n}{\log n}\, \frac{\eee^{\lambda T_n} N_{\infty}}{n}}\cdot \sqrt{\frac{\eee^{\lambda T_n}}{T_n N_{\infty}}} \left(L_{\infty}- \frac{S_{T_n}-dnT_n} {\eee^{\lambda T_n}} \right)
\\+
\sqrt{\frac{\lambda n}{\log n}}L_{\infty} \left(\frac{1}{N_{\infty}} - \frac{\eee^{\lambda T_n}}{n}\right)
+
\sqrt{\frac{\lambda n}{\log n}}\frac{d}{\lambda} \left(\log\frac{n}{N_{\infty}}-\lambda T_n\right)
\end{multline}
Denote the three summands on the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:aux_dec3} by $R_n^{(1)}, R_n^{(2)}, R_n^{(3)}$.
It follows from~\eqref{eq:lil_chow_teicher_1} and~\eqref{eq:aux_as0} that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:aux_dec3_terms_negligible}
\lim_{n\to\infty} R_n^{(2)} = \lim_{n\to\infty} R_n^{(3)} = 0 \quad \text{a.s.},
\quad
\lim_{n\to\infty} \sqrt{\frac{\lambda T_n}{\log n}\, \frac{\eee^{\lambda T_n} N_{\infty}}{n}}=1 \quad \text{a.s.}
\end{equation}
Applying to the decomposition on the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:aux_dec3} equations~\eqref{eq:aux_neininger} and~\eqref{eq:aux_dec3_terms_negligible} together with Proposition~\ref{prop:asw_properties}, we obtain the required equation~\eqref{eq:neininger_BRW_main1}.
\hfill $\Box$
\section*{Acknowledgment} Zakhar Kabluchko is grateful to Pascal Maillard for a discussion related to decomposition~\eqref{eq:basic_decomposition}. The authors are grateful to Henning Sulzbach and the unknown referee for pointing out a gap in the previous version of the paper and making a number of useful comments.
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
|
\section{Introduction and Motivation}
A sequence $\{\lambda_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$ is an \textnormal{interpolating sequence} for $H^\infty$, the space of bounded analytic functions, if for every $w\in\ell^\infty$ there is a function $f\in H^\infty$ such that $$f(z_j) = w_j, ~\mbox{for all}~ j\in\mathbb{N}.$$ Carleson's interpolation theorem says that $\{\lambda_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$ is an interpolating sequence for $H^\infty$ if and only if
\begin{equation}
\label{Interp_Cond}
\delta = \inf_{j}\delta_j:=\inf_j \left\vert B_j(\lambda_j)\right\vert=\inf_{j}\prod_{k \ne j} \left|\frac{\lambda_j - \lambda_k}{1 - \overline{\lambda}_j \lambda_k}\right| > 0,
\end{equation}
where
$$
B_j(z):=\prod_{k\neq j}\frac{-\overline{\lambda_k}}{\abs{\lambda_k}}\frac{z-\lambda_k}{1-\overline{\lambda}_kz
$$
denotes the Blaschke product vanishing on the set of points $\{\lambda_k:k\neq j\}$.
In this paper, we consider sequences that (eventually) satisfy a stronger condition than \eqref{Interp_Cond}. A sequence $\{\lambda_j\}\subset\mathbb{D}$ is \textit{thin} if
$$
\lim_{j\to\infty}\delta_j:=\lim_{j\to\infty}\prod_{k\neq j}\left\vert\frac{\lambda_j-\lambda_k}{1-\overline{\lambda}_k\lambda_j}\right\vert=1.
$$
Thin sequences are of interest not only because functions solving interpolation for thin interpolating sequences have good bounds on the norm, but also because they are interpolating sequences for a very small algebra: the algebra $QA = VMO \cap H^\infty$, where $VMO$ is the space of functions on the unit circle with vanishing mean oscillation \cite{W}.
Continuing work in \cite{CFT} and \cite{GPW}, we are interested in understanding these sequences in different settings. This will require two definitions that are motivated by the work of Shapiro and Shields, \cite{SS}, in which they gave the appropriate conditions for a sequence to be interpolating for the Hardy space $H^2$.
Considering more general Hilbert spaces will require the introduction of reproducing kernels: In a reproducing kernel Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ (see \cite[p. 17]{AM}) we let $K_{\lambda_n}$ denote the kernel corresponding to the point $\lambda_n$; that is, for each function in the Hilbert space we have that $f(\lambda_n)=\left\langle f, K_{\lambda_n}\right\rangle_{\mathcal{H}}$. If we have an $\ell^2$ sequence $a = \{a_n\}$, we define $$\|a\|_{N, \ell^2} = \left(\sum_{j \ge N} |a_j|^2\right)^{1/2}.$$ The concepts of interest are the following.
A sequence $\{\lambda_n\}\subset\Omega \subseteq \mathbb{C}^n$ is said to be {\it an eventual $1$-interpolating sequence for a reproducing kernel Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$}, denoted $EIS_{\mathcal{H}}$, if for every $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists $N$ such that for each $\{a_n\} \in \ell^2$ there exists $f_{N, a} \in \mathcal{H}$ with
$$f_{N, a}(\lambda_n) \norm{K_{\lambda_n}}_{\mathcal{H}}^{-1}=f_{N, a}(\lambda_n) K_{\lambda_n}(\lambda_n)^{-\frac{1}{2}} = a_n ~\mbox{for}~ n \ge N ~\mbox{and}~ \|f_{N, a}\|_{\mathcal{H}} \le (1 + \varepsilon) \|a\|_{N, \ell^2}.$$
A sequence $\{\lambda_n\}$ is said to be a {\it strong asymptotic interpolating sequence for $\mathcal{H}$}, denoted $AIS_{\mathcal{H}}$, if for all $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists $N$ such that for all sequences $\{a_n\} \in \ell^2$ there exists a function $G_{N, a} \in \mathcal{H}$ such that $\|G_{N, a}\|_\mathcal{H} \le \|a\|_{N,\ell^2}$ and
$$\|\{G_{N, a}(\lambda_n) K_{\lambda_n}(\lambda_n)^{-\frac{1}{2}} - a_n\}\|_{N, \ell^2} < \varepsilon \|a\|_{N, \ell^2}.$$
Given a (nonconstant) inner function $\Theta$, we are interested in these sequences in model spaces; we define the model space for $\Theta$ an inner function by $K_\Theta = H^2 \ominus \Theta H^2$. The reproducing kernel in $K_\Theta$ for $\lambda_0 \in \mathbb{D}$ is
$$
K_{\lambda_0}^\Theta(z) = \frac{1 - \overline{\Theta(\lambda_0)}{\Theta(z)}}{1 - \overline{\lambda_0}z}
$$
and the normalized reproducing kernel is
$$
k_{\lambda_0}^\Theta(z) = \sqrt{\frac{1 - |\lambda_0|^2}{1 - |\Theta(\lambda_0)|^2}} K_{\lambda_0}^\Theta(z).
$$
Finally, note that $$K_{\lambda_0} = K_{\lambda_0}^\Theta + \Theta \overline{\Theta(\lambda_0)}K_{\lambda_0}.$$
We let $P_\Theta$ denote the orthogonal projection of $H^2$ onto $K_\Theta$.
We consider thin sequences in these settings as well as in Douglas algebras: Letting $L^\infty$ denote the algebra of essentially bounded measurable functions on the unit circle, a Douglas algebra is a closed subalgebra of $L^\infty$ containing $H^\infty$. It is a consequence of work of Chang and Marshall that a Douglas algebra $\mathcal{B}$ is equal to the closed algebra generated by $H^\infty$ and the conjugates of the interpolating Blaschke products invertible in $\mathcal{B}$, \cites{C, M}.
In this paper, we continue work started in \cite{GM} and \cite{GPW} investigating the relationship between thin sequences, $EIS_{\mathcal{H}}$ and $AIS_{\mathcal{H}}$ where $\mathcal{H}$ is a model space or the Hardy space $H^2$. In Section~\ref{HSV}, we consider the notion of eventually interpolating and asymptotic interpolating sequences in the model space setting. We show that in reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces of analytic functions on domains in $\mathbb{C}^n$, these two are the same. Given results in \cite{GPW}, this is not surprising and the proofs are similar to those in the $H^\infty$ setting. We then turn to our main result of that section. If we have a Blaschke sequence $\{\lambda_n\}$ in $\mathbb{D}$ and assume that our inner function $\Theta$ satisfies $|\Theta(\lambda_n)| \to 0$, then a sequence $\{\lambda_n\}$ is an $EIS_{K_\Theta}$ sequence if and only if it is an $EIS_{H^2}$ sequence (and therefore $AIS_{K_\Theta}$ sequence if and only if it is an $AIS_{H^2}$). In Section~\ref{CMMS} we rephrase these properties in terms of the Carleson embedding constants on the model spaces.
Finally, in Section~\ref{asip_algebra}, we recall the definition of Douglas algebras and show that appropriate definitions and conditions are quite different in that setting.
\section{Preliminaries}
Recall that a sequence $\{x_n\}$ in $\mathcal{H}$
is {\it complete} if $~\mbox{Span}\{x_n: n \ge 1\} = \mathcal{H}$, and
{\it asymptotically orthonormal} ($AOS$) if there exists $N_0$ such that for all $N \ge N_0$ there are positive constants $c_N$ and $C_N$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{thininequality}
c_N \sum_{n \ge N} |a_n|^2 \le \left\|\sum_{n \ge N} a_n x_n\right\|^2_{\mathcal{H}} \le C_N \sum_{n \ge N} |a_n|^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where $c_N \to 1$ and $ C_N \to 1$ as $N \to \infty$. If we can take $N_0 = 1$, the sequence is said to be an $AOB$; this is equivalent to being $AOS$ and a Riesz sequence. Finally, the Gram matrix corresponding to $\{x_j\}$ is the matrix $G = \left(\langle x_n, x_m \rangle\right)_{n, m \ge 1}$.
\bigskip
It is well known that if $\{\lambda_n\}$ is a Blaschke sequence with simple zeros and corresponding Blaschke product $B$, then $\{k_{\lambda_n}\}$, where $$k_{\lambda_n}(z)=\frac{(1-\left\vert \lambda_n\right\vert^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(1-\overline{\lambda_n}z)},$$ is a complete minimal system in $K_B$ and we also know that $\{\lambda_n\}$ is interpolating if and only if $\{k_{\lambda_n}\}$ is a Riesz basis. The following beautiful theorem provides the connection to thin sequences.
\begin{thm}[Volberg, \cite{V}*{Theorem 2}]
\label{Volberg}
The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item$\{\lambda_n\}$ is a thin interpolating sequence;
\item
The sequence $\{k_{\lambda_n}\}$ is a complete $AOB$ in $K_B$;
\item
There exist a separable Hilbert space $\mathcal{K}$, an orthonormal basis $\{e_n\}$ for $\mathcal{K}$ and $U, K: \mathcal{K} \to K_B$, $U$ unitary, $K$ compact, $U + K$ invertible, such that
$$(U + K)(e_n) = k_{\lambda_n} \text{ for all } n \in \mathbb{N}.$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
In \cite{F}*{Section 3} and \cite{CFT}*{Proposition 3.2}, the authors note that \cite{V}*{Theorem 3} implies the following.
\begin{prop}\label{propCFT} Let $\{x_n\}$ be a sequence in $\mathcal{H}$. The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\{x_n\}$ is an AOB;
\item There exist a separable Hilbert space $\mathcal{K}$, an orthonormal basis $\{e_n\}$ for $\mathcal{K}$ and $U, K: \mathcal{K} \to \mathcal{H}$, $U$ unitary, $K$ compact, $U + K$ left invertible, such that
$$(U + K)(e_n) = x_n;$$
\item The Gram matrix $G$ associated to $\{x_n\}$ defines a bounded invertible operator of the form $I + K$ with $K$ compact.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
We also have the following, which we will use later in this paper.
\begin{prop}[Proposition 5.1, \cite{CFT}]\label{prop5.1CFT}
If $\{\lambda_n\}$ is a sequence of distinct points in $\mathbb{D}$ and $\{k_{\lambda_n}^\Theta\}$ is an $AOS$, then $\{\lambda_n\}$ is a thin interpolating sequence. \end{prop}
\begin{thm}[Theorem 5.2, \cite{CFT}]\label{theorem5.2CFT}
Suppose $\sup_{n \ge 1} |\Theta(\lambda_n)| < 1$. If $\{\lambda_n\}$ is a thin interpolating sequence, then either
(i) $\{k_{\lambda_n}^\Theta\}_{n\ge1}$ is an $AOB$ or
(ii) there exists $p \ge 2$ such that $\{k_{\lambda_n}^\Theta\}_{n \ge p}$ is a complete $AOB$ in $K_\Theta$.
\end{thm}
\section{Hilbert Space Versions}
\label{HSV}
\subsection{Asymptotic and Eventual Interpolating Sequences}
\label{asip}
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a reproducing kernel Hilbert space of analytic functions over a domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{C}^n$ with reproducing kernel $K_\lambda$ at the point $\lambda \in \Omega$. We define two properties that a sequence $\{\lambda_n\}\subset \Omega$ can have.
\begin{defin}
A sequence $\{\lambda_n\}\subset\Omega$ is an \textnormal{eventual $1$-interpolating sequence for $\mathcal{H}$}, denoted $EIS_{\mathcal{H}}$, if for every $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists $N$ such that for each $\{a_n\} \in \ell^2$ there exists $f_{N, a} \in \mathcal{H}$ with
$$f_{N, a}(\lambda_n) \norm{K_{\lambda_n}}_{\mathcal{H}}^{-1}=f_{N, a}(\lambda_n) K_{\lambda_n}(\lambda_n)^{-\frac{1}{2}} = a_n ~\mbox{for}~ n \ge N ~\mbox{and}~ \|f_{N, a}\|_{\mathcal{H}} \le (1 + \varepsilon) \|a\|_{N, \ell^2}.$$
\end{defin}
\begin{defin} A sequence $\{\lambda_n\}\subset\Omega$ is a \textnormal{strong asymptotic interpolating sequence for $\mathcal{H}$}, denoted $AIS_{\mathcal{H}}$, if for all $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists $N$ such that for all sequences $\{a_n\} \in \ell^2$ there exists a function $G_{N, a} \in \mathcal{H}$ such that $\|G_{N, a}\|_\mathcal{H} \le \|a\|_{N,\ell^2}$ and
$$\|\{G_{N, a}(\lambda_n) K_{\lambda_n}(\lambda_n)^{-\frac{1}{2}} - a_n\}\|_{N, \ell^2} < \varepsilon \|a\|_{N, \ell^2}.$$ \end{defin}
We now wish to prove Theorem~\ref{EISiffASI} below. The proof, which is a modification of the proof of the open-mapping theorem, also yields a proof of the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{Banachspace}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be Banach spaces and let $T: X \to Y$ be a bounded operator and $\varepsilon > 0$. If
$$\sup_{\|y\| = 1} \inf_{\|x\| \le 1} \|Tx - y\| < \varepsilon < 1,$$ then for all $y \in Y$,
there exists $x \in X$ such that $\|x\| \le \frac{1}{1 - \varepsilon} \|y\|$ and $Tx = y$.
\end{prop}
Theorem~\ref{EISiffASI} follows from Proposition~\ref{Banachspace}, but doing so requires dealing with several technicalities that obfuscate the underlying ideas, and so we present a direct proof of our desired implication. When we turn to Banach algebras, the corresponding implication (in Theorem~\ref{main_algebra}) will be a direct consequence of Proposition~\ref{Banachspace}. We thank the referee for pointing out Proposition~\ref{Banachspace} to us.
\begin{thm}\label{EISiffASI}
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a reproducing kernel space of analytic functions over the domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{C}^n$ with reproducing kernel at the point $\lambda$ given by $K_\lambda$. Then $\{\lambda_n\}$ is an $EIS_{\mathcal{H}}$ sequence if and only if $\{\lambda_n\}$ is an $AIS_{\mathcal{H}}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
If a sequence is an $EIS_{\mathcal{H}}$, then it is trivially $AIS_{\mathcal{H}}$, for given $\varepsilon > 0$ we may take $G_{N, a} = \frac{f_{N, a}}{(1 + \varepsilon)}$.
For the other direction, suppose $\{\lambda_n\}$ is an $AIS_{\mathcal{H}}$ sequence. Let $\varepsilon > 0$, $N := N(\varepsilon)$, and $\{a_j\}:=\{a_{j}^{(0)}\}$ be any sequence. First choose $f_0 \in \mathcal{H}$ so that for $n \ge N$ we have
$$\|\{K_{\lambda_n}(\lambda_n)^{-\frac{1}{2}} f_0(\lambda_n) - a_{n}^{(0)}\}\|_{N, \ell^2} < \frac{\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon} \|a\|_{N, \ell^2}$$ and $$\|f_0\|_{\mathcal{H}} \le \|a\|_{N,\ell^2}.$$
Now let $a_{n}^{(1)} = a_{n}^{(0)} - K_{\lambda_n}(\lambda_n)^{-\frac{1}{2}} f_0(\lambda_n)$. Note that $\|a^{(1)}\|_{N, \ell^2} < \frac{\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon} \|a\|_{N, \ell^2}$. Since we have an $AIS_{\mathcal{H}}$ sequence, we may choose $f_1$ such that for $n \ge N$ we have
$$\|\{f_1(\lambda_n)K_{\lambda_n}(\lambda_n)^{-\frac{1}{2}} - a_{n}^{(1)}\}\|_{N, \ell^2} < \frac{\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon} \|a^{(1)}\|_{N, \ell^2} < \left(\frac{\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon}\right)^2\|a\|_{N, \ell^2},$$
and $$\|f_1\|_{\mathcal{H}} \le \|a^{(1)}\|_{N, \ell^2}<\left(\frac{\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon}\right)\|a\|_{N,\ell^2}.$$ In general, we let
$$a_{j}^{(k)} = -f_{k - 1}(\lambda_j)K_{\lambda_j}(\lambda_j)^{-\frac{1}{2}} + a_{j}^{(k-1)}$$ so that
$$\|a^{(k)}\|_{N, \ell^2} \le \frac{\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon} \|a^{(k - 1)}\|_{N, \ell^2} \le \left(\frac{\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon}\right)^2 \|a^{(k-2)}\|_{N, \ell^2} \le \cdots \le \left(\frac{\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon}\right)^k \|a\|_{N, \ell^2}$$ and
$$\|f_k\|_{\mathcal{H}} \le \|a^{(k)}\|_{N, \ell^2}<\left(\frac{\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon}\right)^k\|a\|_{N,\ell^2}.$$
Then consider $f(z) = \sum_{k = 0}^\infty f_k(z)$.
Since $f_k(\lambda_j) = \left(a_{j}^{(k)} - a_{j}^{(k+1)}\right)K_{\lambda_j}(\lambda_j)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and $a_{j}^{(k)} \to 0$ as $k \to \infty$, we have for each $j \ge N$, $$f(\lambda_j) = a_{j}^{(0)} K_{\lambda_j}(\lambda_j)^{\frac{1}{2}} = a_jK_{\lambda_j}(\lambda_j)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$ Further $\|f\|_{\mathcal{H}}\le \sum_{k = 0}^\infty \left(\frac{\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon}\right)^{k} \|a\|_{N, \ell^2} = \frac{1}{1 - \frac{\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon}} \|a\|_{N, \ell^2}=(1+\varepsilon)\|a\|_{N, \ell^2}$. This proves that $\{\lambda_n\}$ is an $EIS_{\mathcal{H}}$ sequence.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The Hardy and Model Spaces}
We let $\Theta$ denote a nonconstant inner function and apply Theorem~\ref{EISiffASI} to the reproducing kernel Hilbert space $K_{\Theta}$. We also include statements and results about Carleson measures. Given a non-negative measure $\mu$ on $\mathbb{D}$, let us denote the (possibly infinite) constant
$$
\mathcal{C}(\mu) = \sup_{f \in H^2, f \neq 0} \frac{\|f\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{D}, \mu)}}{\|f\|^2_2}
$$
as the Carleson embedding constant of $\mu$ on $H^2$ and
$$
\mathcal{R}(\mu) = \sup_{z\in\mathbb{D}} \frac{\|k_z\|_{L^2(\mathbb{D}, \mu)}}{\|k_z\|_2}=\sup_{z} \|k_z\|_{L^2(\mathbb{D}, \mu)}
$$
as the embedding constant of $\mu$ on $k_z$, the normalized reproducing kernel of $H^2$. It is well-known that $\mathcal{C}(\mu)\approx \mathcal{R}(\mu)$, \cites{MR2417425,nikolski}.
\begin{thm}\label{main} Let $\{\lambda_n\}$ be an interpolating sequence in $\mathbb{D}$ and let $\Theta$ be an inner function. Suppose that $\kappa:=\sup_{n} \left\vert \Theta(\lambda_n)\right| < 1$. The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\{\lambda_n\}$ is an $EIS_{H^2}$ sequence\label{eish2};
\item $\{\lambda_n\}$ is a thin interpolating sequence\label{thin1};
\item \label{aob} Either
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\{k_{\lambda_n}^\Theta\}_{n\ge1}$ is an $AOB$, or
\item there exists $p \ge 2$ such that $\{k_{\lambda_n}^\Theta\}_{n \ge p}$ is a complete $AOB$ in $K_\Theta$;
\end{enumerate}
\item $\{\lambda_n\}$ is an $AIS_{H^2}$ sequence\label{Aish2};
\item The measure $$\mu_N = \sum_{k \ge N} (1 - |\lambda_k|^2)\delta_{\lambda_k}$$ is a Carleson measure for $H^2$ with
Carleson embedding constant $\mathcal{C}(\mu_N)$ satisfying $\mathcal{C}(\mu_N) \to 1$ as $N \to \infty$\label{C1};
\item The measure $$\nu_N = \sum_{k \ge N}\frac{(1 - |\lambda_k|^2)}{\delta_k} \delta_{\lambda_k}$$ is a Carleson measure for $H^2$ with embedding constant $\mathcal{R}_{\nu_N}$
on reproducing kernels satisfying $\mathcal{R}_{\nu_N} \to 1$\label{C2}.
\bigskip
\noindent
Further, \eqref{eis} and \eqref{ais} are equivalent to each other and imply each of the statements above. If, in addition, $ \Theta(\lambda_n) \to0$, then \eqref{eish2} - \eqref{ais} are equivalent.
\bigskip
\item $\{\lambda_n\}$ is an $EIS_{K_\Theta}$ sequence\label{eis};
\item $\{\lambda_n\}$ is an $AIS_{K_\Theta}$ sequence\label{ais}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The equivalence between \eqref{eis} and \eqref{ais} is contained in Theorem \ref{EISiffASI}. Similarly, this applies to \eqref{eish2} and \eqref{Aish2}. In \cite{GPW}*{Theorem 4.5}, the authors prove that \eqref{thin1}, \eqref{C1} and \eqref{C2} are equivalent. The equivalence between \eqref{eish2}, \eqref{thin1}, and \eqref{Aish2} is contained in \cite{GPW}. That \eqref{thin1} implies \eqref{aob} is Theorem~\ref{theorem5.2CFT}. That \eqref{aob} implies \eqref{thin1} also follows from results in \cite{CFT}, for if a sequence is an $AOB$ for some $p \ge 2$ it is an $AOS$ for $p \ge 2$ and hence thin by Proposition~\ref{prop5.1CFT} for $p \ge 2$. This is, of course, the same as being thin interpolating. Thus, we have the equivalence of equations \eqref{eish2}, \eqref{thin1}, \eqref{aob}, \eqref{Aish2}, \eqref{C1}, and \eqref{C2}, as well as the equivalence of \eqref{eis} and \eqref{ais}. \\
Now we show that \eqref{eis} and \eqref{eish2} are equivalent under the hypothesis that $\Theta(\lambda_n)\to 0$.\\
\eqref{eis}$\Rightarrow$\eqref{eish2}. Suppose that $\{\lambda_n\}$ is an $EIS_{K_\Theta}$ sequence. We will prove that this implies it is an $EIS_{H^2}$ sequence, establishing \eqref{eish2}. \\
Let $\varepsilon>0$ be given. Choose $\varepsilon^\prime < \varepsilon$ and let $N_1 = N(\varepsilon^\prime)$ be chosen according to the definition of $\{\lambda_n\}$ being an $EIS_{K_\Theta}$ sequence. Recall that
$$\kappa_m = \sup_{n \ge m} |\Theta(\lambda_n)| \to 0,$$ so we may assume that we have
chosen $N_1$ so large that
$$\frac{1 + \varepsilon^\prime}{(1 - \kappa_{N_1}^2)^{1/2}} < 1 + \varepsilon.$$
Define $\{\tilde{a}_n\}$ to be $0$ if $n < N_1$ and $\tilde{a}_n=a_n \left(1-\abs{\Theta(\lambda_n)}^2\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ for $n \ge N_1$. Then $\{\tilde{a}_n\} \in \ell^2$.
Select $f_a\in K_\Theta\subset H^2$ so that
$$f_a(\lambda_n) \left(\frac{1-\abs{\Theta(\lambda_n)}^2}{1-\abs{\lambda_n}^2}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}} = \tilde{a}_n =
a_n \left(1-\abs{\Theta(\lambda_n)}^2\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \, \textrm{ if } n \ge N_1$$
and $$\|f_a\| \le (1 + \varepsilon^\prime) \|\tilde{a}\|_{N_1, \ell^2} \le \frac{(1 + \varepsilon^\prime)}{(1 - \kappa_{N_1}^2)^{1/2}}\|a\|_{N_1, \ell^2} < (1 + \varepsilon) \|a\|_{N_1, \ell^2}.$$
Since $f_a\in K_\Theta$, we have that $f_a\in H^2$, and canceling out the common factor yields that $f_a(\lambda_n)(1-\abs{\lambda_n}^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}=a_n$ for all $n\geq N_1$. Thus $\{\lambda_n\}$ is an $EIS_{H^2}$ sequence as claimed.\\
\eqref{eish2}$\Rightarrow$\eqref{eis}. Suppose that $\Theta(\lambda_n) \to 0$ and $\{\lambda_n\}$ is an $EIS_{H^2}$ sequence; equivalently, that $\{\lambda_n\}$ is thin. We want to show that the sequence $\{\lambda_n\}$ is an $EIS_{K_\Theta}$ sequence. First we present some observations. \\
First, looking at the definition, we see that we may assume that $\varepsilon > 0$ is small, for any choice of $N$ that works for small $\varepsilon$ also works for larger values.\\
Second, if $f\in H^2$ and we let $\tilde{f}=P_{K_\Theta}f$, then we have that $\norm{\tilde{f}}_2\leq \norm{f}_2$ since $P_{K_\Theta}$ is an orthogonal projection. Next, we have $P_{K_\Theta} = P_+ - \Theta P_+ \overline{\Theta}$, where $P_+$ is the orthogonal projection of $L^2$ onto $H^2$, so letting $T_{\overline{\Theta}}$ denote the Toeplitz operator with symbol $\overline{\Theta}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{Toeplitz}
\tilde{f}(z)=f(z)-\Theta(z)T_{\overline{\Theta}}(f)(z).
\end{equation}
In what follows, $\kappa_m := \sup_{n \ge m}|\Theta(\lambda_n)|$ and recall that we assume that $\kappa_m \to 0$. \\
Since $\{\lambda_n\}$ is an $EIS_{H^2}$ sequence, there exists $N_1$ such that for any $a\in\ell^2$ there exists a function $f_0\in H^2$ such that $$f_0(\lambda_n)=a_n\left(\frac{1 - |\Theta(\lambda_n)|^2}{1-\abs{\lambda_n}^2}\right)^\frac{1}{2}~\mbox{for all}~n\geq N_1$$ and $$\norm{f_0}_{2}\leq (1+\varepsilon)\norm{\{a_k (1 - |\Theta(\lambda_k)|^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\}}_{N_1,\ell^2} \le (1 + \varepsilon)\norm{a }_{N_1,\ell^2}.$$ Here we have applied the $EIS_{H^2}$ property to the sequence $\{a_k(1-\left\vert \Theta(\lambda_k)\right\vert^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\}\in\ell^2$. By \eqref{Toeplitz} we have that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tilde{f}_0(\lambda_k) & = & f_0(\lambda_k)-\Theta(\lambda_k) T_{\overline{\Theta}}(f_0)(\lambda_k)\\
& = & a_k(1 - |\Theta(\lambda_k)|^2)^\frac{1}{2}(1-\abs{\lambda_k}^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}-\Theta(\lambda_k) T_{\overline{\Theta}}(f_0)(\lambda_k)\quad\forall k\geq N_1
\end{eqnarray*}
and $\norm{\tilde{f}_0}_2\leq\norm{f_0}_2\leq (1+\varepsilon)\norm{a}_{N_1,\ell^2}$. Rearranging the above, for $k \ge N_1$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\abs{\tilde{f}_0(\lambda_k)(1 - |\Theta(\lambda_k)|^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-\abs{\lambda_k}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}-a_k} & = & \abs{\Theta(\lambda_k) T_{\overline{\Theta}}(f_0)(\lambda_k)(1 - |\Theta(\lambda_k)|^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-\abs{\lambda_k}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\\
& \leq & \kappa_{N_1}(1 - \kappa_{N_1}^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \norm{f_0}_2\\
&\leq& (1+\varepsilon) \kappa_{N_1}(1 - \kappa_{N_1}^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \norm{a}_{N_1,\ell^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We claim that $\{a^{(1)}_n\}=\{\tilde{f}_0(\lambda_n)(1 - |\Theta(\lambda_n)|^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-\abs{\lambda_n}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}} - a_n\}\in\ell^2$ and that there is a constant $N_2$ depending only on $\varepsilon$ and the Carleson measure given by the thin sequence $\{\lambda_n\}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{a1} \norm{a^{(1)}}_{N_2,\ell^2}\leq (1+\varepsilon)^2\kappa_{N_1}(1 - \kappa_{N_1}^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \norm{a}_{N_1,\ell^2}.\end{equation}
Since the sequence $\{\lambda_n\}$ is thin and distinct, it hence generates an $H^2$ Carleson measure with norm at most $(1+\varepsilon)$; that is, we have the existence of $N_2 \ge N_1$ such that $\kappa_{N_2}(1 - \kappa_{N_2}^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \le \kappa_{N_1}(1 - \kappa_{N_1}^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\norm{a^{(1)}}_{N_2,\ell^2} & = & \left(\sum_{k\geq N_2} \abs{\Theta(\lambda_k)}^2 \abs{T_{\overline{\Theta}}(f_0)(\lambda_k)}^2 (1 - |\Theta(\lambda_k)|^2)^{-1}(1-\abs{\lambda_k}^2)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
& \leq & (1+\varepsilon) \kappa_{N_2}(1 - \kappa_{N_2}^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \norm{T_{\overline{\Theta}}f_0}_2 \nonumber\\
& \leq &(1+\varepsilon) \kappa_{N_2}(1 - \kappa_{N_2}^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \norm{f_0}_2\nonumber\\
& \leq & (1+\varepsilon)^2 \kappa_{N_1} (1 - \kappa_{N_1}^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \norm{a}_{N_1,\ell^2}\nonumber<\infty,
\end{eqnarray*}
completing the proof of the claim.
We will now iterate these estimates and ideas. Let $\widetilde{a^{(1)}_n}=-\frac{a^{(1)}_n}{(1 + \varepsilon)^2\kappa_{N_1} (1 - \kappa_{N_1}^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}} }$ for $n \ge N_2$ and $\widetilde{a^{(1)}_n} = 0$ otherwise. Then from (\ref{a1})
we have that $\norm{\widetilde{a^{(1)}}}_{N_1,\ell^2} = \norm{\widetilde{a^{(1)}}}_{N_2,\ell^2} \le \norm{a}_{N_1,\ell^2}$. Since $\{\lambda_n\}$ is an $EIS_{H^2}$ we may choose $f_1\in H^2$ with
$$f_1(\lambda_n)=\widetilde{a_n^{(1)}}(1 - |\Theta(\lambda_n)|^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}(1-\abs{\lambda_n}^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}~\mbox{for all}~n\geq N_1$$ and, letting $\widetilde{f}_1 = P_{K_\Theta}(f_1)$, we have $$ \norm{\tilde{f}_1}_{2}\leq\norm{f_1}_{2}\leq (1+\varepsilon)\norm{\widetilde{a^{(1)}}}_{N_1,\ell^2}\leq (1+\varepsilon)\norm{a}_{N_1,\ell^2}.$$
As above,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\widetilde{f}_1(\lambda_k) & = & f_1(\lambda_k)-\Theta(\lambda_k) T_{\overline{\Theta}}(f_1)(\lambda_k)\\
& = & \widetilde{a_k^{(1)}}(1 - |\Theta(\lambda_k)|^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}(1-\abs{\lambda_k}^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}-\Theta(\lambda_k) T_{\overline{\Theta}}(f_1)(\lambda_k)\quad\forall k\geq N_1.
\end{eqnarray*}
And, for $k \ge N_1$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\abs{\tilde{f}_1(\lambda_k)(1 - |\Theta(\lambda_k)|^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-\abs{\lambda_k}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}-\widetilde{a_k^{(1)}}} & = & \abs{\Theta(\lambda_k) T_{\overline{\Theta}}(f_1)(\lambda_k)(1 - |\Theta(\lambda_k)|^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-\abs{\lambda_k}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\\
& \leq & \kappa_{N_1}(1 - \kappa_{N_1}^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \norm{f_1}_2\\
& \leq & (1+\varepsilon)\kappa_{N_1}(1 - \kappa_{N_1}^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \norm{a}_{N_1,\ell^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Using the definition of $\widetilde{a^{(1)}}$, for $k \ge N_2$ one arrives at
\begin{eqnarray*}
\abs{\left((1+\varepsilon)^2\kappa_{N_1}(1 - \kappa_{N_1}^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \tilde{f}_1(\lambda_k)+\tilde{f}_0(\lambda_k)\right)(1 - |\Theta(\lambda_k)|^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-\abs{\lambda_k}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}-a_k}\\
\leq (1+\varepsilon)^3\kappa_{N_1}^2 (1 - \kappa_{N_1}^2)^{-1}\norm{a}_{N_1,\ell^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We continue this procedure, constructing sequences $a^{(j)}\in \ell^2$ and functions $\tilde{f}_j\in K_{\Theta}$ such that
$$\norm{a^{(j)}}_{N_1,\ell^2}\leq (1+\varepsilon)^{2j}\left(\frac{\kappa_{N_1}}{(1 - \kappa_{N_1}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right)^j\norm{a}_{N_1,\ell^2},$$
$$
\left\vert \frac{(1-\abs{\lambda_k}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(1 - |\Theta(\lambda_k)|^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}} \left(\sum_{l=0}^{j} (1+\varepsilon)^{2l}\left(\frac{\kappa_{N_1}}{(1 - \kappa_{N_1}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right)^{l}\tilde{f}_l(\lambda_k)\right) -a_k \right\vert\leq \left(1+\varepsilon\right)^{2j+1}\left(\frac{\kappa_{N_1}}{(1 - \kappa_{N_1}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right)^{j+1}\left\Vert a\right\Vert_{N_1,\ell^2},
$$
and $$\norm{\tilde{f}_j}_2\leq (1+\varepsilon)\norm{a}_{N_1,\ell^2}~\mbox{for all}~j\in \mathbb{N}.$$ Define $$F=\sum_{j = 0}^{\infty} (1+\varepsilon)^{2j} \left(\frac{\kappa_{N_1}}{(1 - \kappa_{N_1}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right)^j \tilde{f}_j.$$ Then $F\in K_{\Theta}$ since each $\tilde{f}_j\in K_{\Theta}$ and, since $\kappa_m \to 0$, we may assume that $$(1 + \varepsilon)^2\left(\frac{\kappa_{N_1}}{(1 - \kappa_{N_1}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right) < 1.$$ So,
$$\norm{F}_2\leq \frac{(1+\varepsilon)}{1 - (1+\varepsilon)^2\left(\frac{\kappa_{N_1}}{\left(1 - \kappa_{N_1}^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right)} \norm{a}_{N_1,\ell^2}.$$
For this $\varepsilon$, consider $\varepsilon_M < \varepsilon$ with $\frac{(1+\varepsilon_M)}{1 - (1+\varepsilon_M)^2\left(\frac{\kappa_{N_M}}{\left(1 - \kappa_{N_M}^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right)}<1+\varepsilon$. Then, using the process above, we obtain $F_M$ satisfying $F_M \in K_\Theta, \|F_M\|_2 \le (1 + \varepsilon) \|a\|_{M, \ell^2}$ and $F_M(\lambda_n)\|K_{\lambda_n}\|^{-1}_\mathcal{H} = a_n$ for $n \ge M$. Taking $N(\varepsilon) = M$, we see that $F_M$ satisfies the exact interpolation conditions, completing the proof of the theorem.
We present an alternate method to prove the equivalence between $(1)$ and $(7)$. As noted above, by Theorem \ref{EISiffASI} it is true that $(7)\Leftrightarrow (8)$ and thus it suffices to prove that $(1)\Rightarrow (8)\Leftrightarrow (7)$. Let $\varepsilon>0$ be given. Select a sequence $\{\delta_N\}$ with $\delta_N\to 0$ as $N\to\infty$. Since $(1)$ holds, then for large $N$ and $a\in \ell^2$ it is possible to find $f_N\in H^2$ so that
$$
f_N(a_n)(1-\left\vert\lambda_n\right\vert^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}=\left\Vert a\right\Vert_{N,\ell^2}^{-1} a_n\quad n\geq N
$$
with $\left\Vert f_N\right\Vert_{2}\leq 1+\delta_N$. Now observe that we can write $f_N=h_N+\Theta g_N$ with $h_N\in K_\Theta$. Since $h_N$ and $g_N$ are orthogonal projections of $f_N$ onto subspaces of $H^2$, we also have that $\left\Vert h_N\right\Vert_{2}\leq 1+\delta_N$ and similarly for $g_N$.
By the properties of the functions above we have that:
\begin{equation*}
h_N(\lambda_n)\left(\frac{1-\left\vert \lambda_n\right\vert^2}{1-\left\vert \Theta(\lambda_n)\right\vert^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=f_N(\lambda_n)\left(\frac{1-\left\vert \lambda_n\right\vert^2}{1-\left\vert \Theta(\lambda_n)\right\vert^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}-\Theta(\lambda_n)g_N(\lambda_n)\left(\frac{1-\left\vert \lambda_n\right\vert^2}{1-\left\vert \Theta(\lambda_n)\right\vert^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{equation*}
Hence, one deduces that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\Vert \left\{h_N(\lambda_n)\left(\frac{1-\left\vert \lambda_n\right\vert^2}{1-\left\vert \Theta(\lambda_n)\right\vert^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}-\frac{a_n}{\left\Vert a\right\Vert_{N,\ell^2}}\right\}\right\Vert_{N,\ell^2} & \leq & \left\Vert \left\{f_N(\lambda_n)\left(\frac{1-\left\vert \lambda_n\right\vert^2}{1-\left\vert \Theta(\lambda_n)\right\vert^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}-\frac{a_n}{\left\Vert a\right\Vert_{N,\ell^2}}\right\}\right\Vert_{N,\ell^2}\\
& & + \left\Vert \left\{\Theta(\lambda_n)g_N(\lambda_n)\left(\frac{1-\left\vert \lambda_n\right\vert^2}{1-\left\vert \Theta(\lambda_n)\right\vert^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right\}\right\Vert_{N,\ell^2}\\
& \leq & \left\Vert \left\{\frac{a_n}{\left\Vert a\right\Vert_{N,\ell^2}}\left(\left(\frac{1}{1-\left\vert \Theta(\lambda_n)\right\vert^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}-1\right)\right\}\right\Vert_{N,\ell^2}\\
& & +\frac{\sup_{m\geq N}\left\vert\Theta(\lambda_m)\right\vert}{(1-\kappa_N^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}} \left\Vert \left\{g_N(\lambda_n)\left(1-\left\vert \lambda_n\right\vert^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right\}\right\Vert_{N,\ell^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Now for $x$ sufficiently small and positive we have that $\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-x}}-1=\frac{1-\sqrt{1-x}}{\sqrt{1-x}}\lesssim \frac{x}{\sqrt{1-x}}$. Applying this with $x=\sup_{m\geq N} \left\vert\Theta(\lambda_m)\right\vert$ gives that:
$$
\left\Vert \left\{h_N(\lambda_n)\left(\frac{1-\left\vert \lambda_n\right\vert^2}{1-\left\vert \Theta(\lambda_n)\right\vert^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}-\frac{a_n}{\left\Vert a\right\Vert_{N,\ell^2}}\right\}\right\Vert_{N,\ell^2} \leq \frac{\sup_{m\geq N}\left\vert\Theta(\lambda_m)\right\vert}{(1-\kappa_N^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}} \left(1+\left\Vert \left\{g_N(\lambda_n)\left(1-\left\vert \lambda_n\right\vert^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right\}\right\Vert_{N,\ell^2}\right).
$$
Define $H_N=(1+\delta_N)^{-1} \left\Vert a\right\Vert_{N,\ell^2} h_N$, and then we have $H_N\in K_{\Theta}$ and $\left\Vert H_N\right\Vert_{2}\leq \left\Vert a\right\Vert_{N,\ell^2}$. Using the last estimate and adding and subtracting the quantity $\frac{a_n}{(1+\delta_N)}$ yields that:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\Vert \left\{H_N(\lambda_n)\left(\frac{1-\left\vert \lambda_n\right\vert^2}{1-\left\vert \Theta(\lambda_n)\right\vert^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}-a_n\right\}\right\Vert_{N,\ell^2} \leq & &
\\ \left(\frac{\sup_{m\geq N}\left\vert\Theta(\lambda_m)\right\vert}{(1+\delta_N)(1-\kappa_N^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}} \left(1+\left\Vert \left\{g_N(\lambda_n)\left(1-\left\vert \lambda_n\right\vert^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right\}\right\Vert_{N,\ell^2}\right)+\delta_N\right)\left\Vert a\right\Vert_{N,\ell^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that the quantity:
$$
\left(\frac{\sup_{m\geq N}\left\vert\Theta(\lambda_m)\right\vert}{(1+\delta_N)(1-\kappa_N^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}} \left(1+\left\Vert \left\{g_N(\lambda_n)\left(1-\left\vert \lambda_n\right\vert^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right\}\right\Vert_{N,\ell^2}\right)+\delta_N\right)\lesssim \delta_N+\sup_{m\geq N}\left\vert\Theta(\lambda_m)\right\vert.
$$
Here we have used that the sequence $\{\lambda_n\}$ is by hypothesis an interpolating sequence and hence: $\left\Vert \left\{g_N(\lambda_n)\left(1-\left\vert \lambda_n\right\vert^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right\}\right\Vert_{N,\ell^2}\lesssim \left\Vert g_N\right\Vert_{2}\leq 1+\delta_N$. Since by hypothesis we have that $\delta_N+\sup_{m\geq N}\left\vert\Theta(\lambda_m)\right\vert\to 0$ as $N\to\infty$, it is possible to make this less than the given $\varepsilon>0$, and hence we get a function $H_N$ satisfying the properties for $\{\lambda_n\}$ to be $AIS_{K_\Theta}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem} The proof above also gives an estimate on the norm of the interpolating function in the event that $\sup_n |\Theta(\lambda_n)| \le \kappa < 1$, but $(1 + \varepsilon)$ is no longer the best estimate. \end{rem}
\subsection{Carleson Measures in Model Spaces}
\label{CMMS}
From Theorem~\ref{main}, \eqref{C1} and \eqref{C2}, we have a Carleson measure statement for thin sequences in the Hardy space $H^2$. In this section, we obtain an equivalence in model spaces.
We now consider the embedding constants in the case of model spaces. As before, given a positive measure $\mu$ on $\mathbb{D}$, we denote the (possibly infinite) constant
$$
\mathcal{C}_{\Theta}(\mu) = \sup_{f \in K_{\Theta}, f \neq 0} \frac{\|f\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{D}, \mu)}}{\|f\|^2_2}
$$
as the Carleson embedding constant of $\mu$ on $K_{\Theta}$ and
$$
\mathcal{R}_{\Theta}(\mu) = \sup_{z} \|k^{\Theta}_z\|_{L^2(\mathbb{D}, \mu)}^2
$$
as the embedding constant of $\mu$ on the reproducing kernel of $K_\Theta$ (recall that the kernels $k^{\Theta}_z$ are normalized). It is known that for general measure $\mu$ the constants $\mathcal{R}_{\Theta}(\mu)$ and $\mathcal{C}_{\Theta}(\mu)$ are not equivalent, \cite{NV}. The complete geometric characterization of the measures for which $\mathcal{C}_{\Theta}(\mu)$ is finite is contained in \cite{LSUSW}. However, we always have that
$$
\mathcal{R}_\Theta(\mu) \le \mathcal{C}_\Theta(\mu).
$$
For $N > 1$, let
$$
\sigma_N = \sum_{k \ge N} \left\Vert K_{\lambda_k}^{\Theta}\right\Vert^{-2}\delta_{\lambda_k}=\sum_{k \ge N} \frac{1-\left\vert \lambda_k\right\vert^2}{1-\left\vert \Theta(\lambda_k)\right\vert^2}\delta_{\lambda_k}.
$$
Note that for each $f \in K_{\Theta}$
\begin{equation}\label{munorm}
\| f\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{D}, \sigma_N)} = \sum_{k=N}^\infty \frac{(1 - |\lambda_k|^2)}{(1-\left\vert \Theta(\lambda_k)\right\vert^2)} |f(\lambda_k)|^2 = \sum_{k=N}^\infty |\langle f, k^{\Theta}_{\lambda_k}\rangle|^2,
\end{equation}
and therefore we see that
\begin{equation}
\label{e:CETests}
1 \le \mathcal{R}_\Theta(\sigma_N) \le \mathcal{C}_\Theta(\sigma_N).
\end{equation}
By working in a restricted setting and imposing a condition on $\{\Theta(\lambda_n)\}$ we have the following.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:Carleson} Suppose $\Lambda = \{\lambda_n\}$ is a sequence in $\mathbb{D}$ and $\Theta$ is a nonconstant inner function such that $\kappa_m := \sup_{n \ge m}|\Theta(\lambda_n)|\to 0$.
For $N > 1$, let
$$
\sigma_N = \sum_{k \ge N} \left\Vert K_{\lambda_k}^{\Theta}\right\Vert^{-2}\delta_{\lambda_k}=\sum_{k \ge N} \frac{1-\left\vert \lambda_k\right\vert^2}{1-\left\vert \Theta(\lambda_k)\right\vert^2}\delta_{\lambda_k}.
$$
Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Lambda$ is a thin sequence;
\item $ \mathcal{C}_\Theta(\sigma_N) \to 1$ as $N \to \infty$;
\item $ \mathcal{R}_\Theta(\sigma_N) \to 1$ as $N \to \infty$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We have $(2)\Rightarrow (3)$ by testing on the function $f=k_z^{\Theta}$ for all $z\in\mathbb{D}$, which is nothing more then \eqref{e:CETests}.
We next focus on $(1)\Rightarrow(2)$. Let $f \in K_{\Theta}$
and let the sequence $a$ be defined by $a_j = \left\|K_{\lambda_j}\right\|^{-1}f(\lambda_j)$. By \eqref{munorm},
$\left\|a\right\|_{N, \ell^2}^2 = \left\| f\right\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{D}, \sigma_N)}$, and since $\{k_{\lambda_j}^{\Theta}\}$ is an $AOB$, there exists $C_N$ such that
\begin{align*}
\left\|a\right\|_{N,\ell^2}^2 & = \sum_{j \ge N} \left\|K_{\lambda_j}^\Theta\right\|^{-2}_{K_{\Theta}} |f(\lambda_j)|^2 = \left\langle f, \sum_{j \ge N} a_j k_{\lambda_j}^\Theta \right\rangle_{K_{\Theta}} \le \left\| f\right\|_{2} \left\|\sum_{j \ge N} a_j k_{\lambda_j}^\Theta\right\|_{K_{\Theta}} \le C_N \left\| f\right\|_{2} \left\|a\right\|_{N,\ell^2}.
\end{align*}
By (1) and \cite{CFT}*{Theorem 5.2}, we know that $C_N \to 1$ and since we have established that $\|f\|_{L^2(\mathbb{D}, \sigma_N)} \le C_N \|f\|_2$, (1) $\Rightarrow$ (2) follows.
An alternate way to prove this is to use Theorem \ref{main}, $(2)\Rightarrow(5)$, and the hypothesis on $\Theta$. Since it is possible to then show that $\frac{\mathcal{C}_{\Theta}(\sigma_N)}{\mathcal{C}(\mu_N)}\to 1$. Indeed, given $\varepsilon>0$, we have that $1\leq\mathcal{C}(\mu_M)$ for all $M$, and since $\{\lambda_n\}$ is thin there exists a $N$ such that $\mathcal{C}(\mu_M)<1+\varepsilon$ for all $M\geq N$. Hence, $1\leq \mathcal{C}(\mu_M)<1+\varepsilon$ for all $M\geq N$. These facts easily lead to:
$$
\frac{1}{1+\varepsilon}\leq\frac{\mathcal{C}_{\Theta}(\sigma_M)}{\mathcal{C}(\mu_M)}
$$
Further, since $\Theta$ tends to zero on the sequence $\{\lambda_n\}$ there is an integer, without loss we may take it to be $N$, so that $\frac{1}{1-\left\vert \Theta(\lambda_n)\right\vert^2}<1+\varepsilon$ for all $n\geq N$. From this we deduce that:
$$
\frac{\mathcal{C}_{\Theta}(\sigma_M)}{\mathcal{C}(\mu_M)}< (1+\varepsilon)\frac{\sup\limits_{f\in K_{\theta}} \sum_{n\geq M} (1-\left\vert \lambda_m\right\vert^2)\left\vert f(\lambda_m)\right\vert^2}{\mathcal{C}(\mu_M)}\leq (1+\varepsilon)
$$
in the last estimate we used that $K_\Theta\subset H^2$ and so the suprema appearing in the numerator is always at most the expression in the denominator. Combining the estimates we have that for $M\geq N$, that:
$$
\frac{1}{1+\varepsilon}\leq \frac{\mathcal{C}_{\Theta}(\sigma_M)}{\mathcal{C}(\mu_M)}<1+\varepsilon
$$
which yields the conclusion about the ratio tending to $1$ as $N\to \infty$.
Now consider $(3)\Rightarrow (1)$ and compute the quantity $\mathcal{R}_\Theta(\sigma_N)$. In what follows, we let $\Lambda_N$ denote the tail of sequence, $\Lambda_N=\{\lambda_k: k\geq N\}$. Note that we have $\left\vert 1-\overline{a}b\right\vert\geq 1-\left\vert a\right\vert$. Using this estimate we see that:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{z\in\mathbb{D}} \|k^{\Theta}_z\|_{L^2(\mathbb{D}, \sigma_N)}^2 & = & \sup_{z\in\mathbb{D}} \sum_{k\geq N} \frac{(1-\left\vert \lambda_k\right\vert^2)}{(1-\left\vert \Theta(\lambda_k)\right\vert^2)} \frac{(1-\left\vert z\right\vert^2)}{(1-\left\vert \Theta(z)\right\vert^2)}\frac{\left\vert 1-\Theta(z)\overline{\Theta(\lambda_k)}\right\vert^2}{\left\vert 1-z\overline{\lambda_k}\right\vert^2}\\
& \geq & \sup_{z\in\mathbb{D}} \sum_{k\geq N} \frac{(1-\left\vert \lambda_k\right\vert^2)(1-\left\vert z\right\vert^2)}{\left\vert 1-z\overline{\lambda_k}\right\vert^2} \frac{(1-\left\vert \Theta(z)\right\vert)(1-\left\vert \Theta(\lambda_k)\right\vert)}{(1-\left\vert \Theta(z)\right\vert^2)(1-\left\vert \Theta(\lambda_k)\right\vert^2)}\\
& = & \sup_{z\in\mathbb{D}} \sum_{k\geq N} \frac{(1-\left\vert \lambda_k\right\vert^2)(1-\left\vert z\right\vert^2)}{\left\vert 1-z\overline{\lambda_k}\right\vert^2} \frac{1}{(1+\left\vert \Theta(z)\right\vert)(1+\left\vert \Theta(\lambda_k)\right\vert)}\\
& \geq & \sup_{z\in\Lambda_N} \sum_{k\geq N} \frac{(1-\left\vert \lambda_k\right\vert^2)(1-\left\vert z\right\vert^2)}{\left\vert 1-z\overline{\lambda_k}\right\vert^2} \frac{1}{(1+\left\vert \Theta(z)\right\vert)(1+\left\vert \Theta(\lambda_k)\right\vert)}\\
& \geq & \frac{1}{(1+\kappa_N)^2}\sup_{z\in\Lambda_N} \sum_{k\geq N} \frac{(1-\left\vert \lambda_k\right\vert^2)(1-\left\vert z\right\vert^2)}{\left\vert 1-z\overline{\lambda_k}\right\vert^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
By the Weierstrass Inequality, we obtain for $M \ge N$ that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{wi}
\prod_{k \geq N, k \neq M} \left| \frac{\lambda_k - \lambda_M}{1 - \bar \lambda_k \lambda_M}\right|^2
& = & \prod_{k \geq N, k \neq M} \left( 1- \frac{(1 - |\lambda_k|^2)(1 - |\lambda_M|^2)}{|1 - \bar \lambda_k \lambda_M|^2} \right)\nonumber\\
& \ge & 1 - \sum_{k \geq N, k \neq M} \frac{(1- |\lambda_M|^2)(1- |\lambda_k|^2)}{ | 1 - \bar \lambda_k \lambda_M|^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, by \eqref{wi} we have for $M \ge N$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{(1+\kappa_N)^2}\sup_{z\in\Lambda_N} \sum_{k\geq N} \frac{(1-\left\vert \lambda_k\right\vert^2)(1-\left\vert z\right\vert^2)}{\left\vert 1-z\overline{\lambda_k}\right\vert^2}
& \ge & \frac{1}{(1+\kappa_N)^2}\left(\sum_{k \geq N, k\neq M} \frac{(1-\left\vert \lambda_k\right\vert^2)(1-\left\vert \lambda_M\right\vert^2)}{\left\vert 1-\lambda_M\overline{\lambda_k}\right\vert^2} + 1\right)\\
& \ge & \frac{1}{(1+\kappa_N)^2}\left(1 - \prod_{k \geq N, k\neq M} \left| \frac{\lambda_k - \lambda_M}{1 - \bar \lambda_k \lambda_M}\right|^2 + 1\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Now by assumption, recalling that $\kappa_N := \sup_{n \ge N}|\Theta(\lambda_n)|$, we have
$$\lim_{N \to \infty}\sup_{z\in\mathbb{D}} \|k^{\Theta}_z\|_{L^2(\mathbb{D}, \sigma_N)}^2 = 1~\mbox{ and }~\lim_{N \to \infty} \kappa_N = 0,$$ so
$$1 = \lim_{N \to \infty}\sup_{z\in\mathbb{D}} \|k^{\Theta}_z\|_{L^2(\mathbb{D}, \sigma_N)}^2
\ge \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{(1+\kappa_N)^2}\left(1 - \prod_{k \geq N, k\neq M} \left| \frac{\lambda_k - \lambda_M}{1 - \bar \lambda_k \lambda_M}\right|^2 + 1\right) \ge 1.$$
Therefore, for any $M \ge N$
\begin{equation}
\label{e:large}
\prod_{k \geq N, k\neq M} \left| \frac{\lambda_k - \lambda_M}{1 - \bar \lambda_k \lambda_M}\right| > 1 - \varepsilon~\mbox{as}~N \to \infty.
\end{equation}
Also, for any $\varepsilon>0$ there is an integer $N_0$ such that for all $M> N_0$ we have:
\begin{equation}
\label{e:bigk}
\prod_{k \geq N_0, k\neq M} \left| \frac{\lambda_k - \lambda_M}{1 - \bar \lambda_k \lambda_M}\right| >1-\varepsilon.
\end{equation}
Fix this value of $N_0$, and consider $k<N_0$.
Further, for $k \ne M$ and $k<N_0$,
\begin{align*}
1- \rho(\lambda_M, \lambda_k)^2 & = 1- \left|\frac{\lambda_k - \lambda_M}{1 - \bar\lambda_k \lambda_M}\right|^2 = \frac{(1- |\lambda_M|^2)(1- |\lambda_k|^2)}{ | 1 - \bar\lambda_k \lambda_M|^2}\\
&= (1 - |\lambda_k|^2)\frac{(1 - |\lambda_M|^2)}{(1 - |\Theta(\lambda_M)|^2)} \frac{1 - |\Theta(\lambda_M)|^2}{\left\vert 1 - \bar \Theta(\lambda_M) \Theta(\lambda_k)\right\vert^2} \left|\frac{1 - \bar\Theta(\lambda_M) \Theta(\lambda_k)}{1 - \lambda_k \bar\lambda_M}\right|^2\\
& = \frac{1 - |\Theta(\lambda_M)|^2}{\left\vert 1 - \bar \Theta(\lambda_M) \Theta(\lambda_k)\right\vert^2}(1 - |\lambda_k|^2) |k_{\lambda_M}^\Theta(\lambda_k)|^2\\
& = \frac{1 - |\Theta(\lambda_M)|^2}{\left\vert 1 - \bar \Theta(\lambda_M) \Theta(\lambda_k)\right\vert^2} (1 - |\Theta(\lambda_k)|^2) \frac{(1 - |\lambda_k|^2)}{1 - |\Theta(\lambda_k)|^2} |k_{\lambda_M}^\Theta(\lambda_k)|^2\\
& \le \frac{1 - |\Theta(\lambda_M)|^2}{\left\vert 1 - \bar \Theta(\lambda_M) \Theta(\lambda_k)\right\vert^2} \left( \|k_{\lambda_M}^\Theta\|_{L^2(\mathbb{D}, \sigma_M)}^2 - 1\right) \\
& \leq \frac{1}{(1-\kappa_M)^2}\left( \|k_{\lambda_M}^\Theta\|_{L^2(\mathbb{D}, \sigma_M)}^2 - 1\right)\to 0 ~\mbox{as}~ M \to \infty,
\end{align*}
since $1\leq \|k_{\lambda_N}^\Theta\|_{L^2(\mathbb{D}, \sigma_N)}^2\leq\sup_{z} \|k_{z}^\Theta\|_{L^2(\mathbb{D}, \sigma_N)}^2$ and, by hypothesis, we have that $\kappa_N \to 0$ and
$\mathcal{R}_{\Theta}(\sigma_N)\to 1$. Hence, it is possible to choose an integer $M_0$ sufficiently large compared to $N_0$ so that for all $M>M_0$
\begin{equation*}
\rho(\lambda_k,\lambda_{M})>\left(1-\varepsilon\right)^{\frac{1}{N_0}}\quad k<N_0
\end{equation*}
which implies that
\begin{equation}
\label{e:smallk}
\prod_{k<N_0} \rho(\lambda_k,\lambda_{M})>1-\varepsilon.
\end{equation}
Now given $\varepsilon>0$, first select $N_0$ as above in \eqref{e:bigk}. Then select $M_0$ so that \eqref{e:large} holds. Then for any $M>M_0$ by writing the product
$$
\prod_{k\neq M} \rho(\lambda_k,\lambda_M)=\prod_{k<N_0} \rho(\lambda_k,\lambda_{M})\prod_{k>N_0, k\neq M} \rho(\lambda_k,\lambda_M)>(1-\varepsilon)^2.
$$
For the first term in the product we have used \eqref{e:smallk} to conclude that it is greater than $1-\varepsilon$. And for $M$ sufficiently large, by \eqref{e:bigk}, we have that the second term in the product is greater than $1-\varepsilon$ as well. Hence, $B$ is thin as claimed.
\end{proof}
\section{Algebra Version} \label{asip_algebra}
We now compare the model-space version of our results with an algebra version. Theorem~\ref{main} requires that our inner function satisfy $\Theta(\lambda_n) \to 0$ for a thin interpolating sequence $\{\lambda_n\}$ to be an $AIS_{K_\Theta}$ sequence. Letting $B$ denote the Blaschke product corresponding to the sequence $\{\lambda_n\}$, denoting the algebra of continuous functions on the unit circle by $C$, and letting $H^\infty + C = \{f + g: f \in H^\infty, g \in C\}$ (see \cite{Sarason1} for more on this algebra), we can express this condition in the following way: $\Theta(\lambda_n) \to 0$ if and only if $\overline{B} \Theta \in H^\infty + C$. In other words, if and only if $B$ divides $\Theta$ in $H^\infty + C$, \cites{AG, GIS}.
We let $\mathcal{B}$ be a Douglas algebra; that is, a uniformly closed subalgebra of $L^\infty$ containing $H^\infty$. It will be helpful to use the maximal ideal space of our algebra. Throughout $M(\mathcal{B})$ denotes the maximal ideal space of the algebra $\mathcal{B}$; that is, the set of nonzero continuous multiplicative linear functionals on $\mathcal{B}$.
We now consider thin sequences in uniform algebras. This work is closely connected to the study of such sequences in general uniform algebras (see \cite{GM}) and the special case $B = H^\infty$ is considered in \cite{HIZ}. With the weak-$\star$ topology, $M(\mathcal{B})$ is a compact Hausdorff space. In interpreting our results below, it is important to recall that each $x \in M(H^\infty)$ has a unique extension to a linear functional of norm one and, therefore, we may identify $M(\mathcal{B})$ with a subset of $M(H^\infty)$. In this context, the condition we will require (see Theorem~\ref{main_algebra}) for an $EIS_\mathcal{B}$ sequence to be the same as an $AIS_\mathcal{B}$ sequence is that the sequence be thin near $M(\mathcal{B})$. We take the following as the definition (see \cite{SW}):
\begin{defin} An interpolating sequence $\{\lambda_n\}$ with corresponding Blaschke product $b$ is said to be \textnormal{thin near $M(\mathcal{B})$} if for any $0<\eta < 1$ there is a factorization $b = b_1 b_2$ with $b_1$ invertible in $\mathcal{B}$ and $$|b_2^\prime(\lambda_n)|(1 - |\lambda_n|^2) > \eta$$ for all $n$ such that $b_2(\lambda_n) = 0$. \end{defin}
We will be interested in two related concepts that a sequence can have. We first introduce a norm on a sequence $\{a_n\}\in \ell^\infty$ that is induced by a second sequence $\{\lambda_n\}$ and a set $\mathcal{O}\supset M(\mathcal{B})$ that is open in $M(H^\infty)$. Set $I_\mathcal{O}=\{n\in\mathbb{Z}: \lambda_n\in\mathcal{O}\}$. Then we define
$$
\norm{a}_{\mathcal{O},\ell^\infty}=\sup\{ \abs{a_n}: n\in I_\mathcal{O}\}.
$$
\begin{defin}
A Blaschke sequence $\{\lambda_n\}$ is an \textnormal{eventual $1$-interpolating sequence in a Douglas algebra $\mathcal{B}$}, denoted $EIS_{\mathcal{B}}$, if for every $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists an open set $\mathcal{O}\supset M(\mathcal{B})$ such that for each $\{a_n\} \in \ell^\infty$ there exists $f_{\mathcal{O}, a} \in H^\infty$ with
$$f_{\mathcal{O}, a}(\lambda_n) = a_n ~\mbox{for}~ \lambda_n\in\mathcal{O} ~\mbox{and}~ \|f_{\mathcal{O}, a}\|_{\infty} \le (1 + \varepsilon) \|a\|_{\mathcal{O}, \ell^\infty}.$$
\end{defin}
\begin{defin} A Blaschke sequence $\{\lambda_n\}$ is a \textnormal{strong asymptotic interpolating sequence in a Douglas algebra $\mathcal{B}$}, denoted $AIS_{\mathcal{B}}$, if for all $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists an open set $\mathcal{O}\supset M(\mathcal{B})$ such that for all sequences $\{a_n\} \in \ell^\infty$ there exists a function $G_{\mathcal{O}, a} \in H^\infty$ such that $\|G_{\mathcal{O}, a}\|_{\infty} \le \|a\|_{\mathcal{O},\ell^\infty}$ and
$$\|\{G_{\mathcal{O}, a}(\lambda_n) - a_n\}\|_{\mathcal{O}, \ell^\infty} < \varepsilon \|a\|_{\mathcal{O}, \ell^\infty}.$$ \end{defin}
\begin{thm}\label{EISiffASI_algebra}
Let $\mathcal{B}$ be a Douglas algebra. Let $\{\lambda_n\}$ be a Blaschke sequence of points in $\mathbb{D}$. Then $\{\lambda_n\}$ is an $EIS_{\mathcal{B}}$ sequence if and only if $\{\lambda_n\}$ is an $AIS_{\mathcal{B}}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
If a sequence is an $EIS_{\mathcal{B}}$, then it is trivially $AIS_{\mathcal{B}}$, for given $\varepsilon > 0$ we may take $G_{N, a} = \frac{f_{N, a}}{(1 + \varepsilon)}$.
For the other direction, suppose $\{\lambda_n\}$ is an $AIS_{\mathcal{B}}$ sequence.
Let $\varepsilon > 0$ be given and let $\varepsilon^\prime < \frac{\varepsilon}{1 + \varepsilon}$. Let $\mathcal{O} \supset M(\mathcal{B})$ denote the open set we obtain from the definition of $AIS_{\mathcal{B}}$ corresponding to $\varepsilon^\prime$. Reordering the points of the sequence in $\mathcal{O}$ so that they begin at $n = 1$ and occur in the same order, we let $T: H^\infty \to \ell^\infty$ be defined by $T(g) = \{g(\lambda_{n})\}$. We let $y_\mathcal{O}$ denote the corresponding reordered sequence. Then $T$ is a bounded linear operator between Banach spaces, so we may use Proposition~\ref{Banachspace} to choose $f \in H^\infty$ so that $Tf = y_\mathcal{O}$ and $\|f\| < \frac{1}{1 - \varepsilon^\prime} \|y_\mathcal{O}\|_{\ell^\infty} < (1 + \varepsilon) \|y\|_{\mathcal{O}, \ell^\infty}$ to complete the proof.
\end{proof}
Letting $\overline{B}$ denote the set of functions with conjugate in $B$, we mention one more set of equivalences. In \cite[Theorem 1]{SW} Sundberg and Wolff showed that an interpolating sequence $\{\lambda_n\}$ is thin near $M(\mathcal{B})$ if and only if for any bounded sequence of complex numbers $\{w_n\}$ there exists a function in $f \in H^\infty \cap \overline{B}$ such that $f(\lambda_n) = w_n$ for all $n$.
Finally, we note that Earl (\cite[Theorem 2]{E} or \cite{E2}) proved that given an interpolating sequence for the algebra $H^\infty$ satisfying
$$
\inf_n \prod_{j \ne n} \left|\frac{z_j - z_n}{1 - \overline{z_j} z_n}\right| \ge \delta > 0$$
then for any bounded sequence $\{\omega_n\}$ and
\begin{equation}\label{Earl}
M > \frac{2 - \delta^2 + 2(1 - \delta^2)^{1/2}}{\delta^2} \sup_n |\omega_n|
\end{equation} there exists a Blaschke product $B$ and a real number $\alpha$ so that
$$M e^{i \alpha} B(\lambda_j) = \omega_j~\mbox{for all}~j.$
Using the results of Sundberg-Wolff and Earl, we obtain the following theorem.
\begin{thm}
\label{main_algebra}
Let $\{\lambda_n\}$ in $\mathbb{D}$ be an interpolating Blaschke sequence and let $\mathcal{B}$ be a Douglas algebra. The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\{\lambda_n\}$ is an $EIS_{\mathcal{B}}$ sequence; \label{EIS_Douglas}
\item $\{\lambda_n\}$ is a $AIS_{\mathcal{B}}$ sequence; \label{AIS_Douglas}
\item $\{\lambda_n\}$ is thin near $M(\mathcal{B})$;\label{nearthin}
\item for any bounded sequence of complex numbers $\{w_n\}$ there exists a function in $f \in H^\infty \cap \overline{B}$ such that $f(\lambda_n) = w_n$ for all $n$.\label{SW}
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The equivalence between \eqref{EIS_Douglas} and \eqref{AIS_Douglas} is contained in Theorem \ref{EISiffASI_algebra}. The equivalence of \eqref{nearthin} and \eqref{SW} is the Sundberg-Wolff theorem.
We next prove that if a sequence is thin near $M(\mathcal{B})$, then it is an $EIS_{\mathcal{B}}$ sequence. We let $b$ denote the Blaschke product associated to the sequence $\{\lambda_n\}$.
Given $\varepsilon>0$, choose $\gamma$ so that $$\left(\frac{1 + \sqrt{1 - \gamma^2}}{\gamma}\right)^2 < 1 + \varepsilon.$$ Choose a factorization $b = b_1^\gamma b_2^\gamma$ so that $\overline{b_1^\gamma} \in \mathcal{B}$ and $\delta(b_2) = \inf (1 - |\lambda|^2)|b_2^\gamma \,^\prime(\lambda)| > \gamma$. Since $|b_1^\gamma| = 1$ on $M(\mathcal{B})$ and $\gamma < 1$, there exists an open set $\mathcal{O} \supset M(\mathcal{B})$ such that $|b_1^\gamma| > \gamma$ on $\mathcal{O}$. Note that if $b(\lambda) = 0$ and $\lambda \in \mathcal{O}$, then $b_2(\lambda) = 0$.
The condition on $b_2^\gamma$ coupled with Earl's Theorem (see \eqref{Earl}), gives rise to functions $\{f_k^\gamma\}$ in $H^\infty$ (!), and hence in $\mathcal{B}$ so that
\begin{equation}\label{estimate}
f_j^\gamma(\lambda_k) = \delta_{jk} \, ~\mbox{whenever}~ b_2^\gamma(\lambda_k) = 0 ~\mbox{and}~\sup_{z \in \mathbb{D}}\sum_{j}\abs{f_j^\gamma(z)}\leq \left(\frac{1 + \sqrt{1 - \gamma^2}}{\gamma}\right)^2.
\end{equation}
Now given $a\in\ell^\infty$, choose the corresponding P. Beurling functions (as in \eqref{estimate}) and let
$$
f^\gamma_{\mathcal{O}, a}=\sum_{j} a_j f_j^\gamma.
$$
By construction we have that $f_{\mathcal{O},a}(\lambda_n)=a_n$ for all $\lambda_n\in\mathcal{O}$. Also, by Earl's estimate \eqref{estimate}, we have that
$$
\norm{f_{\mathcal{O},a}^{\gamma}}_{\infty} \leq (1+\varepsilon)\|a\|_\infty.
$$
Thus, \eqref{nearthin} implies \eqref{EIS_Douglas}.
\color{black}
Finally, we claim \eqref{EIS_Douglas} implies \eqref{nearthin}. Suppose $\{\lambda_n\}$ is a $EIS_{\mathcal{B}}$ sequence. Let $0 < \eta < 1$ be given and choose $\eta_1$ with $1/(1 + \eta_1) > \eta$, a function $f \in H^\infty$ and $\mathcal{O} \supset M(\mathcal{B})$ open in $M(H^\infty)$ with
$$f_{\mathcal{O}, n}(\lambda_m) = \delta_{nm}~\mbox{for}~\lambda_m \in \mathcal{O}~\mbox{and}~\|f\|_{\mathcal{O}, n} \le 1 + \eta_1.$$
Let $b_2$ denote the Blaschke product with zeros in $\mathcal{O}$, $b_1$ the Blaschke product with the remaining zeros and let
$$f_{\mathcal{O}, n}(z) = \left(\prod_{j \ne n: b_2(\lambda_j) = 0} \frac{z - \lambda_j}{1 - \overline{\lambda_j}z}\right) h(z),$$ for some $h \in H^\infty.$ Then $\|h\|_{\infty} \le 1 + \eta_1$ and
$$1 = |f_{\mathcal{O}, n}(\lambda_n)| = \left|\left(\prod_{j \ne n; b_2(\lambda_j) = 0} \frac{\lambda_n - \lambda_j}{1 - \overline{\lambda_j}\lambda_n}\right) h(\lambda_n)\right| \le (1 + \eta_1) \prod_{j \ne n} \left|\frac{\lambda_n - \lambda_j}{1 - \overline{\lambda_j}\lambda_n}\right|.$$ Therefore
$$(1 - |\lambda_n|^2)|b_2^\prime(\lambda_n)| = \prod_{j \ne n: b_2(\lambda_j) = 0} \left|\frac{\lambda_n - \lambda_j}{1 - \overline{\lambda_j}\lambda_n}\right| \ge 1/(1 + \eta_1) > \eta.$$
Now because we assume that $\{\lambda_n\}$ is interpolating, the Blaschke product $b = b_1 b_2$ with zeros at $\{\lambda_n\}$ will vanish at $x \in M(H^\infty)$ if and only if $x$ lies in the closure of the zeros of $\{\lambda_n\}$, \cite{Hoffman}*{p. 206} or \cite{Garnett}*{p. 379}. Now, if we choose $\mathcal{V}$ open in $M(H^\infty)$ with $M(\mathcal{B}) \subset \mathcal{V} \subset \overline{\mathcal{V}} \subset \mathcal{O}$, then $b_1$ has no zeros in ${\mathcal{V}} \cap \mathbb{D}$ and, therefore, no point of $M(\mathcal{B})$ can lie in the closure of the zeros of $b_1$. So $b_1$ has no zeros on $M(\mathcal{B})$. Thus we see that $b_1$ is bounded away from zero on $M(\mathcal{B})$ and, consequently, $b_1$ is invertible in $\mathcal{B}$.
\end{proof}
We note that we do not need the full assumption that $b$ is interpolating; it is enough to assume that $b$ does not vanish identically on a Gleason part contained in $M(\mathcal{B})$. Our goal, however, is to illustrate the difference in the Hilbert space and uniform algebra setting and so we have stated the most important setting for our problem. \color{black}
\begin{bibdiv}
\begin{biblist}
\bib{AM}{book}
{
AUTHOR = {Agler, Jim and McCarthy, John E.},
TITLE = {Pick interpolation and {H}ilbert function spaces},
SERIES = {Graduate Studies in Mathematics},
VOLUME = {44},
PUBLISHER = {American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI},
YEAR = {2002},
PAGES = {xx+308},
ISBN = {0-8218-2898-3},
MRCLASS = {47-02 (30D55 30E05 30H05 32A70 46E22 47A20 47A57)},
MRNUMBER = {1882259 (2003b:47001)},
MRREVIEWER = {D. Sarason},
}
\bib{AG}{article}
{
AUTHOR = {Axler, Sheldon},
Author = {Gorkin, Pamela},
TITLE = {Divisibility in {D}ouglas algebras},
JOURNAL = {Michigan Math. J.},
VOLUME = {31},
YEAR = {1984},
NUMBER = {1},
PAGES = {89--94},
ISSN = {0026-2285},
}
\bib{CFT}{article}
{
AUTHOR = {Chalendar, I.},
Author = {Fricain, E.},
Author = {Timotin, D.},
TITLE = {Functional models and asymptotically orthonormal sequences},
JOURNAL = {Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble)},
VOLUME = {53},
YEAR = {2003},
NUMBER = {5},
PAGES = {1527--1549}}
\bib{C}{article}
{
AUTHOR = {Chang, Sun Yung A.},
TITLE = {A characterization of {D}ouglas subalgebras},
JOURNAL = {Acta Math.},
VOLUME = {137},
YEAR = {1976},
NUMBER = {2},
PAGES = {82--89}}
\bib{E}{article}{
Author = {Earl, J. P},
Title = {On the interpolation of bounded sequences by bounded functions},
Journal = {J. London Math. Soc.},
Volume = {2},
Year = {1970},
Pages = {544--548}
}
\bib{E2}{article}{
AUTHOR = {Earl, J. P.},
TITLE = {A note on bounded interpolation in the unit disc},
JOURNAL = {J. London Math. Soc. (2)},
VOLUME = {13},
YEAR = {1976},
NUMBER = {3},
PAGES = {419--423}
}
\bib{F}{article}{
AUTHOR = {Fricain, Emmanuel},
TITLE = {Bases of reproducing kernels in model spaces},
JOURNAL = {J. Operator Theory},
VOLUME = {46},
YEAR = {2001},
NUMBER = {3, suppl.},
PAGES = {517--543}}
\bib{Garnett}{book}
{author = {Garnett, John B.},
title = {Bounded analytic functions},
series= {Pure and Applied Mathematics},
volume = {96},
publisher = {Academic Press Inc. [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers]},
ADDRESS = {New York},
YEAR = {1981},
PAGES = {xvi+467},
ISBN = {0-12-276150-2}}
\bib{GM}{article}
{
AUTHOR = {Gorkin, Pamela},
Author={Mortini, Raymond},
TITLE = {Asymptotic interpolating sequences in uniform algebras},
JOURNAL = {J. London Math. Soc. (2)},
VOLUME = {67},
YEAR = {2003},
NUMBER = {2},
PAGES = {481--498}
}
\bib{GPW}{article}{
AUTHOR = {Gorkin, Pamela},
AUTHOR = {Pott, Sandra},
AUTHOR = {Wick, Brett},
Title = {Thin Sequences and Their Role in $H^p$ Theory, Model Spaces, and Uniform Algebras},
Journal = {Revista Matem\'atica Iberoamericana},
YEAR = {to appear}
}
\bib{GIS}{article}{
AUTHOR = {Guillory, Carroll}, Author={Izuchi, Keiji }, Author ={Sarason, Donald},
TITLE = {Interpolating {B}laschke products and division in {D}ouglas
algebras},
JOURNAL = {Proc. Roy. Irish Acad. Sect. A},
VOLUME = {84},
YEAR = {1984},
NUMBER = {1},
PAGES = {1--7},
}
\bib{Hoffman}{book}{
AUTHOR = {Hoffman, Kenneth},
TITLE = {Banach spaces of analytic functions},
SERIES = {Prentice-Hall Series in Modern Analysis},
PUBLISHER = {Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J.},
YEAR = {1962},
PAGES = {xiii+217}
}
\bib{HIZ}{article}{
AUTHOR = {Hosokawa, Takuya}
AUTHOR = {Izuchi, Keiji}
AUTHOR = {Zheng, Dechao},
TITLE = {Isolated points and essential components of composition
operators on {$H^\infty$}},
JOURNAL = {Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.},
FJOURNAL = {Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society},
VOLUME = {130},
YEAR = {2002},
NUMBER = {6},
PAGES = {1765--1773},
ISSN = {0002-9939},
CODEN = {PAMYAR},
MRCLASS = {47B33 (30H05)},
MRNUMBER = {1887024 (2003d:47033)},
MRREVIEWER = {Peter R. Mercer},
DOI = {10.1090/S0002-9939-01-06233-5},
URL = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9939-01-06233-5},
}
\bib{LSUSW}{article}{
author={Lacey, Michael T.},
author={Sawyer, Eric T.},
author={Shen, Chun-Yen},
author={Uriarte-Tuero, Ignacio},
author={Wick, Brett D.},
title={Two Weight Inequalities for the Cauchy Transform from $ \mathbb{R}$ to $ \mathbb{C} _+$},
eprint={http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.4820},
journal={J. Inst. Math. Jussieu},
status={submitted},
year={2014},
pages={1--43}
}
\bib{M}{article}{
AUTHOR = {Marshall, Donald E.},
TITLE = {Subalgebras of {$L^{\infty }$} containing {$H^{\infty }$}},
JOURNAL = {Acta Math.},
VOLUME = {137},
YEAR = {1976},
NUMBER = {2},
PAGES = {91--98}
}
\bib{NV}{article}{
author={Nazarov, F.},
author={Volberg, A.},
title={The Bellman function, the two-weight Hilbert transform, and
embeddings of the model spaces $K_\theta$},
note={Dedicated to the memory of Thomas H.\ Wolff},
journal={J. Anal. Math.},
volume={87},
date={2002},
pages={385--414}
}
\bib{NOCS}{article}{
author={Nicolau, Artur},
author={Ortega-Cerda, Joaquim},
author={Seip, Kristian},
title={The constant of interpolation},
journal={Pacific J. Math.},
volume={213},
date={2004},
number={2},
pages={389--398}
}
\bib{nikolski}{book}{
author={Nikol{\cprime}ski{\u\i}, N. K.},
title={Treatise on the shift operator},
series={Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental
Principles of Mathematical Sciences]},
volume={273},
note={Spectral function theory;
With an appendix by S. V. Hru\v s\v cev [S. V. Khrushch\"ev] and V. V.
Peller;
Translated from the Russian by Jaak Peetre},
publisher={Springer-Verlag},
place={Berlin},
date={1986},
pages={xii+491}
}
\bib{MR2417425}{article}{
author={Petermichl, Stefanie},
author={Treil, Sergei},
author={Wick, Brett D.},
title={Carleson potentials and the reproducing kernel thesis for
embedding theorems},
journal={Illinois J. Math.},
volume={51},
date={2007},
number={4},
pages={1249--1263}
}
\bib{SS}{article}{
author={Shapiro, H. S.},
author={Shields, A. L.},
title={On some interpolation problems for analytic functions},
journal={Amer. J. Math.},
volume={83},
date={1961},
pages={513--532}
}
\bib{Sarason1}{article}{
AUTHOR = {Sarason, Donald},
TITLE = {Algebras of functions on the unit circle},
JOURNAL = {Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.},
VOLUME = {79},
YEAR = {1973},
PAGES = {286--299},
}
\bib{SW}{article}{
author={Sundberg, C.},
author={Wolff, T.},
title = {Interpolating sequences for $QA_B$},
journal={Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.},
date={1983},
pages={551--581}}
\bib{V}{article}{
AUTHOR = {Vol{\cprime}berg, A. L.},
TITLE = {Two remarks concerning the theorem of {S}. {A}xler, {S}.-{Y}.
{A}. {C}hang and {D}. {S}arason},
JOURNAL = {J. Operator Theory},
VOLUME = {7},
YEAR = {1982},
NUMBER = {2},
PAGES = {209--218}}
\bib{W}{article}{
author={Wolff, Thomas H.},
title={Two algebras of bounded functions},
journal={Duke Math. J.},
volume={49},
date={1982},
number={2},
pages={321--328}
}
\end{biblist}
\end{bibdiv}
\end{document}
|
\section{\label{1}Introduction}
It is believed by most astro-cosmologists as well as astro-particle physicists that the only solution to resolve the flatness and horizon problems in the universe is to think of exponential expansion called inflation~\cite{rf:guth} right after birth of our universe. In recent years several observational results to confirm the inflation were reported~\cite{rf:wmap,rf:planck,rf:bicep2}. In particular, the most important evidence in the present days to provide data is the temperature fluctuation of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) which shows us quantitatively that there was the era of the inflation in the early universe. Using this data we can investigate the mechanism of the inflationary expansion in detail. The CMB is the photon emitted in the recombination era of which the wavelength is very long so that CMB reaches us without much scattering afterwards. Therefore CMB carries to us the information of the early universe. The most peculiar properties of CMB is that it is homogeneous and uniform with very high accuracy and furthermore the spectrum agrees very well with the black body radiation with the temperature 2.725 [K] while the temperature fluctuation $\frac{\delta T}{T}$ is of the order of $10^{-5}$. This temperature fluctuation is believed to come from the gravitational potential $\Phi$ through Sachs-Wolfe effect $\frac{\delta T}{T}=-3\Phi$~\cite{rf:SW-effect}. In the usual inflation models the gravitational potential $\Phi$ is believed to be created when the hypothetical scalar particle(s) called inflaton(s) fluctuates quantum mechanically during rolling down classically along with the potential. There are many models proposed for creation mechanism, such as slow-roll inflation~\cite{rf:slow-roll}, chaotic inflation~\cite{rf:chaotic} etc.
In our previous papers~\cite{rf:ours}, we show that the temperature fluctuation of CMB can be explained as the vacuum fluctuation of a large number of matter fields. Here the matter fields are originated from the string excited states and/or the Kaluza-Klein modes on the compactified space. There appear very many kinds of fields in the exponentially expanding universe, where the Hubble parameter plays the role of temperature. These fields fluctuate around the bottom of the mass potential, and generate the energy density of fluctuation. Finally the fluctuation creates the gravitational potential $\Phi$ through the Einstein equation. Although each fluctuation due to single field is very small, but enormous number of species of fields contribute and it turns out to be summed up to a huge fluctuation compatible to the present observational value. Furthermore it is possible to determine the radii of the compactified spaces, as well as the string coupling constant by comparison with the observational values of CMB. The very merit of our theory is in the fact that we do not need to put any assumption or fine-tuning on the form of the matter fields potential, but we simply consider free fields. However in our above described theory there still are several problems to be resolved. In the first place the spectral index $n_s$ which indicates the distance dependence of the fluctuation or, in other words, the 2-point correlation function of the fields exceeds one, i.e. $n_s\geq 1$ in our model, although the observed value of the Planck is $n_s\simeq 0.96$~\cite{rf:planck}. As was pointed out in our foregoing papers \cite{rf:ours} the reason why we obtained $n_s\geq 1$ is in the fact that we assumed the background metric is exactly the de Sitter space-time. In order to explain the experimental value of the spectral index, we may have to introduce a time dependent Hubble parameter $H(t)$, something like $\frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}\sim -0.01$.
So far we have not discussed the origin of the inflation, and simply assumed the de Sitter space-time. In this paper we point out the possibility that the inflation is caused by the vacuum energy of the many fields in the expanding universe.
It is the purpose of the present article that we present a self-consistent theory of the time evolution of the universe by incorporating the backreaction of the quantized matter fields\footnote{The effect of backreaction has been taken into account, in \cite{rf:kaya}. However in our analysis, the method of approximation and the choice of parameters are different from them so that the results and interpretation are really different.}. The main idea of the present paper follows our pervious articles \cite{rf:ours}, except that we do not assume de Sitter background and incorporate the backreaction of the matter fields. In the early universe we consider $N$ species of the free scalar fields. The time evolution of the early universe is assumed to follow the classical Einstein equation,
\begin{align}
R_{\mu \nu}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu}R
=-8\pi G\sum_{i=1}^N\langle T_{\mu \nu}^{(i)}\rangle .
\label{1-einstein.eq}
\end{align}
On the right hand side the energy-momentum tensor of the species $i$ of the matter fields is regarded as the vacuum expectation value $\langle T_{\mu \nu}^{(i)}\rangle$, in the metric $g_{\mu \nu}$. When one expresses $\langle T_{\mu \nu}^{(i)}\rangle$ by a functional of arbitrary metric $g_{\mu \nu}$, $\langle T_{\mu \nu}^{(i)}\rangle [g]$, the Einstein equation (\ref{1-einstein.eq}) describes the time evolution of $g_{\mu \nu}$ caused by the backreaction from the matter fields. Here we take the vacuum of the Bunch-Davies type in the calculation of $\langle T_{\mu \nu}^{(i)}\rangle [g]$. As we will see $\langle T_{\mu \nu}^{(i)}\rangle [g]$is proportional to $H^4(t)$. Therefore in the early universe, where $H(t)$ is large, we can ignore the initial state dependence of the energy-momentum tensor and simply take $\langle T_{\mu \nu}^{(i)}\rangle [g]$.
We mainly use the Eikonal approximation to make solutions of the equation of motion of the matter fields. Then we perform the 1-loop momentum integration to calculate the correlation functions. By so doing the eq. (\ref{1-einstein.eq}) becomes a second order differential equation for $H(t)$.
The present paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{2}, we review briefly the Eikonal approximation. Then we investigate the solution of matter field of mass $m$ in two cases, that is, for the cases of $m\ll H$ and $m\gg H$, and evaluate $\langle T_{\mu \nu}\rangle$ for each cases. In section \ref{3} we assume that there exist both light and heavy particles in the universe and search for de Sitter-like expanding solutions of eq. (\ref{1-einstein.eq}), where $H(t)$ is almost constant. Then we examine the solutions when the Hubble parameter is very small compared to that of the de Sitter-like expanding era. From this analysis we will see that the Hubble parameter becomes zero and the de Sitter era ends for a certain region of the initial conditions. Section \ref{4} is devoted to conclusion and outlook. In Appendix \ref{app-airy} we describe in detail the calculation by using the Airy function around boundary between UV and IR regimes in the Eikonal approximation. In Appendix \ref{app-damping} we show the calculation of the correlation functions using the solution in the IR regime in the Eikonal approximation.
\section{\label{2}Scalar field in the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker space-time and the Eikonal approximation}
It is legitimate to assume that the background metric is homogeneous and uniform as are indicated from CMB data. We thus start with investigating the one species of the scalar field described by the action
\begin{align}
S=\int d^nx\> \frac{a^{n-1}}{2}\left\{\dot{\phi}^2
-\frac{1}{a^2}\left(\nabla \phi \right)^2-m^2\phi^2\right\}
\label{2-action}
\end{align}
in the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker space-time
\begin{align}
g_{\mu \nu}(x)=\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -a^2(t) & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -a^2(t) & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -a^2(t)
\end{array} \right).
\label{2-FRW.metric}
\end{align}
For the later convenience to apply the dimensional regularization, the space-time dimension in eq. (\ref{2-action}) is taken to be $n=4-\epsilon$ with $0<\epsilon \ll 1$. In terms of the co-moving time
\begin{align}
d\tau =\frac{dt}{a},
\label{2-comoving.time}
\end{align}
we write the differentiation as
\begin{align}
F^{\prime}=\frac{d}{d\tau}F=a\frac{d}{dt}F=a\dot{F},
\label{2-comoving.time-diff}
\end{align}
and then the Fourier mode $\chi_k(\tau )$ of the rescaled scalar field
\begin{align}
\chi (\tau ,\vec{x})\equiv a^{\frac{n-2}{2}}(t)\phi (t,\vec{x})
\label{2-comoving.field}
\end{align}
obeys the following equation of motion:
\begin{align}
\chi_k^{\prime \prime}+\left(k^2-V[a]\right)\chi_k=0.
\label{2-eom}
\end{align}
Here the potential $V[a]$ is defined by
\begin{align}
V[a]
& \equiv \left(1-\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)\frac{a^{\prime \prime}}{a}
-\epsilon \left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\epsilon}{4}\right)
\left(\frac{a^{\prime}}{a}\right)^2-m^2a^2 \nonumber \\
& =\left(1-\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)a^2\left(2H^2+\dot{H}\right)
-\epsilon \left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\epsilon}{4}\right)a^2H^2-m^2a^2,
\label{2-potential}
\end{align}
where $H(t)$ is the Hubble parameter
\begin{align}
H(t)=\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}.
\label{2-hubble.parameter}
\end{align}
The quantity we are interested in is the $(0,0)$-component of the energy-momentum tensor as a functional of $a(t)$ (or $H(t)$),
\begin{align}
\langle T_{00}\rangle [a]
& =\frac{\mu^{4-n}}{2}\left\langle\dot{\phi}^2
+\frac{1}{a^2}\left(\nabla \phi \right)^2+m^2\phi^2\right\rangle
\nonumber \\
& =\frac{\mu^{\epsilon}}{2a^{4-\epsilon}}\bigg\{
\left\langle \left(\chi^{\prime}\right)^2\right\rangle
-\left(1-\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)aH
\left\langle \chi^{\prime}\chi +\chi \chi^{\prime}\right\rangle
+\left(1-\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)^2a^2H^2
\left\langle \chi^2\right\rangle \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \quad
+\left\langle \left(\nabla \chi \right)^2\right\rangle
+m^2a^2\left\langle \chi^2\right\rangle \bigg\}.
\label{2-energy-momentum.tensor}
\end{align}
Here a mass scale $\mu$ is introduced to keep the mass dimension of the energy-momentum tensor.
We solve the equation of motion (\ref{2-eom}) with recourse to the Eikonal approximation by putting
\begin{align}
\chi_k=Ae^{-if}.
\label{2-eikonal}
\end{align}
Then by using the boundary condition
\begin{align}
\chi_k\sim \frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}e^{-ik\tau},\quad
(\tau \to -\infty )
\label{2-initial.condition}
\end{align}
and the assumption of the Eikonal approximation
\begin{align}
\left(f^{\prime}\right)^2\gg \frac{A^{\prime \prime}}{A},
\label{2-eikonal.condition}
\end{align}
(\ref{2-eom}) has the solution
\begin{align}
& \chi_k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2f^{\prime}}}e^{-if}, \quad
f^{\prime}=\sqrt{k^2-V[a]}.
\label{2-eikonal.solution}
\end{align}
Here the Wronskian is used to normalize the solution:
\begin{align}
\chi_k(\chi_k^{\ast})^{\prime}-\chi_k^{\ast}\chi_k^{\prime}=i.
\label{2-wronskian}
\end{align}
The general solution for $\chi (\tau ,\vec{x})$ is given by
\begin{align}
\chi (\tau ,\vec{x})
=\int \frac{d^{3-\epsilon}\vec{k}}{(2\pi )^{3-\epsilon}}
\left\{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2f^{\prime}(k,\tau )}}
e^{-if(k,\tau )-i\vec{k}\cdot \vec{x}}a_{\vec{k}}+\text{c.c.}\right\}
\label{2-general.solution}
\end{align}
in the oscillatory region,
\begin{align}
k^2-V>0.
\label{2-oscillatory.region}
\end{align}
We then quantize the field $\chi$ canonically by using the commutation relation
\begin{align}
[\chi (\tau ,\vec{x}),\chi^{\prime}(\tau ,\vec{y})]
=i\delta^{3-\epsilon}(\vec{x}-\vec{y}).
\label{2-commutation.relation}
\end{align}
The vacuum state is defined as usual
\begin{align}
a_{\vec{k}}|0\rangle =0
\label{2-vacuum}
\end{align}
so that the vacuum expectation value of an operator $\mathcal{O}$ is given by $\left\langle \mathcal{O} \right\rangle=\langle 0|\mathcal{O} |0\rangle$.
In the following we consider the situation where $\dot{H}(t)$ and $\ddot{H}(t)$ are much smaller than $H(t)$ itself,
\begin{align}
\frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}\ll 1 \quad \text{and}
\quad \frac{\ddot{H}}{H^3}\ll 1,
\label{2-slow.develop}
\end{align}
which means that $H(t)$ and $\dot{H}(t)$ vary much slower than the time evolution of the universe.
\subsection{\label{2.1}Energy density for the case of a large Hubble parameter: $H(t)\gg m$}
In this subsection we evaluate the energy density $\rho$ of a scalar field when Hubble parameter is much larger than mass; $H(t)\gg m$. It is well known that if $H(t)$ is constant $\rho$ is given by
\begin{align}
\rho =\left\langle T_{00}\right\rangle =\frac{3}{32\pi^2}H^4
\left\{1+O\left(\frac{m^2}{H^2}\right)\right\}.
\label{2-pure.de.Sitter}
\end{align}
Note that this result is obtained without using the Eikonal approximation.
When $\frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}\ll 1$ and $\frac{\ddot{H}}{H^3}\ll 1$, the potential (\ref{2-potential}) is always positive, i.e.
\begin{align}
V[a]>0.
\label{2-potential.is.positive}
\end{align}
Then the eq. (\ref{2-oscillatory.region}) is not always satisfied, and we should analyze the following three momentum regions to continue the solution $\chi_k\sim e^{-ik\tau}$ in the ultra-violet limit $\tau \to -\infty$ (equivalently $k\to \infty$) into the infrared region:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $\sqrt{V}<k<\infty$
In this region the solution is oscillatory as
\begin{align}
\chi_k(\tau )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt[4]{k^2-V(\tau )}}
e^{-i\int_{\tau_k}^{\tau} d\tau^{\prime} \sqrt{k^2-V(\tau^{\prime})}}.
\label{2-oscillation.solution}
\end{align}
Here $\tau_k$ is determined from $k^2=V(\tau_k)$.
\item[(ii)] $k_0<k<\sqrt{V}$
The solution is expressed in terms of the Airy function
\begin{align}
\chi_k(\tau )=\frac{e^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}}}{\sqrt{2}}B^{-\frac{1}{6}}
\left\{iAi\left(B^{\frac{1}{3}}(\tau -\tau_k)\right)
+Bi\left(B^{\frac{1}{3}}(\tau -\tau_k)\right)\right\}, \quad
B\equiv V^{\prime}(\tau_k).
\label{2-airy.solution}
\end{align}
\item[(iii)] $0\leq k<k_0$
The damping and enhancing solutions given by
\begin{align}
\chi_k(\tau )=\frac{e^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}}}{\sqrt{2}}
\frac{1}{\sqrt[4]{V(\tau )-k^2}}\left\{\frac{i}{2}
e^{-\int_{\tau_k}^{\tau}d\tau^{\prime}\sqrt{V(\tau^{\prime})-k^2}}
+e^{+\int_{\tau_k}^{\tau}d\tau^{\prime}\sqrt{V(\tau^{\prime})-k^2}}
\right\}.
\label{2-damping.solution}
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
In the above (ii) and (iii), the boundary $k_0$ is chosen to satisfy the validity condition of the Eikonal approximation (\ref{2-eikonal.condition}). In fact,
\begin{align}
\left(f^{\prime}\right)^2\gg \frac{A^{\prime \prime}}{A}
\quad \Rightarrow \quad
\left(\frac{1}{f^{\prime}}\right)^{\prime}\ll 1
\quad \Rightarrow \quad
k\ll \sqrt{V-\left(\frac{V^{\prime}}{2}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}}
\equiv k_0.
\label{2-airy.boundary}
\end{align}
Here $V^{\prime}$ is obtained from (\ref{2-comoving.time-diff}) and (\ref{2-potential}),
\begin{align}
V^{\prime}=\left(1-\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)
a^3\left(4H^3+6H\dot{H}+\ddot{H}\right)
-\epsilon \left(1-\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)
a^3\left(H^3+H\dot{H}\right)-2m^2a^3H.
\label{2-potential-prime}
\end{align}
We next evaluate the vacuum expectation value of the energy density in each region. In the region (i) it is given by
\begin{align}
\left\langle T_{00}\right\rangle_{H\gg m}
& =\frac{1}{32\pi^2}\left(-m^4+2m^2H^2-6H^2\dot{H}-2H\ddot{H}+\dot{H}^2
\right)\frac{1}{\epsilon} \nonumber \\
& \quad -\frac{1}{384\pi^2}\frac{1}{2H^2+\dot{H}-m^2} \nonumber \\
& \qquad \times
\Big[
6\left\{\textstyle \frac{4}{3}H^4
-2\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma +\frac{1}{3}\right)m^2H^2
+\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma +\frac{3}{2}\right)m^4
\right\}\left(2H^2-m^2\right) \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad
+6\big\{\textstyle 12\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -2\right)H^4
-8\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\frac{5}{4}\right)m^2H^2 \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \textstyle
+\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\frac{5}{2}\right)m^4\big\}\dot{H}
\nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad +12\left\{\textstyle
+\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -1\right)\dot{H}
+\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\frac{5}{3}\right)\left(2H^2-m^2\right)
\right\}H\ddot{H} \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad
+6\left\{\textstyle 4\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\frac{7}{4}\right)H^2
+\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\frac{5}{2}\right)m^2\right\}\dot{H}^2
\nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \textstyle
-6\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\frac{3}{2}\right)\dot{H}^3
+\ddot{H}^2\Big] \nonumber \\
& \quad
-\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\left(-m^4+2m^2H^2-6H^2\dot{H}-2H\ddot{H}+\dot{H}^2
\right)\log \frac{2H^2+\dot{H}-m^2}{\mu^2}+O(\epsilon ).
\label{2-em.tensor-oscillation}
\end{align}
Only in this region there appears an ultra-violet divergence which should be renormalized. Indeed in (\ref{2-em.tensor-oscillation}), the $\frac{1}{\epsilon}$ term gives the divergence in dimensional regularization. There are five terms in the coefficient of $\frac{1}{\epsilon}$. The $m^4$ and $m^2H^2$ terms are renormalized into the cosmological constant term $\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}$ and the Einstein-Hilbert action $\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}R$, respectively. The rest three terms are $H^2\dot{H}$, $H\ddot{H}$, and $\dot{H}^2$ and from the dimensional analysis their counter terms are given by $\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}R^2$ and $\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}R_{\mu \nu}R^{\mu \nu}$. In the case of FRW metric (\ref{2-FRW.metric}), these two actions give the following additional terms to the Euler-Lagrange equation:
\begin{align}
\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\>R^2\quad \Rightarrow \quad
& 18\left(-6H^2\dot{H}-2H\ddot{H}+\dot{H}^2\right), \nonumber \\
\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}R_{\mu \nu}R^{\mu \nu}\quad \Rightarrow \quad
& 6\left(-6H^2\dot{H}-2H\ddot{H}+\dot{H}^2\right).
\label{2-counter.term}
\end{align}
Therefore the three coefficients of the $\frac{1}{\epsilon}$ term can be renormalized by these two counter terms. In principle we may introduce finite renormalization for the three terms $m^4$, $m^2H^2$ and $\Big(-6H^2\dot{H}-2H\ddot{H}+\dot{H}^2\Big)$. However, since we have to make the same renormalization to the two cases $H(t)\gg m$ and $H(t)\ll m$ of the single theory, we relegate to argue this problem after the following subsection \ref{2.2} for the case of a small Hubble parameter $H(t)\ll m$.
Then we make use of the minimal subtraction, and expand (\ref{2-em.tensor-oscillation}) for large $H(t)$ assuming $H(t)\gg m,\> \frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}\ll 1$ and $\frac{\ddot{H}}{H^3}\ll 1$:
\begin{align}
\left\langle T_{00}\right\rangle_{H\gg m}
& \simeq \frac{1}{64\pi^2}\Big\{\textstyle -\frac{4}{3}H^4
-6\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\frac{19}{9}\right)H^2\dot{H}
-2\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\frac{5}{3}\right)H\ddot{H} \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad
+\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\frac{17}{6}\right)\dot{H}^2\Big\}
\nonumber \\
& \quad
-\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\left(-6H^2\dot{H}-2H\ddot{H}+\dot{H}^2\right)
\log \frac{2H^2}{\mu^2}+\cdots .
\label{2-em.tensor-oscillation-approx}
\end{align}
For the regions (ii) and (iii) the contributions to $\left\langle T_{00}\right\rangle_{H\gg m}$ are described in the appendices \ref{app-airy} and \ref{app-damping} respectively. We here show the combined result of (ii) and (iii) calculated numerically under the conditions $H(t)\gg m$, $\frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}\ll 1$ and $\frac{\ddot{H}}{H^3}\ll 1$:
\begin{align}
\left\langle T_{00}\right\rangle_{H\gg m}
& \simeq 0.01365H^4+0.01333H^2\dot{H}
+0.0005572H\ddot{H}+0.02139\dot{H}^2+\cdots .
\label{2-em.tensor-airy+damping}
\end{align}
Note that the coefficient of $H\ddot{H}$ does not remain stationary when we vary the artificial parameter $k_0$, which was introduced to separate two regions (ii) and (iii). However this coefficient is very small compared to the other terms and does not affect the physical result.
\subsection{\label{2.2}Energy density for the case of a small Hubble parameter: $H(t)\ll m$}
In this subsection we derive the energy density in the case of a small Hubble parameter, $H(t)\ll m$. In the same manner as the previous subsection \ref{2.1} we calculate the vacuum expectation value of the energy density. Again we assume that the change of the Hubble parameter is fairly slow,
\begin{align*}
\frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}\ll 1,\quad \frac{\ddot{H}}{H^3}\ll 1.
\end{align*}
In this case the potential term (\ref{2-potential}) of the equation of motion (\ref{2-eom}) is always negative,
\begin{align}
V[a]<0.
\label{2-potential.is.negative}
\end{align}
Then the solution of the Eikonal approximation (\ref{2-eikonal.solution}) is expressed as
\begin{align*}
f^{\prime}=\sqrt{k^2+\left(-V[a]\right)}.
\end{align*}
Apparently any turning point does not exist so that the solution (\ref{2-eikonal.solution}) is valid in the whole region of $0\leq k<\infty$.
Thus we obtain the energy density as
\begin{align}
\left\langle T_{00}\right\rangle_{H\ll m}
& =\frac{1}{32\pi^2}\left(-m^4+2m^2H^2-6H^2\dot{H}-2H\ddot{H}+\dot{H}^2
\right)\frac{1}{\epsilon} \nonumber \\
& \quad +\frac{1}{384\pi^2}\frac{1}{m^2-2H^2-\dot{H}} \nonumber \\
& \qquad \times
\Big[
-6\left\{\textstyle \left(\log 4\pi -\gamma +\frac{3}{2}\right)m^4
-2\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma +\frac{1}{3}\right)m^2H^2+\frac{4}{3}H^4
\right\}\left(m^2-2H^2\right) \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad
+6\big\{\textstyle \left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\frac{5}{2}\right)m^4
-8\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\frac{5}{4}\right)m^2H^2 \nonumber \\
& \textstyle \qquad \qquad \qquad
+12\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -2\right)H^4\big\}\dot{H} \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad
+12\left\{\textstyle
-\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\frac{5}{3}\right)\left(m^2-2H^2\right)
+\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -1\right)\dot{H}\right\}H\ddot{H} \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad
+6\left\{\textstyle \left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\frac{5}{2}\right)m^2
+4\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\frac{7}{4}\right)H^2\right\}\dot{H}^2
\nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \textstyle
-6\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\frac{3}{2}\right)\dot{H}^3
+\ddot{H}^2\Big] \nonumber \\
& \quad
-\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\left(-m^4+2m^2H^2-6H^2\dot{H}-2H\ddot{H}+\dot{H}^2
\right)\log \frac{m^2-2H^2-\dot{H}}{\mu^2}+O(\epsilon ).
\label{2-em.tensor-damping}
\end{align}
We then make the renormalization by using the minimal subtraction, and the expansion assuming $H(t)\ll m,\> \frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}\ll 1$ and $\frac{\ddot{H}}{H^3}\ll 1$ gives the result,
\begin{align}
\left\langle T_{00}\right\rangle_{H\ll m}
& \simeq \frac{1}{64\pi^2}\Big\{\textstyle
-\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma +\frac{3}{2}\right)m^4
+2\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\frac{2}{3}\right)m^2H^2 \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \textstyle +\frac{2}{3}H^4
-6\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\frac{19}{9}\right)H^2\dot{H}
-2\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\frac{5}{3}\right)H\ddot{H} \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \textstyle
+\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -2\right)\dot{H}^2\Big\} \nonumber \\
& \quad
-\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\left(-m^4+2m^2H^2-6H^2\dot{H}-2H\ddot{H}+\dot{H}^2
\right)\log \frac{m^2}{\mu^2}+\cdots .
\label{2-em.tensor-damping-approx}
\end{align}
Hereby we next make use of the finite renormalization for the cosmological constant term $\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}$ and the Einstein-Hilbert action $\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}R$ in such a way that $m^4$ and $m^4\log \frac{m^2}{\mu^2}$ terms and $m^2H^2$ and $m^2H^2\log \frac{m^2}{\mu^2}$ terms are set to zero. The reason for so doing is because the energy density for small values of $H(t)$ should be zero. Although we should add the same counter terms to (\ref{2-em.tensor-oscillation-approx}), such terms are negligible when $H(t)$ is much larger than $m$. Furthermore we may make a finite renormalization for $\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}R^2$ and $\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}R_{\mu \nu}R^{\mu \nu}$ which generates an additional term $\frac{\lambda}{64\pi^2}\left(-6H^2\dot{H}-2H\ddot{H}+\dot{H}^2\right)$ to (\ref{2-em.tensor-damping-approx}).
\section{\label{3}Solution of the Einstein equation including backreaction}
So far we have obtained the energy density of a single scalar field for two cases. The explicit form for the case of a large Hubble parameter is given by
\begin{align}
\left\langle T_{00}\right\rangle_{H\gg m}
& =\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\left(-\frac{4}{3}H^4+\frac{38}{3}H^2\dot{H}
+\frac{10}{3}H\ddot{H}-\frac{17}{6}\dot{H}^2\right) \nonumber \\
& \quad +\frac{1}{64\pi^2}
\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\log \frac{2H^2}{\mu^2}+\lambda \right)
\left(-6H^2\dot{H}-2H\ddot{H}+\dot{H}^2\right) \nonumber \\
& \quad +0.01365H^4+0.01333H^2\dot{H}+0.0005572H\ddot{H}
+0.02139\dot{H}^2
\label{3-energy.density-right}
\end{align}
which is the sum of (\ref{2-em.tensor-oscillation-approx}) and (\ref{2-em.tensor-airy+damping}). For the case of a small Hubble parameter we have
\begin{align}
\left\langle T_{00}\right\rangle_{H\ll m}
& =\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\left(\frac{2}{3}H^4+\frac{38}{3}H^2\dot{H}
+\frac{10}{3}H\ddot{H}-2\dot{H}^2\right) \nonumber \\
& \quad +\frac{1}{64\pi^2}
\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\log \frac{m^2}{\mu^2}+\lambda \right)
\left(-6H^2\dot{H}-2H\ddot{H}+\dot{H}^2\right).
\label{3-energy.density-heavy}
\end{align}
We next consider the Einstein equation assuming that there are many fields with various masses. Then the total energy density is written as
\begin{align}
\left\langle T_{00}\right\rangle
=N_1\left\langle T_{00}\right\rangle_{H\gg m}
+N_2\left\langle T_{00}\right\rangle_{H\ll m},
\label{3-total.energy0}
\end{align}
where $N_1$ and $N_2$ stand for the numbers of the fields whose masses are lighter and heavier than the Hubble parameter, respectively. The ratio of $N_1$ to $N_2$ may vary as the Hubble parameter evolves in time. However, the coefficients of each terms in (\ref{3-energy.density-right}) and (\ref{3-energy.density-heavy}) are roughly the same, so that we may replace $\left\langle T_{00}\right\rangle_{H\gg m}$ and $\left\langle T_{00}\right\rangle_{H\ll m}$ with their average. Then (\ref{3-total.energy0}) becomes
\begin{align*}
\left\langle T_{00}\right\rangle
=\frac{N}{2}\Big(\left\langle T_{00}\right\rangle_{H\gg m}
+\left\langle T_{00}\right\rangle_{H\ll m}\Big),
\end{align*}
where $N$ is the total number of the species. Then the $(0,0)$-component of the Einstein equation reads
\begin{align}
R_{00}-\frac{1}{2}g_{00}R=-8\pi GN\times \frac{1}{2}
\Big(\left\langle T_{00}\right\rangle_{H\gg m}
+\left\langle T_{00}\right\rangle_{H\ll m}\Big).
\label{3-einstein.eq.0}
\end{align}
Rewriting this equation after plugging (\ref{3-energy.density-right}) and (\ref{3-energy.density-heavy}), we obtain the equation of describing the time evolution of the Hubble parameter $H(t)$:
\begin{align}
-3H^2 & =-8\pi GN\times \frac{1}{2}\Bigg\{
\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\left(-\frac{2}{3}H^4+\frac{76}{3}H^2\dot{H}
+\frac{20}{3}H\ddot{H}-\frac{29}{6}\dot{H}^2\right) \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad +\frac{1}{32\pi^2}
\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma -\log \frac{\sqrt{2}Hm}{\mu^2}+\lambda \right)
\left(-6H^2\dot{H}-2H\ddot{H}+\dot{H}^2\right) \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad
+0.01365H^4+0.01333H^2\dot{H}+0.0005572H\ddot{H}+0.02139\dot{H}^2
\Bigg\},
\label{3-einstein.eq}
\end{align}
where $m$ is the typical mass of the fields heavier than the Hubble parameter. A comment is in order: The mass scale $\mu$ is originally arbitrary, but as a cut-off scale in the general relativity, field theories and/or string theory, it may be natural to choose Planck scale $m_{pl}$ or string scale $m_s$.
\subsection{\label{3.1}Inflationary solution}
In this subsection we analytically solve the above eq. (\ref{3-einstein.eq}) by using linear approximation around the de Sitter solution. It is clear that the eq. (\ref{3-einstein.eq}) has the solution, where $H(t)$ is a constant,
\begin{align}
H(t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{8\pi GN}{3}\times \frac{1}{2}
\left\{-\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\frac{2}{3}+0.01365\right\}}}
\simeq 4.353\times \frac{m_{pl}}{\sqrt{N}}\equiv H_0,
\label{3-pure.de.sitter}
\end{align}
which is nothing but the de Sitter solution. We next consider a fluctuation $\tilde{H}$ around this solution $H_0$,
\begin{align}
H=H_0+\tilde{H}.
\label{3-pure.de.sitter-fluctuation}
\end{align}
In the linear approximation the eq. (\ref{3-einstein.eq}) becomes
\begin{align}
r\ddot{\tilde{H}}+\frac{q}{\sqrt{p}}\dot{\tilde{H}}+2\tilde{H}=0.
\label{3-einstein.eq.2}
\end{align}
where $p,\> q$ and $r$ are constants given by
\begin{align}
p & =\frac{8\pi N}{3m_{pl}^2}\times \frac{1}{2}
\left\{-\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\frac{2}{3}+0.01365\right\}, \nonumber \\
q & =\frac{8\pi N}{3m_{pl}^2}\times \frac{1}{2}
\left\{\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\frac{76}{3}
-\frac{6}{32\pi^2}\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma
-\log \frac{\sqrt{2}H_0m}{\mu^2}+\lambda \right)+0.01333\right\},
\nonumber \\
r & =\frac{8\pi N}{3m_{pl}^2}\times \frac{1}{2}
\left\{\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\frac{20}{3}
-\frac{2}{32\pi^2}\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma
-\log \frac{\sqrt{2}H_0m}{\mu^2}+\lambda \right)+0.0005572\right\}.
\label{3-einstein.eq.2-constants}
\end{align}
The general solution reads
\begin{align}
& H=H_0\left(1-C_1e^{h_1t}-C_2e^{h_2t}\right),\qquad C_1,C_2\ll 1,
\nonumber \\
& h_1,h_2
=\frac{-\frac{q}{\sqrt{p}}\pm \sqrt{\frac{q^2}{p}-8r}}{2r}.
\label{3-einstein.eq-begin-solution}
\end{align}
Let us turn to investigate the behavior of the solution (\ref{3-einstein.eq-begin-solution}) by using observational values. If we assume that the matter field potential is about the forth power of the GUT scale, $V\sim 10^{65}\text{ [GeV$^4$]}$~\cite{rf:bicep2}, we obtain
\begin{align}
H_0^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}V\quad \Rightarrow \quad
H_0\simeq 10^{14}\text{ [GeV]}.
\label{3-hubble}
\end{align}
Consequently, from (\ref{3-pure.de.sitter}), the number of species $N$ is evaluated as
\begin{align}
N\simeq 10^{11}.
\label{3-number.of.species}
\end{align}
Let us, for example, choose $\mu$ and $m$ in (\ref{3-einstein.eq}) as
\begin{align}
& \mu =m_s\simeq 10^{18}\text{ [GeV]}, \nonumber \\
& m=10^{16}\text{ [GeV]},
\label{3-scales}
\end{align}
where $m_s$ is the string scale. In the case of $\lambda =0$, in which we do not make an additional finite renormalization to the minimal subtraction, the solution (\ref{3-einstein.eq-begin-solution}) becomes
\begin{align}
H(t) & \simeq H_0\left(1-C_1e^{-12.48\frac{m_{pl}}{\sqrt{N}}t}
-C_2e^{0.4527\frac{m_{pl}}{\sqrt{N}}t}\right) \nonumber \\
& \simeq H_0\left(1-C_1e^{-2.866H_0t}-C_2e^{0.1040H_0t}\right).
\label{3-einstein.eq-begin-solution1}
\end{align}
If $C_2$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
C_2\lesssim 10^{-4},
\end{align*}
the duration of the inflation becomes
\begin{align*}
\Delta t\gtrsim \frac{60}{H_0},
\end{align*}
i.e. the e-folding number exceeds $60$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:energy-backreaction_inflation1}(a) we depict the time evolution of the Hubble parameter with the choices $C_1=10^{-4}$ and $C_2=10^{-4}$. The present approximation $\frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}\ll 1$ and $\frac{\ddot{H}}{H^3}\ll 1$ is valid in the region
\begin{align}
0\lesssim \frac{m_{pl}}{\sqrt{N}}t\lesssim 14.
\label{3-inflation.era0}
\end{align}
In view of (\ref{3-pure.de.sitter}) this is nothing but the region
\begin{align}
0\lesssim H_0t\lesssim 60.
\label{3-inflation.era}
\end{align}
However, if we introduce an additional finite renormalization in the form of
\begin{align*}
\frac{\lambda}{64\pi^2}\left(-6H^2\dot{H}-2H\ddot{H}+\dot{H}^2\right),
\end{align*}
we can relax the condition of $C_2$ by choosing appropriate $\lambda$. For instance if we choose $\lambda =25$, the solution (\ref{3-einstein.eq-begin-solution}) reads
\begin{align}
H(t) & \simeq H_0\left(1-C_1e^{-12.85\frac{m_{pl}}{\sqrt{N}}t}
-C_2e^{0.1530\frac{m_{pl}}{\sqrt{N}}t}\right) \nonumber \\
& \simeq H_0\left(1-C_1e^{-2.952H_0t}-C_2e^{0.03514H_0t}\right).
\label{3-einstein.eq-begin-solution2}
\end{align}
$H(t)$ is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:energy-backreaction_inflation1}(b) for $C_1=10^{-2}$ and $C_2=10^{-2}$, which indicates that $H(t)$ is close to $H_0$ in the region (\ref{3-inflation.era0}).
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{energy-back_reaction-fig1.1.eps}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{energy-back_reaction-fig1.2.eps}
\put(-350,0){$\frac{m_{pl}}{\sqrt{N}}t$}
\put(-120,0){$\frac{m_{pl}}{\sqrt{N}}t$}
\put(-480,120){$\frac{H(t)}{H_0}$}
\put(-380,100){(a)}
\put(-360,100){$\lambda =0$}
\put(-360,80){$C_1=10^{-4}$}
\put(-360,60){$C_2=10^{-4}$}
\put(-150,100){(b)}
\put(-130,100){$\lambda =25$}
\put(-130,80){$C_1=10^{-2}$}
\put(-130,60){$C_2=10^{-2}$}
\label{fig:energy-backreaction_inflation1}
\caption{The time evolution of the Hubble parameter $H(t)$:
The inflation.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\subsection{\label{3.2}End of the inflation}
In the previous subsection \ref{3.1}, we have found the inflationary solution has a sufficiently large e-folding number, and after the exponential expansion, the Hubble parameter starts to decrease.
In this subsection we show that in the above solution the Hubble parameter becomes zero for large $t$, which indicates that the inflation will end automatically. As we have seen in the previous subsection the eq. (\ref{3-einstein.eq}) becomes invalid sometime after $H(t)$ starts to decrease. However the eq. (\ref{3-einstein.eq}) becomes valid again if $H(t)$ is sufficiently small. Therefore if we assume that $H(t)$ continues to decrease, we can use eq. (\ref{3-einstein.eq}) to describe how the inflation stops. In this region $H^4$ term on the right hand side of (\ref{3-einstein.eq}) is much smaller than $H^2$ term on the left hand side because they balanced before $H(t)$ becomes small:
\begin{align*}
GNH^4\ll H^2.
\end{align*}
Thus the eq. (\ref{3-einstein.eq}) reads
\begin{align}
& H^2=PH^2\dot{H}+QH\ddot{H}+R\dot{H}^2
+S\left(-6H^2\dot{H}-2H\ddot{H}+\dot{H}^2\right)
\log \frac{\sqrt{2}Hm}{\mu^2},
\label{3-einstein.eq-end2}
\end{align}
where the constants $P,\> Q,\> R$ and $S$ are given by
\begin{align}
& P=\frac{8\pi N}{3m_{pl}^2}\times \frac{1}{2}
\left\{\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\frac{76}{3}
-\frac{6}{32\pi^2}\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma +\lambda \right)
+0.01333\right\}, \nonumber \\
& Q=\frac{8\pi N}{3m_{pl}^2}\times \frac{1}{2}
\left\{\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\frac{20}{3}
-\frac{2}{32\pi^2}\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma +\lambda \right)
+0.0005572\right\}, \nonumber \\
& R=\frac{8\pi N}{3m_{pl}^2}\times \frac{1}{2}
\left\{-\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\frac{29}{6}
+\frac{1}{32\pi^2}\left(\log 4\pi -\gamma +\lambda \right)
+0.02139\right\}, \nonumber \\
& S=-\frac{8\pi N}{3m_{pl}^2}\frac{1}{64\pi^2}.
\label{3-einstein.eq-end2-constants}
\end{align}
Here $N$ and $\mu$ are given by (\ref{3-number.of.species}) and (\ref{3-scales}).
The solution $H(t)$ of (\ref{3-einstein.eq-end2}) rapidly decreases as $t$ increases and then, with small oscillation, $H(t)\to 0$ as $t\to \infty$ for various choices of $m$ with $m\gg H(t)$. For example when we impose an appropriate initial condition so as to satisfy $H(0)\ll m$ and $\frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}(0)\ll 1$ and perform the numerical calculation for two cases $m=10^{16}$ and $10^{13}$ [GeV]. The results are depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:energy-backreaction_inflation2}. Here Fig.~\ref{fig:energy-backreaction_inflation2}(a) and Fig.~\ref{fig:energy-backreaction_inflation2}(b) shows the results for $\lambda =0$ and $\lambda =25$ respectively.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{energy-back_reaction-fig2.1.eps}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{energy-back_reaction-fig2.2.eps}
\put(-340,0){$\frac{m_{pl}}{\sqrt{N}}t$}
\put(-110,0){$\frac{m_{pl}}{\sqrt{N}}t$}
\put(-490,120){$\frac{\sqrt{N}}{m_{pl}}H(t)$}
\thicklines
\put(-370,140){(a)}
\put(-350,140){$\lambda =0$}
\put(-320,120){$m=10^{16}$ [GeV]}
\put(-350,123){\textcolor{red}{\line(1,0){20}}}
\put(-320,100){$m=10^{13}$ [GeV]}
\put(-350,103){\textcolor{cyan}{\line(1,0){20}}}
\put(-140,140){(b)}
\put(-120,140){$\lambda =25$}
\put(-90,120){$m=10^{16}$ [GeV]}
\put(-120,123){\textcolor{blue}{\line(1,0){20}}}
\put(-90,100){$m=10^{13}$ [GeV]}
\put(-120,103){\textcolor{magenta}{\line(1,0){20}}}
\caption{The time evolution of the Hubble parameter $H(t)$
with the initial condition $\frac{\sqrt{N}}{m_{pl}}H(0)=10^{-2}$
and $\frac{N}{m_{pl}^2}\dot{H}(0)=-10^{-6}$.}
\label{fig:energy-backreaction_inflation2}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\section{\label{4}Conclusion and outlook}
In the present paper we investigate the effect of the backreaction to the expansion of the space-time due to the matter fields existing in the universe. On arbitrary Friedmann-Robertson-Walker space-time, we quantize, as an example of the matter field, the scalar field and then we calculate the vacuum expectation value of the energy density. Since we are not able to obtain the exact solution of the scalar field, we make use of the Eikonal approximation to construct the solution. We then plug it in the energy density of the matter field. Combining it with the Friedmann equation we obtain a self-consistent equation that describes the time evolution of the space-time.
Thus we can determine the behavior of the early universe including the backreaction of the matter fields. As a result we find the following two eras in the early universe:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] We obtain the inflationary solution with the e-folding number $\gtrsim 60$ if we make a fine tuning of few orders of magnitude for the initial condition. This initial condition may be determined by a scenario of the birth of the universe in string theory and/or quantum gravity.
\item[(2)] After the era (1) the Hubble parameter will continue to decrease and then with small oscillation $H(t)$ goes to zero asymptotically. Then finally the inflation ends.
\end{enumerate}
In this manner by imposing some reasonable conditions we can make a inflation scenario without inflaton.
The problems next to be discussed are why the temperature fluctuation in the observed CMB is of the order $\frac{\delta T}{T}\sim 10^{-5}$ and very small non-Gaussianity is realized (cf. \cite{rf:planck}, $f_{NL}^{\> \text{local}}=2.7\pm 5.8$ (95\verb
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{energy-back_reaction-fig1.1-2.eps}
\put(7,37){$\frac{m_{pl}}{\sqrt{N}}t$}
\put(-270,120){$\frac{\sqrt{N}}{m_{pl}H_0}\dot{H}(t)$}
\put(-80,180){$\lambda =0$}
\put(-80,160){$C_1=10^{-4}$}
\put(-80,140){$C_2=10^{-4}$}
\caption{$\dot{H}(t)$
for the case of Fig.~\ref{fig:energy-backreaction_inflation1}(a).}
\label{fig:energy-backreaction_inflation1-2}
\end{figure}
Furthermore we consider a new mechanism to produce the temperature fluctuation in CMB that is different from our previous papers \cite{rf:ours}. In \cite{rf:ours}, we pointed out that the fluctuation of the energy density $\delta \rho =\delta T_{00}$ in the universe creates the gravitational potential $\Phi$ through the Einstein equation and turns to be the temperature fluctuation of CMB. A new mechanism we would like to discuss here is that the fluctuation $\delta t_{\text{end}}$ of the time $t_{\text{end}}$ at which the inflation ends generates the density perturbation, as in the ordinary scenario with the inflaton, $\delta =-H\delta t_{\text{end}}$. $\delta t_{\text{end}}$ can be roughly estimated as follows. First we express $t_{\text{end}}$ in terms of the initial values $H(0)$ and $\dot{H}(0)$. We define $t_{\text{end}}$ as the time $t$ when the third term of the eq. (\ref{3-einstein.eq-begin-solution1}) becomes of order $0.1$:
\begin{align}
C_2e^{0.1012H_0t_{\text{end}}}\simeq 0.1.
\label{4-inflation.ends}
\end{align}
On the other hand from (\ref{3-einstein.eq-begin-solution1}) we obtain
\begin{align}
& H(0)=H_0\left(1-C_1-C_2\right), \nonumber \\
& \dot{H}(0)=H_0\left(2.869H_0C_1-0.1012H_0C_2\right).
\label{4-initial.condition}
\end{align}
By combining (\ref{4-inflation.ends}) and (\ref{4-initial.condition}), we obtain
\begin{align}
t_{\text{end}}\simeq \frac{1}{0.1012H_0}\log \frac{0.1}{C_2}
\simeq \frac{10}{H_0}
\log \frac{0.1}{1-\frac{H(0)}{H_0}-\frac{\dot{H}(0)}{3H_0^2}}.
\label{4-end_time}
\end{align}
Then $\delta t_{\text{end}}$ is given by
\begin{align}
\delta t_{\text{end}}\simeq -\frac{10}{H_0}
\frac{-\frac{\delta H(0)}{H_0}-\frac{\delta \dot{H}(0)}{3H_0^2}}
{1-\frac{H(0)}{H_0}-\frac{\dot{H}(0)}{3H_0^2}}
\simeq 10\frac{\delta H(0)}{H_0^2}.
\label{4-fluctuation.of.time}
\end{align}
On the other hand by taking the variation of the Friedmann equation $H_0^2\simeq \frac{8\pi G}{3}T_{00}$, we have
\begin{align}
H_0\delta H(0)\simeq \frac{4\pi G}{3}\delta T_{00}.
\label{4-variation.of.Friedmann}
\end{align}
From (\ref{4-fluctuation.of.time}) and (\ref{4-variation.of.Friedmann}) we obtain the density perturbation as
\begin{align}
\delta \simeq -H_0\delta t_{\text{end}}
\simeq -10\frac{\delta T_{00}}{T_{00}}\sim -\frac{10}{\sqrt{N}}.
\label{4-density.perturbation}
\end{align}
Using the eq. (\ref{3-number.of.species}), $\delta$ is evaluated as
\begin{align}
\delta \sim 10^{-5},
\label{4-density.perturbation-value}
\end{align}
which is consistent with the observational value. It would be interesting to investigate this new mechanism in detail.
\subsection*{Acknowledgement}
The authors acknowledge Y. Sekino for discussion in the early stage of the present work. One of the authors H.K is supported by the JSPS Grant in Aid for Scientific Research No. 22540277. M.N is also supported by the JSPS Grant in Aid for Scientific Research No. 24540293.
|
\section{\label{}}
\section{Introduction}
The electronic Mach-Zehnder interferometer\cite{ji:2003} (MZI, see Fig.~\ref{fig:mzi}) is a powerful tool to probe interference effects of individual electrons in mesoscopic conductors. The injected electrons are delocalized over two paths, leading to oscillations in the outgoing current as a function of the enclosed magnetic flux. Working in the quantum Hall regime, where transport occurs along chiral edge states,\cite{buttiker:1988} each electron traverses the interferometer only once. The current oscillations in the MZI have been measured with a visibility above fifty percent.\cite{ji:2003,neder:2007nat,neder:2007natp,neder:2007,roulleau:2008prl100,litvin:2010,helzel:2012}
In addition, the MZI has been employed in a variety of experiments with the objective to control dephasing and decoherence. These include measuring\cite{roulleau:2008prl100} and improving\cite{huynh:2012} the coherence length in quantum Hall systems as well as tuning the decoherence using a voltage probe.\cite{roulleau:2009} Further experiments have measured the transmission phase of a quantum dot\cite{litvin:2010} and controlled the dephasing using an additional detector channel.\cite{neder:2007,neder:2007natp,roulleau:2008prl101} Finally, by inverting the role of detector and system, signatures of the noise\cite{neder:2007natp,roulleau:2008prl101,neder:2007iop} and the full counting statistics\cite{helzel:2012,levkivskyi:2009} of a quantum point contact (QPC) have been observed using a MZI.
On top of these experimental advances, the realization of driven single-electron emitters has recently paved the way for giga-hertz quantum electronics. Single electrons can now be emitted into a coherent conductor using either a mesoscopic capacitor or designed voltage pulses. The mesoscopic capacitor\cite{feve:2007,moskalets:2008} emits a sequence of electrons and holes in response to an external ac modulation. By applying a train of Lorentzian-shaped voltage pulses to an ohmic contact, noiseless excitations can be created on top of the Fermi sea in a mesoscopic conductor.\cite{dubois:2013}
These clean few-electron excitations were proposed by Levitov and co-workers\cite{levitov:1996,keeling:2006} and have recently been named levitons following their experimental realization.\cite{dubois:2013}
The combination of these achievements will surely lead to rich physics in the giga-hertz regime. Theoretical proposals for future experiments include measurements of the Glauber correlation function,\cite{haack:2011,haack:2013} the observation of interference fringes in the current and in the electronic energy distribution,\cite{ferraro:2013prb} and the modification of interferences using an additional single-electron source.\cite{juergens:2011,rossello:2014} Further theoretical studies investigate a MZI driven by a quantum pump\cite{chung:2007} and the charge transmitted through a MZI biased with Lorentzian voltage pulses.\cite{gaury:2014}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\columnwidth]{mzi.eps}
\caption{Mach-Zehnder interferometer driven by a time dependent voltage $V(t)$. The interferometer consists of two paths of lengths $L_u$ and $L_d$ which enclose a magnetic flux $\phi$. Two quantum point contacts $A$ and $B$ allow the single particle states to be delocalized over both paths leading to interference contributions in current and noise measured at the outputs.}
\label{fig:mzi}
\end{figure}
In this work, we consider a MZI driven by a time-dependent voltage. Motivated by the experimental realization of levitons, we focus on Lorentzian-shaped voltage pulses and compare our results to a sinusoidal and a constant voltage.\cite{chung:2005} The current at the outputs depends on the shape of the applied voltages if we use a MZI with a path-length difference. Such an asymmetric MZI constitutes an energy-dependent scatterer. In addition to the current visibility, we investigate the noise produced by the periodically driven MZI and find a contribution with no dc counterpart as predicted in Ref.~\onlinecite{battista:2014}. For the visibility of the current as well as the noise oscillations, we identify a lobe structure which contains information about the energy distribution of the electrons in a driven contact.
We note that a similar lobe structure was measured as a function of the applied dc voltage.\cite{neder:2006,roulleau:2007,neder:2007natp,litvin:2008,huynh:2012,helzel:2012}
These observations are attributed to interactions within the same\cite{kovrizhin:2009} or with a neighboring edge channel.\cite{sukhorukov:2007,levkivskyi:2008} Since the interactions depend on the number of electrons in the MZI but not on their energy distribution, we employ a noninteracting scattering approach\cite{moskalets:book} at filling factor $\nu=1$ and focus on the effect of dephasing through a path-length difference. Loss of phase coherence in a MZI has been investigated using voltage and dephasing probes\cite{pilgram:2006,forster:2007,marquardt:2004prl,marquardt:2004prb,chung:2005} and as a result of internal potential fluctuations\cite{seelig:2001} and fluctuating environments.\cite{forster:2005,marquardt:2004prl,marquardt:2004prb,marquardt:2005}
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:2}, we introduce the setup and the treatment of a periodically driven contact. In Sec.~\ref{sec:3} we specify the voltage pulses and their respective energy distributions. The current produced by the driven MZI is discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:current} and the noise in Sec.~\ref{sec:noise}. Finally, our conclusions are drawn in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{Driven Mach-Zehnder interferometer}
\label{sec:2}
Our setup is sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:mzi}. It consists of a MZI in the quantum Hall regime biased with a periodic voltage $V(t)=V(t+\mathcal{T})$ at contact $1$. Electrons injected from contacts $1$ and $2$ are partitioned into two chiral edge channels at QPC $A$. The two edge channels enclose a magnetic flux $\phi$ and are repartitioned into contacts $3$ and $4$ at QPC $B$. The QPCs are described by the scattering matrices
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:qpc}
S_\alpha=\begin{pmatrix}
i\sqrt{\mathcal{R}_\alpha} & \sqrt{\mathcal{D}_\alpha}\\
\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_\alpha} & i\sqrt{\mathcal{R}_\alpha}
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
with $\alpha=A,B$. The phases of the reflection and transmission amplitudes can be incorporated into a shift of the magnetic flux $\phi$ and are thus omitted.
Due to interference between the two paths, the current and noise measured at the outputs of the MZI oscillate as functions of $\phi$. In addition to this energy-independent phase, we consider an energy-dependent phase due to a difference in the path lengths $L_u$ and $L_d$. We assume a linear dispersion relation $E=\hbar v_Dk$ with drift velocity $v_D$ in the energy window of interest. The path-length difference is then characterized by the time
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pathlength}
\tau=(L_d-L_u)/v_D,
\end{equation}
which we assume to be positive without loss of generality. In addition to an overall phase-shift, the energy-dependent phase reduces the visibility of the oscillations depending on how the states of the charge carriers are distributed in energy. One of the main objectives of this work is to relate the energy distribution induced by a train of voltage pulses to the visibility of the current and noise oscillations in the MZI.
To describe the driven contact, it is convenient to split the voltage in a time-independent dc part and a time dependent ac part\cite{vanevic:2007}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:voltagesplit}
V(t)=V_{dc}+V_{ac}(t).
\end{equation}
A dc voltage can be incorporated by a shift in the chemical potential. To treat the ac voltage
we resort to the Floquet scattering matrix approach.\cite{moskalets:2002,moskalets:book} We assume that the potential in contact $1$ is uniform and completely screened from the rest of the MZI. The voltage drop is assumed to be smooth on length-scales comparable to the Fermi wavelength in order not to induce additional scattering.\cite{pretre:1996,pedersen:1998,dubois:2013prb} The solution to the time-dependent (single-particle) Schr\"odinger equation in contact $1$ then reads
\begin{align}
\label{eq:floqwav}
&\psi_E(t)=\psi_E^0(t)e^{-i\varphi(t)},\\\label{eq:phase}
&\varphi(t)=\frac{e}{\hbar}\int\limits_{0}^{t}dt'V_{ac}(t'),
\end{align}
where $\psi_E^0(t)$ is a solution of the Schr\"odinger equation for $V=V_{dc}$. We note that the lower limit in the last integral can be shifted by a global phase shift. It is assumed that the ac voltage varies on a time scale which is sufficiently slow, such that the distribution of the electronic states is not disturbed.\cite{pretre:1996,pedersen:1998,dubois:2013prb} Although energy is no longer a good quantum number, the states $\psi_E(t)$ are then distributed according to the Fermi distribution corresponding to a dc bias. The distributions in the different contacts read
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:fermidist}
\begin{align}
&f_1(E)=f(E-eV_{dc}),\\
&f_{i\neq1}(E)=f(E)=\frac{1}{e^{(E-\mu)/k_BT}+1},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where the index $i=1,2,3,4$ denotes the contact.
Here $T$ is the electronic temperature and $\mu$ the chemical potential of the grounded contacts. Note that $f_1(E)$ is the distribution of the $\psi_E(t)$ which do \textit{not} have a well defined energy due to the time-dependent phase induced by the ac voltage. Within these approximations, a contact driven by a voltage can thus be described as being dc biased with a time-dependent scattering phase $\varphi(t)$ that each particle picks up upon leaving the contact. Floquet scattering theory states that a time-dependent scattering phase scatters particles of energy $E$ into energy\cite{moskalets:book}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:en}
E_n=E+n\hbar\Omega,
\end{equation}
with the amplitude
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:floqsource}
S_n=\int\limits_{0}^{\mathcal{T}}\frac{dt}{\mathcal{T}}e^{in\Omega t}e^{-i\varphi(t)}.
\end{equation}
Here $\mathcal{T}=2\pi/\Omega$ is the spacing between the voltage pulses
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&V(t+\mathcal{T})=V(t),\\
\label{eq:phiper}
&\varphi(t+\mathcal{T})=\varphi(t).
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
With this description of the driven contact, we can write down the Floquet scattering matrix for the whole setup. For later convenience, we also write the energy of the incoming particles in the form of Eq.~\eqref{eq:en}. The amplitudes which relate incoming particles at energy $E_m$ to outgoing particles at energy $E_n$ then read
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:floqmzi}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}_{31}(E_n,E_m)&= S_{n-m}\left[i\sqrt{\mathcal{R}_A\mathcal{D}_B}e^{i(\phi_u+t_u E_n/\hbar)}+i\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_A\mathcal{R}_B}e^{i(\phi_d+t_d E_n/\hbar)}\right]=S_{n-m}S_{31}(E_n),\\
\mathcal{F}_{32}(E_n,E_m)&=\delta_{n,m}\left[\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_A\mathcal{D}_B}e^{i(\phi_u+t_u E_n/\hbar)}-\sqrt{\mathcal{R}_A\mathcal{R}_B}e^{i(\phi_d+t_d E_n/\hbar)}\right]=\delta_{n,m}S_{32}(E_n),\\
\mathcal{F}_{41}(E_n,E_m)&= S_{n-m}\left[-\sqrt{\mathcal{R}_A\mathcal{R}_B}e^{i(\phi_u+t_u E_n/\hbar)}+\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_A\mathcal{D}_B}e^{i(\phi_d+t_d E_n/\hbar)}\right]=S_{n-m}S_{41}(E_n),\\
\mathcal{F}_{42}(E_n,E_m)&=\delta_{n,m}\left[i\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_A\mathcal{R}_B}e^{i(\phi_u+t_u E_n/\hbar)}+i\sqrt{\mathcal{R}_A\mathcal{D}_B}e^{i(\phi_d+t_d E_n/\hbar)}\right]=\delta_{n,m}S_{42}(E_n),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
where only the differences $t_{d}-t_u=\tau$ and $\phi_d-\phi_u=\phi$ matter in the following. The Floquet amplitudes $S_n$ are given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:floqsource} and the quantities $S_{ij}$ are the scattering matrices of the static MZI.\cite{chung:2005}
\section{Periodic voltage pulses}
\label{sec:3}
Motivated by recent experiments,\cite{dubois:2013,jullien:2014} we focus on voltage pulses of Lorentzian shape and compare them to sinusoidal pulses and a dc voltage. Explicitly, the voltages read
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:voltages}
\begin{align}
\nonumber
&eV^L(t)=\sum\limits_{j=-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{2q\hbar\Gamma}{\left(t-j\mathcal{T}\right)^2+\Gamma^2}\\&\hspace{1cm}=q\hbar\Omega\frac{\sinh(\Omega\Gamma)}{\cosh(\Omega\Gamma)-\cos(\Omega t)},\\
&eV^S(t)=q\hbar\Omega\left[1+\cos\left(\Omega t\right)\right],\\\label{eq:voltagesc}
&eV^{dc}=q\hbar\Omega.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Here $\Gamma$ parametrizes the width of the Lorentzian pulses and $q$ is the average charge that is emitted by the contact with each pulse
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:charge}
\int\limits_{0}^{\mathcal{T}}I(t)dt=\int\limits_{0}^{\mathcal{T}}\frac{e^2}{h}V(t)dt=eq.
\end{equation}
For all voltages, the dc part is thus given by Eq.~\eqref{eq:voltagesc}. For Lorentzian pulses, the limit $\Gamma\rightarrow\infty$ corresponds to the dc case.
A case of special interest is provided by Lorentzian voltage pulses with integer charge ($q=\pm1,\pm2,...$). In this case, the current is carried by clean $q$-particle excitations,\cite{levitov:1996,keeling:2006,dubois:2013prb} termed levitons, with no accompanying electron-hole pairs. For positive (negative) $q$, the levitons are made up only of electrons above (holes below) the chemical potential.
For the voltages given in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:voltages}, the Floquet amplitudes induced by the ac voltage read (for Lorentzian pulses only the case $q=1$ is given)
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:floqsourceexp}
\begin{align}
&S_n^L=\begin{cases}
2e^{-(n+1)\Omega\Gamma}\sinh(\Omega\Gamma) &\mbox{ if } n>-1,\\
-e^{-\Omega\Gamma} &\mbox{ if } n=-1,\\
0 &\mbox{ if } n<-1,
\end{cases}\\
&S_n^S=J_{n}(q)\\
&S_n^{dc}=\delta_{n,0},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where we used the Bessel function of the first kind
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bessel}
J_n(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int\limits_{-\pi}^{\pi}e^{i[nt-x\sin(t)]}dt.
\end{equation}
For a dc bias, the result simply states that there is no ac voltage that could change the energy of the electrons. For levitons of integer charge $q>0$, $S_n^L$ is only finite for $n\geq-q$. For this reason the resulting excitations are purely electronic. Similarly, for negative integer pulses, $S_n^L$ is only finite for $n\leq \abs{q}$ and the excitations are made up of holes alone.\cite{keeling:2006,dubois:2013prb}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{filling.eps}
\caption{Energy distribution of a driven contact. The filling is plotted for a contact driven by Lorentzian (blue) and sinusoidal (red) voltage pulses as well as a constant bias (green). The three panels $(a)$-$(c)$ show different pulse-charges $q$ for zero (solid) and finite (dotted) temperatures. For voltages applied at $\Omega=2\pi\cdot6$\,GHz, the dotted curves correspond to $T\approx14 $\,mK. The filling shows plateaus of width $\hbar\Omega$ for all charges $q$. For fractional charges, the steps are shifted by $eV_{dc}=q\hbar\Omega$ with respect to $\mu=0$. The widths of the pulses $\Gamma$ are chosen to best visualize the step-like behavior of the filling.}
\label{fig:filling}
\end{figure*}
For a better understanding of the driven contact, we discuss the energy distribution of the particles leaving the contact. To this end, we introduce the second quantized operators describing particles before and after the scattering phase $\hat{a}(E)$, $\hat{b}(E)$. These are related as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:secqsource}
\hat{b}(E)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}S_n\hat{a}(E_{-n}),
\end{equation}
where $E_n$ is given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:en}. Using
\begin{equation}
\avg{\hat{a}^\dagger(E)\hat{a}(E_n)}=\delta_{0,n}f_1(E_n),
\end{equation}where $f_1(E)$ is given in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:fermidist}, we find
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:distsource}
\avg{\hat{b}^\dagger(E)\hat{b}(E_n)}=\sum\limits_{m=-\infty}^{\infty}S^*_mS_{m+n}f_1(E_{-m}).
\end{equation}
Particles at energies that do not differ by an integer multiple of $\hbar\Omega$ are not correlated. We will call the diagonal part ($n=0$) of the last expression the filling
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:filling}
\tilde{f}(E)=\avg{\hat{b}^\dagger(E)\hat{b}(E)}=\sum\limits_{m=-\infty}^{\infty}\abs{S_m}^2f_1(E_{-m}),
\end{equation}
and the off-diagonal terms ($n\neq0$) the coherences of the driven contact. The filling for voltage pulses of Lorentzian and sinusoidal shapes is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:filling} for different charges and temperatures. A finite filling above $\mu$ indicates electrons and a filling less than unity below $\mu$ indicates holes emitted by contact $1$. In contrast to the static case, a periodic voltage thus induces transport mediated by electrons and holes.\cite{battista:2014}
At zero temperature, the last equation shows that the filling in general will be constant over the energy range $\hbar\Omega$. A finite temperature smears these steps. This is confirmed by Fig.~\ref{fig:filling} which shows the filling for different charges. For fractional charges, the steps are shifted with respect to the chemical potential $\mu=0$ and there is a step at $eV_{dc}=q\hbar\Omega$. As shown below, this shift manifests itself in the visibilities of the current and noise oscillations. For the sinusoidal case, the filling exhibits the symmetry $\tilde{f}(eV_{dc}+E)=1-\tilde{f}(eV_{dc}-E)$ which is a direct consequence of the symmetry $J_{-n}(x)=(-1)^nJ_n(x)$ of the Bessel functions.
As we will see below, the dc current of the MZI is determined by the filling alone whereas the zero-frequency noise is influenced by the coherences if scattering is energy-dependent. This is the case for a MZI with a finite path-length difference [$\tau\neq0$, cf.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:pathlength}]. Both the filling and the coherences of levitons have recently been measured.\cite{dubois:2013,jullien:2014}
Finally, it is important to note that a periodically driven contact is different from a system with an equivalent filling that could be provided by an array of beam splitters and contacts at different voltages. While the latter system would describe a noisy channel, the zero frequency noise of a driven contact alone is zero, since its charge emission over the period $\mathcal{T}$ is determined solely by the dc voltage.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{visibility.eps}
\caption{Visibility of the current oscillations for different voltage pulses. In all cases the visibility shows an oscillatory behavior which falls of as $1/\tau$. For $q=l/p$, the visibility goes to zero if $\tau$ is an integer multiple of $p\mathcal{T}$ in the driven and of $p\mathcal{T}/l$ in the static case. A frequency $\Omega=2\pi\cdot6$\,GHz corresponds to a period $\mathcal{T}\approx0.15$\,ns which translates into a path-length difference of $\Delta L\approx1.5\,\mu$m. $(a)$ For single-charge pulses, the visibility of the driven MZI is reduced with respect to the static case but looks qualitatively similar. $(b)$ For multi-charge pulses, the visibility behaves strikingly different in the driven case. $(c)$ and $(d)$ At $\tau=j\mathcal{T}$, the visibility is independent of the pulse shape (marked by circles). All these observations are readily explained by the filling of the driven contact (see text).}
\label{fig:visibility}
\end{figure*}
\section{Current}
\label{sec:current}
The dc current of the driven MZI in contact $3$ reads\cite{moskalets:book}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:dccurr}
\nonumber
I&=\frac{e}{h}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}dE\left[\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{i=1,2}\abs{\mathcal{F}_{3i}(E,E_n)}^2f_i(E_n)-f(E)\right]\\
&=\frac{e}{h}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}dE\abs{S_{31}(E)}^2\left[\tilde{f}(E)-f(E)\right].
\end{align}
Here $f_i(E)$ and $f(E)$ are given in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:fermidist} and we used Eqs.~\eqref{eq:floqmzi} and the unitarity of the scattering matrices for the second equality. The dc current is thus determined only by the filling of the driven contact and the scattering matrix of the static MZI. The current can be written as the sum of a classical part and an interference part which oscillates with $\phi$
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:currclphi}
\begin{align}
&I=I_{cl}+I_\phi,\\
&I_{cl}=\frac{qe}{\mathcal{T}}(\mathcal{R}_A\mathcal{D}_B+\mathcal{D}_A\mathcal{R}_B),\\
\label{eq:currclphic}
&I_\phi=\frac{qe}{\mathcal{T}}2\sqrt{\mathcal{R}_A\mathcal{D}_A\mathcal{R}_B\mathcal{D}_B}\Re\left\{\avg{e^{i\Phi(E)}}\right\},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\Re\{\cdots\}$ denotes the real part. The classical part corresponds to the incoherent addition of the two paths, whereas the interference current arises from the delocalization of the single particle wavefunctions and thus depends on the phase difference of the two paths
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:totphase}
\Phi(E)=\phi+E\tau/\hbar.
\end{equation}
The phase average in Eq.~\eqref{eq:currclphic} is defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:phaseavg}
\avg{e^{i\Phi(E)}}=\frac{\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}dEe^{i\Phi(E)}\left[\tilde{f}(E)-f(E)\right]}{\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}dE\left[\tilde{f}(E)-f(E)\right]}.
\end{equation}
Here the denominator is proportional to the current emitted by the driven contact which is equal to $qe/\mathcal{T}$ independently of the temperature and the shape of the voltage. Note that additional dephasing can easily be incorporated in a redefinition of the phase average above (see also Ref.~\onlinecite{marquardt:2004prb}).
The visibility of the current oscillations is defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:visibility}
\mathcal{V}=\frac{I_{\rm max}-I_{\rm min}}{I_{\rm max}+I_{\rm min}}=\frac{I_{\phi,\max}}{I_{cl}},
\end{equation}
where $I_{\rm max}={\rm max}_\phi I$, and similarly for $I_{\rm min}$, and we made use of $I_{\phi,\max}=-I_{\phi,\min}$ for the second equality. In our case, the phase average is proportional to $\exp{(i\phi)}$ and the interference current is maximized when the phase average becomes real and positive [cf.~Eqs.~(\ref{eq:currclphic},~\ref{eq:totphase})]. The visibility thus reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:visibility2}
\mathcal{V}=\frac{2\sqrt{\mathcal{R}_A\mathcal{D}_A\mathcal{R}_B\mathcal{D}_B}}{\mathcal{R}_A\mathcal{D}_B+\mathcal{D}_A\mathcal{R}_B}\abs{\avg{e^{i\Phi(E)}}}.
\end{equation}
Evaluating the phase average, we find that the temperature dependence factorizes out not only in the static,\cite{chung:2005} but also in the driven case. The visibility can therefore be written as a product of a part that depends on the QPCs, a temperature dependent part, and a part that depends on the voltage
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:visibility3}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:visibility3a}
&\mathcal{V}=\mathcal{V}_{QPC}\cdot\mathcal{V}_T\cdot\mathcal{V}_{V},\\
&\mathcal{V}_{QPC}=\frac{2\sqrt{\mathcal{R}_A\mathcal{D}_A\mathcal{R}_B\mathcal{D}_B}}{\mathcal{R}_A\mathcal{D}_B+\mathcal{D}_A\mathcal{R}_B},\\
&\mathcal{V}_T=k_BT\frac{\pi\tau}{\hbar}{\rm csch}\left(k_BT\frac{\pi\tau}{\hbar}\right),\\\label{eq:visibility3d}
&\mathcal{V}_{V}=\abs{\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\abs{S_n}^2\frac{\sin[(n+q)\Omega\tau/2]}{q\Omega\tau/2}e^{in\Omega\tau/2}}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
For an energy-independent MZI ($\tau=0$), the visibility is independent of temperature and voltage $\mathcal{V}_T=\mathcal{V}_V=1$ and thus does not encode any information about the filling.
The dependence of the visibility on the QPCs and the temperature is extensively discussed in Ref.~\onlinecite{chung:2005}. The visibility is maximal for a symmetric MZI ($\mathcal{D}_A=\mathcal{D}_B$), where $\mathcal{V}_{QPC}=1$. A finite temperature increases the energy spread of the involved particles leading to a monotonic decrease in the visibility. The dependence of $\mathcal{V}_T$ on $\tau$ at fixed temperature is the same as its temperature dependence for a fixed $\tau$ and is plotted in the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:visibility}$(b)$. We now focus on $\mathcal{V}_V$ to highlight the effect of the voltage. We note that the effect of temperature on our results is negligible as long as the frequency of the applied pulses is considerably larger than the electronic temperature.
Evaluating Eq.~\eqref{eq:visibility3d} we find
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:visibilityexpl}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:visibilityexpla}
&\mathcal{V}_V^L=\frac{\abs{\sin(\Omega\tau/2)}}{\Omega\tau/2}\frac{\sqrt{2}\sinh(\Omega\Gamma)}{\sqrt{\cosh(2\Omega\Gamma)-\cos(\Omega\tau)}},\\
&\mathcal{V}_V^S=\frac{\abs{J_0[\abs{2q\sin(\Omega\tau/2)}]e^{iq\Omega\tau}-1}}{q\Omega\tau},\\\label{eq:visibilityexplc}
&\mathcal{V}_V^{dc}=\frac{\abs{\sin(q\Omega\tau/2)}}{q\Omega\tau/2},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for the three different voltages, where we used the identity
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:besselid}
\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}J_n^2(q)e^{in\theta}=J_0[\abs{2q\sin(\theta/2)}].
\end{equation}
For Lorentzian pulses, again only the case $q=1$ is given. Taking the limit of very broad pulses $\Omega\Gamma\gg\Omega\tau, 1$, we recover the static case, Eq.~\eqref{eq:visibilityexplc} with $q=1$, from Eq.~\eqref{eq:visibilityexpla}. For well separated pulses $\Omega\Gamma,\Omega\tau\ll 1$, we recover the result of Ref.~\onlinecite{haack:2011}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:vislev}
\left.\mathcal{V}^L_V\right|_{\Omega\rightarrow 0}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\left[\tau/(2\Gamma)\right]^2}},
\end{equation}
for the injection of a single leviton into the MZI.
Figure \ref{fig:visibility} shows the visibilities for different voltages. They all show an oscillatory behavior with a decay that goes as $1/\tau$. The zeroes of the oscillations can be understood in terms of the filling (see Fig.~\ref{fig:filling}). For a pulse charge $q=l/p$, Eq.~\eqref{eq:visibility3d} shows that the visibility vanishes when $\Omega\tau/p=0\mod2\pi$. This is the case when $\tau$ is an integer multiple of $p\mathcal{T}$. At zero temperature, the filling is constant, and does not cross $\mu$, over the energy intervals [$j\hbar\Omega/p,(j+1)\hbar\Omega/p$]. Therefore, for each particle that picks up the phase $\phi+E\tau/\hbar$ we find one particle on the same plateau that picks up the phase $\phi+E\tau/\hbar\pm\Omega\tau/(2p)$. When $\tau$ is an odd multiple of $p\mathcal{T}$, these phases differ by $\pi$ and the corresponding interference effects cancel. For $\tau=jp\mathcal{T}$ with $j$ being an even number, we analogously pair up particles at $E$ and $E\pm\hbar\Omega/(2jp)$ leading to a cancellation of the interference effects. Since electrons and holes contribute with an opposite sign to the current, it is important for the above argument to pair up particles of the same kind.
Interestingly, these zeroes persist even at finite temperatures due to the factorization of Eq.~\eqref{eq:visibility3a}.
For single-charge pulses, the visibility at finite $\tau$ for a driven contact is reduced compared to the static case [see Eqs.~\eqref{eq:visibilityexpla} and \eqref{eq:visibilityexplc} and Fig.~\ref{fig:visibility}$(a)$]. We interpret this reduction in the coherence length as a result of the bunching of charge carriers within the pulses. The effect is most obvious for levitons, where $q$ electrons are localized within each pulse. Apart from this reduction, the $q=1$ case shows similar visibilities for a driven and a static contact. For $q=3$ pulses [see Fig.~\ref{fig:visibility}$(b)$], the behavior for the driven MZI becomes strikingly different from the dc case. For small $\tau$ we still observe a fast decay similar to the $q=1$ case. For larger $\tau$, however, since three charges are emitted during one period, the visibility only goes to zero at the third zero of the dc visibility. Thus, the visibility for pulsed voltages can actually be higher than the dc visibility [cf.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:visibility3d}]. Figure \ref{fig:visibility}$(b)$ furthermore shows that the visibility for Lorentzian pulses of width $\Omega\Gamma=0.1$ is strictly smaller than the visibility for $\Omega\Gamma=0.4$. Since the limit $\Omega\Gamma\rightarrow\infty$ corresponds to the dc case, this implies that the visibility has a non-monotonic dependence on the pulse width for certain regions of $\tau$.
The same features can be seen for fractional pulses. In general, for $q=l/p$, the visibility goes to zero if $\tau$ is an integer multiple of $p\mathcal{T}$ in the driven case and of $p\mathcal{T}/l$ for a constant voltage. However, for $p\neq1$, also the points $\tau=j\mathcal{T}$ for arbitrary $j$ are special. From Eq.~\eqref{eq:visibility3d} we find that the visibility is universal and only depends on the pulse charge at these universality points
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:univers}
\mathcal{V}_V(\tau=j\mathcal{T})=\frac{\abs{\sin(j\pi q)}}{j\pi q}.
\end{equation}
The universality points are marked by circles in Figs.~\ref{fig:visibility}$(c)$ and $(d)$. As $q$ becomes smaller, they become denser and the visibility becomes increasingly independent of the pulse shape. The points of universality can again be explained by the filling. Since the filling shows steps of width $\hbar\Omega$, one can again find pairs of particles which have a phase difference of $\pi$ for all steps except the one that crosses $\mu$. Since holes acquire an additional minus sign because of their charge, they add up constructively with the electrons which are $\hbar\Omega/2$ away in energy. The number of remaining particles which contribute to the interference is independent of the step height because the contributions from electrons and holes are summed up. They give rise to the same visibility as the constant voltage $eV_{dc}=q\hbar\Omega$ which leads to the universality expressed in Eq.~\eqref{eq:univers}. It is interesting to note that the interference current becomes time-independent at the universality points (not shown).
To summarize this section, we find a visibility which strongly depends on the applied voltage and differs significantly from the static case for $q\neq1$. All the features can be explained by the filling of the driven contact.
\section{Noise}
\label{sec:noise}
We now turn to the zero-frequency cross correlator between the currents in contacts $3$ and $4$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:noise}
\mathcal{P}=\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{\mathcal{T}}\frac{dt}{\mathcal{T}}\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}dt'\avg{\left\{\Delta \hat{I}_3(t),\Delta \hat{I}_4(t+t')\right\}},
\end{equation}
where $\{\cdot,\cdot\}$ is the anti-commutator and $\Delta \hat{I}_i(t)=\hat{I}_i(t)-\langle\hat{I}_i(t)\rangle$. In our four-terminal setup, where there is no direct transmission between contacts $3$ and $4$, thermal equilibrium fluctuations do not contribute to the cross-correlator.\cite{buttiker:1992} The zero frequency noise arises due to partial occupation of the outgoing states. Within the scattering matrix approach, the outgoing states are mapped onto incoming states via the scattering matrix. Partial occupation of outgoing states then translates into pairs of incoming states with different fillings which feed into the same outgoing state. For each term in the noise, there are thus two incoming states involved. In our setup, this has two consequences.
First, as described in Ref.~\onlinecite{battista:2014}, the two states can either originate from two different contacts or from the same contact. The former contribution to the noise will be called transport noise, the latter interference noise (not to be confused with the $\phi$-dependent part of the noise)
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:noisetrinf}
\mathcal{P}=\mathcal{P}_{\rm tr}+\mathcal{P}_{\rm int}.
\end{equation}
When the two states originate from the same contact, they have to originate from different energies. To end up in the same outgoing state, the charge carriers need to gain or lose energy provided by the ac voltage. The interference noise thus vanishes in the dc case.
The second consequence is due to the fact that each of the two involved states can enclose the flux $\phi$. The noise thus consists of a constant part (no particles enclose the flux), a part which oscillates as a function of $\phi$ with period $2\pi$ (one particle encloses the flux) and a part which oscillates with period $\pi$ (both particles enclose the flux)\cite{chung:2005}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:noisephi}
\mathcal{P}=\mathcal{P}_{0}+\mathcal{P}_{\phi}+\mathcal{P}_{2\phi}.
\end{equation}
Note that the decompositions of the noise defined in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:noisetrinf} and \eqref{eq:noisephi} are independent of each other.
Before we define and discuss the measurable visibilities of the noise oscillations, we take a closer look at the decomposition of Eq.~\eqref{eq:noisetrinf}.
The transport noise can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:noisetr1}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}_{\rm tr}=\frac{e^2}{h}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}&dE\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\left[f_1(E_{-n})-f(E)\right]^2\abs{S_n}^2\\&\times\Re\left\{S_{31}^*(E)S_{32}(E)S_{42}^*(E)S_{41}(E)\right\},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the Fermi functions are defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:fermidist} and the quantities $S_{ij}(E)$ are the scattering amplitudes of the static MZI [cf.~Eqs.~\eqref{eq:floqmzi}]. We note that at zero temperature, where $f(E)=f^2(E)$, the transport noise can be expressed solely in terms of the filling $\tilde{f}(E)$, see Eq.~\eqref{eq:filling}, and the scattering matrix of the static MZI
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:noistrt0}
\begin{aligned}
\left.\mathcal{P}_{\rm tr}\right|_{T=0}=&\frac{e^2}{h}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}dE
\left[\tilde{f}(E)-f(E)\right]^2\\&\times\Re\left\{S_{31}^*(E)S_{32}(E)S_{42}^*(E)S_{41}(E)\right\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{visibilitynoise1.eps}
\caption{Visibility of the noise oscillations with period $2\pi$ for different voltage pulses. In all cases the visibility shows an oscillatory behavior which falls of as $1/\tau$. The period of the oscillations is temperature dependent and only at $T=0$ the same as for the current visibility. Additional features due to the interference noise can be seen for fractional pulses, panels $(c)$ and $(d)$. They are illustrated with the help of the inset in panel $(c)$ which shows the visibility due to the transport noise alone. Here $\mathcal{D}_A=\mathcal{D}_B=0.75$. For voltages applied at $\Omega=2\pi\cdot6$\,GHz, the dotted curves correspond to $T\approx35 $\,mK.}
\label{fig:visibilitynoise1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{visibilitynoise2.eps}
\caption{Visibility of the noise oscillations with period $\pi$ for different voltage pulses. In all cases the visibility shows an oscillatory behavior which falls of as $1/\tau$. The period of the oscillations is half the period of $\mathcal{V}_\phi$ and is temperature dependent. Additional features due to the interference noise can be seen for all charges. These are illustrated with the help of the inset in panel $(a)$ which shows the visibility due to the transport noise alone. In contrast to the current visibility, the noise visibilities thus encode information about the coherences and cannot be explained by the filling alone. Here $\mathcal{D}_A=\mathcal{D}_B=0.75$.}
\label{fig:visibilitynoise2}
\end{figure*}
For arbitrary temperatures, Eq.~\eqref{eq:noisetr1} can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:noisetr2}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}_{\rm tr}=-\frac{e^2}{h}&\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\abs{S_n}^2\left[c_0\bar{S}_{0}^{(n+q)}\right.\\&\left.+c_{\phi}\bar{S}_{\phi}^{(n+q)}\cos[(n+q)\Omega\tau/2+\phi]\right.\\&\left.-c_{2\phi}\bar{S}_{2\phi}^{(n+q)}\cos[(n+q)\Omega\tau+2\phi]\right],
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the Floquet amplitudes $S_n$ are given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:floqsource}. Here we introduced the QPC dependent coefficients
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:noisetr3}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:noisetr3a}
&c_0=\mathcal{R}_A\mathcal{D}_A+\mathcal{R}_B\mathcal{D}_B-6\mathcal{R}_A\mathcal{D}_A\mathcal{R}_B\mathcal{D}_B,\\\label{eq:noisetr3b}
&c_{\phi}=2(\mathcal{D}_A-\mathcal{R}_A)(\mathcal{D}_B-\mathcal{R}_B)\sqrt{\mathcal{R}_A\mathcal{D}_A\mathcal{R}_B\mathcal{D}_B},\\\label{eq:noisetr3c}
&c_{2\phi}=2\mathcal{R}_A\mathcal{D}_A\mathcal{R}_B\mathcal{D}_B,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and the functions
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:noisetr4}
\begin{align}
&\bar{S}_0^{(n)}=n\hbar\Omega\coth\left(\frac{n\hbar\Omega}{2k_BT}\right)-2k_BT,\\\nonumber
&\bar{S}_{j\phi}^{(n)}=\frac{2\pi k_BT}{\sinh(j\pi k_BT\tau/\hbar)}\left[\coth\left(\frac{n\hbar\Omega}{2k_BT}\right)\sin(jn\Omega\tau/2)\right.\\&\hspace{3cm}\left.-\frac{jk_BT\tau}{\hbar}\cos(jn\Omega\tau/2)\right].
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
For $S_n=\delta_{n,0}$, we recover the result of a constant voltage from Ref.~\onlinecite{chung:2005}, correcting a sign in front of the coefficient $c_{2\phi}$. We note that the part of the transport noise which oscillates with period $2\pi$ goes to zero if one of the QPCs is half-transparent [cf.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:noisetr3b}]. In this case, we can always find two processes with equal probability which only differ by an exchange of a particle originating from contact $1$ with a particle originating from contact $2$ and therefore cancel. For the part oscillating with period $\pi$, there is only one process for each pair of incoming states and it remains finite.
Already from Eq.~\eqref{eq:noisetr2}, we can anticipate that the noise visibility will not exhibit any universality. At zero temperature, the first term of Eq.~\eqref{eq:noisetr2} is proportional to the number of electrons plus the number of holes emitted by the driven contact. Their sum depends on the pulse shape unlike their difference, which only depends on the pulse charge and determines the dc current.\cite{dubois:2013prb}
The interference noise can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:noiseint1}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}_{\rm int}=&\frac{e^2}{h}\sum_{n,m,p}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}dE\frac{\left[f_1(E_{-n})-f_1(E_{-m})\right]^2}{2}\\&\times S_n^*S_mS_{m+p}^*S_{n+p}\abs{S_{31}(E)}^2\abs{S_{41}(E_p)}^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
For the case of a constant voltage, the Floquet amplitudes imply $n=m$, which together with the Fermi functions leads to a vanishing interference noise. Similarly, for an energy-independent MZI ($\tau=0$), the sum over $p$ implies $m=n$ and the interference noise vanishes in agreement with the findings of Ref.~\onlinecite{battista:2014}.
We note that even at zero temperature, the filling alone is not sufficient to describe the interference noise and the coherences become important, see Eq.~\eqref{eq:distsource},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:noiseintt0}
\begin{aligned}
\left.\mathcal{P}_{\rm int}\right|_{T=0}=&\frac{e^2}{h}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}dE
\abs{S_{31}(E)}^2\left[\tilde{f}(E)\abs{S_{41}(E)}^2\right.\\&-\sum\limits_{p=-\infty}^{\infty}\abs{\langle\hat{b}^\dag(E)\hat{b}(E_p)\rangle}^2\left.\abs{S_{41}(E_p)}^2\right].
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
At arbitrary temperatures, Eq.~\eqref{eq:noiseint1} can be cast into the more compact form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:noiseint2}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}_{\rm int}=-\frac{e^2}{h}&c_{2\phi}\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\left[\bar{S}_{0}^{(n)}\abs{\mathcal{K}_{n}}^2\right.\\&\left.+\bar{S}_{2\phi}^{(n)}\Re\left\{e^{i[2\phi+2(n+q)\Omega\tau]}\mathcal{K}_{n}\mathcal{K}_{-n}\right\}\right],
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
having introduced
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K}_n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty}S^*_mS_{m+n}e^{im\Omega\tau}.
\end{equation}
We note that even the $\phi$-independent part of the interference noise depends on $\tau$, since it has to vanish for $\tau=0$. We can see that the interference noise does not have a part which oscillates with period $2\pi$. Analogous to the transport noise, we always find two processes which only differ by the exchange of two particles originating from different energies. Since both particles originate from contact $1$, these processes cancel irrespectively of the QPC transmission amplitudes.
In close analogy to the current oscillations, we now define visibilities both for the part oscillating with period $2\pi$ and $\pi$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:noisevisibilities}
\mathcal{V}_{j\phi}=\abs{\frac{\mathcal{P}_{j\phi,\max}}{\mathcal{P}_0}},
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{P}_{j\phi,\max}=\max_\phi\mathcal{P}_{j\phi}$ [cf.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:noisephi}] and $j=1,2$. With Eqs.~(\ref{eq:noisetr2},~\ref{eq:noiseint2}) we readily find
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:noisep}
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{P}_0=-\frac{e^2}{h}\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\left[c_0\bar{S}_0^{(n+q)}\abs{S_n}^2+c_{2\phi}\bar{S}_0^{(n)}\abs{\mathcal{K}_{n}}^2\right],\\
&\mathcal{P}_{\phi,\max}=\frac{e^2}{h}\abs{\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}c_\phi\bar{S}_\phi^{(n+q)} e^{in\Omega\tau/2}\abs{S_n}^2},\\\nonumber
&\mathcal{P}_{2\phi,\max}=\frac{e^2}{h}\Biggl|\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}c_{2\phi}e^{in\Omega\tau}\left[\bar{S}_{2\phi}^{(n+q)}\abs{S_n}^2-\right.\\&\hspace{3.5cm}\left.\bar{S}_{2\phi}^{(n)}e^{i(n+q)\Omega\tau}\mathcal{K}_{n}\mathcal{K}_{-n}\right]\Biggr|.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
For a constant voltage, $S_n=\delta_{n,0}$, we recover the results of Ref.~\onlinecite{chung:2005}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:noisevisdc}
\mathcal{V}_{j\phi}=\abs{\frac{c_{j\phi}\bar{S}_{j\phi}^{(q)}}{c_0\bar{S}^{(q)}_0}}.
\end{equation}
The dependence of the visibilities on the QPCs is in detail discussed in Ref.~\onlinecite{chung:2005}. The ratio $\abs{c_\phi/c_0}$ is zero if one of the QPCs is either fully closed, half transparent or fully open, only going to unity for $\mathcal{D}_A,\mathcal{D}_B\ll1$. The ratio $\abs{c_{2\phi}/c_0}$ has its maximum, equal to unity, for $\mathcal{D}_A=\mathcal{D}_B=1/2$ and monotonically decreases away from that point.
The noise visibilities are plotted in Figs.~\ref{fig:visibilitynoise1} and \ref{fig:visibilitynoise2} for different pulse shapes and charges at zero and finite temperature. We find a qualitatively similar behavior to the current visibility. The noise visibilities show oscillations as a function of $\tau$ which fall of as $1/\tau$.
Furthermore, narrower pulses as well as increasing temperatures generally lower the noise visibilities. At zero temperature, $\mathcal{V}_\phi$ goes to zero if the path-length difference $\tau$ is an integer multiple of $p\mathcal{T}$ in the driven and $p\mathcal{T}/l$ in the static case (where the charge of the current pulses is $q=l/p$). Analogous to the current visibility, this can be explained with the filling of the driven contact. Since $\mathcal{V}_{2\phi}$ oscillates at twice the frequency, it behaves similarly as a function of $2\tau$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:visibilitynoise2}.
In contrast to the current visibility, the temperature dependence of the noise visibilities does not factor out and the period of the oscillations (and thus the zeroes) depends on temperature as can be seen clearly in panels \ref{fig:visibilitynoise1}$(a)$, $(b)$ and \ref{fig:visibilitynoise2}$(a)$, $(b)$. As a consequence, a finite temperature can increase the visibilities for certain regions of $\tau$. Since the visibilities vanish at infinite temperature [cf.~Eqs.~(\ref{eq:noisetr4},~\ref{eq:noisevisibilities})], this implies a non-monotonic dependence on temperature.
Also, both $\mathcal{V}_{2\phi}$ and $\mathcal{V}_\phi$ for fractional pulses show additional features which arise due to the interference noise. In the insets of panels \ref{fig:visibilitynoise1}$(c)$ and \ref{fig:visibilitynoise2}$(a)$, we show the visibilities that arise solely from the transport noise which lack the additional features. For $\mathcal{V}_\phi$, the interference noise only influences $\mathcal{P}_0$ [cf.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:noisep}]. Since $\mathcal{K}_n$ vanishes if $\tau$ is an integer multiple of $\mathcal{T}$, $\mathcal{P}_0$ exhibits local minima at these points which leads to peaks in the visibility. These can be seen in panels \ref{fig:visibilitynoise1}$(c)$ and $(d)$, where the visibility is finite at these points due to the fractional character of the pulses. The features in $\mathcal{V}_{2\phi}$ depend on the $\mathcal{K}_n$ in a more complicated way and also arise for integer charge pulses. The noise visibilities thus clearly show signatures of the interference noise in a driven, energy-dependent MZI.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
We have investigated the current and the noise in a MZI with a path-length difference, driven by periodic voltage pulses. Whereas the current can be expressed by the scattering matrix of the static MZI and the filling of the driven contact, the noise also depends on the coherences of the driven contact.
All the visibilities show a lobe structure which falls off as the inverse path-length difference. Quite generally, the visibilities of the current and noise oscillations decay faster with the path-length difference for narrower pulses. We interpret this as a result of a reduction in the delocalization of the electronic wavefunctions. The zeroes of the lobe structure can be explained with the filling of the driven contact and occur whenever the interference of each charge carrier is canceled by another charge carrier which picks up an additional minus sign due to the energy dependence of the MZI. Because the temperature dependence factorizes out for the current visibility, these zeroes remain robust at finite temperatures. This is not the case for the noise visibilities. The fact that the zeroes have their origin in an exact cancellation of the interference effect of different particles can lead to a non-monotonic behavior. For the current visibility, this occurs as a function of the width of the Lorentzian voltage pulses and for the noise visibilities as a function of temperature.
Additionally, the visibilities strongly depend on the charge of the voltage pulses and can behave remarkably different in the driven and the static case.
For a charge $q=l/p$, the visibilities go to zero at a path-length difference which is an integer multiple of $p\mathcal{T}$ for the driven and $p\mathcal{T}/l$ for the static case (or twice as often for $\mathcal{V}_{2\phi}$). For fractional charges, we find a universal behavior in the current visibility for a path-length difference which is an integer multiple of $\mathcal{T}$. This can be explained similarly to the visibility zeroes. At the points of universality, pairing up particles which contribute to the current oscillations with an opposite sign may leave unpaired electrons and holes. The remaining charge carriers lead to a visibility that is independent of the voltage shape. Such a universality is absent in the noise, because there electrons and holes contribute equally.
For time-dependent transport and energy-dependent scattering, the noise has an additional contribution with no dc counterpart due to processes where both involved states originate from the same (driven) contact.\cite{battista:2014} We found that this notably modulates the visibility $\mathcal{V}_\phi$ for fractional pulses and $\mathcal{V}_{2\phi}$ for all charge values.
We note that our setup can be used to implement the proposal of Ref.~\onlinecite{moskalets:2014}, where a constant scattering phase is applied to one of the (grounded) inputs of a MZI for a finite time. This scattering phase, which naturally occurs between well separated Lorentzian pulses of non-integer charge, is envisioned as a carrier of quantum information.
In summary, we have shown that the visibilities of the current and noise oscillations in a driven MZI make it possible to address different aspects of coherent time-dependent transport. We hope our work may stimulate experiments in this direction.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work is dedicated to Markus B\"uttiker who suggested the problem. We thank F. Battista for pointing out the advantages of separating the voltage in dc and ac components and we acknowledge fruitful discussions with P. Roulleau, D. C. Glattli, G. Haack, D. Dasenbrook, P. Samuelsson, D. Ferraro, M. Moskalets and E. V. Sukhorukov. The work was funded by the Swiss NSF.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section*{Introduction}
\label{bigsect:Intro}
\subsection{Background and motivation}
For a closed, connected, oriented surface $S$ of genus $g>1$, the \emph{Hitchin component} $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ is a preferred component of the character variety
$$
\mathcal X_{\mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}}(S) = \{ \text{homomorphisms } \rho \colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)} \} /\kern -4pt/ \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}
$$
consisting of group homomorphisms $\rho \colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ from the fundamental group $\pi_1(S)$ to the Lie group $\mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ (equal to the special linear group $\mathrm{SL_n(\R)}$ if $n$ is odd, and to $\mathrm{SL_n(\R)}/\{\pm \mathrm{Id}\}$ if $n$ is even), where $\mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ acts on these homomorphisms by conjugation. The quotient should normally be taken in the sense of geometric invariant theory \cite{Mum}, but this subtlety is irrelevant here as this quotient construction coincides with the usual topological quotient on the Hitchin component.
When $n=2$, the Lie group $\mathrm{PSL}_2(\mathbb R)$ is also the orientation-preserving isometry group of the hyperbolic plane $\mathbb H^2$, and the Hitchin component $\mathrm{Hit}_2(S)$ of $\mathcal X_{\mathrm{PSL}_2(\mathbb R)}(S)$ consists of all characters represented by injective homomorphisms $\rho\colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL}_2(\mathbb R)$ whose image $\rho \bigl( \pi_1(S) \bigr)$ is discrete in $\mathrm{PSL}_2(\mathbb R)$ and for which the natural homotopy equivalence $S \to \mathbb H^2/\rho \bigl( \pi_1(S) \bigr)$ has degree $+1$. The Hitchin component $\mathrm{Hit}_2(S)$ is in this case called the \emph{Teichm\"uller component}, and can also be described as the space of isotopy classes of hyperbolic metrics on $S$.
When $n>2$, there is a preferred homomorphism $\mathrm{PSL}_2(\mathbb R) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ coming from the unique $n$--dimensional representation of $\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb R)$ (or, equivalently, from the natural action of $\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb R) $ on the vector space $\mathbb R[X,Y]_{n-1}\cong \mathbb R^n$ of homogeneous polynomials of degree $n-1$ in two variables). This provides a natural map $\mathcal X_{\mathrm{PSL}_2(\mathbb R)}(S) \to \mathcal X_{\mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}}(S) $, and the \emph{Hitchin component} $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ is the component of $\mathcal X_{\mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}}(S)$ that contains the image of $\mathrm{Hit}_2(S)\subset \mathcal X_{\mathrm{PSL}_2(\mathbb R)}(S) $.
The terminology is motivated by the following fundamental result of Hitchin \cite{Hit}, who was the first to single out this component.
\begin{thm} [Hitchin]
\label{thm:Hitchin}
The Hitchin component $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ is diffeomorphic to $\mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n^2-1)}$.
\end{thm}
A \emph{Hitchin character} is an element of the Hitchin component $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$, and a \emph{Hitchin homomorphism} is a homomorphism $\rho \colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ representing a Hitchin character. We will use the same letter to represent the Hitchin homomorphism $\rho \colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ and the corresponding Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$.
About 15 years after \cite{Hit}, Labourie \cite{Lab1} showed that Hitchin homomorphisms satisfy many important geometric and dynamical properties, and in particular are injective with discrete image; see also \cite{FoG1}.
Hitchin's construction of the parametrization of $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ given by Theorem~\ref{thm:Hitchin} is based on geometric analysis techniques that provide little information on the geometry of the Hitchin homomorphisms themselves; see \cite{Loft, Lab3, Lab2} for different geometric analytic parametrizations when $n=3$. The current article is devoted to developing another parametrization of the Hitchin component $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ which is much more geometric, and has the additional advantage of being well-behaved with respect to a geodesic lamination. Geodesic laminations were introduced by Thurston to develop a continuous calculus for simple closed curves on the surface $S$, and provide very powerful tools for many topological and geometric problems in dimensions 2 and 3. See \S\S \ref{bigsect:PseudoAnosov} and \ref{bigsect:LengthMeasLam} for two simple applications of our parametrization, one to the dynamics of the action of a pseudo-Anosov homomorphism of $S$ on the Hitchin component, and another one to the length functions defined by a Hitchin character on Thurston's space $\mathcal{ML}(S)$ of measured laminations on $S$.
Our construction is a natural extension of Thurston's parametrization of the Teichm\"uller component by shear coordinates \cite{Thu1, Bon96}. It draws its inspiration from this classical case where $n=2$, but also from work of Fock-Goncharov \cite{FoG1} on a variant of the Hitchin component where the surface $S$ has punctures, and where these punctures are endowed with additional information. As in the classical case when $n=2$, the situation is conceptually and analytically much more complicated for a closed surface than in the case considered in \cite{FoG1}. Many arguments, such as those of \S\S \ref{subsect:Slithering}, \ref{subsect:ParamInjective} and \ref{subsect:PositiveIntersectionRevisited}, are new even for the case $n=2$.
The companion article \cite{BonDre} is devoted to a special case of our parametrization, when the geodesic lamination has only finitely many leaves. The situation is much simpler in that case, and in particular the arguments of \cite{BonDre} tend to be very combinatorial in nature. The current article has a much more analytic flavor. It is also more conceptual, and provides a homological interpretation of some of the invariants and phenomena that were developed in a purely computational way in \cite{BonDre}. And of course the framework of general geodesic laminations, possibly with uncountably many leaves, considered in this article is better suited for applications.
The article \cite{Dre2} was developed, to a large extent, as a first step towards the more general results of the current paper. It investigates all deformations of a Hitchin character $\rho\in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ that respect its triangle invariants, as discussed in the next section.
\subsection{Main results}
We can now be more specific. Let $\lambda$ be a maximal geodesic lamination in $S$. See \S \ref{bigsect:GeodLam} for precise definitions. What we need to know here is just that, for an arbitrary auxiliary metric of negative curvature on the surface, $\lambda$ is decomposed as a union of disjoint geodesic leaves, and that its complement $S-\lambda$ consists of $4(g-1)$ infinite triangles with geodesic boundary. Some maximal geodesic laminations, such as the ones considered in \cite{BonDre}, have only a finite number of leaves, but generic examples have uncountably many leaves.
Given a Hitchin character $\rho\in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$, the rich dynamical structure for $\rho$ discovered by Labourie \cite{Lab1} associates a triple $(E,F,G)$ of three flags of $\mathbb R^n$ to each triangle component $T_j$ of $S-\lambda$. In addition, Fock and Goncharov \cite{FoG1} prove that this flag triple $(E,F,G)$ is positive, in a sense discussed in \S \ref{subsect:Positivity}, and is determined by $\frac{(n-1)(n-2)}2$ invariants $\tau_{abc}^\rho(E,F,G) \in \mathbb R$. Since $S-\lambda$ has $4(g-1)$ components, these flag triple invariants can be collected into a single \emph{triangle invariant} $\tau^\rho \in \mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)}$.
The really new feature introduced in this article describes how to glue these flag triples across the (possibly uncountably many) leaves of the lamination, and simultaneously involves analytic and combinatorial arguments. The analytic part of this analysis is based on the slithering map constructed in \S \ref{subsect:Slithering}, which is a higher dimensional analogue of the horocyclic foliation that is at the basis of the case $n=2$ \cite{Thu1, Bon96}. This slithering map enables us to control the gluing by elements of the homology of a train track neighborhood $U$ for $\lambda$, which we now briefly describe. The precise definition of train track neighborhoods can be found in \S \ref{subsect:TrainTracks} (and is familiar to experts); at this point, it suffices to say that $U$ is obtained from $S$ by removing $2(g-1)$ disjoint disks, one in each component of $S-\lambda$; in addition, the boundary $\partial U$ is decomposed into a \emph{horizontal boundary} $\partial_{\mathrm h} U$ and a \emph{vertical boundary} $\partial_{\mathrm v} U$, in such a way that each component of $\partial U$ is a hexagon made up of three arc components of $\partial_{\mathrm h} U$ and three arc components of $\partial_{\mathrm v} U$.
The geodesic lamination has a well-defined 2--fold \emph{orientation cover} $\widehat\lambda$, whose leaves are continuously oriented, and the covering map $\widehat\lambda \to \lambda$ uniquely extends to a 2--fold cover $\widehat U \to U$. In particular, $\widehat\lambda$ is a geodesic lamination in the surface $\widehat U$.
Our new invariant for a Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ is a certain \emph{shearing class} $[\sigma^\rho] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1})$. This shearing class has the property that $\iota_* \bigl([\sigma^\rho]\bigr) = - \overline{[ \sigma^\rho]}$, for the covering involution $\iota$ of the cover $\widehat U \to U$ and for the involution $x\mapsto \overline x$ of $\mathbb R^{n-1}$ that associates $\overline x = (x_{n-1}, x_{n-2}, \dots, x_1)$ to $x=(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_{n-1})$. In particular, $[\sigma^\rho]$ can also be interpreted as a twisted homology class $[ \sigma^\rho] \in H_1(U, \partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde\mathbb R^{n-1})$ valued in a suitable coefficient bundle $\widetilde\mathbb R^{n-1}$ over $U$ with fiber $\mathbb R^{n-1}$.
The triangle invariant $\tau^\rho \in \mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)}$ and shearing class $[\sigma^\rho] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ satisfy two types of constraints. The first constraint is a homological equality.
\begin{prop}[Shearing Cycle Boundary Condition]
\label{prop:ShearingCycleBdryConditionIntro}
The boundary $\partial [\sigma^\rho] \in H_0(\partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ of the shearing class $[\sigma^\rho] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ of a Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ is completely determined by the triangle invariant $\tau^\rho \in \mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)}$, by an explicit linear formula given in {\upshape \S \ref{subsect:ShearingCycle}}.
\end{prop}
The second constraint is a positivity property, proved as Corollary~\ref{cor:TransMeasureHasPositiveIntersection} in \S \ref{subsect:ShearingAndLength}. Because the leaves of the orientation cover $\widehat \lambda$ are oriented, a famous construction of Ruelle and Sullivan \cite{RueSul} interprets every transverse measure $\mu$ for the orientation cover $\widehat\lambda$ as a 1--dimensional de Rham current in $\widehat U$. In particular, such a transverse measure $\mu$ determines a homology class $[\mu] \in H_1(\widehat U; \mathbb R)$.
\begin{prop}[Positive Intersection Condition]
\label{prop:PositiveIntersectionIntro}
For every transverse measure $\mu$ for the orientation cover $\widehat\lambda$, the algebraic intersection vector $ [\mu] \cdot [\sigma^\rho] \in \mathbb R^{n-1}$ of the shearing class $[\sigma^\rho] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ with $[\mu] \in H_1(\widehat U; \mathbb R)$ is positive, in the sense that all its coordinates are positive.
\end{prop}
The Shearing Cycle Boundary and Positive Intersection Conditions restrict the pair $\bigl( \tau^\rho, [\sigma^\rho]\bigr )$ to a convex polyhedral cone $\mathcal P$ in $\mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)} \times H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1})$. The main result of the article, proved as Theorem~\ref{thm:InvariantsHomeomorphism} in \S \ref{subsect:RealizeInvariants}, shows that these are the only restrictions on the triangle and shearing invariants, and that these provide a parametrization of the Hitchin component $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$.
\begin{thm}[Parametrization of the Hitchin component]
\label{thm:ParametrizationIntro}
The map $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S) \to \mathcal P$, which to a Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ associates the pair $\bigl( \tau^\rho, [\sigma^\rho]\bigr )$ formed by its triangle invariant $\tau^\rho \in \mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)}$ and its shearing class $[\sigma^\rho] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1})$, is a homeomorphism.
\end{thm}
The Shearing Cycle Boundary Condition provides some unexpected constraints on the triangle invariants of Hitchin characters, as well as on their shearing classes. The following two statements are abbreviated expressions of more specific computations given in \S \ref{subsect:ConstraintInvariantsBis}. These restrictions are somewhat surprising when one considers the relatively large dimension $2(g-1)(n^2-1)$ of $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:RestrictTriangleInvIntro}
An element $\tau \in \mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)}$ is the triangle invariant $\tau^\rho$ of a Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ if and only if it belongs to a certain explicit subspace of codimension $\lfloor \frac {n-1}2 \rfloor$ of $\mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:RestrictShearingCycleIntro}
A relative homology class $[\sigma] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ is the shearing class $[\sigma^\rho]$ of a Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ if and only if it belongs to a certain open convex polyhedral cone in an explicit linear subspace of dimension $6(g-1)(3n-7)$ if $n>3$, of dimension $16(g-1)$ if $n=3$, and of dimension $6(g-1)$ if $n=2$.
\end{prop}
The dimensions in Proposition~\ref{prop:RestrictShearingCycleIntro} should be compared to the dimension $18(g-1)(n-1)$ of the twisted homology space $ H_1(U, \partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde\mathbb R^{n-1})$, consisting of those $\alpha \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ such that $\iota_* (\alpha)= - \overline{\alpha}$.
At first, the relative homology group $H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ of a train track neighborhood $U$ may not appear very natural. In fact, although we decided to privilege this more familiar point of view in this introduction, it occurs as a space $\mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1}) $ of tangent cycles for the orientation cover $\widehat\lambda$ relative to its slits, where the slits of $\widehat\lambda$ are lifts of the spikes of the complement $S-\lambda$; Proposition~\ref{prop:RelativeHomologyTangentCycles} then provides an isomorphism $\mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1}) \cong H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1})$. A relative tangent cycle $\alpha\in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ assigns a vector $\alpha(k) \in \mathbb R^{n-1}$ to each arc $k$ transverse to $\widehat \lambda$, in a quasi-additive way: If $k$ is split into two subarcs $k_1$ and $k_2$, then $\alpha(k)$ is equal to the sum of $\alpha(k_1)$, $\alpha(k_2)$ and of a correction factor depending on the slit of $\widehat\lambda $ facing the point $k_1\cap k_2$ along which $k$ was split. In particular, $\mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ depends only on the maximal geodesic lamination $\lambda$, and not on the train track neighborhood $U$.
The lack of additivity of a relative tangent cycle $\alpha \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ has a nice expression in terms of the boundary map $\partial \colon H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1}) \to H_0( \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1})$, and is at the basis of the Shearing Cycle Boundary Condition of Proposition~\ref{prop:ShearingCycleBdryConditionIntro}. In the classical case where $n=2$, the Shearing Cycle Boundary Condition says that the shearing class $[\sigma^\rho] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1}) $ has boundary 0, and in particular that the corresponding tangent cycle $[\sigma^\rho] \in \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$ is additive with no correction factors; such objects were called ``transverse cocycles'' in \cite{Bon97a, Bon96}.
This point of view enables us to shed some light on the Positive Intersection Condition of Proposition~\ref{prop:PositiveIntersectionIntro}. Given a Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$, Labourie \cite{Lab1} shows that for every nontrivial $\gamma \in \pi_1(S)$ the matrix $\rho(\gamma)\in \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ is diagonalizable, and that its eigenvalues $m_a^\rho(\gamma)$ can be ordered in such a way that $|m_1^\rho(\gamma)|> |m_2^\rho(\gamma)|> \dots >|m_n^\rho(\gamma)| $. If we define $\ell^\rho (\gamma) \in \mathbb R^{n-1}$ by the property that its $a$--th coordinate is $\ell^\rho_a (\gamma) =\log \frac{|m_a^\rho(\gamma)|}{ |m_{a+1}^\rho(\gamma)|}$, the second author showed in \cite{Dre1} that this formula admits a continuous linear extension $\ell^\rho \colon \mathcal C^{\mathrm{H{\ddot o}l}}(S) \to \mathbb R^{n-1}$ to the space $\mathcal C^{\mathrm{H{\ddot o}l}}(S)$ of H\"older geodesic currents of $S$, a topological vector space that contains all conjugacy classes of $\pi_1(S)$ in a natural way; this continuous extension $\ell^\rho \colon \mathcal C^{\mathrm{H{\ddot o}l}}(S) \to \mathbb R^{n-1}$ is unique on the subspaces of $\mathcal C^{\mathrm{H{\ddot o}l}}(S)$ that are of interest to us in this paper (see Remark~\ref{rem:LengthHolderGeodCurrentsUnique?}).
In particular, an (additive) tangent cycle $\alpha \in \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda; \mathbb R)$ defines a H\"older geodesic current $\alpha \in \mathcal C^{\mathrm{H{\ddot o}l}}(S)$ (see \cite{Bon97a}), and we can restrict the length function of \cite{Dre1} to $\ell^\rho \colon \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda; \mathbb R) \to \mathbb R^{n-1}$.
The following result, proved as Theorem~\ref{thm:ShearingAndLength} in \S \ref{subsect:ShearingAndLength}, relates the length vector $\ell^\rho(\alpha) \in \mathbb R^{n-1}$ to the shearing class $[\sigma^\rho] \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1}) \cong H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1})$.
\begin{thm}[Length and Intersection Formula]
\label{thm:LengthIntersectionInto}
If $[\sigma^\rho] \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1}) \cong H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ is the shearing cycle of a Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$, and if $\alpha \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda; \mathbb R) \cong H_1(\widehat U; \mathbb R)$ is a tangent cycle for the orientation cover $\widehat\lambda$, then
$$
\ell_a^\rho(\alpha) = [\alpha]\cdot [\sigma^\rho] \in \mathbb R^{n-1}
$$
is the algebraic intersection vector of the homology classes $[\alpha]\in H_1(\widehat U; \mathbb R)$ and $[\sigma^\rho ] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ in the train track neighborhood $\widehat U$ of $\widehat\lambda$.
\end{thm}
In the special case where $\alpha$ is a transverse measure $\mu$ for $\widehat\lambda$, the Positive Intersection Condition of Proposition~\ref{prop:PositiveIntersectionIntro} is then equivalent to the property that all coordinates of the vector $\ell^\rho(\mu)$ are positive. In this version, this statement is an immediate consequence of the Anosov Property that is central to \cite{Lab1} (see Proposition~\ref{prop:MeasureHasPositiveLengths}).
The article concludes, in \S\S \ref{bigsect:PseudoAnosov} and \ref{bigsect:LengthMeasLam}, with two brief applications of Theorems~\ref{thm:ParametrizationIntro} and \ref{thm:LengthIntersectionInto}. The first one is concerned with the dynamics of the action of a pseudo-Anosov diffeomorphism $\phi \colon S \to S$ on the Hitchin component $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$; applying the parametrization of Theorem~\ref{thm:ParametrizationIntro} to the case of a maximal geodesic lamination $\lambda$ containing the stable lamination of $\phi$ shows that the dynamics of the action of $\phi$ on $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ are concentrated on submanifolds of $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ of relatively large codimension. The second application considers the restriction of the length function $\ell^\rho \colon \mathcal C^{\mathrm{H{\ddot o}l}}(S) \to \mathbb R^{n-1}$ to Thurston's space $\mathcal{ML}(S)$ of measured laminations on $S$; a consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:LengthIntersectionInto} is that, at each $\alpha \in \mathcal{ML}(S)$, the tangent map $T_\alpha \ell^\rho \colon T_\alpha \mathcal{ML}(S) \to \mathbb R^{n-1}$ is linear on each face of the piecewise linear structure of $\mathcal{ML}(S)$.
These results can be put in a broader perspective. Indeed, the properties of the Hitchin component remain valid when the Lie group $\mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ is replaced by any split real algebraic group $G$ \cite{Hit, Lab1, FoG1}. In this more general framework, our triangle invariant $\tau^\rho$ associates to each component of $S-\lambda$ a positive triple in the flag space $B\backslash G$, where $B$ is a Borel subgroup. The shearing class is now a relative homology class $[\sigma^\rho] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathfrak h)$ valued in the Cartan algebra $\mathfrak h$ of $G$, and equivariant with respect to the covering involution $\iota \colon \widehat U \to \widehat U$ and to minus the opposition involution of $\mathfrak h$. The
Shearing Cycle Boundary Condition then states that the boundary $\partial [\sigma^\rho] \in H_0 (\partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathfrak h)$ is completely determined by the triangle invariant $\tau^\rho \in (B\backslash G)^{4(g-1)}$, while the Positive Intersection Condition requires that the algebraic intersection vector $[\mu]\cdot [\sigma^\rho] \in \mathfrak h$ belong to the principal Weyl chamber of $\mathfrak h$. The output of these constructions is perhaps not as explicit as in the case of $\mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$, but extending the proofs to this more general context is only a matter of using the right vocabulary.
\medskip\noindent
\textbf{Acknowledgement:} The authors are very pleased to acknowledge very helpful conversations with Antonin Guilloux and Anne Parreau, at a time when they (the authors) were very confused. They are also grateful to Giuseppe Martone for many useful comments on the manuscript.
\section{Generic configurations of flags}
\label{bigsect:FlagConf}
Flags in $\mathbb R^n$ play a fundamental r\^ole in our construction of invariants of Hitchin characters. This section is devoted to certain invariants of finite families of flags, borrowed from \cite{FoG1}.
\subsection{Flags}
\label{subsect:Flags}
A \emph{flag} in $\mathbb R^n$ is a family $F$ of nested linear subspaces $F^{(0)} \subset F^{(1)}\subset \dots\subset F^{(n-1)} \subset F^{(n)}$ of $\mathbb R^n$ where each $F^{(a)}$ has dimension $a$.
A pair of flags $(E,F)$ is \emph{generic} if every subspace $E^{(a)}$ of $E$ is transverse to every subspace $F^{(b)}$ of $F$. This is equivalent to the property that $E^{(a)}\cap F^{(n-a)}=0$ for every $a$.
Similarly, a triple of flags $(E,F,G)$ is \emph{generic} if each triple of subspaces $E^{(a)}$, $F^{(b)}$, $G^{(c)}$, respectively in $E$, $F$, $G$, meets transversely. Again, this is equivalent to the property that $E^{(a)} \cap F^{(b)} \cap G^{(c)} =0$ for every $a$, $b$, $c$ with $a+b+c=n$.
\subsection{Wedge-product invariants of generic flag triples}
\label{subsect:WedgeInvariants}
Elementary linear algebra shows that, for any two generic flag pairs $(E,F)$ and $(E', F')$, there is a linear isomorphism $\mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R^n$ sending $E$ to $E'$ and $F$ to $F'$. However, the same is not true for generic flag triples. Indeed, there is a whole moduli space of generic flag triples modulo the action of $\mathrm{GL_n(\R)}$, and this moduli space can be parametrized by invariants that we now describe. These invariants are expressed in terms of the exterior algebra $\Lambda^\bullet (\mathbb R^n)$ of $\mathbb R^n$.
Consider the discrete triangle
$$
\Theta_n = \{ (a,b,c) \in \mathbb Z^3; a+b+c=n \text{ and } a,b,c \geq 0 \}.
$$
represented in Figure~\ref{fig:DiscTriangle}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\SetLabels
\mathbb R(- 0*-.15) $(n,0,0) $ \\
(.5* 1.08) $ (0,n,0)$ \\
\L( 1* -.15) $(0,0,n) $ \\
( * ) $ $ \\
( * ) $ $ \\
\endSetLabels
\vskip 10pt
\centerline{\AffixLabels{\includegraphics{DiscreteTriangle2.eps}}}
\vskip 10pt
\caption{The discrete triangle $\Theta_n$, with a hexagon cycle}
\label{fig:DiscTriangle}
\end{figure}
A function $\phi \colon \Theta_n \to \mathbb Z$ is \emph{balanced} if, for every $a_0$, $b_0$, $c_0$,
$$
\sum_{(a_0,b,c) \in \Theta_n} \phi(a_0, b,c) = \sum_{(a,b_0,c) \in \Theta_n} \phi(a,b_0,c) = \sum_{(a,b,c_0) \in \Theta_n} \phi(a,b,c_0) = 0,
$$
namely if the sum of the $\phi(a,b,c)$ over each line parallel to one side of the triangle $\Theta_n$ is equal to 0.
Such a balanced function $\phi$ defines an invariant of a generic flag triple $(E,F,G)$ as follows. For each $a$, $b$, $c$ between $0$ and $n$, the spaces $ \Lambda^a\bigl(E^{(a)}\bigr)$, $\Lambda^b\bigl(F^{(b)}\bigr)$ and $\Lambda^c\bigl(G^{(c)}\bigr)$ are each isomorphic to $\mathbb R$. Choose non-zero elements $ e^{(a)} \in \Lambda^a\bigl(E^{(a)}\bigr)$, $ f^{(b)} \in \Lambda^b\bigr(F^{(b)}\bigr)$ and $ g^{(c)} \in \Lambda^c\bigl(G^{(c)}\bigr)$. We will use the same letters to denote their images $ e^{(a)} \in \Lambda^a(\mathbb R^n)$, $ f^{(b)} \in \Lambda^b(\mathbb R^n)$ and $ g^{(c)} \in \Lambda^c (\mathbb R^n )$. We then define
$$
\Phi(E,F,G) = \prod_{(a,b,c) \in \Theta_n} \bigl( e^{(a)} \wedge f^{(b)} \wedge g^{(c)} \bigr)^{\phi(a, b, c)} \in \mathbb R,
$$
where we choose an isomorphism $\Lambda^n(\mathbb R^n) \cong \mathbb R$ to interpret each term in the product as a real number. The fact that the flag triple is generic guarantees that these numbers are non-zero, while the property that $\phi$ is balanced is exactly what is needed to make sure that this product is independent of the choices of the elements $ e^{(a)} \in \Lambda^a\bigl(E^{(a)}\bigr)$, $ f^{(b)} \in \Lambda^b\bigr(F^{(b)}\bigr)$ and $ g^{(c)} \in \Lambda^c\bigl(G^{(c)}\bigr)$ and of the isomorphism $\Lambda^n(\mathbb R^n) \cong \mathbb R$. We say that $\Phi$ is the \emph{wedge-product invariant} of generic flag triples associated to the balanced function $\phi\colon \Theta\to \mathbb Z$.
We now consider a fundamental special case. For $a$, $b$, $c\geq 1$ with $a+b+c=n$, namely for a point $(a,b,c)$ in the interior of the triangle $\Theta_n$, the \emph{$(a,b,c)$--hexagon cycle} is the balanced function $\phi_{abc} \colon \Theta_n \to \mathbb Z$ defined by
$$
\phi_{abc} = \delta_{(a+1, b, c-1)} - \delta_{(a-1, b, c+1)} + \delta_{(a, b-1, c+1)} -\delta_{(a, b+1, c-1)} + \delta_{(a-1, b+1, c)} -\delta_{(a+1, b-1, c)},
$$
where $\delta_{(a,b,c)} \colon \Theta_n \to \mathbb Z$ denotes the Kronecker function such that $\delta_{(a,b,c)}(a', b', c') =1$ if $(a,b,c)=(a', b', c')$ and $\delta_{(a,b,c)}(a', b', c') =0$ otherwise. The terminology is explained by the fact that the support of $\phi_{abc} $ is a small hexagon in the discrete triangle $\Theta_n$, centered at the point $(a,b,c)$; see Figure~\ref{fig:DiscTriangle} for the case where $n=9$ and $(a,b,c)=(2,3,4)$. The wedge-product invariant associated to the hexagon cycle $\phi_{abc} $ is
the \emph{$(a,b,c)$--triple ratio}
\begin{align*}
T_{abc} (E,F,G) &=
\frac
{ e^{(a+1)} \wedge f^{(b)} \wedge g^{(c-1)}}
{ e^{(a-1)} \wedge f^{(b)} \wedge g^{(c+1)}}
\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
\frac
{ e^{(a)} \wedge f^{(b-1)} \wedge g^{(c+1)}}
{ e^{(a)} \wedge f^{(b+1)} \wedge g^{(c-1)}}\ \
\frac
{ e^{(a-1)} \wedge f^{(b+1)} \wedge g^{(c)}}
{ e^{(a+1)} \wedge f^{(b-1)} \wedge g^{(c)}}.
\end{align*}
Note the elementary property of triple ratios under permutation of the flags.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:SymmetriesTripleRatios}
\pushQED{\qed}
\begin{equation*}
T_{abc} (E,F,G ) = T_{bca} (F,G, E)= T_{bac} (F,E,G)^{-1}. \qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
The natural action of the linear group $\mathrm{GL_n(\R)}$ on the flag variety $\mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$ descends to an action of the projective linear group $\mathrm{PGL_n(\R)}$, quotient of $\mathrm{GL_n(\R)}$ by its center $\bigl(\mathbb R- \{0\}\bigr) \mathrm{Id}$ consisting of all non-zero scalar multiples of the identity. Note that the projective special linear group $\mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ is equal to $\mathrm{PGL_n(\R)}$ if $n$ is odd, and is an index 2 subgroup of $\mathrm{PGL_n(\R)}$ otherwise.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:TripRatiosDetermineFlagTriples}
Two generic flag triples $(E,F,G)$ and $(E', F', G')$ are equivalent under the action of $\mathrm{PGL_n(\R)}$ if and only if $ T_{abc} (E,F,G)=T_{abc} (E',F',G')$ for every $a$, $b$, $c\geq 1$ with $a+b+c=n$.
In addition, for any set of non-zero numbers $t_{abc}\in \mathbb R - \{0\}$, there exists a generic flag triple $(E,F,G)$ such that $ T_{abc} (E,F,G)=t_{abc}$ for every $a$, $b$, $c\geq 1$ with $a+b+c=n$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[\S9]{FoG1}.
\end{proof}
In particular, the moduli space of generic flag triples $(E,F,G)$ under the action of $\mathrm{PGL_n(\R)}$ is homeomorphic to $\bigl (\mathbb R-\{0\} \bigr)^{\frac{(n-1)(n-2)}2} $.
Corollary~\ref{cor:WedgeInvarExpressedTripleRatios} below partially accounts for the important r\^ole played by the triple ratios $T_{abc}$ in Proposition~\ref{prop:TripRatiosDetermineFlagTriples}. We will not really need this property, but it explains why we will always be able to express in terms of triple ratios $T_{abc}$ the various wedge-product invariants that we will encounter in the paper.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:BalancedFunctionsHexagonCycles}
The hexagon cycles $\{ \phi_{abc}; a,b,c\geq 1, a+b+c=n \}$ form a basis for the free abelian group consisting of all balanced function $\phi \colon \Theta_n \to \mathbb Z$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is elementary, by induction on $n$.
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{lem:BalancedFunctionsHexagonCycles} immediately implies:
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:WedgeInvarExpressedTripleRatios}
Every wedge-product invariant can be uniquely expressed as a product of integer powers of triple ratios. \qed
\end{cor}
\subsection{Quadruple ratios}
\label{subsect:QuadRatios}
In addition to triple ratios, the following wedge-product invariants of generic flag triples will play a very important r\^ole in this article.
For $a=1$, 2, \dots, $n-1$, the \emph{$a$--th quadruple ratio} of the generic flag triple $(E,F,G)$ is the wedge-product invariant
\begin{align*}
Q_a(E, F, G)
=
\frac
{e^{(a-1)}\wedge f^{(n-a)} \wedge g^{(1)}}
{e^{(a)}\wedge f^{(n-a-1)} \wedge g^{(1)} }\,
&\frac
{e^{(a)}\wedge f^{(1)} \wedge g^{(n-a-1)}}
{e^{(a-1)}\wedge f^{(1)} \wedge g^{(n-a)}}
\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad
\frac
{ e^{(a+1)}\wedge f^{(n-a-1)} }
{ e^{(a+1)}\wedge g^{(n-a-1)} }
\,
\frac
{e^{(a)}\wedge g^{(n-a)} }
{e^{(a)}\wedge f^{(n-a)} }
\end{align*}
where, as usual, we consider arbitrary non-zero elements $ e^{(b)} \in \Lambda^b\bigl(E^{(b)}\bigr)$, $ f^{(b)} \in \Lambda^b\bigr(F^{(b)}\bigr)$ and $ g^{(b)} \in \Lambda^b \bigl(G^{(b)}\bigr)$, and where the ratios are computed in $\Lambda^n (\mathbb R^n) \cong \mathbb R$.
Note that $
Q_a(E,G,F) = Q_a(E,F,G)^{-1}
$, but that this quadruple ratio usually does not behave well under the other permutations of the flags $E$, $F$ and $G$, as $E$ plays a special r\^ole in $Q_a(E,F,G)$.
For this wedge-product invariant, we can explicitly determine the formula predicted by Corollary~\ref{cor:WedgeInvarExpressedTripleRatios}.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:ExpressQuadrupleRatioTripleRatios}
For $a=1$, $2$, \dots, $n-1$,
$$
Q_a(E,F,G) = \prod_{b+c=n-a} T_{abc}(E,F,G)
$$
where the product is over all integers $b$, $c\geq 1$ with $b+c=n-a$. In particular, $Q_{n-1}(E,F,G) = 1$ and $Q_{n-2}(E,F,G) = T_{(n-2)11}(E,F,G)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
When computing the right hand side of the equation, most terms $e^{(a')} \wedge f^{(b')} \wedge g^{(c')}$ cancel out and we are left with the eight terms of $Q_a(E,F,G)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Double ratios}
\label{subsect:DoubleRatios}
We now consider quadruples $(E,F,G,H)$ of flags $E$, $F$, $G$, $H\in \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$. Such a flag quadruple is \emph{generic} if each quadruple of subspaces $E^{(a)}$, $F^{(b)}$, $G^{(c)}$, $H^{(d)}$ meets transversely. As usual, we can restrict attention to the cases where $a+b+c+d=n$.
For $1\leq a\leq n-1$, the \emph{$a$--th double ratio} of the generic flag quadruple $(E,F,G,H)$ is
$$
D_a (E,F,G,H) = -
\frac
{ e^{(a)} \wedge f^{(n-a-1)}\wedge g^{(1)}}
{ e^{(a)} \wedge f^{(n-a-1)}\wedge h^{(1)}}
\frac
{ e^{(a-1)} \wedge f^{(n-a)}\wedge h^{(1)}}
{ e^{(a-1)} \wedge f^{(n-a)}\wedge g^{(1)}}
$$
where we choose arbitrary non-zero elements $ e^{(a')} \in \Lambda^{a'}(E^{(a')})$, $f^{(b')} \in \Lambda^1(F^{(b')})$, $g^{(1)} \in \Lambda^{1}(G^{(1)})$ and $h^{(1)}\in \Lambda^1(H^{(1)})$. As usual, $D_a (E,F,G,H) $ is independent of these choices.
The following computation gives a better feeling of what is actually measured by this double ratio.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:ComputeDoubleRatios}
For a generic flag quadruple $(E,F,G,H)$, consider the decomposition $\mathbb R^n = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n L_a$ where $L_a = E^{(a)} \cap F^{(n-a+1)}$. For arbitrary non-zero vectors $g\in G^{(1)}$ and $h\in H^{(1)}$, let $g_a$, $h_a\in L_a$ be the respective projections of $g$ and $h$ to the line $L_a$ parallel to the other lines $L_b$ with $b\neq a$. Then
\pushQED{\qed}
\begin{equation*}
D_a (E,F,G,H) = -
\frac
{ g_{a+1}}
{ h_{a+1}}
\frac
{ h_a}
{ g_a}
\qedhere
\end{equation*}
where the ratios $\frac{g_b}{h_b}\in \mathbb R$ are measured in the lines $L_b$.
\end{lem}
Note that $D_a (E,F,G,H)$ does not really depend on the whole flags $G$ and $H$, but only on the lines $G^{(1)}$ and $H^{(1)}$. The following elementary properties indicate how it behaves under transposition of $E$ and $F$, or of $G$ and $H$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:RelationsDoubleRatios}
\pushQED{\qed}
\begin{align*}
D_a(E,F,H, G) &= D_a(E,F,G,H)^{-1} \\
D_a(F,E,G,H) &= D_{n-a}(E,F,G,H)^{-1},\\
\text{and }
D_a(E,F,G,K) &= -D_a(E,F,G,H) D_a(E,F,H,K). \qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
The minus sign in the definition of $D_a (E,F,G,H)$ is justified by the positivity property of the next section, and in particular by Proposition~\ref{prop:DihedralPermutPreservesPositivity}.
\subsection{Positivity}
\label{subsect:Positivity}
An ordered family of flags $(E_1, E_2, \dots, E_m)\in \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)^m$ is \emph{positive} if:
\begin{enumerate}
\item for every distinct $i$, $j$, $k$ and for every $a$, $b$, $c\geq 1$ with $a+b+c=n$, the triple ratio $T_{abc}(E_i, E_j, E_k)$ is positive.
\item for every distinct $i$, $j$, $k$, $l$ with $ i < k< j<l $ or $ k<i < l< j$, and for every $1\leq a\leq n-1$, the double ratio $D_a(E_i, E_j, E_k, E_l)$ is positive.
\end{enumerate}
Fock and Goncharov \cite[\S5]{FoG1} give a much more conceptual definition of positivity, building on earlier work of Lusztig \cite{Lusz1, Lusz2}. In particular, they prove the following result.
\begin{prop}[{\cite{FoG1}}]
\label{prop:DihedralPermutPreservesPositivity}
If the flag $m$--tuple $(E_1, E_2, \dots, E_m)$ is positive, any flag $m$--tuple obtained by dihedral permutation of the $E_i$ is also positive.
\qed
\end{prop}
Recall that a \emph{dihedral permutation} is, either a cyclic permutation, or the composition of the order reversal $(E_1, E_2, \dots, E_m) \mapsto (E_m, E_{m-1}, \dots, E_1)$ with a cyclic permutation.
\section{Geodesic laminations}
\label{bigsect:GeodLam}
Geodesic laminations are a now very classical tool in 2--dimensional topology and geometry. They occur in many different contexts, for instance when one takes limits of sequences of simple closed curves. We state here a few basic definitions and facts, and refer to \cite{Thu0, CasBlei, PenH, BonLam} for proofs and background.
To define geodesic laminations, one first chooses a metric $m$ of negative curvature on the surface $S$.
An \emph{$m$--geodesic lamination} is a closed subset $\lambda \subset S$ that can be decomposed as a disjoint union of simple complete $m$--geodesics, called its \emph{leaves}. Recall that a geodesic is \emph{complete} if it cannot be extended to a longer geodesic, and it is \emph{simple} if it has no transverse self-intersection point. The leaves of a geodesic laminations can be closed or bi-infinite. A geodesic lamination can have finitely many leaves (as in the case considered in \cite{BonDre}), or uncountably many leaves.
An $m$--geodesic lamination has measure 0, and in fact Hausdorff dimension 1 \cite{BirSer}, and its decomposition as a union of leaves is unique. The complement $S-\lambda$ of an $m$--geodesic lamination $\lambda$ is a surface of finite topological type, bounded by finitely many leaves of $\lambda$. The completion of $S-\lambda$ for the path metric induced by $m$ is a finite area surface with geodesic boundary; it is the union of a compact part and of finitely many spikes homeomorphic to $[0,1] \times \left[ 0, \infty \right[$, where $\{0,1\} \times \left[ 0, \infty \right[$ is contained in two leaves of $\lambda$. The width of these spikes decreases exponentially in the sense that the parametrization by $[0,1] \times \left[ 0, \infty \right[$ can be chosen so that its restriction to each $\{ x\} \times \left[ 0, \infty \right[$ has speed 1 and so that the length of each arc $[0,1] \times \{ t\}$ decreases exponentially with $t$.
Because the leaves of $\lambda$ are disjoint, every point of $S$ has a neighborhood $U$ homeomorphic to $[0,1] \times [0,1]$ for which the intersection $U\in \lambda$ corresponds to $K\times[0,1]$ for some totally disconnected compact subset $K\subset [0,1]$; beware that, in general, the homeomorphism cannot be made differentiable, only H\"older bicontinuous.
We will make heavy use of \emph{transverse arcs} for $\lambda$. These are arcs differentiably immersed in $S$ that are transverse to the leaves of $\lambda$. In addition, we require that the endpoints of such a transverse arc be disjoint from $\lambda$.
The notion of geodesic lamination is independent of the choice of the negatively curved metric $m$ in the sense that, if $m'$ is another negatively curved metric on $S$, there is a natural one-to-one correspondence between $m$--geodesic laminations and $m'$--geodesic laminations.
A geodesic lamination $\lambda$ is \emph{maximal} if it is contained in no other geodesic lamination. This is equivalent to the property that each component of its complement $S-\lambda$ is a triangle, bounded by three infinite leaves of $\lambda$ and containing three spikes of $S-\lambda$. If the surface $S$ has genus $g$, an Euler characteristic argument shows that the number of triangle components of the complement $S-\lambda$ of a maximal geodesic lamination is equal to $4(g-1)$.
Every geodesic lamination is contained in a maximal geodesic lamination.
We can think of maximal geodesic laminations as some kind of triangulations of the surface $S$, where the edges are geodesic and where the vertices have been pushed to infinity. This point of view explains why maximal geodesic laminations are powerful tools for many problems, such as the ones considered in the current article.
\section{Triangle invariants}
\label{bigsect:TriangleInv}
Let $\rho \colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ be a Hitchin homomorphism. We will use a maximal geodesic lamination $\lambda$ to construct invariants of the corresponding character $\rho\in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$.
\subsection{The flag curve}
\label{subsect:FlagCurve}
The key to the definition of these invariants is the following construction of Labourie \cite{Lab1}.
Let $T^1S$ and $T^1\widetilde S$ be the unit tangent bundles of the surface $S$ and of its universal cover $\widetilde S$, respectively. For convenience, lift the homomorphism $\rho \colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ to a homomorphism $\rho' \colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{SL_n(\R)}$. The fact that such a lift exists is classical when $n=2$, and therefore when $\rho \colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ comes from a discrete representation $\pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL}_2(\mathbb R)$; the existence of the lift in the general case follows by connectedness of the Hitchin component $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$, and by homotopy invariance of the obstruction to lift. We can then consider the twisted product
$$
T^1S \times_{\rho'} \mathbb R^n = (T^1\widetilde S \times \mathbb R^n )/\pi_1(S)
$$
where the fundamental group $\pi_1(S)$ acts on $T^1\widetilde S$ by its usual action on the universal cover $\widetilde S$, and acts on $\mathbb R^n$ by $\rho'$. The natural projection $T^1S \times_{\rho'} \mathbb R^n \to T^1S$ presents $T^1S \times_{\rho'} \mathbb R^n$ as a vector bundle over $T^1S$ with fiber $\mathbb R^n$.
Endow the surface $S$ with an arbitrary metric of negative curvature. This defines a circle at infinity $\partial_\infty \widetilde S$ for the universal cover $\widetilde S$, and a geodesic flow on the unit tangent bundle $T^1S$. It is well known (see for instance \cite{Gro, BridH, GhysHarp}) that these objects are actually independent of the choice of the negatively curved metric, at least if we do not care about the actual parametrization of the geodesic flow (which is the case here).
The geodesic flow $(g_t)_{t\in \mathbb R}$ of $T^1S$ has a natural flat lift to a flow $(G_t)_{t\in \mathbb R}$ on the total space $T^1S \times_{\rho'} \mathbb R^n$. The flatness property here just means that the flow $(G_t)_{t\in \mathbb R}$ is the projection of the flow $(\widetilde{G}_t)_{t\in \mathbb R}$ on $T^1\widetilde S \times \mathbb R^n$ that acts by the geodesic flow $(\widetilde{g}_t)_{t\in \mathbb R}$ of $T^1\widetilde S$ on the first factor, and by the identity $\mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n}$ on the second factor.
Endow each fiber of the vector bundle $T^1S \times_{\rho'} \mathbb R^n \to T^1S$ with a norm $\Vert \ \Vert$ depending continuously on the corresponding point of $T^1S$.
\begin{thm}[Labourie {\cite{Lab1}}]
\label{thm:AnosovProperty}
If $\rho \colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ is a Hitchin homomorphism, the vector bundle $T^1S \times_{\rho'} \mathbb R^n \to T^1S$ admits a unique decomposition as a direct sum $L_1 \oplus L_2 \oplus \dots \oplus L_n$ of $n$ line subbundles $L_a \to T^1S$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item each line bundle $L_a$ is invariant under the lift $(G_t)_{t\in \mathbb R}$ of the geodesic flow;
\item for every $a>b$, there exist constants $A_{ab}$, $B_{ab}>0$ such that, for every $v_a\in L_a$ and $v_b \in L_b$ in the same fiber of $T^1S \times_{\rho'} \mathbb R^n$ and for every $t\geq0$, \pushQED{\qed}
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\Vert G_t(v_b)\Vert} {\Vert v_b \Vert} \leq
A_{ab}
\frac{\Vert G_t(v_a) \Vert} {\Vert v_a\Vert} \mathrm{e}^{-B_{ab}t}. \qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
The second property is clearly independent of the choice of the norm $\Vert \ \Vert$. It is referred to as the \emph{Anosov property} of the Hitchin homomorphism $\rho$. This relative property does not say anything about whether the flow $(G_t)_{t \in \mathbb R^n}$ expands or contracts the fibers of any individual subbundle $L_a$ but states that, when $a<b$, the flow $(G_t)_{t \in \mathbb R^n}$ contracts the fibers of $L_b$ much more than those of $L_a$. Writing this in a more intrinsic way, this means that $(G_t)_{t\in \mathbb R^n}$ induces on the line bundle $\mathrm{Hom}(L_a, L_b)$ a flow that is uniformly contracting when $a>b$.
Lift the subbundles $L_a$ of $T^1S \times_{\rho'} \mathbb R^n = (T^1\widetilde S \times \mathbb R^n)/\pi_1(S)$ to subbundles $\widetilde L_a$ of $T^1\widetilde S \times \mathbb R^n$.
Because the line subbundles $L_a$ are invariant under the lift $(G_t)_{t\in \mathbb R}$ of the geodesic flow, the fiber of $\widetilde L_a$ over $\widetilde x \in \widetilde S$ is of the form $\{\widetilde x \} \times \widetilde L_a(g)$ for some line $\widetilde L_a(g) \subset \mathbb R^n$ depending only on the orbit $g$ of $\widetilde x$ for the geodesic flow of $T^1\widetilde S$.
The line $\widetilde L_a(g)\subset \mathbb R^n $ depends on the orbit $g$ of the geodesic flow of $T^1 \widetilde S$ or, equivalently, on the corresponding oriented geodesic $g$ of $\widetilde S$. The Anosov property has the following relatively easy consequence. Define a flag $E(g)\in \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$ by the property that $E(g)^{(a)} = \widetilde L_1(g) \oplus\widetilde L_2(g) \oplus \dots \oplus \widetilde L_a(g)$; then $E(g)$ depends only on the positive endpoint of $g$. More precisely:
\begin{prop}[Labourie \cite{Lab1}]
\label{prop:FlagCurve}
For a Hitchin homomorphism $\rho \colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$, there exists a unique map $\mathcal F_\rho \colon \partial_\infty \widetilde S \to \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal F_\rho$ is H\"older continuous;
\item for every oriented geodesic $g$ of $\widetilde S$ with positive endpoint $\widetilde x_+ \in \partial_\infty \widetilde S$, the image $ \mathcal F_\rho(\widetilde x_+)$ is equal to the flag $ E(g)$ defined above;
\end{enumerate}
In addition, $\mathcal F_\rho$ is $\rho$--equivariant in the sense that $\mathcal F_\rho(\gamma \widetilde x) = \rho(\gamma)\bigl(\mathcal F_\rho(\widetilde x)\bigr)$ for every $\widetilde x \in \partial_\infty \widetilde S$ and $\gamma \in \pi_1(S)$. \qed
\end{prop}
By definition, this map $\mathcal F_\rho \colon \partial_\infty \widetilde S \to \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$ is the \emph{flag curve} of the Hitchin homomorphism $\rho \colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$. It is independent of the choice of the lift $\rho '\colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{SL_n(\R)}$ of $\rho \colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$, and of the negatively curved metric on $S$ used to define the geodesic flow of the unit tangent bundle $T^1S$.
The flag curve $\mathcal F_\rho$ has the following important positivity property.
\begin{thm}
[Fock-Goncharov {\cite{FoG1}}]
\label{thm:FlagCurvePositive}
For every finite set of distinct points $x_1$, $x_2$, \dots, $x_k \in \partial_\infty \widetilde S$ occurring in this order on the circle at infinity $\partial_\infty \widetilde S$, the flag $k$--tuple $\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(x_1), \mathcal F_\rho(x_2), \dots , \mathcal F_\rho(x_k) \bigr)$ is positive in the sense of {\upshape \S \ref{subsect:Positivity}}. \qed
\end{thm}
\subsection{Triangle invariants of Hitchin characters}
\label{subsect:TriangleInv}
We now define a first set of invariants for the Hitchin character represented by a homomorphism $\rho \colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$.
The complement of the maximal geodesic lamination $\lambda$ consists of finitely many infinite triangles $T_1$, $T_2$, \dots, $T_m$, each with three spikes.
Consider such a triangle component $T$ of $S-\lambda$, and select one of its spikes $s$. Lift $T$ to an ideal triangle $\widetilde T$ in the universal cover $\widetilde S$, and let $\widetilde s$ be the spike of $\widetilde T$ corresponding to $s$. The spike $\widetilde s$ uniquely determines a point of the circle at infinity $ \partial_\infty \widetilde S$, which we will also denote by $\widetilde s $.
Label the spikes of $ T$ as $ s$, $ s'$ and $ s''$ in counterclockwise order around $ T$, and let $\widetilde s$, $\widetilde s'$ and $\widetilde s'' \in \partial_\infty \widetilde S$ be the corresponding points of the circle at infinity. The flag triple $\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(\widetilde s), \mathcal F_\rho(\widetilde s') , \mathcal F_\rho(\widetilde s'')\bigr)$, associated to $\widetilde s$, $\widetilde s'$ and $\widetilde s'' \in \partial_\infty \widetilde S$ by the flag curve $\mathcal F_\rho \colon \partial_\infty \widetilde S \to \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$, is positive by Theorem~\ref{thm:FlagCurvePositive}. We can therefore consider the logarithms
$$
\tau_{abc}^\rho (s) = \log T_{abc}
\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(\widetilde s), \mathcal F_\rho(\widetilde s') , \mathcal F_\rho(\widetilde s'')\bigr)
$$
of its triple ratios, defined for every $a$, $b$, $c\geq 1$ with $a+b+c=n$. By $\rho$--equivariance of the flag curve $\mathcal F_\rho$, these triple ratio logarithms depend only on the triangle $T$ and on the spike $s$ of $T$, and not on the choice of the lift $\widetilde T$.
Lemma~\ref{lem:SymmetriesTripleRatios} indicates how the invariant $\tau_{abc}^\rho (s) \in \mathbb R$ changes if we choose a different vertex of the triangle $T$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:RotateTriangleInvariants}
If $s$, $s'$ and $s''$ are the three spikes of the component $T$ of $S-\lambda$, indexed counterclockwise around $T$, then
\pushQED{\qed}
\begin{equation*}
\tau_{abc}^\rho (s) = \tau_{bca}^\rho (s') =\tau_{cab}^\rho (s'') . \qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
By invariance of triple ratios under the action of $\mathrm{PGL_n(\R)}$ on $\mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$, it is immediate that the triangle invariants $\tau_{abc}^\rho (s) $ depend only on the character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$, and not on the homomorphism $\rho \colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ representing it.
Because of Lemma~\ref{lem:RotateTriangleInvariants}, we can think of the invariant $\tau_{abc}^\rho(s)$ as mainly associated to the triangle component $T$ of $S-\lambda$ that has the slit $s$ as a vertex, since choosing a different vertex of $T$ only affects the order in which the indices $a$, $b$, $c$ are considered. For this reason, we will refer to the $\tau_{abc}^\rho(s)$ as the \emph{triangle invariants} of the Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$.
\begin{rem}
The companion article \cite{BonDre} use a clockwise labeling convention for the vertices of a triangle. As a consequence, the triangle invariants of \cite{BonDre} are the opposite of those introduced here.
\end{rem}
\section{Tangent cycles for a geodesic lamination}
\label{bigsect:TangentCycles}
The second type of invariants associated to a Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ are more closely tied to the geodesic lamination $\lambda$, and have a homological flavor. This section is devoted to the definitions and basic properties of the corresponding objects.
\subsection{Tangent cycles}
\label{subsect:TangentCycles}
Let $\widehat \lambda$ be the orientation cover of the geodesic lamination $\lambda$, consisting of all pairs $(x,o)$ where $x\in \lambda$ and where $o$ is an orientation of the leaves of $\lambda$ near $x$. The map $(x,o) \mapsto x$ defines a 2--fold covering map $\widehat\lambda \to \lambda$.
Intuitively, a tangent cycle for $\widehat \lambda$ is a certain local multiplicity for the leaves of $\widehat \lambda$, and defines a $1$--dimensional de Rham current supported in $\widehat\lambda$ as in \cite{RueSul}. This notion was called ``transverse cocycle'' in \cite{Bon97a} and in subsequent papers, with the discrepancy between cycles and cocycles explained by Poincar\'e duality. The change in terminology is motivated by the relative tangent cycles that will be introduced in \S \ref{subsect:RelativeTangentCycles}.
Let $U$ be a neighborhood of the geodesic lamination $\lambda$ in $S$. If $U$ is small enough that it avoids at least one point of each component of $S-\lambda$, the cover $\widehat \lambda \to \lambda$ extends to a 2--fold cover $\widehat U \to U$ (not necessarily unique, according to the topology of $U$) for some surface $\widehat U$.
A \emph{tangent cycle} $\alpha$ for the geodesic lamination $\widehat \lambda$ is the assignment of a number $\alpha(k) \in \mathbb R$ to each arc $k \subset \widehat U$ transverse to $\widehat \lambda$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\alpha$ is \emph{finitely additive}, in the sense that $\alpha(k) = \alpha(k_1) + \alpha(k_2)$ whenever the arc $k$ is split into two transverse arcs $k_1$ and $k_2$;
\item $\alpha$ is \emph{invariant under homotopy respecting} $\widehat \lambda$, in the sense that $\alpha(k)= \alpha(k')$ whenever the transverse arcs $k$ and $k'$ are homotopic by a homotopy that keeps each point of $k\cap \widehat\lambda$ in the same leaf of $\widehat\lambda$.
\end{enumerate}
It easily follows from the above two conditions that $\alpha(k)=0$ for every arc $k$ disjoint from $\widehat\lambda$. As a consequence, the notion of tangent cycle is independent of the choice of the neighborhood $U$.
A well-known example of tangent cycle are \emph{transverse measures} for $\widehat\lambda$. These can be defined as tangent cycles $\mu \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda; \mathbb R)$ such that $\mu(k) \geq 0$ for every transverse arc $k$. Indeed, this positivity property enhances the finite additivity condition (1) to countable additivity.
\subsection{Train track neighborhoods}
\label{subsect:TrainTracks}
To determine the space of tangent cycles for the geodesic lamination $\lambda$, we will use a very specific type of neighborhood $U$ for~$\lambda$.
A (trivalent) \emph{train track neighborhood} for the geodesic lamination $\lambda$ is a closed neighborhood $U$ of $\lambda$ which can be decomposed as a union of finitely many rectangles $R_i$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item the boundary of each rectangle $R_i \cong [0,1] \times [0,1]$ is divided into a \emph{horizontal boundary} $\partial_{\mathrm h} R_i = [0,1] \times \{0,1\} $ and a \emph{vertical boundary} $\partial_{\mathrm v} R_i = \{0,1\} \times [0,1]$;
\item each component of the intersection $R_i \cap R_j$ of two distinct rectangles $R_i$ and $R_j$ is, either a component of $\partial_{\mathrm v} R_i$ contained in $\partial_{\mathrm v} R_j$ and containing one of the endpoints of $\partial_{\mathrm v} R_j$, or a component of $\partial_{\mathrm v} R_j$ contained in $\partial_{\mathrm v} R_i$ and containing one of the endpoints of $\partial_{\mathrm v} R_i$;
\item each of the four endpoints of $\partial_{\mathrm v} R_i$ is contained in some rectangle $R_j$ different from $R_i$;
\item the leaves of $\lambda$ are transverse to the arcs $\{x \} \times [0,1]$ in each rectangle $R_i \cong [0,1] \times [0,1]$;
\item a fifth condition indicated below is satisfied.
\end{enumerate}
By construction, the boundary $\partial U$ of the train track neighborhood $U$ naturally splits into two pieces. The \emph{horizontal boundary} $\partial_{\mathrm h} U$ is the union of the horizontal boundaries $\partial_{\mathrm h} R_i$ of all rectangles $R_i$. The \emph{vertical boundary} consists of those points of $\partial U$ that are contained in the vertical boundary $\partial_{\mathrm v} R_i$ of some rectangle $R_i$.
We can now state the missing condition.
\begin{enumerate}
\setcounter{enumi}{4}
\item no component of $S-U$ is a disk with 0, 1 or 2 components of the vertical boundary $\partial_{\mathrm v} U$ in its closure.
\end{enumerate}
In particular, the arcs $\{x \} \times [0,1]$ of each rectangle $R_i \cong [0,1] \times [0,1]$ provide a foliation of $U$, whose leaves are called the \emph{ties} of the train track neighborhood. A tie is \emph{generic} if it meets the boundary of $U$ only at its endpoints. Otherwise, it is \emph{singular}.
The origin of the train track terminology should become apparent when $U$ is chosen so that its ties are relatively short. See Figure~\ref{fig:TrainTrack}. In particular, a singular tie is also often called a \emph{switch}, and the rectangles $R_i$ are the \emph{edges} of $U$.
The definitions are such that a singular tie $t$ is adjacent to three edges $R_i$, $R_j$, $R_k$, in such a way that $t$ is equal to a component of the vertical boundary $\partial_{\mathrm v} R_i$, and is also the union of a component of $\partial_{\mathrm v} R_j$, of a component of $\partial_{\mathrm v} R_k$ and of a component of $\partial_{\mathrm v} U$. The rectangles $R_i$, $R_j$, $R_k$ are not necessarily distinct.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\SetLabels
( .72*.58) $\lambda$ \\
( .33* .55) $ R_i$ \\
( .53* .7) $ R_j$ \\
(.53 * .17) $R_k $ \\
\endSetLabels
\centerline{\AffixLabels{ \includegraphics{TrainTrack.eps} }}
\caption{A train track neighborhood}
\label{fig:TrainTrack}
\end{figure}
Every geodesic lamination admits a train track neighborhood.
When the geodesic lamination $\lambda$ is maximal, there is a crucial property of its train track neighborhoods $U$ that we will use on a regular basis. Recall that the complement of $\lambda$ then consists of infinite triangles. The following property is easily proved by extending the foliation of $U$ by its ties to a foliation of $S$ with saddle-type singularities, and by using an index computation on each component of the complement $S-\lambda$.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:TrainTrackMaxGeodLam}
Let $U$ be a train track neighborhood of the maximal geodesic lamination $\lambda$. Then, every component
$T$ of the complement $S-\lambda$ contains exactly one component $H=T-U$ of $S-U$; this component $H$ is a hexagon, namely a disk whose boundary is the union of $3$ components of the horizontal boundary $\partial_{\mathrm h} U$ and $3 $ components of the vertical boundary $\partial_{\mathrm v} U$. In addition, the foliation of $T\cap U$ by the ties of $U$ is as indicated in Figure~{\upshape\ref{fig:TrainTrackMaxGeodLam}}. \qed
\end{prop}
Incidentally, another index argument applied to the whole surface $S$ shows that the complement $S-U$ consists of $4(g-1)$ hexagons. In particular, this proves that the complement $S-\lambda$ consists of $4(g-1)$ triangles.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\SetLabels
(.5 *.65 ) $\lambda $ \\
(.62 * .48) $S-U $ \\
(.8 *.7 ) $U $ \\
(.91 *.33 ) $\partial_{\mathrm v} U $ \\
( .89*.5) $ \partial_{\mathrm h} U$ \\
\endSetLabels
\centerline{\AffixLabels{\includegraphics{TrainTrackMaxGeodLam.eps}}}
\caption{Train track neighborhoods and maximal geodesic laminations}
\label{fig:TrainTrackMaxGeodLam}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Homological interpretation of tangent cycles}
\label{subsect:SpaceTangentCycles}
Train track neighborhoods provide a convenient tool to perform computations in the vector space $\mathcal C(\widehat \lambda;\mathbb R)$ consisting of all tangent cycles for the orientation cover $\widehat\lambda$ of $\lambda$.
Let $U$ be a train track neighborhood of the maximal geodesic lamination $\lambda$. Using Proposition~\ref{prop:TrainTrackMaxGeodLam}, the orientation cover map $\widehat\lambda \to \lambda$ has a unique extension to a cover $\widehat U \to U$. Note that $\widehat\lambda$ is a geodesic lamination in the surface $\widehat U$, and that $\widehat U$ is a train track neighborhood of $\widehat\lambda$. Also, each component of $\widehat U - \widehat\lambda$ is an annulus bounded on one side by a chain of 6 leaves of $\widehat\lambda$, and on the other side by a dodecagon made up of 6 components of the horizontal boundary $\partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U$ and 6 components of the vertical boundary $\partial_{\mathrm v}\widehat U$.
The leaves of the orientation cover $\widehat \lambda$ are canonically oriented (use the orientation $o$ near the point $(x,o) \in \widehat\lambda$). This enables us to orient the ties of $\widehat U$ from left to right with respect to this canonical orientation of $\widehat\lambda$. Indeed, Proposition~\ref{prop:TrainTrackMaxGeodLam} guarantees that, for every tie $k$ of $\widehat U$, the left-to-right orientation at the endpoints of a component $d$ of $k-\widehat \lambda$ extends to an orientation of $d$.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:HomologyTangentCycles}
A tangent cycle $\alpha\in \mathcal C (\widehat \lambda ; \mathbb R) $ uniquely determines a homology class $[\alpha] \in H_1(\widehat U; \mathbb R)$ by the property that
$$
\alpha(k) = [k] \cdot [\alpha]
$$
for every generic tie $k$ of the train track neighborhood $\widehat U$, where $ [k] \cdot [\alpha]$ is the algebraic intersection number of $[\alpha] \in H_1(\widehat U; \mathbb R)$ with the relative homology class
$[k] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ defined by the tie $k$, endowed with the above left-to-right orientation.
In addition, the rule $\alpha \mapsto [\alpha]$ defines a linear isomorphism $\mathcal C (\widehat \lambda ; \mathbb R) \to H_1(\widehat U; \mathbb R)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} Because the geodesic lamination $\lambda$ is maximal, Proposition~\ref{prop:TrainTrackMaxGeodLam} shows that it is tightly carried by the train track $U$, in the sense that each component of $U-\lambda$ is an annulus. It follows that $\widehat \lambda$ is tightly carried by $\widehat U$. The result is then a consequence of \cite[Theorem~11]{Bon97a}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:DimensionTangentCycles}
If the surface $S$ has genus $g$,
$$
\mathcal C(\widehat \lambda ; \mathbb R) \cong H_1(\widehat U; \mathbb R) \cong \mathbb R^{12g-11}.
$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since the complement $S-\lambda$ consists of infinite triangles, the geodesic lamination $\lambda$ is non-orientable. This implies that $\widehat\lambda$ is connected, and therefore so is $\widehat U$. By definition of the Euler characteristic $\chi(\ )$,
$$
\dim H_1(\widehat U; \mathbb R) = -\chi(\widehat U) + \dim H_0(\widehat U; \mathbb R) = -\chi(\widehat U) + 1 = -2 \chi(U) +1 .
$$
We observed that the complement of $U$ in $S$ consists of $4(g-1)$ hexagons. Therefore, $\chi(U) = \chi(S)-4(g-1)=-6(g-1)$. The result follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Tangent cycles relative to the slits}
\label{subsect:RelativeTangentCycles}
We now relax the additivity condition for a tangent cycle.
Let $U$ be a neighborhood of $\lambda$ in $S$ that avoids at least one point of each component of $S-\lambda$. For instance, $U$ can be a train track neighborhood of $\lambda$. Extend the orientation cover $\widehat\lambda \to \lambda$ to a 2--fold cover $\widehat U \to U$. The complement $\widehat U - \widehat\lambda$ has a certain number of infinite spikes, in fact $24(g-1)$ spikes because the complement $S-\lambda$ consists of $4(g-1)$ infinite triangles and because each spike of $S-\lambda$ lifts to two spikes of $\widehat U - \widehat \lambda$. In particular, the spikes of $\widehat U - \widehat\lambda$ are really independent of the choice of the neighborhood $U$. For this reason, we will also refer to the spikes of $\widehat U - \widehat\lambda$ as the \emph{slits of $\widehat\lambda$}.
We need to restrict attention to a special class of transverse arcs for $\widehat\lambda$. An arc $k \subset \widehat U$ is \emph{tightly transverse} to the geodesic lamination $\widehat\lambda$ if it is transverse to $\widehat\lambda$, if it has nonempty intersection with $\widehat\lambda$ and if, for every component $d$ of $k-\widehat\lambda$, one of the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$d$ contains one of the endpoints of $k$;
\item $d$ separates one of the spikes of $\widehat U - \widehat\lambda$ from the rest of $\widehat U - \widehat\lambda$.
\end{itemize}
A fundamental example arises when the geodesic lamination $\lambda$ is maximal and when $ U$ is a train track neighborhood of $\lambda$, so that its lift $\widehat U$ is a train track neighborhood of $\widehat \lambda$. It then follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:TrainTrackMaxGeodLam} that every tie of $\widehat U$ is tightly transverse to $\widehat \lambda$.
The slits of $\widehat\lambda$, namely the spikes of $\widehat U - \widehat\lambda$, come in two types because of the canonical orientation of the leaves of the orientation cover $\widehat\lambda$: the \emph{positive slits} $s$ where the two leaves of $\widehat\lambda$ that are adjacent to $s$ are oriented towards $s$ for the canonical orientation of $\widehat\lambda$, and the \emph{negative slits} where these two leaves are oriented away from $s$. Define the \emph{sign} of the slit $s$ of $\widehat U - \widehat\lambda$ as $\epsilon(s) =+1$ when $s$ is positive, and $\epsilon(s) =-1$ for a negative slit.
An $\mathbb R$--valued \emph{tangent cycle relative to the slits} for $\widehat \lambda$ assigns a number $\alpha(k)\in \mathbb R$ to each arc $k \subset \widehat U$ tightly transverse to $\widehat\lambda$ in such a way that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\alpha$ is, as before, \emph{invariant under homotopy respecting} $\widehat \lambda$ in the sense that $\alpha(k)= \alpha(k')$ whenever the transverse arcs $k$ and $k'$ are homotopic by a homotopy that keeps each point of $k\cap \widehat\lambda$ in the same leaf of $\widehat\lambda$;
\item $\alpha$ is \emph{quasi-additive} in the following sense. There is a number $\partial\alpha(s)\in \mathbb R$ associated to each slit $s$ of $\widehat \lambda$ such that
$$
\alpha(k) = \alpha(k_1) + \alpha(k_2) - \epsilon(s) \partial \alpha(s)
$$
whenever the arc $k \subset \widehat U$ is tightly transverse to $\widehat \lambda$, the arcs $k_1$ and $k_2$ are obtained by splitting $k$ at a point $x\in k-\widehat\lambda$ contained in a component $d$ of $k-\widehat\lambda$ that is disjoint from $\partial k$, and $s$ is the spike separated from the rest of $\widehat U - \widehat \lambda$ by the component $d$.
\end{enumerate}
By definition, the function $\partial\alpha \colon \{ \text{slits of } \widehat\lambda\} \to \mathbb R$ is the \emph{boundary} of the relative cycle $\alpha$. We could have combined $\partial \alpha$ with the sign $\epsilon$ to create a single function $ \{ \text{slits of } \widehat\lambda\} \to \mathbb R$, but the current convention simplifies the homological interpretation of relative tangent cycles that is given below, in Proposition~\ref{prop:RelativeHomologyTangentCycles}. This homological interpretation also explains the boundary terminology.
We let $\mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$ denote the space of tangent cycles relative to the slits for $\widehat\lambda$.
Using the quasi-additivity property, one easily shows that the notion of tangent cycle relative to the slits is independent of the choice of the neighborhood $U$ of $\lambda$.
These relative tangent cycles generalize the tangent cycles of \S \ref{subsect:TangentCycles}.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:RelativeTgtCyclesWithBdry0}
There is a natural correspondence between the set $\mathcal C(\widehat\lambda; \mathbb R)$ of tangent cycles for $\widehat \lambda$ and the set $\{ \alpha \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R); \partial \alpha=0\}$ of tangent cycles relative to the slits with boundary $0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
A relative tangent cycle with boundary equal to 0 is additive. So the only point that requires some discussion is the fact that relative tangent cycles are restricted to arcs tightly transverse to $\widehat\lambda$, whereas the definition of tangent cycles involves all tangent arcs transverse to $\widehat\alpha$.
However, every arc $k$ transverse to $\widehat\lambda$ can be split into the union of finitely many arcs $k_1$, $k_2$, \dots, $k_l$ that are tightly transverse to $\widehat\lambda$. It easily follows that every relative tangent cycle $\alpha \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$ with $\partial \alpha=0$ uniquely extends to a tangent cycle, by the property that $\alpha(k) = \sum_{i=1}^l \alpha(k_i)$ for every transverse arc $k$ split as above into finitely many tightly transverse arcs $k_i$. Indeed, the additivity property guarantees that this $\alpha(k)$ does not depend on the decomposition of $k$ into tightly transverse arcs.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Homological interpretation of tangent cycles relative to the slits}
\label{subsect:RelativeHomologyTangentCycles}
We now focus on a train track neighborhood $U$ of the maximal geodesic laminations $\lambda$. As before, let $\widehat \lambda$ be the orientation cover of $\lambda$, and extend the covering map $\widehat\lambda \to \lambda$ to a cover $\widehat U \to U$. The canonical orientation of the leaves of $\widehat\lambda$ provides a left-to-right orientation for the ties of $\widehat U$.
By Proposition~\ref{prop:TrainTrackMaxGeodLam}, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the slits of $\widehat\lambda$ and the components of the vertical boundary $\partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U$. Indeed, each component $c$ of $\partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U$ faces a unique spike $s$ of $U- \widehat \lambda$ (= slit of $\widehat\lambda$) in the sense that, if $k$ is the singular tie of $\widehat U$ that contains $ c$ and if $d$ is the component of $k-\widehat\lambda$ that contains $c$, then $d$ separates $s$ from the rest of $\widehat U - \widehat\lambda$; see Figure~\ref{fig:TrainTrackMaxGeodLam}.
For a relative tangent cycle $\alpha\in \mathcal C (\widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits} ; \mathbb R) $, the boundary $\partial \alpha \colon \{\text{slits of } \widehat\lambda\} \to \mathbb R$ therefore assigns a multiplicity to each component of $\partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U$, and therefore can be interpreted as an element of $H_0(\partial_{\mathrm v}\widehat U; \mathbb R) $.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:RelativeHomologyTangentCycles}
Let $U$ be a train track neighborhood of the maximal geodesic lamination $\lambda$, and let $\widehat U$ be its lift to a train track neighborhood of the orientation cover $\widehat\lambda$.
A tangent cycle $\alpha\in \mathcal C (\widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits} ; \mathbb R) $ relative to the slits of $\widehat\lambda$ uniquely determines a relative homology class $[\alpha] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ by the property that
$$
\alpha(k) = [k] \cdot [\alpha]
$$
for every generic tie $k$ of the train track neighborhood $\widehat U$, where $ [k] \cdot [\alpha]$ is the algebraic intersection number of $[\alpha] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ with the relative homology class
$[k] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ defined by the tie $k$, endowed with the above left-to-right orientation.
In addition, the rule $\alpha \mapsto [\alpha]$ defines a linear isomorphism $\mathcal C (\widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits} ; \mathbb R) \cong H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R) $, for which the boundary $\partial \alpha \colon \{\text{slits of } \widehat\lambda\} \to \mathbb R$ of the relative tangent cycle $\alpha$ corresponds to the image of $[\alpha] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ under the boundary homomorphism $\partial \colon H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R) \to H_0(\partial_{\mathrm v}\widehat U; \mathbb R) $.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} We split the proof into a few steps to improve readability.
\smallskip
\noindent\textsc{Step 1.} Construct a linear map $\phi \colon \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R) \to H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$.
Pick a generic tie $k_e$ in each edge $e$ of $\widehat U$. An easy homological computation shows that, as $e$ ranges over all edges of $\widehat U$, the relative homology classes $[k_e]$ form a basis for $H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$. The map $[k_e] \mapsto \alpha(k_e)$ therefore extends to a linear map $H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U; \mathbb R) \to \mathbb R$. By Poincar\'e duality and since the boundary $\partial \widehat U$ is the union of $\partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U$ and $\partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U$, there consequently exists a unique class $[\alpha] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ such that $\alpha(k_e) = [k_e] \cdot [\alpha]$ for every edge $e$.
An arbitrary generic tie $k$ of $\widehat U$ is contained in an edge $e$. Then, $[k] = [k_e]$ in $H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$, and $\alpha(k) = \alpha(k_e)$ by invariance of $\alpha$ under homotopy respecting $\widehat\lambda$. This proves that $
\alpha(k) = [k] \cdot [\alpha]$ for every generic tie $k$ of $\widehat U$. As a consequence, $[\alpha]$ satisfies the properties indicated in the statement of Proposition~\ref{prop:RelativeHomologyTangentCycles}.
This provides a map $\phi \colon \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R) \to H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$, associating the above class $[\alpha]\in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ to $\alpha \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$.
\smallskip
\noindent\textsc{Step 2.} Construct a linear map $\psi \colon H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R) \to \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$.
We first associate a homology class $[k]\in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ to each arc $k$ that is tightly transverse to $\widehat\lambda$.
A key observation is that the canonical orientation of the orientation cover $\widehat\lambda$ specifies a natural orientation for $k$. Indeed the definition of tight transversality implies that, if the arc $k$ is tightly transverse to $\widehat \lambda$, the leaves of $\widehat\lambda$ passing through the endpoints of a component $d$ of $k-\widehat\lambda$ induce the same transverse orientation (namely an orientation of the normal bundle) for $k$. As a consequence, all leaves of $\widehat\lambda$ define the same transverse orientation for $k$. We can therefore orient every tightly transverse arc $k$ from left to right with respect to the canonical orientation of the leaves of $\widehat \lambda$.
We now extend the tightly transverse arc $k$ to an arc $k'\subset \widehat U$ with $\partial k' \subset \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U$. There is a natural one-to-one correspondence between the components of the horizontal boundary $\partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U$ and the boundary leaves of $\widehat \lambda$ (namely those which are in the boundary of $\widehat U - \widehat\lambda$); indeed, Proposition~\ref{prop:TrainTrackMaxGeodLam} shows that all ties originating from a component of $\partial_{\mathrm h}\widehat U$ leave $\widehat U - \widehat\lambda$ on the same boundary leaf of $\widehat\lambda$. For each component $d$ of $k-\widehat\lambda$ containing an endpoint of $k$, we can extend $d$ to an arc $d'\subset \widehat U - \widehat\lambda$ going from a boundary leaf to $\widehat\lambda$ to the corresponding component of $\partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U$, in the homotopy class specified by the arcs in ties of $\widehat U$ that connect this boundary leaf to $\partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U$. Performing this operation for each of the two components $d$ of $k-\widehat\lambda$ that contain an endpoint of $k$, we have extended $k$ to an oriented arc $k' \supset k$ whose boundary is contained in $\partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U$. There are many possible choices for $k'$ but all give the same relative homology class in $ H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$, which we denote by $[k]$.
Given a relative homology class $c \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R) $ we can consider, for every arc $k$ tightly transverse to $\widehat\lambda$, the algebraic intersection number
$$
\alpha_c (k) = [k] \cdot c \in \mathbb R
$$
of $c \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R) $ with the homology class $[k] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ associated to $k$ as above. We want to show that this defines a relative tangent cycle $\mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$.
The invariance of $\alpha_c(k) $ under homotopy of $k$ respecting $\widehat\lambda$ is immediate.
We need to check the quasi-additivity property. Let the
arc $k \subset \widehat U$ be tightly transverse to $\widehat \lambda$, let $k_1$ and $k_2$ be obtained by splitting $k$ at a point $x\in k-\widehat\lambda$ contained in a component $d$ of $k-\widehat\lambda$ that is disjoint from $\partial k$, and let $s$ be the spike separated from the rest of $\widehat U - \widehat \lambda$ by the component $d$. Let $k_s$ be the component of $\partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U$ that faces the slit $s$. Orient $k_s$ by the boundary orientation of $\partial\widehat U$.
Then, from the definition of the relative homology classes $[k]$, $[k_1]$, and $[k_2]\in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U; \mathbb R) $,
$$
[k] = [k_1] + [k_2] + \epsilon(s) [k_s] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U; \mathbb R)
$$
where $\epsilon(s)=\pm1$ is the sign of the slit $s$. Taking intersection numbers with $c \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R) $, it follows that
$$
\alpha_c(k) = \alpha_c(k_1) + \alpha_c(k_2) + \epsilon(s) [k_s]\cdot c.
$$
This proves that $\alpha_c$ is a tangent cycle for $\widehat\lambda$ relative to its slits, with boundary $\partial \alpha_c $ defined by the property that $\partial\alpha_c(s) = - [k_s]\cdot c$ for every slit $s$.
We define $\psi \colon H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R) \to \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$ by the property that $\psi(c) = \alpha_c$ for every $c \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R) $.
\smallskip
\noindent\textsc{Step 3.} For every $c \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R) $ and every slit $s$ of $\widehat\lambda$, $\partial \psi(c) (s)\in \mathbb R$ is the multiplicity associated to the component $k_s$ of $\partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U$ facing $s$ by $\partial c \in H_0(\partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$.
This is just a rephrasing of the property that $\partial\alpha_c(s) = - [k_s]\cdot c$.
\smallskip
\noindent\textsc{Step 4.} The maps $\phi \colon \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R) \to H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ and $\psi \colon H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R) \to \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$ are inverse of each other.
Pick a generic tie $k_e$ in each edge $e$ of $\widehat U$. Then, by construction, the image $c=\phi(\alpha)$ of $\alpha \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R) $ is defined by the property that $\alpha(k_e) = [k_e]\cdot c$ for every edge $e$. Conversely, for every $c \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R) $, $\alpha = \psi(c)$ is characterized by the fact that $\alpha(k) = [k]\cdot c$ for every arc $k$ tightly transverse to $\widehat\lambda$.
In particular, $[k_e]\cdot \phi\bigl( \psi(c) \bigr) = [k_e]\cdot c$ for every edge $e$, and it follows that $\phi\bigl( \psi(c) \bigr) = c$ by Poincar\'e duality since the $k_e$ generate $H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U; \mathbb R) $. This proves that $\phi \circ \psi$ is equal to the identity.
Conversely, for a relative tangent cycle $\alpha \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$, the same argument shows that $\psi \bigl( \phi(\alpha) \bigr) (k_e) = \alpha(k_e)$ for every edge $e$ of $\widehat U$. For a slit $s$, let $k_s$ be the component of $\partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U$ that faces $s$, let $e$ be the edge of $\widehat U$ that contains $k_s$, and let $e_1$ and $e_2$ be the other two edges that touch $k_s$. Then, by definition of the quasi-additivity,
\begin{align*}
\epsilon(s) \partial \alpha(s) &= \alpha (k_{e_1}) + \alpha (k_{e_2}) - \alpha (k_e) \\
&= \psi \bigl( \phi(\alpha) \bigr) (k_{e_1}) + \psi \bigl( \phi(\alpha) \bigr) (k_{e_2}) - \psi \bigl( \phi(\alpha) \bigr) (k_e) \\
&= \epsilon(s) \partial \psi \bigl( \phi(\alpha) \bigr) (s).
\end{align*}
This proves that $\psi \bigl( \phi(\alpha) \bigr) - \alpha $ has boundary 0, and is therefore a tangent cycle by Lemma~\ref{lem:RelativeTgtCyclesWithBdry0}. Since $\psi \bigl( \phi(\alpha) \bigr)(k_e) - \alpha(k_e) $ for every edge $e$ of $\widehat U$, it follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:HomologyTangentCycles} that $\psi \bigl( \phi(\alpha) \bigr) - \alpha =0$.
This proves that $\psi\circ \phi$ is the identity, and completes the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:RelativeHomologyTangentCycles}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Twisted relative tangent cycles}
\label{subsect:TwistedRelTangentCycles}
So far, we have considered relative tangent cycles valued in $\mathbb R$.
In our analysis of Hitchin characters, we will encounter relative tangent cycles that are valued in $\mathbb R^{n-1}$
and behave in a very specific manner with respect to the involution $\tau \colon \widehat U\to \widehat U$ that exchanges the two sheets of the cover $\widehat U \to U$.
More precisely, an \emph{$\mathbb R^{n-1}$--valued tangent cycle for $\widehat \lambda$ relative to its slits} associates a vector $\alpha(k)\in \mathbb R^{n-1}$ to each arc $k$ tightly transverse to $\widehat\lambda$, in such a way that $\alpha$ is invariant under homotopy respecting $\widehat\lambda$ and is quasi-additive with respect to a boundary function $\partial \alpha \colon \{ \text{slits of } \widehat\lambda \} \to \mathbb R^{n-1}$.
A \emph{twisted tangent cycle for $\lambda$ relative to its slits and valued in $\widehat \mathbb R^{n-1}$} is an $\mathbb R^{n-1}$--valued relative tangent cycle $\alpha$ for $\widehat\lambda$ such that, for every tightly transverse arc $k$,
$$
\alpha \bigl( \tau(k) \bigr) = \overline {\alpha(k)}
$$
where $x \mapsto \bar x$ is the involution of $\mathbb R^{n-1}$ that reverses the order of the coordinates, namely that associates $\bar x = (x_{n-1}, x_{n-2}, \dots, x_1)$ to $x=(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_{n-1})\in \mathbb R^{n-1}$. Let
$$
\mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1}) = \bigl\{ \alpha \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits};\mathbb R^{n-1}); \alpha\bigl( \tau(k) \bigr) = \overline{\alpha(k)} \bigr\}
$$
denote the space of these twisted relative tangent cycles.
The terminology and notation is justified by the fact that these twisted relative tangent cycles can be interpreted as tangent cycles for the geodesic lamination $\lambda$, relative to the slits of $\lambda$, and valued in the twisted coefficient bundle $\widehat \mathbb R^{n-1} = (\widehat U \times \mathbb R^{n-1})/\mathbb Z_2$ where $\mathbb Z_2$ acts by $\tau$ on $\widehat U$ and by $x\mapsto \bar x$ on $\mathbb R^{n-1}$.
We can similarly define the space of twisted tangent cyles
\begin{align*}
\mathcal C(\lambda; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1}) &=\bigl \{ \alpha \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda;\mathbb R^{n-1}); \alpha\bigl( \tau(k) \bigr) = \overline{\alpha(k)}\bigr \}\\
&= \bigl \{ \alpha \in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits} ;\widehat \mathbb R^{n-1}); \partial \alpha=0 \bigr \}
\end{align*}
where the second equality comes from Lemma~\ref{lem:RelativeTgtCyclesWithBdry0}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:ComputeTwistedTgentCycles}
The vector spaces $\mathcal C(\lambda; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1})$ and $\mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1})$ have dimensions
\begin{align*}
\dim \mathcal C(\lambda; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1}) &= 6(g-1)(n-1) + {\textstyle\lfloor \frac{n-1}2 \rfloor}\\
\dim \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1}) &= 18(g-1)(n-1)
\end{align*}
where $\lfloor x \rfloor$ denotes the largest integer that is less than or equal to $x$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} We use a version of Propositions~\ref{prop:HomologyTangentCycles} and \ref{prop:RelativeHomologyTangentCycles} that gives a homological interpretation of twisted tangent cycles. It uses a different coefficient bundle $\widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1} = (\widehat U \times \mathbb R^{n-1})/\mathbb Z_2$, where $\mathbb Z_2$ still acts by the covering involution $\tau$ on $\widehat U$ but now acts on $\mathbb R^{n-1}$ by $x\mapsto -\bar x$.
Indeed, because $\tau$ reverses the orientation of $\widehat\lambda$, the map $\phi \colon \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R) \to H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ of the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:RelativeHomologyTangentCycles} conjugates the action of $\tau$ on $\mathcal C(\widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$ to $-\tau_*$, where $\tau_* \colon H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R) \to H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ is the homomorphism induced by $\tau$. Therefore, the tensor product $\phi\otimes\mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^{n-1}}$ sends $\mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1})$ to $\{ c\in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1}); \tau_*(c) = -\overline c\}$, which is naturally identified to $H_1(U,\partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1})$. This provides a natural isomorphism $\mathcal C( \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1}) \cong H_1(U,\partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1})$, which also induces an isomorphism $\mathcal C( \lambda; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1}) \cong H_1(U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1})$.
Considering Euler characteristics,
$$
\chi( U) (n-1) = \dim H_0( U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1}) - \dim H_1( U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1}) .
$$
Since $\widehat U$ is connected,
$$
H_0( U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1}) = \{ c\in H_0(\widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1}); \tau_*(c) =-\overline c\} \cong \{x\in \mathbb R^{n-1}; x=-\overline x\}
$$
has dimension $\lfloor \frac{n-1}2 \rfloor$. Also, because the complement $S-U$ consists of $4(g-1)$ hexagons, $\chi(U) = \chi(S)-4(g-1) = -6(g-1)$. It follows that
\begin{align*}
\dim \mathcal C( \lambda; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1}) &=\dim H_1( U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1})
= - \chi( U) (n-1) + \dim H_0( U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1}) \\
&= 6(g-1)(n-1) + {\textstyle\lfloor \frac{n-1}2 \rfloor}.
\end{align*}
For $\mathcal C( \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1}) \cong H_1(U,\partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1})$, consider the exact sequence
$$
0\to H_1(U ; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1}) \to H_1(U,\partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1}) \to H_0(\partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1}) \to H_0( U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1})\to 0.
$$
We already observed that $\dim H_0( U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1}) = \lfloor\frac{n-1}2\rfloor$. Since $\tau$ respects no component of $\partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U$, the twisted homology space $H_0(\partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1}) $ is isomorphic to $ H_0(\partial_{\mathrm v} U; \mathbb R^{n-1}) $ and therefore has dimension $12(g-1)(n-1)$ as $\partial_{\mathrm v} U$ has $12(g-1)$ components.
It follows from the exact sequence above that
\begin{align*}
\dim \mathcal C( \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1})
&= \dim H_1(U, \partial_{\mathrm v} U ; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1}) \\
&= \dim H_1(U ; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1}) +\dim H_0(\partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1}) - \dim H_0( U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1})\\
&= 18(g-1)(n-1). \qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Relative tangent cycles from another viewpoint}
\label{subsect:RelTgtCyclesDifferentView}
We give a different description of relative tangent cycles. Compared to the original definition, this presentation does not lend itself as well to the homological interpretation and computations of the previous sections. However, it will be better adapted to the geometric constructions that form the core of this article. It also bypasses the need to consider the orientation cover $\widehat\lambda$.
In the universal cover $\widetilde S$ of $S$, let $\widetilde U$ be the preimage of a train track neighborhood $U$ of $\lambda$.
A relative tangent cycle $\alpha \in \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$ associates a number $\alpha(T,T')\in \mathbb R$ to each ordered pair of distinct components $T$ and $T'$ of $\widetilde S - \widetilde\lambda$ as follows. Choose an oriented arc $\widetilde k\subset \widetilde S$ that is tightly transverse to $\widetilde \lambda$ and joints $T$ to $T'$; in this preliminary stage, one can for instance take for $\widetilde k$ any geodesic arc going from $T$ to $T'$, since every component of $\widetilde S - \widetilde \lambda$ is a triangle. Using Proposition~\ref{prop:TrainTrackMaxGeodLam}, one can modify $\widetilde k$ by a homotopy respecting $\widetilde \lambda$ so that it is contained in $\widetilde U$, and is tightly transverse to $\widetilde\lambda$ in $\widetilde U$. Project $\widetilde k$ to an arc $k\subset U$, which is tightly transverse to $\lambda$.
The tightly transverse arc $k$ admits two lifts to the 2--fold cover $\widehat U$ of $U$, each oriented so that the canonical orientation of the leaves of the orientation cover $\widehat\lambda$ points to the left of these arcs at each intersection point. Let $\widehat k \subset \widehat U$ be the lift whose orientation projects to the same orientation of $k$ as that of $\widetilde k$. By construction, $\widehat k$ is tightly transverse to $\widehat \lambda$ in $\widehat U$, and we can consider the number $\alpha(\widehat k) \in \mathbb R$ defined by $\alpha \in \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$.
In this construction, the arc $\widetilde k$ is uniquely determined by $T$ and $T'$ up to homotopy respecting $\widetilde\lambda$ in $\widetilde U$, which determines $\widehat k$ up to homotopy respecting $\widehat \lambda$ in $\widehat U$. It follows that $\alpha(\widehat k)$ depends only on $T$ and $T'$, and we can define $\alpha(T, T') = \alpha(\widehat k) \in \mathbb R$.
The quasi-additivity property of $\alpha \in \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$ has a relatively simple translation in this context. Each slit $s$ of $\lambda$, namely each spike of $S- \lambda$, lifts to two slits of $\widehat\lambda$: a positive spike $s^+$ of $\widehat U - \widehat\lambda$ where the leaves of $\widehat \lambda$ adjacent to $s^+$ are oriented towards the end of this spike by the canonical orientation of $\widehat\lambda$; and a negative spike $s^-$ where the adjacent leaves are oriented away from the end of $s^-$. Define two functions $\partial^+\alpha$, $\partial^-\alpha \colon \{ \text{slits of } \lambda\} \to \mathbb R$ by the property that $\partial^+\alpha (s) = \partial\alpha(s^+)$ and $\partial^-\alpha (s) = \partial\alpha(s^-)$ for every slit $s$ of $\lambda$, where $\partial\alpha \colon \{ \text{slits of } \widehat\lambda\} \to \mathbb R$ is the boundary of $\alpha \in \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$.
If $T$, $T'$, $T''$ are three components of $\widetilde S - \widetilde \lambda$ such that $T''$ separates $T$ from $T'$ in $\widetilde S$, let $\widetilde s''$ be the spike of $T''$ delimited by the two sides of $T''$ that separate $T$ from $T'$, and let $s''$ be the projection of $\widetilde s''$ to $S$. The quasi-additivity of $\alpha \in \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$ then translates to the property that
$$
\alpha(T,T') = \alpha(T,T'') + \alpha (T'', T') - \partial^+\alpha(s'')
$$
if the spike $\widetilde s''$ of $T''$ points to the left as seen from $T$, and
$$
\alpha(T,T') = \alpha(T,T'') + \alpha (T'', T') + \partial^-\alpha(s'')
$$
if $\widetilde s''$ points to the right as seen from $T$.
The following statement is then automatic.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:RelTgtCycleDiffrentViewpoint}
The above construction provides a one-to-one correspondence between relative tangent cycles $\alpha \in \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$ and maps $\alpha$ associating a number $\alpha(T,T')\in \mathbb R$ to each ordered pair of distinct components $T$ and $T'$ of $\widetilde S - \widetilde\lambda$ for which there exist two functions $\partial^\pm\alpha \colon \{ \text{slits of } \lambda\} \to \mathbb R$ with:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\alpha$ is $\pi_1(S)$--invariant, in the sense that $\alpha(\gamma T, \gamma T') = \alpha(T,T')$ for every $\gamma \in \pi_1(S)$ and every pair of distinct components $T$ and $T'$ of $\widetilde S - \widetilde\lambda$;
\item if $T''$ separates $T$ from $T'$ in $\widetilde S$, if $\widetilde s''$ is the spike of $T''$ delimited by the two sides of $T''$ that separate $T$ from $T'$, and if $s''$ is the slit of $\lambda$ defined by the projection of $\widetilde s''$ to $S$, then
$$
\alpha(T,T') = \alpha(T,T'') + \alpha (T'', T') - \partial^+\alpha(s'')
$$
if $\widetilde s''$ points to the left as seen from $T$, and
$$
\alpha(T,T') = \alpha(T,T'') + \alpha (T'', T') + \partial^-\alpha(s'')
$$
if $\widetilde s''$ points to the right as seen from $T$.
\end{enumerate}
In addition, the boundary $\partial\alpha \colon \{ \text{slits of } \widehat \lambda\} \to \mathbb R$ is related to the functions $\partial^\pm\alpha \colon \{ \text{slits of } \lambda\} \to \mathbb R$ by the property that $\partial \alpha(s^\pm) = \partial^\pm \alpha(s)$ for every slit $s$ of $\lambda$ lifting to a positive slit $s^+$ and a negative slit $s^-$ of the orientation cover $\widetilde \lambda$.
\qed
\end{prop}
Proposition~\ref{prop:RelTgtCycleDiffrentViewpoint} has an immediate factor-by-factor extension to relative tangent cycles valued in $\mathbb R^{n-1}$. By restriction to the space of twisted relative tangent cycles $\mathcal C( \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1}) \subset \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$, this automatically gives the following statement. Recall that $x \mapsto \overline x$ denotes the involution of $\mathbb R^{n-1}$ that sends $x=(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_{n-1})$ to $\overline x=(x_{n-1}, x_{n-2}, \dots, x_1)$.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:TwistedRelTgtCycleDiffrentViewpoint}
Proposition~{\upshape\ref{prop:RelTgtCycleDiffrentViewpoint}} provides a one-to-one correspondence between twisted relative tangent cycles $\alpha \in \mathcal C( \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1})$ and maps $\alpha$ associating a vector $\alpha(T,T')\in \mathbb R^{n-1}$ to each ordered pair of components $T$ and $T'$ of $\widetilde S - \widetilde\lambda$ such that there exists a function $\partial^+\alpha \colon \{ \text{slits of } \lambda\} \to \mathbb R^{n-1}$ with:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\alpha$ is $\pi_1(S)$--equivariant, in the sense that $\alpha(\gamma T, \gamma T') = \alpha(T,T')$ for every $\gamma \in \pi_1(S)$ and every pair of distinct components $T$ and $T'$ of $\widetilde S - \widetilde\lambda$;
\item if $T''$ separates $T$ from $T'$ in $\widetilde S$, if $\widetilde s''$ is the spike of $T''$ delimited by the two sides of $T''$ that separate $T$ from $T'$, and if $s''$ is the slit of $\lambda$ defined by the projection of $\widetilde s''$ to $S$, then
$$
\alpha(T,T') = \alpha(T,T'') + \alpha (T'', T') - \partial^+\alpha(s'')
$$
if $\widetilde s''$ points to the left as seen from $T$, and
$$
\alpha(T,T') = \alpha(T,T'') + \alpha (T'', T') - \overline{ \partial^+\alpha(s'')}
$$
if $\widetilde s''$ points to the right as seen from $T$;
\item
$\alpha(T',T)=\overline{\alpha(T,T')}$ for every pair of distinct components $T$ and $T'$ of $\widetilde S - \widetilde\lambda$.
\end{enumerate}
In addition, the boundary $\partial\alpha \colon \{ \text{slits of } \widehat \lambda\} \to \mathbb R$ is related to the function $\partial^+\alpha \colon \{ \text{slits of } \lambda\} \to \mathbb R$ by the property that $\partial \alpha(s^+) = \partial^+ \alpha(s)$ and $\partial \alpha(s^-) = - \overline{\partial^+\alpha(s)}$ for every slit $s$ of $\lambda$ lifting to a positive slit $s^+$ and a negative slit $s^-$ of the orientation cover $\widetilde \lambda$.
\qed
\end{prop}
Note that the function $\partial^-\alpha \colon \{ \text{slits of } \lambda\} \to \mathbb R^{n-1}$ that one would have expected in this case is equal to $\partial^-\alpha =- \overline{ \partial^+\alpha}$ by the third condition of Proposition~\ref{prop:TwistedRelTgtCycleDiffrentViewpoint}. In particular, $\partial \alpha (s^\mp) = - \overline{\partial\alpha(s^\pm)}$ for every $\alpha \in \mathcal C( \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1})$ when $s^+$ and $s^-$ are the positive and negative slits of the orientation cover $\widehat \lambda$ that lift the same slit $s$ of $\lambda$.
\section{The shearing tangent cycle of a Hitchin character}
\label{bigsect:ShearingCycle}
We will now associate a twisted relative tangent cycle $\sigma^\rho \in \mathcal C( \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1}) \cong H_1(U,\partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1})$ to each Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$. The key ingredient of this construction is the slithering map introduced in the next section.
\subsection{Slithering}
\label{subsect:Slithering}
The slithering construction is a higher dimensional analogue of the horocyclic foliation defined, in the case \cite{Thu1, Bon96} where $n=2$ , by a hyperbolic metric and a maximal geodesic lamination $\lambda$ on the surface $S$.
Consider a Hitchin homomorphism $\rho \colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$, and its associated flag map $\mathcal F_\rho \colon \partial_\infty \widetilde S \to \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$ as in \S\ref{subsect:FlagCurve}.
In the universal cover $\widetilde S$, let $g$ be a leaf of the preimage $\widetilde \lambda \subset \widetilde S$ of the maximal geodesic lamination $\lambda\subset S$. Choose an arbitrary orientation for $g$, and let $x_+$ and $x_-$ be its positive and negative endpoints, respectively. By Theorem~\ref{thm:FlagCurvePositive}, the flag pair $\bigl(\mathcal F_\rho(x_+), \mathcal F_\rho(x_-) \bigr)$ is generic. It therefore defines a decomposition of $\mathbb R^n$ as the direct sum of the lines $\widetilde L_a(g) = \mathcal F_\rho(x_+)^{(a)} \cap \mathcal F_\rho(x_-)^{(n-a+1)}$, as in \S\ref{subsect:FlagCurve}.
Note that reversing the orientation of $g$ exchanges $x_+$ and $x_-$, and therefore replaces $\widetilde L_a(g)$ by $\widetilde L_{n-a+1}(g)$.
Now consider two leaves $g$ and $g'\subset \widetilde{\lambda}$. We say that $g$ and $g'$ are \emph{oriented in parallel} if exactly one of the orientations of $g$ and $g'$ coincides with the boundary orientation determined by the component of $S-g\cup g'$ that separates $g$ from $g'$.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:Slithering}
There exists a unique family of linear isomorphisms $\Sigma_{gg'} \colon \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R^n$, indexed by all pairs of leaves $g$, $g' \subset \widetilde \lambda$, such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Sigma_{gg} = \mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n}$, $\Sigma_{g'g}=\big(\Sigma_{gg'} \big )^{-1} $, and $\Sigma_{gg''} = \Sigma_{gg'} \circ \Sigma_{g'g''}$ when $g'$ separates $g$ from $g''$;
\item $\Sigma_{gg'}$ depends locally H\"older continuously on $g$ and $g'$; namely, the map $(g,g') \mapsto \Sigma_{gg'}$ is H\"older continuous on (the square of) any compact subset of the space of leaves of $\widetilde \lambda$;
\item if $g$ and $g'$ have an endpoint $x\in \partial_\infty \widetilde S$ in common and are oriented towards $x$, and if $E= \mathcal F_\rho(x)\in \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$, then $\Sigma_{gg'}$ sends each line $\widetilde L_a(g') $ to $ \widetilde L_a(g)$ and its restriction $\widetilde L_a(g') \to \widetilde L_a(g)$ of $\Sigma_{gg'}$ is the composition of the two natural isomorphisms $\widetilde L_a(g') \cong E^{(a)}/E^{(a-1)} \cong \widetilde L_a(g)$.
\end{enumerate}
In addition, the maps $\Sigma_{gg'}$ satisfy
\begin{enumerate}\setcounter{enumi}{3}
\item if $g$ and $g'$ are oriented in parallel, $\Sigma_{gg'}$ sends each line $ \widetilde L_a(g')$ to the line $ \widetilde L_a(g)$;
\item $\Sigma_{gg'}\colon \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R^n$ has determinant $+1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
By definition, $\Sigma_{gg'} \colon \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R^n $ is the \emph{slithering map} from the line decomposition $\mathbb R^n = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n \widetilde L_a(g')$ to the line decomposition $\mathbb R^n = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n \widetilde L_a(g)$. We will construct $\Sigma_{gg'}$ by sweeping through all the leaves of $\widetilde \lambda$ that separate $g$ from $g'$, and by composition of a (usually infinite) sequence of pivot moves as in Condition~(3) of Proposition~\ref{prop:Slithering}. The terminology of ``slithering'' is motivated by the fact that, in general, any small section of this sweep involves both pivot moves to the left and pivot moves to the right\footnote{In particular, this is unrelated to Thurston's notion \cite{Thu2, Cal} of ``slithering'' for foliations of 3--dimensional manifolds, beyond the analogy with the movements of a snake.}.
Note that, although the line decomposition $\mathbb R^n = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n \widetilde L_a(g)$ depends on an orientation for the leaf $g$, the slithering map $\Sigma_{gg'} \colon \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R^n $ is independent of a choice of orientation for $g$ or $g'$.
\begin{proof}
[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:Slithering}]
We will split the construction of the slithering map of Proposition~\ref{prop:Slithering} into several steps, including a few lemmas.
Let $T$ be a component of $\widetilde S - \widetilde\lambda$ that separates $g$ from $g'$. It is a triangle since the geodesic lamination $\lambda$ is maximal, and two of its three sides separate $g$ from $g'$; among these two sides, let $g_T$ be the one that is closest to $g$, and $g_T'$ the one closest to $g'$. Define $\Sigma_T=\Sigma_{g_{T}g_T'}$ by Condition~(3) of Proposition~\ref{prop:Slithering}. Namely, if $E_T=\mathcal F_\rho(x_T)\in \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$ is the image under the flag map $\mathcal F_\rho \colon \partial_\infty \widetilde S \to \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$ of the common endpoint $x_T\in \partial_\infty \widetilde S$ of $g_T$ and $g_T'$, the map $\Sigma_T=\Sigma_{g_Tg_T'}$ sends $\mathbb R^n = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n \widetilde L_a(g_T')$ to $\mathbb R^n = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n \widetilde L_a(g_T)$ by the property that its restriction $\widetilde L_a(g_T') \to \widetilde L_a(g_T)$ coincides with the composition of the natural isomorphisms $\widetilde L_a(g_T') \cong E_T^{(a)}/E_T^{(a-1)} \cong \widetilde L_a(g_T)$. Note that $\Sigma_T$ has determinant 1, namely belongs to $\mathrm{SL_n(\R)}$.
We will now define
$$
\Sigma_{gg'} = \overrightarrow{\prod_{T}}\, \Sigma_T
$$
as the composition of the maps $\Sigma_T=\Sigma_{g_Tg_T'} \colon \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R^n$ as $T$ ranges over all components of $\widetilde S - \widetilde \lambda$ separating $g$ from $g'$. Of course, there usually are infinitely many maps in this composition, and we also must be careful with the order in which we compose these maps; the arrow over the product symbol is here to remind us that this is an ordered product, if the components $T$ are ordered from $g$ to $g'$. To make sense of this composition, let $\mathcal T_{gg'}$ be the set of components of $\widetilde S - \widetilde\lambda$ that separate $g$ from $g'$. Let $ \mathcal{T}=\{T_1, T_2, \dots, T_m\}$ be a finite subset of $\mathcal T_{gg'}$, where the indexing is chosen so that each ideal triangle $T_j$ separates $g$ from $T_{j+1}$. We can then consider the finite composition
$$
\Sigma_{\mathcal{T}}= \Sigma_{T_1}\circ \Sigma_{T_2}\circ \cdots \circ \Sigma_{T_{m-1}}\circ \Sigma_{T_m} \in \mathrm{SL_n(\R)}.
$$
We will then show that $\Sigma_{\mathcal T}$ converges to some linear map $\Sigma_{gg'}\in\mathrm{SL_n(\R)}$ as the finite subset $\mathcal{T}=\{T_1, T_2, \dots, T_m\}$ tends to the whole set $\mathcal T_{gg'}$ of those components of $\widetilde S - \widetilde\lambda$ which separate $g$ from $g'$.
The proof of convergence relies on the following estimate. Choose an arc $k\subset \widetilde S$ that is tightly transverse to the geodesic lamination $\widetilde\lambda$, and crosses both $g$ and $g'$; for instance, we can choose $k$ to be a geodesic arc.
In particular, for every component $T$ of $\widetilde S- \widetilde \lambda$ that separates $g$ from $g'$, $k \cap T$ consists of a single arc.
Endow the space $\mathrm{End}(\mathbb R^n)$ of linear maps $\mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R^n$ with any of the classical norms $\left \Vert \ \right\Vert$ such that $\left\Vert\mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n}\right\Vert=1$ and $\left\Vert \phi \circ \psi \right\Vert \leq \left\Vert \phi\right\Vert \left\Vert \psi\right \Vert$. Our estimates will also depend on the choice of a negatively curved metric $m$ on $S$ for which the leaves of $\lambda$ are geodesic.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:EstimateElemSlithering}
There exists constants $A$ and $\nu>0$ such that
$$
\left\Vert \Sigma_{T} - \mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n} \right\Vert \leq A\, \ell(k\cap T)^\nu
$$
for every component $T$ of $\widetilde S- \widetilde \lambda$ that separates $g$ from $g'$,
where $\ell(\ )$ denotes the arc length for the auxilliary metric $m$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $x_T$, $y_T$, $y_T'\in \partial_\infty \widetilde S$ denote the three vertices of the triangle $T$, in such a way that $x_T$ and $y_T$ are the endpoints of the side $g_T$ that is closest to $g$, and $x_T$, $y_T'$ are the endpoints of the side $g_T'$ closest to $g'$. Then $\Sigma_T=\Sigma_{g_T g_T'}$ depends only on the two generic flag pairs $\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(x_T), \mathcal F_\rho(y_T) \bigr)$ and $\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(x_T), \mathcal F_\rho(y_T') \bigr)$. In fact, $\Sigma_T$ depends differentiably on these two flag pairs, and these pairs stay in a compact subset of the space of generic flag pairs (depending on $k$ and on the continuity of the flag curve $\mathcal F_\rho$). Therefore,
$$
\left\Vert \Sigma_{T} - \mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n} \right\Vert = O \Bigl (d \bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(y_T), \mathcal F_\rho(y_T') \bigr) \Bigr)$$
where $d( \ )$ is an arbitrary riemannian metric on $\mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$.
Since the flag curve $\mathcal F_\rho$ is H\"older continuous (Proposition~\ref{prop:FlagCurve}),
$$
d \bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(y_T), \mathcal F_\rho(y_T') \bigr) = O \bigl( d(y_T, y_T')^\nu \bigr)
$$
for some H\"older exponent $\nu$. The required estimate then follows from an easy geometric argument showing that
$$d(y_T, y_T') = O \bigl ( \ell(k\cap T) \bigr) ,$$
where the constant hidden in the symbol $O(\ )$ depends on a lower bound for the angle between the arc $k$ and the leaves of $\widehat\lambda$ that it crosses.
\end{proof}
Note that the constant $A$ depends on the arc $k$. The H\"older exponent $\nu$ depends only on the flag curve $\mathcal F_\rho$.
The second ingredient is a now classical property of geodesic laminations.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:SumPowersLengthsGapsConverges}
As $T$ ranges over all components of $\widetilde S- \widetilde \lambda$ separating $g$ from $g'$, the sum
$$
\sum_{T\in \mathcal T_{gg'}} \ell(k\cap T)^\nu
$$
is convergent for every $\nu>0$.
More precisely, there is a function $r\colon \mathcal T_{gg'} \to \mathbb N$ and constants $B$, $C$, $B'$, $C'>0$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $B\mathrm e^{-Cr(T)} \leq \ell(k\cap T) \leq B'\mathrm e^{-C'r(T)}$ for every $T\in \mathcal T_{gg'}$;
\item for every $m\in \mathbb N$, the number of triangles $T\in \mathcal T_{gg'}$ with $r(T)=m$ is uniformly bounded, independently of $m$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
See for instance Lemmas~4 and 5 of \cite{Bon96}, and compare \S \ref{subsect:PositiveIntersectionRevisited}.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to show the convergence of the infinite product $ \overrightarrow{\prod}{}^{\phantom{I}}_{T}\, \Sigma_T $.
Recall that $\mathcal T_{gg'}$ denotes the set of components of $\widetilde S - \widetilde\lambda$ that separate $g$ from $g'$ and that, for every finite subset $\mathcal{T}=\{T_1, T_2, \dots, T_m\}$ of $\mathcal T_{gg'}$ where the $T_i$ are ordered from $g$ to $g'$,
$$
\Sigma_{\mathcal{T}}= \Sigma_{T_1}\circ \Sigma_{T_2}\circ \cdots \circ \Sigma_{T_{m-1}}\circ \Sigma_{T_m}.
$$
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:SlitheringBounded}
As $\mathcal T$ ranges over all finite subsets of $\mathcal T_{gg'}$, the matrices $\Sigma_{\mathcal{T}}$ remain uniformly bounded.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If $\mathcal{T}=\{T_1, T_2, \dots, T_m\}$, Lemma~\ref{lem:EstimateElemSlithering} shows that $\left\Vert \Sigma_{T_i} \right\Vert \leq 1 + A\, \ell(k\cap T)^\nu$ for some constants $A$, $\nu>0$. Then,
$$
\left\Vert \Sigma_{\mathcal{T}} \right \Vert
\leq \prod_{i=1}^m \bigl( 1 + A\, \ell(k\cap T_i)^\nu \bigr)
\leq \prod_{T \in \mathcal T_{gg'}} \bigl( 1 + A\, \ell(k\cap T)^\nu \bigr)
<\infty
$$
where the finiteness of the second product follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:SumPowersLengthsGapsConverges}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:SlitheringExists}
As the finite subset $\mathcal T$ tends to $\mathcal T_{gg'}$, the limit
$$
\Sigma_{gg'} = \kern 5pt\overrightarrow{\prod_{\kern -10pt T\in \mathcal T_{gg'}\kern -10pt}} \kern 5pt\Sigma_T
=\lim_{\mathcal T \to \mathcal T_{gg'}} \Sigma_{\mathcal T}
$$
exists in $\mathrm{SL_n(\R)}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Let $\mathcal T = \{T_1, T_2, \dots, T_m\}$ be a finite subset of $\mathcal T_{gg'}$, where the $T_i$ are ordered from $g$ to $g'$. If $\mathcal T' = \mathcal T \cup \{T\} $ has one more element $T\in \mathcal T_{gg'}$ and if $T$ separates $T_i$ from $T_{i+1}$, set $\mathcal T_1 = \{T_1, T_2, \dots, T_i\}$ and $\mathcal T_2 = \{T_{i+1}, T_2, \dots, T_m\}$; then
$$
\left\Vert \Sigma_{\mathcal T'} - \Sigma_{\mathcal T} \right\Vert
=
\left\Vert \Sigma_{\mathcal T_1}\circ (\Sigma_T-\mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n}) \circ \Sigma_{\mathcal T_2} \right\Vert
=O\bigl( \ell (k\cap T)^\nu \bigr)
$$
by Lemmas~\ref{lem:EstimateElemSlithering} and \ref{lem:SlitheringBounded}. Lemma~\ref{lem:SumPowersLengthsGapsConverges} then shows that, as $\mathcal T$ ranges over all finite subsets of $ \mathcal T_{gg'}$, the family of maps $\Sigma_{\mathcal T}\in \mathrm{SL_n(\R)}$ satisfies the Cauchy Property. The limit therefore exists.
\end{proof}
Having defined the slithering map $\Sigma_{gg'}\colon \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R^n$, we now show that it satisfies the properties of Proposition~\ref{prop:Slithering}. We begin with Condition~(1).
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:ComposingSlithering}
For any two leaves $g$, $g'$ of $\widetilde\lambda$, $\Sigma_{gg}=\mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n}$ and $\Sigma_{g'g}=\Sigma_{gg'}^{-1}$. In addition, $\Sigma_{gg''} = \Sigma_{gg'} \circ \Sigma_{g'g''}$ when one of the three leaves $g$, $g'$, $g''$ separates the other two.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The first two properties are immediate from definitions. When $g'$ separates $g$ from $g''$, $\mathcal T_{gg''}$ is the disjoint union of $\mathcal T_{gg'}$ and $\mathcal T_{g'g''}$ and the property that $\Sigma_{gg''} = \Sigma_{gg'} \circ \Sigma_{g'g''}$ is again an immediate consequence of the construction. The other two cases follow from this one by an algebraic manipulation.
\end{proof}
We now turn to Condition~(2).
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:SlitheringHolderContinuous}
The slithering map $\Sigma_{gg'}$ provided by Lemma~{\upshape\ref{lem:SlitheringExists}} depends H\"older continuously on the leaves $g$ and $g'\subset \widetilde{\lambda}$ meeting the tightly transverse arc $k$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If the leaf $h$ is close to $g$, and if the leaf $h'$ is close to the leaf $g'$, we can apply Lemma~\ref{lem:ComposingSlithering} to decompose $\Sigma_{hh'}$ as
$$
\Sigma_{hh'} = \Sigma_{hg} \circ \Sigma_{gg'} \circ \Sigma_{g'h'}.
$$
The argument used in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:SlitheringExists} shows that, for some $\nu>0$,
$$
\left\Vert \Sigma_{hg}-\mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n} \right\Vert = O \Biggl( \sum_{T\in \mathcal T_{hg}} \ell(k\cap T)^\nu \Biggr).
$$
By Lemma~\ref{lem:SumPowersLengthsGapsConverges}, the above series is dominated by a geometric series and, using the precise estimate provided by the second half of that statement,
$$
\sum_{T\in \mathcal T_{hg}} \ell(k\cap T)^\nu = O \Bigl( \max_{T\in \mathcal T_{hg}} \ell(k\cap T)^{\nu'} \Bigr)= O \bigl( \ell(k_{hg})^{\nu'} \bigr) = O \bigl( d(h, g)^{\nu'} \bigr)
$$
for $\nu' = \nu \frac{C'}C$ with the constants $C$, $C'>0$ of Lemma~\ref{lem:SumPowersLengthsGapsConverges}, and where $k_{hg}$ is the subarc of $k$ that joins the two points $k\cap g$ and $k \cap h$. Therefore,
$$
\left\Vert \Sigma_{hg}-\mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n} \right\Vert = O \bigl( d(g,h)^{\nu'} \bigr) .
$$
Similarly,
$$
\left\Vert \Sigma_{g'h'}-\mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n} \right\Vert = O \bigl( d(g',h')^{\nu'} \bigr) .
$$
Combining these two estimates with the bound provided by Lemma~\ref{lem:SlitheringBounded},
\begin{align*}
\left\Vert \Sigma_{hh'}- \Sigma_{gg'}\right\Vert
&\leq \left \Vert \Sigma_{hh'}- \Sigma_{gh'}\right\Vert + \left\Vert \Sigma_{gh'}- \Sigma_{gg'}\right\Vert \\
&\leq \left\Vert \Sigma_{hg}- \mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n} \right\Vert \left\Vert\Sigma_{gh'}\right\Vert + \left\Vert\Sigma_{gg'}\right\Vert \left \Vert \Sigma_{g'h'}- \mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n} \right\Vert \\
& = O \bigl( d(g,h)^{\nu'} + d(g',h')^{\nu'} \bigr) ,
\end{align*}
which proves that the map $(g,g') \mapsto \Sigma_{gg'}\in \mathrm{SL_n(\R)}$ is H\"older continuous over the square of the space of leaves of $\widetilde\lambda$ that cross the arc $k$.
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{lem:SlitheringHolderContinuous} proves the local H\"older continuity Condition (2) of Proposition~\ref{prop:Slithering}.
If the leaves $g$ and $g'$ share a common endpoint $x\in \partial _\infty \widetilde S$, then all leaves of $\widetilde\lambda$ that separate $g$ from $g'$ also have $x$ as an endpoint. In particular, $\Sigma_{gg'}$ is defined as an infinite product of elementary slitherings $\Sigma_T = \Sigma_{g_Tg_T'}$ that respect the flag $E = \mathcal F_\rho(x)$ and act as the identity on each line $E^{(a)}/E^{(a-1)}$. It follows that $\Sigma_{gg'}$ satisfies the same property, which proves Condition~(3) of Proposition~\ref{prop:Slithering}.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:SlitheringLineDecompositions}
Suppose that the leaves $g$ and $g'\subset \widetilde{\lambda}$ are oriented in parallel. Then the slithering map $\Sigma_{gg'}$ provided by Lemma~{\upshape\ref{lem:SlitheringExists}} sends the line decomposition $\mathbb R^n = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n \widetilde L_a(g')$ to the line decomposition $\mathbb R^n = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n \widetilde L_a(g)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The strategy is to approximate by a finite lamination the part of $\widetilde\lambda$ that separates $g$ from $g'$. The slithering map associated to this finite lamination will send the line decomposition $\mathbb R^n = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n \widetilde L_a(g')$ to the line decomposition $\mathbb R^n = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n \widetilde L_a(g)$, and approximate the slithering map $\Sigma_{gg'}$. Passing to the limit in the approximation process will conclude the proof.
Let $\mathcal{T}= \{T_1, T_2 \dots, T_m\}$ be a finite subset of $ \mathcal{T}_{gg'}$, where the $T_i$ are ordered from $g$ to $g'$. We insert two triangles $U_i$ and $U_i'$ between $T_i$ and $T_{i+1}$ as follows. Recall that $g_{T_i}$ and $g_{T_i}'$ are the two sides of $T_i$ separating $g$ from $g'$, with $g_{T_i}$ closest to $g$. Let $h_i$ be the geodesic of $\widetilde S$ that joins the left-hand side (as seen from $g$) endpoint of $g_{T_i}'$ to the right-hand side endpoint of $g_{T_{i+1}}^{\phantom{i}}$. The two geodesics $g_{T_i}'$ and $h_i$ are two sides of a unique ideal triangle $U_i \subset \widetilde S$, possibly reduced to a single geodesic when $g_{T_i}'= h_i$. We can similarly consider the ideal triangle $U_i'$, possibly reduced to a single geodesic, with sides $h_i$ and $g_{T_{i+1}}^{\phantom{i}}$. See Figure~\ref{fig:Diagonals Added}. The same construction with the conventions that $g_{T_0}'=g$ and $g_{T_{m+1}}^{\phantom{i}}=g'$ also defines triangles $U_0$, $U_0'$, $U_m$, $U_m'$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\SetLabels
( .72*.33 ) $T_i $ \\
( .2* .78) $ T_{i+1}$ \\
( .85* .54) $U_i$ \\
(.15* .52) $ U_i'$ \\
(.73 *.2 ) $ g_{T_i}$ \\
( .75*.5 ) $g_{T_i}' $ \\
( .3*.66 ) $g_{T_{i+1}} $ \\
( .3* .93) $g_{T_{i+1}}' $ \\
( .55*.55 ) $h_i$ \\
\endSetLabels
\centerline{\AffixLabels{\includegraphics{DiagonalsAdded.eps}}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:Diagonals Added}
\end{figure}
As before, the triangles $U_i$ and $U_i'$ define an elementary slithering map $\Sigma_{U_i}$ sending the line decomposition $\mathbb R^n = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n \widetilde L_a(h_i)$ to the line decomposition $\mathbb R^n = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n \widetilde L_a(g_{T_i}')$, and an elementary slithering map $\Sigma_{U_i'}$ sending the line decomposition $\mathbb R^n = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n \widetilde L_a(g_{T_{i+1}})$ to the line decomposition $\mathbb R^n = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n \widetilde L_a(h_i)$. These slithering maps are equal to the identity when the corresponding triangles are reduced to geodesics.
Now consider
\begin{align*}
\widehat\Sigma_{\mathcal T} = (\Sigma_{U_0} \circ \Sigma_{U_0'}) \circ \Sigma_{T_1}& \circ (\Sigma_{U_1} \circ \Sigma_{U_1'}) \circ \Sigma_{T_2} \circ (\Sigma_{U_2} \circ \Sigma_{U_2'}) \circ \Sigma_{T_3} \circ \dots\\
&\dots \circ \Sigma_{T_{m-1}} \circ (\Sigma_{U_{m-1}} \circ \Sigma_{U_{m-1}'}) \circ \Sigma_{T_m} \circ ( \Sigma_{U_m} \circ \Sigma_{U_m'}).
\end{align*}
By construction, $\widehat\Sigma_{\mathcal T} $ sends the line decomposition $\mathbb R^n = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n \widetilde L_a(g_{T_{m+1}}^{\phantom{i}}) = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n \widetilde L_a(g')$ to the line decomposition $\mathbb R^n = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n \widetilde L_a(g_{T_{0}}') = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n \widetilde L_a(g)$.
To compare $\widehat\Sigma_{\mathcal T} $ and $\Sigma_{\mathcal T} $, choose an arc $k$ tightly transverse to $\widetilde\lambda$ and meeting both $g$ and $g'$. Then, Lemma~\ref{lem:EstimateElemSlithering} provides constants $A$, $\nu>0$ such that $\left\Vert \Sigma_{U_i} - \mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n} \right\Vert \leq A\, \ell(k\cap U_i)^\nu$ and $\left\Vert \Sigma_{U_i'} - \mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n} \right\Vert \leq A\, \ell(k\cap U_i')^\nu$.
We can assume that $\nu\leq 1$ without loss of generality. Then, with this condition,
$$
\ell(k\cap U_i)^\nu \leq \ell\bigl (k\cap (U_i\cup U_i') \bigr)^\nu \leq \sum_{\kern 5ptT\in \mathcal T_{g_{T_i}'\kern -1pt g^{\phantom{i}}_{T_{i+1}}}\kern -15pt} \ell(k\cap T)^\nu
$$
where the sum is over all components $T$ of $\widetilde S - \widetilde \lambda$ that separate $T_i$ from $T_{i+1}$. A similar estimate holds for $\ell(k\cap U_i')^\nu$. It follows that
$$
\left\Vert \Sigma_{U_i}\circ \Sigma_{U_i'} - \mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n} \right\Vert = O \Biggl(
\sum_{\kern 5ptT\in \mathcal T_{g_{T_i}'\kern -1pt g^{\phantom{i}}_{T_{i+1}}}\kern -15pt} \ell(k\cap T)^\nu
\Biggr ).
$$
The arguments used in the proof of Lemmas~\ref{lem:SlitheringBounded} and \ref{lem:SlitheringExists} can then be applied to show that
$$
\left\Vert \widehat\Sigma_{\mathcal T} - \Sigma_{\mathcal T} \right\Vert = O\Biggl(\,
\sum_{T\in \mathcal T_{gg'}-\mathcal T } \ell(k\cap T)^\nu
\Biggr ).
$$
Lemma~\ref{lem:SumPowersLengthsGapsConverges} then shows that $ \widehat\Sigma_{\mathcal T} $ and $\Sigma_{\mathcal T} $ have the same limit as the finite subset $\mathcal T$ tends to $\mathcal T_{gg'}$. Therefore, $ \widehat\Sigma_{\mathcal T} $ also converges to the slithering map $\Sigma_{gg'}$ as $\mathcal T$ tends to $\mathcal T_{gg'}$.
We already observed that each $\widehat\Sigma_{\mathcal T} $ sends the line decomposition $\mathbb R^n = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n \widetilde L_a(g')$ to the line decomposition $\mathbb R^n = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n \widetilde L_a(g)$. Passing to the limit, we conclude that $\Sigma_{gg'}$ has the same property.
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{lem:SlitheringLineDecompositions} proves Condition~(4) of Proposition~\ref{prop:Slithering}.
We already observed in Lemma~\ref{lem:SlitheringExists} that $\Sigma_{gg'}$ has determinant 1, which is Condition~(5).
The only property of Proposition~\ref{prop:Slithering} remaining to prove is the uniqueness of the slithering map.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:SlitheringUnique}
If a family of linear isomorphisms $\Sigma_{gg'}' \colon \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R^n$, indexed by all pairs of leaves $g$, $g' \subset \widetilde \lambda$, satisfies Conditions~{\upshape(1--3)} of Proposition~{\upshape \ref{prop:Slithering}}, then $\Sigma_{gg'}' $ is equal to the map $\Sigma_{gg'}$ constructed above for every $g$, $g'$.
\end{lem}
In particular, Conditions~(4--5) are consequences of Conditions~(1--3).
\begin{proof} As usual, let $k$ be a tightly transverse arc that crosses both $g$ and $g'$. Let $\mathcal T = \{ T_1, T_2, \dots, T_m \}$ be a finite subset of the set $\mathcal T_{gg'}$ of components of $\widetilde S - \widetilde \lambda$ that separate $g$ from $g'$, indexed in such a way that the $T_i$ occur in this order as one goes from $g$ to $g'$. Let $g_{T_i}^{\phantom{i}}$ and $g_{T_i}'$ be the sides of $T_i$ that are closest to $g$ and $g'$, respectively.
By Condition~(1),
\begin{align*}
\Sigma_{gg'}' = \Sigma_{gg_{T_1}^{\phantom{i}}}' \circ \Sigma_{g_{T_1}^{\phantom{i}}g_{T_1}'}' &\circ \Sigma_{g_{T_1}'g_{T_2}^{\phantom{i}}}' \circ \Sigma_{g_{T_2}^{\phantom{i}}g_{T_2}'}' \circ \dots \\
\dots &\circ \Sigma_{g_{T_{m-1}}^{\phantom{i}}g_{T_{m-1}}'}' \circ \Sigma_{g_{T_{m-1}}'g_{T_m}^{\phantom{i}}}' \circ \Sigma_{g_{T_m}^{\phantom{i}}g_{T_m}'}' \circ \Sigma_{g_{T_m}'g'}' .
\end{align*}
Condition~(3) implies that $\Sigma_{g_{T_i}^{\phantom{i}}g_{T_i}'}' = \Sigma_{g_{T_i}^{\phantom{i}}g_{T_i}'} = \Sigma_{T_i}$, so that
\begin{align*}
\Sigma_{gg'}' = \Sigma_{gg_{T_1}^{\phantom{i}}}' \circ \Sigma_{T_1} &\circ \Sigma_{g_{T_1}'g_{T_2}^{\phantom{i}}}' \circ\Sigma_{T_2}\circ \dots \\
\dots &\circ \Sigma_{T_{m-1}} \circ \Sigma_{g_{T_{m-1}}'g_{T_m}^{\phantom{i}}}' \circ \Sigma_{T_m} \circ \Sigma_{g_{T_m}'g'}' .
\end{align*}
By Condition~(2), the map $(h,h') \mapsto \Sigma_{hh'}'$ is H\"older continuous over the space of leaves of $\widetilde \lambda$ that meet the arc $k$. As a consequence, there exists a constant $\nu>0$ such that for every $i$
$$
\left\Vert \Sigma_{g_{T_i}'g_{T_{i+1}}^{\phantom{i}}}' - \mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n}\right\Vert
=O\bigl( d(g_{T_i}' , g_{T_{i+1}}^{\phantom{i}}) ^\nu \bigr).
$$
Because the leaves $g_{T_i}' $ and $ g_{T_{i+1}}^{\phantom{i}}$ are disjoint, a classical estimate in negative curvature geometry (see for instance \cite[\S 5.2.6]{CEG}) shows that $d(g_{T_i}' , g_{T_{i+1}}^{\phantom{i}}) $ is bounded by a constant times the length of the subarc $k_{g_{T_i}' g_{T_{i+1}}^{\phantom{i}}} \subset k$ delimited by the points $k \cap g_{T_i}' ,$ and $k \cap g_{T_{i+1}}^{\phantom{i}}$. The geodesic lamination $\widetilde\lambda$ has measure 0 (\cite[\S 8.5]{Thu0}\cite{BirSer}). Therefore,
$$
\ell(k_{g_{T_i}' g_{T_{i+1}}^{\phantom{i}}} ) = \sum_{\kern 5pt T\in \mathcal T_{g_{T_i}' g_{T_{i+1}}^{\phantom{i}}} \kern -5pt} \ell (k\cap T).
$$
Assuming $\nu\leq 1$ without loss of generality, we can combine all these estimates and conclude that
$$
\left\Vert \Sigma_{g_{T_i}'g_{T_{i+1}}^{\phantom{i}}}' - \mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n}\right\Vert
=O\Biggl( \sum_{\kern 5pt T\in \mathcal T_{g_{T_i}' g_{T_{i+1}}^{\phantom{i}}} \kern -5pt} \ell (k\cap T)^\nu \Biggr).
$$
This also holds for $i=0$ and $m$, with the convention that $g_{T_0}' =g$ and $g_{T_{m+1}}^{\phantom{i}} =g'$.
From this estimate, we can then use the arguments of the proofs of Lemma~\ref{lem:SlitheringBounded} and \ref{lem:SlitheringExists} to show that
$$
\left\Vert \Sigma_{gg'}' - \Sigma_{\mathcal T} \right\Vert
=O\Biggl( \sum_{ T\in \mathcal T_{gg'} - \mathcal T } \ell (k\cap T)^\nu \Biggr).
$$
By Lemma~\ref{lem:SumPowersLengthsGapsConverges}, this proves that
$$
\Sigma_{gg'}'
=\lim_{\mathcal T \to \mathcal T_{gg'}} \Sigma_{\mathcal T}
=\Sigma_{gg'},
$$
which concludes the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:SlitheringUnique}.
\end{proof}
This uniqueness property completes the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:Slithering}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:SlitheringNotUniqueIfNotHolder}
In Proposition~\ref{prop:Slithering} (and in Lemma~\ref{lem:SlitheringUnique}), the uniqueness property would be false without the hypothesis that the slithering map $\Sigma_{gg'}$ depends locally H\"older continuously (and not just continuously) on the leaves $g$, $g'$. To understand why, let $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$, \dots, $\alpha_{n-1}$ be transverse measures for $\lambda$ such that $\alpha_{n-a}=\alpha_a$ for every $a$ (so that in practice we have $\lfloor \frac n2 \rfloor$ such $\alpha_a$); assume in addition that the $\alpha_a$ have no atom (which is automatic if $\lambda$ has no closed leaf).
For two leaves $g$, $g'$ of $\widetilde\lambda$, the atom-free hypothesis guarantees that the $\alpha_a$--mass $\alpha_a(g,g')$ of the set of leaves of $\widetilde \lambda$ separating $g$ from $g'$ depends continuously on $g$ and $g'$. Define $\beta_1(g,g')$, $\beta_2(g,g')$, \dots, $\beta_n(g,g')$ by the property that $\alpha_a(g,g') = \beta_{a+1}(g,g') - \beta_a(g,g')$ and $\sum_{a=1}^n \beta(g,g') =0$. If $g$ and $g'$ are oriented in parallel in such a way that $g'$ is to the left of $g$, let $\Sigma_{gg'}' \colon \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R^n$ be obtained by postcomposing the slithering map $\Sigma_{gg'}$ with the linear map that respects each line $\widetilde L_a(g)$ and acts by $\mathrm{e}^{\beta_a(g,g')}$ on $\widetilde L_a(g)$. This new family of maps $\Sigma_{gg'}'$ satisfies Conditions~(1) and (3--5) of Proposition~\ref{prop:Slithering}, the maps $\Sigma_{gg'}'$ depend continuously (but not locally H\"older continuously) on $g$ and $g'$, and they are of course different from the original family of slithering maps $\Sigma_{gg'}$ if at least one of the $\alpha_a$ is non-zero.
This construction automatically generalizes to the situation where the $\alpha_a$ are topological differential forms in the sense of \cite{Kenyon}, in which case it completely describes how the uniqueness can fail if we remove the H\"older condition from Proposition~\ref{prop:Slithering}.
\end{rem}
\subsection{The shearing cycle}
\label{subsect:ShearingCycle}
We now use the slithering map to associate to the Hitchin homomorphism $\rho\colon\pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ a certain twisted tangent cycle $\sigma^\rho \in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1})$ relative to the slits of $\lambda$. This relative tangent cycle is the \emph{shearing cycle} of the Hitchin homomorphism $\rho$.
We will use the point of view of \S \ref{subsect:RelTgtCyclesDifferentView}. Let $T$ and $T'$ be two components of $\widetilde S - \widetilde\lambda$.
Let $g$ be the side of $T$ that is closest to $T'$, and let $g'$ be the side of $T'$ closest to $T$. We orient these two leaves of $\widetilde \lambda$ to the left as seen from $T$. In particular, $g$ and $g'$ are oriented in parallel, and the slithering map $\Sigma_{gg'} \colon \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R^n$ of Proposition~\ref{prop:Slithering} sends each line $\widetilde L_a(g')$ to the line $\widetilde L_a(g)$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\SetLabels
( .5* .22) $ T$ \\
( -.02* .21) $ x$ \\
( 1.03* .28) $y $ \\
( .37* -.04 ) $z $ \\
( .5* .4) $ g$ \\
( .6* .78) $ T'$ \\
( -.03* .68) $ x'$ \\
(1.05 * .62) $y '$ \\
( .72* 1.02) $z '$ \\
( .5*.6 ) $ g'$ \\
\endSetLabels
\centerline{\AffixLabels{\includegraphics{ShearingCycle.eps}}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:ShearingCycles}
\end{figure}
Let $x$ and $y\in \partial_\infty \widetilde S$ be the positive and negative endpoints of $g$, and let $z$ be the third vertex of the ideal triangle $T$. Similarly, let $x'$ and $y'\in \partial_\infty \widetilde S$ be the positive and negative endpoints of $g'$, and let $z'$ be the third vertex of $T'$. See Figure~\ref{fig:ShearingCycles}. The flag curve $\mathcal F_\rho \colon \partial_\infty \widetilde S \to \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$ of Proposition~\ref{prop:FlagCurve} now associates six flags $\mathcal F_\rho(x)$, $\mathcal F_\rho(y)$, $\mathcal F_\rho(z)$, $\mathcal F_\rho(x')$, $\mathcal F_\rho(y')$ and $\mathcal F_\rho(z')\in \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$ to these vertices. By our definitions, the slithering map $\Sigma_{gg'}$ sends $\mathcal F_\rho(x')$ to $\mathcal F_\rho(x)$ and $\mathcal F_\rho(y')$ to $\mathcal F_\rho(y)$.
We want to consider the double ratio
$
D_a \Bigl(
\mathcal F_\rho(x), \mathcal F_\rho(y), \mathcal F_\rho(z), \Sigma_{gg'}\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(z') \bigr)
\Bigr)
$, as in \S\ref{subsect:DoubleRatios}.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:ShearAlongArcDefined}
The double ratio $
D_a \Bigl(
\mathcal F_\rho(x), \mathcal F_\rho(y), \mathcal F_\rho(z), \Sigma_{gg'}\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(z') \bigr)
\Bigr)
$ is finite and positive.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
When $T$ and $T'$ are adjacent so that $g=g'$, then $\Sigma_{gg'}=\mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n}$ and the statement is an immediate consequence of the positivity property of Theorem~\ref{thm:FlagCurvePositive}. In the general case, however, the appearance of the slithering map $\Sigma_{gg'}$ requires a more elaborate argument.
The key ingredient is a deeper consequence of the positivity property, which
is that the line bundles $L_a \to T^1S$ of Theorem~\ref{thm:AnosovProperty} carry a canonical joint orientation. This does not mean that each individual bundle $L_a$ has a preferred orientation, but that the collection of all $L_a$ carry orientations that are uniquely determined up to simultaneous reversal of all orientations; in other words, all line bundles $L_a \otimes L_{a+1} \to T^1 S$ admit canonical orientations. Actually, we will see that the line bundles $L_a$ admit two equally canonical but opposite joint orientations: the left-hand-side and right-hand-side joint orientations.
To define these joint orientations, focus attention on a point $\widetilde u \in T^1 \widetilde S$. As in \S \ref{subsect:FlagCurve}, consider the line decomposition $\mathbb R^n = \bigoplus_{a=1}^n \widetilde L_a(\widetilde u)$ defined by the fibers over $\widetilde u$ of the line bundles $\widetilde L_a \to T^1 \widetilde S$ lifting the bundles $L_a \to T^1S$. Then, if $p$ and $q\in \partial_\infty \widetilde S$ are the positive and negative endpoints of the orbit $g$ of $\widetilde u$ under the geodesic flow, $\widetilde L_a(\widetilde u) = \mathcal F_\rho(p)^{(a)} \cap \mathcal F_\rho(q)^{(n-a+1)}$ by definition of the flag curve $\mathcal F_\rho$ in Proposition~\ref{prop:FlagCurve}. Consider another point $r\in \partial_\infty \widetilde S$ that is different from $p$ and $q$, and that sits to the left of $p$ as seen from $q$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm:FlagCurvePositive}, the flag triple $\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(p), \mathcal F_\rho(q), \mathcal F_\rho(r) \bigr)$ is generic. As a consequence, if $v$ is a nontrivial vector in the line $\mathcal F_\rho(r)^{(1)}$, the projection of $v\in \mathbb R^n = \bigoplus_{b=1}^n \widetilde L_b(\widetilde u)$ to the line $\widetilde L_a(\widetilde u)$ parallel to all $\widetilde L_b(\widetilde u)$ with $b\neq a$ is nontrivial, and therefore specifies an orientation for $\widetilde L_a(\widetilde u)$. Replacing $v$ by any other non-trivial vector $v' \in \mathcal F_\rho(r)^{(1)}$ determines the same orientation on $\widetilde L_a(\widetilde u)$ if the ratio $\frac v{v'}$ in the line $\mathcal F_\rho(r)^{(1)}$ is positive, or reverses all these orientations if $\frac v{v'}<0$. Therefore the joint orientation of the lines $\widetilde L_a(\widetilde u)$ is independent of the choice of $v \in \mathcal F_\rho(r)^{(1)}$.
To show that the joint orientation of the lines $\widetilde L_a(\widetilde u)$ is independent of the choice of the point $r\in \partial_\infty \widetilde S$, consider another point $r'\in \partial_\infty \widetilde S$ different from $p$ and $q$, and now located on the right of $p$ as seen from $q$. This point $r'$ similarly defines a joint orientation for the lines $\widetilde L_a(\widetilde u)$, and we will see that this joint orientation is exactly the opposite of that defined by $r$. To prove this, pick nontrivial vectors $v \in \mathcal F_\rho(r)^{(1)}$ and $v' \in \mathcal F_\rho(r')^{(1)}$. Let $v_a$ and $v_a'$ denote the respective projections of $v$ and $v'$ to the line $\widetilde L_a(\widetilde u)$ parallel to all $\widetilde L_b(\widetilde u)$ with $b\neq a$. If, in addition, $r$ and $r'$ are in different components of $ \partial_\infty \widetilde S - \{p,q\}$, the positivity condition of Theorem~\ref{thm:FlagCurvePositive} and the definition of the double ratio can be combined to show that
$$
0< D_a \bigl(
\mathcal F_\rho(p), \mathcal F_\rho(q), \mathcal F_\rho(r), \mathcal F_\rho(r')
\bigr)
=
-\frac{v_{a+1}}{v_{a+1}'}\frac{v_{a}'}{v_{a}}
$$
where the ratios $\frac{v_b'}{v_b}\in \mathbb R-\{0\}$ are computed in the lines $\widetilde L_b(\widetilde u)$. As a consequence, $v$ and $v'$ induce opposite orientations on the lines $\widetilde L_a(\widetilde u) \otimes \widetilde L_{a+1}(\widetilde u)$. In other words, the joint orientation of the lines $\widetilde L_a(\widetilde u)$ defined by the point $r'\in \partial_\infty \widetilde S$ is the opposite of that defined by $r$. It immediately follows that the joint orientation defined by $r$ is independent of the choice of $r$ in the left-hand-side component of $ \partial_\infty \widetilde S- \{ p,q\}$ (as seen from~$q$).
We will refer to the joint orientation defined by $r$ as the \emph{left-hand-side joint orientation} of the lines $\widetilde L_a(\widetilde u)$, whereas the \emph{right-hand-side joint orientation} will be the one defined by $r'$. These two joint orientations are opposite of each other.
Let $h$ and $h'$ be two oriented geodesics of $\widetilde S$ that share the same positive endpoint $p\in \partial_\infty \widetilde S$, and let $\Sigma_{hh'} \colon \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R^n$ be the elementary slithering map, sending each line $\widetilde L_a(h')$ to $\widetilde L_a(h)$, defined as in Proposition~\ref{prop:Slithering}(4). The definition of $\Sigma_{hh'} $ through the isomorphisms $\widetilde L_a(h') \cong \mathcal F^\rho(p)^{(a)} / \mathcal F^\rho(p)^{(a-1)} \cong \widetilde L_a(h) $ makes it clear that $\Sigma_{hh'}$ sends the left-hand-side joint orientation of the family of lines $\widetilde L_a(h')$ to the left-hand-side joint orientation of the $\widetilde L_a(h)$.
We now return to the leaves $g$, $g'$ of $\widetilde\lambda$. As in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:SlitheringLineDecompositions} and with the notation used there, approximate the part of $\widetilde \lambda$ that separates $g$ and $g'$ by a finite lamination, and the slithering map $\Sigma_{gg'}$ by a finite composition
\begin{align*}
\widehat\Sigma_{\mathcal T} = (\Sigma_{U_0} \circ \Sigma_{U_0'}) \circ \Sigma_{T_1}& \circ (\Sigma_{U_1} \circ \Sigma_{U_1'}) \circ \Sigma_{T_2} \circ (\Sigma_{U_2} \circ \Sigma_{U_2'}) \circ \Sigma_{T_3} \circ \dots\\
&\dots \circ \Sigma_{T_{m-1}} \circ (\Sigma_{U_{m-1}} \circ \Sigma_{U_{m-1}'}) \circ \Sigma_{T_m} \circ ( \Sigma_{U_m} \circ \Sigma_{U_m'}).
\end{align*}
of elementary slitherings where, for any to consecutive terms, the corresponding triangles $T_i$ and $U_i$, or $U_i$ and $U_i'$, or $U_i'$ and $T_{i+1}$, share a side $g_{T_i}^{\phantom i}$, $h_i$ or $g_{T_{i+1}}'$, respectively. By our earlier observation, each of these elementary slitherings respects joint orientations of the appropriate families of lines. It follows that $\widehat\Sigma_{\mathcal T} $ sends the joint orientation of the lines $\widetilde L_a(g')$ to the joint orientation of the $\widetilde L_a(g)$. Passing to the limit as the approximation $\widehat\Sigma_{\mathcal T}$ tends to $\Sigma_{gg'}$, we concluce that the slithering map $\Sigma_{gg'}$ sends the left-hand-side joint orientation of the lines $\widetilde L_a(g')$ to the left-hand-side joint orientation of the $\widetilde L_a(g)$.
We are now ready to determine the sign of the double ratio $
D_a \Bigl(
\mathcal F_\rho(x), \mathcal F_\rho(y), \mathcal F_\rho(z), \Sigma_{gg'}\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(z') \bigr)
\Bigr)
$. Pick nontrivial vectors $v$ and $v'$ in the lines $\mathcal F_\rho(z)^{(1)}$ and $\mathcal F_\rho(z')^{(1)}$, respectively. The left-hand-side joint orientation of the family of lines $\widetilde L_a(g)$ is defined by the projections $v_a$ of $v$ to $\widetilde L_a(g)$ parallel to the other lines $\widetilde L_b(g)$ with $b\neq a$. Similarly, the right-hand-side joint orientation of the lines $\widetilde L_a(g')$ is defined by the projections $v_a'$ of $v'$ to $\widetilde L_a(g')$ parallel to the lines $\widetilde L_b(g')$ with $b\neq a$. Since we just proved that the slithering map $\Sigma_{gg'}$ respects joint orientations, and since the left- and right-hand-side orientations are opposite of each other, the joint orientation of the $\widetilde L_a(g)$ by the vectors $v_a$ is opposite to that defined by the vectors $\Sigma_{gg'}(v_a') $. In other words, all ratios $\frac{\Sigma_{gg'}(v_{a}')}{v_{a}} \frac{v_{a+1}}{\Sigma_{gg'}(v_{a+1}')}
$ are negative.
By definition of the double ratio,
$$
D_a \Bigl(
\mathcal F_\rho(x), \mathcal F_\rho(y), \mathcal F_\rho(z), \Sigma_{gg'}\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(z') \bigr)
\Bigr)
=
-\frac{v_{a+1}}{\Sigma_{gg'}(v_{a+1}')}
\frac{\Sigma_{gg'}(v_{a}')}{v_{a}}
>0
$$
which concludes the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:ShearAlongArcDefined}.
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{lem:ShearAlongArcDefined} enables us to define the \emph{$a$--th shear parameter} of the Hitchin homomorphism $\rho$ between the components $T$ and $T'$ of $\widetilde S - \widetilde\lambda$ as
$$
\sigma_a^\rho (T,T') = \log D_a \Bigl(
\mathcal F_\rho(x), \mathcal F_\rho(y), \mathcal F_\rho(z), \Sigma_{gg'}\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(z') \bigr)
\Bigr) \in \mathbb R.
$$
These shear parameters are then combined in the \emph{shear vector}
$$\sigma^\rho(T,T')=\big(\sigma_1^\rho(T,T'), \sigma_2(T,T'), \dots ,\sigma_{n-1}^\rho(T,T')\big )\in \mathbb R^{n-1}.$$
We now show that the family of shear vectors $\sigma^\rho(T,T')$ define a relative tangent cycle $\sigma^\rho \in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1})$ for $\lambda$ valued in the twisted coefficient bundle $\widehat \mathbb R^n$, as in Proposition~\ref{prop:TwistedRelTgtCycleDiffrentViewpoint}. We begin with the easier part, namely Condition~(3) of that statement.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:ReversingOrientationShear}
For any two components $T$ and $T'$ of $\widetilde S - \widetilde\lambda$,
$$
\sigma_a^\rho(T', T) = \sigma_{n-a}^\rho (T,T').
$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Using the notation of Figure~\ref{fig:ShearingCycles},
\begin{align*}
\sigma_a^\rho(T', T)
&= \log D_a \Bigl(
\mathcal F_\rho(y'), \mathcal F_\rho(x'), \mathcal F_\rho(z'), \Sigma_{g'g}\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(z) \bigr)
\Bigr)\\
&= \log D_{n-a} \Bigl(
\mathcal F_\rho(x'), \mathcal F_\rho(y'), \Sigma_{g'g}\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(z)\bigr), \mathcal F_\rho(z')
\Bigr)\\
&= \log D_{n-a} \Bigl(
\Sigma_{g'g}\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(x)\bigr), \Sigma_{g'g}\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(y)\bigr), \Sigma_{g'g}\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(z)\bigr), \mathcal F_\rho(z')
\Bigr)\\
&= \log D_{n-a} \Bigl(
\mathcal F_\rho(x), \mathcal F_\rho(y), \mathcal F_\rho(z) , \Sigma_{gg'}\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(z')\bigr)
\Bigr) = \sigma_{n-a}^\rho(T,T'),
\end{align*}
where the second equality is a consequence of the elementary properties of double ratios stated in Lemma~\ref{lem:RelationsDoubleRatios}, the third equality comes from the fact that $\Sigma_{g'g}$ sends each line $\widetilde L_b(g)$ to $\widetilde L_b(g')$, and the fourth equality follows from the invariance of double ratios under the action of $\Sigma_{gg'}=\Sigma_{g'g}^{-1}\in \mathrm{SL_n(\R)}$.
\end{proof}
Let $s$ be a slit of $\lambda$ or, equivalently, a spike of the complement $S-\lambda$. Lift $s$ to a spike of $\widetilde S - \widetilde \lambda$, namely to a vertex $x\in \partial_\infty \widetilde S$ of a triangle component $T$ of $\widetilde S - \widetilde \lambda$. Let $y$ and $z$ be the other two vertices of $T$, indexed so that $x$, $y$ and $z$ occur in this order counterclockwise around $T$. The flag curve $\mathcal F_\rho$ then determines a positive triple of flags $\mathcal F_\rho(x)$, $\mathcal F_\rho(y)$ and $\mathcal F_\rho(z)\in \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$. Considering their quadruple ratios as in \S \ref{subsect:QuadRatios}, define
$$
\theta^\rho_a(s) = \log Q_a \bigl (\mathcal F_\rho(x), \mathcal F_\rho(y), \mathcal F_\rho(z) \bigr) ,
$$
which is clearly independent of the lift of the slit $s$ to the universal cover $\widetilde S$.
Lemma~\ref{lem:ExpressQuadrupleRatioTripleRatios} expresses $\theta_a^\rho(s)$ in terms of the triangle invariants $\tau^\rho_{abc}(s)$ of $\rho$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:ExpressThetaTriangleInvariants}
\pushQED{\qed}
\begin{equation*}
\theta^\rho_a(s) = \sum_{b+c=n-a} \tau^\rho_{abc}(s).
\qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
Recall that by definition a slit $\widehat s$ of the orientation cover $\widehat\lambda$ is positive if the canonical orientation of $\widehat\lambda$ orients the two leaves that are adjacent to $\widehat s$ towards $\widehat s$, and that $\widehat s$ is negative when these two leaves are oriented away from~$\widehat s$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:ShearingCycleIsCycle}
The rule $(T,T') \mapsto \sigma_a^\rho(T,T')$ defines a relative tangent cycle $\sigma_a^\rho \in \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$. The boundary $\partial \sigma_a^\rho \colon \{ \text{slits of } \widehat \lambda \} \to \mathbb R$ is defined by the property that, for every slit $\widehat s$ of $\widehat\lambda$ projecting to a slit $s$ of $\lambda$,
$$
\partial \sigma_a^\rho (\widehat s) =
\begin{cases}
\theta^\rho_a(s) &\text{ if } \widehat s \text{ is a positive slit of } \widehat \lambda,\\
-\theta^\rho_{n-a}(s) &\text{ if } \widehat s \text{ is negative. }
\end{cases}
$$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Using the framework of Proposition~\ref{prop:RelTgtCycleDiffrentViewpoint}, let $T$, $T'$, $T''$ be three components of $\widetilde S - \widetilde \lambda$ such that $T''$ separates $T$ from $T'$ in $\widetilde S$. Let $\widetilde s''$ be the spike of $T''$ delimited by the two sides of $T''$ that separate $T$ from $T'$.
We first consider the case where $\widetilde s''$ points to the left as seen from $T$.
Let $g$ be the side of $T$ that is closest to $T'$ and $T''$, and let $g'$ be the side of $T'$ that is closest to $T$ and $T''$. Let $f$ be the side of $T''$ that faces $T$, and let $f'$ be the side of $T''$ that faces $T'$. Orient these leaves of $\widetilde \lambda$ to the left as seen from $T$. Let $E$, $F$, $E'$, $F'$, $E''$, $H$, $H' \in \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$ be the flags respectively associated by the flag curve $\mathcal F_\rho \colon \partial_\infty \widetilde S \to \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$ to the positive endpoint of $g$, the negative endpoint of $g$, the positive endpoint of $g'$, the negative endpoint of $g'$, the positive endpoint $\widetilde s''$ of $f$ and $f'$, the negative endpoint of $f$, and the negative endpoint of $f'$. Similarly, let $G$, $G'\in \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$ be respectively associated to the vertex of $T$ that is not contained in $g$, and to the vertex of $T'$ that is not contained in $g'$. See Figure~\ref{fig:ShearingCycle2}, where the vertices of $T$, $T'$, $T''$ are labelled by the flags associated to them by the flag curve $\mathcal F_\rho$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\SetLabels
( -.02*.17 ) $ E$ \\
(1.02 * .21) $ F$ \\
( .35* -.05) $G $ \\
( -.04* .74) $E' $ \\
( 1.04* .69) $F' $ \\
( .71* 1.02) $ G'$ \\
( -.05* .48) $E'' $ \\
( 1.03* .41) $ H$ \\
( 1.05* .61) $ H'$ \\
( .55* .315) $ g$ \\
(.45 *.69 ) $g' $ \\
(.7 * .42) $ f$ \\
( .7*.58 ) $f' $ \\
(.5 *.2 ) $ T$ \\
( .58* .81) $T' $ \\
( .86* .51) $T''$ \\
\endSetLabels
\centerline{\AffixLabels{\includegraphics{ShearingCycle2}}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:ShearingCycle2}
\end{figure}
Then,
\begin{align*}
\sigma_a^\rho (T,T')&= \log D_a \bigl( E, F, G, \Sigma_{gg'}(G') \bigr)\\
&= \log D_a \bigl( E'', H, \Sigma_{fg}(G), \Sigma_{fg'}(G') \bigr)
\end{align*}
by using the fact that the slithering map $ \Sigma_{fg}$ sends $E$ to $E''$ and $F$ to $H$.
Similarly,
\begin{align*}
\sigma_a^\rho (T, T'')&= \log D_a \bigl( E, F, G, \Sigma_{gf}(H') \bigr)\\
&= \log D_a \bigl( E'', H, \Sigma_{fg}(G), H' \bigr)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\sigma_a^\rho (T'', T')&= \log D_a \bigl( E'', H', H, \Sigma_{f'g'}(G') \bigr)\\
&= \log D_a \bigl( E'', H, \Sigma_{ff'}(H), \Sigma_{fg'}(G') \bigr).
\end{align*}
Using the elementary properties of double ratios stated in Lemma~\ref{lem:RelationsDoubleRatios}, it follows that
$$
\sigma_a^\rho (T, T') =\sigma_a^\rho (T, T'') + \sigma_a^\rho (T'', T')
+ \log D_a\bigl (E'', H, H' , \Sigma_{ff'}(H)\bigr).
$$
By definition of the double product,
$$D_a\bigl (E'', H, H' , \Sigma_{ff'}(H)\bigr)=
- \frac{e''{}^{(a)}\wedge h^{(n-a-1)} \wedge h'{}^{(1)}}
{e''{}^{(a)}\wedge h^{(n-a-1)} \wedge \Sigma_{ff'}\bigl(h^{(1)}\bigr)}
\frac
{e''{}^{(a-1)}\wedge h^{(n-a)} \wedge \Sigma_{ff'}\bigl(h^{(1)}\bigr)}
{e''{}^{(a-1)}\wedge h^{(n-a)} \wedge h'{}^{(1)}}
$$
for arbitrary non-zero $e''{}^{(b)} \in \Lambda^b (E''{}^{(b)} )$, $h^{(b)} \in \Lambda^b (H^{(b)} )$, $h'{}^{(b)} \in \Lambda^b (H'{}^{(b)} )$.
The elementary slithering map $\Sigma_{f'f} = \Sigma_{ff'}^{-1}$ sends $H$ to $H'$. By Condition~(4) of Proposition~\ref{prop:Slithering}, it acts trivially on each $\Lambda^b (E''{}^{(b)} )$ and on $\Lambda^n(\mathbb R^n)$. If we choose $h'{}^{(b)} = \Sigma_{f'f} (h^{(b)} )$, we consequently have that
$$
e''{}^{(b)}\wedge h^{(n-b-1)} \wedge \Sigma_{ff'}\bigl(h^{(1)}\bigr)
= e''{}^{(b)}\wedge h'{}^{(n-b-1)} \wedge h^{(1)}
$$
for every $b$.
Similarly, $ e''{}^{(b)} \wedge h^{(n-b)} = e''{}^{(b)} \wedge h'{}^{(n-b)} $ for every $b$
Combining these properties and rearranging terms provides
\begin{align*}
D_a\bigl (E'', H, H' , \Sigma_{ff'}(H)\bigr)&=
- \frac{e''{}^{(a)}\wedge h^{(n-a-1)} \wedge h'{}^{(1)}}
{e''{}^{(a)}\wedge h'{}^{(n-a-1)} \wedge h^{(1)}}
\frac
{e''{}^{(a-1)}\wedge h'{}^{(n-a)} \wedge h^{(1)}}
{e''{}^{(a-1)}\wedge h^{(n-a)} \wedge h'{}^{(1)}}\\
&=
\frac{e''{}^{(a)}\wedge h^{(n-a-1)} \wedge h'{}^{(1)}}
{e''{}^{(a-1)}\wedge h^{(n-a)} \wedge h'{}^{(1)}}
\frac
{e''{}^{(a-1)} \wedge h^{(1)} \wedge h'{}^{(n-a)} }
{e''{}^{(a)} \wedge h^{(1)} \wedge h'{}^{(n-a-1)} }
\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
\frac{e''{}^{(a+1)} \wedge h'{}^{(n-a-1)} }
{e''{}^{(a+1)} \wedge h^{(n-a-1)} }
\frac{e''{}^{(a)} \wedge h^{(n-a)} }
{e''{}^{(a)} \wedge h'{}^{(n-a)} }
\\
&= Q_{a}(E'', H, H')^{-1}.
\end{align*}
This proves that
\begin{align*}
\sigma_a^\rho (T,T') &= \sigma_a^\rho (T,T'')+ \sigma_a^\rho (T'', T') - \log Q_a (E'',H, H')\\
&= \sigma_a^\rho (T,T'')+ \sigma_a^\rho (T'', T') - \theta^\rho_a(s'')
\end{align*}
where $s''$ is the slit of $\lambda$ that is the projection of the slit $\widetilde s''$ of $\widetilde\lambda$.
This computation holds when $\widetilde s''$ points to the left as seen from $T$.
When $\widetilde s''$ points to the right, a very similar computation or an application of Lemma~\ref{lem:ReversingOrientationShear} shows that in this case
$$
\sigma_a^\rho (T,T') = \sigma_a^\rho (T,T'')+ \sigma_a^\rho (T'', T') - \theta^\rho_{n-a}(s'').
$$
Considering these two cases, Proposition~\ref{prop:RelTgtCycleDiffrentViewpoint} then shows that the rule $(T,T') \mapsto \sigma_a^\rho(T,T')$ defines a relative tangent cycle $\sigma_a^\rho \in \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$, whose boundary $\partial \sigma_a^\rho \colon \{ \text{slits of } \widehat \lambda \} \to \mathbb R$ is the one described in the statement of Lemma~\ref{lem:ShearingCycleIsCycle}. This concludes the proof of that lemma.
\end{proof}
Through Proposition~\ref{prop:TwistedRelTgtCycleDiffrentViewpoint}, the combination of Lemmas~\ref{lem:ReversingOrientationShear} and \ref{lem:ShearingCycleIsCycle} shows that the relative tangent cycles $\sigma_a^\rho \in \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits} ; \mathbb R)$ can be combined to define a relative tangent cycle $\sigma^\rho \in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1})$ valued in the twisted coefficient bundle $\widehat\mathbb R^{n-1}$ introduced in \S \ref{subsect:TwistedRelTangentCycles}. This twisted relative tangent cycle is the \emph{shearing cycle} of the Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ with respect to the maximal geodesic lamination $\lambda$.
\section{Hitchin characters are determined by their invariants}
\label{bigsect:Uniqueness}
The goal of this section is to show that, if two Hitchin homomorphisms $\rho$, $\rho' \colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ have the same triangle invariants and the same shearing cycle, then they represent the same character in the Hitchin component $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$.
\subsection{Revisiting the slithering map}
\label{subsect:RevisitSlithering}
We want to give a different description of the slithering map $\Sigma_{gg'}$ of \S \ref{subsect:Slithering}. This new formulation is based on the following simple algebraic trick.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:ReorderProduct}
Let $A_1$, $A_2$, \dots, $A_m$ be elements of a group. Then,
$$
A_1A_2 \dots A_{m-1}A_m = \widehat A_m \widehat A_{m-1} \dots \widehat A_2 \widehat A_1
$$
where $\widehat A_i = (A_1A_2 \dots A_{i-1}) A_i (A_1A_2\dots A_{i-1})^{-1}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Observe that
$A_1A_2 \dots A_{m-1}A_m = \widehat A_m A_1A_2 \dots A_{m-1}$, and proceed by induction.
\end{proof}
We return to the construction of the slithering map $\Sigma_{gg'}$ in \S \ref{subsect:Slithering}. Let $g$ and $g'$ be two leaves of the preimage $\widetilde\lambda \subset \widetilde S$ of the geodesic lamination $\lambda$, and let $\mathcal T_{gg'}$ be the set of components of $\widetilde S - \widetilde \lambda$ that separate $g$ from $g'$, where these components are ordered from $g$ to $g'$. For such a component $T\in \mathcal T_{gg'}$, we consider the elementary slithering $\Sigma_T = \Sigma_{g_T^{\phantom i}g_T'}$ defined by Condition~(4) of Proposition~\ref{prop:Slithering}, where $g_T$ and $g_T'$ are the two sides of $T$ that are respectively closest to $g$ and $g'$.
We now consider the infinite product of the maps
$$
\widehat \Sigma_T = \Sigma_{gg_T}\circ \Sigma_T \circ \Sigma_{gg_T}^{-1}.
$$
More precisely, let $\mathcal T = \{T_1, T_2, \dots, T_m\}$ be a finite subset of $\mathcal T_{gg'}$, where each $T_i$ separates $T_{i+1}$ from $g$. We then consider the limit
$$
\overleftarrow{\prod_{\kern -10pt T\in \mathcal T_{gg'}\kern -10pt}} \kern 5pt\widehat\Sigma_T
=\lim_{\mathcal T \to \mathcal T_{gg'}} \widehat\Sigma_{T_m} \circ \widehat\Sigma_{T_{m-1}} \circ \dots \circ \widehat\Sigma_{T_2} \circ \widehat\Sigma_{T_1} .
$$
The reverse arrow on top of the product sign is here to remind us that the composition of the $\widehat\Sigma_{T}$ is taken in the order opposite to the ordering of the elements of $\mathcal T_{gg'}$ from $g$ to $g'$,
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:RevisitSlithering}
$$
\Sigma_{gg'} = \overleftarrow{\prod_{\kern -10pt T\in \mathcal T_{gg'}\kern -10pt}} \kern 5pt\widehat\Sigma_T .
$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
First of all, the fact that the infinite product converges is proved by the estimates of \S \ref{subsect:Slithering}, using the fact that the $\Sigma_{gg_T}$ are uniformly bounded (Lemma~\ref{lem:SlitheringBounded}) and the estimates on $\Sigma_T-\mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n}$ given by Lemmas~\ref{lem:EstimateElemSlithering} and \ref{lem:SumPowersLengthsGapsConverges}.
As usual, let $\mathcal T = \{T_1, T_2, \dots, T_m\}$ be a finite subset of $\mathcal T_{gg'}$, where each $T_i$ separates $T_{i+1}$ from $g$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:ReorderProduct},
$$
\overrightarrow{\prod_{\kern -10pt T\in \mathcal T\kern -10pt}} \kern 3pt\Sigma_T
=
\Sigma_{T_1} \circ \Sigma_{T_{2}} \circ \dots \circ \Sigma_{T_{m-1}} \circ \Sigma_{T_m}
=
\widehat\Sigma_{T_m}^{\mathcal T} \circ \widehat\Sigma_{T_{m-1}}^{\mathcal T} \circ \dots \circ \widehat\Sigma_{T_2}^{\mathcal T} \circ \widehat\Sigma_{T_1}^{\mathcal T}
=\overleftarrow{\prod_{\kern -10pt T\in \mathcal T\kern -10pt}} \kern 3pt\widehat\Sigma_T^{\mathcal T}
$$
where
$$
\widehat\Sigma_{T_i}^{\mathcal T}
= \bigl( \Sigma_{T_1} \circ \Sigma_{T_2} \circ \dots \circ \Sigma_{T_{i-1}} \bigr)
\circ \Sigma_{T_i}
\circ
\bigl( \Sigma_{T_1} \circ \Sigma_{T_2} \circ \dots \circ \Sigma_{T_{i-1}} \bigr)^{-1}.
$$
For a fixed $T$, the map $ \widehat\Sigma_{T}^{\mathcal T} $ tends to $\widehat \Sigma_T = \Sigma_{gg_T}\circ \Sigma_T \circ \Sigma_{gg_T}^{-1}$ as the finite family $\mathcal T$ tends to the set $\mathcal T_{gg'}$ of all components of $\widetilde S - \widetilde \lambda$ separating $g$ from $g'$, by definition of the slithering map. By uniformity in the estimates guaranteeing the convergence of the infinite products, it follows that
\begin{equation*}
\Sigma_{gg'}
=
\lim_{\mathcal T \to \mathcal T_{gg'}} \kern 2pt \overrightarrow{\prod_{\kern -10pt T\in \mathcal T\kern -10pt}} \kern 3pt\Sigma_T
= \lim_{\mathcal T \to \mathcal T_{gg'}} \kern 2pt \overleftarrow{\prod_{\kern -10pt T\in \mathcal T\kern -10pt}} \kern 3pt\widehat\Sigma_T^{\mathcal T}
= \lim_{\mathcal T \to \mathcal T_{gg'}} \kern 2pt \overleftarrow{\prod_{\kern -10pt T\in \mathcal T\kern -10pt}} \kern 3pt\widehat\Sigma_T
= \overleftarrow{\prod_{\kern -10pt T\in \mathcal T_{gg'}\kern -10pt}} \kern 5pt\widehat\Sigma_T . \qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Reconstructing a Hitchin homomorphism from its invariants}
\label{subsect:ParamInjective}
We now show how to reconstruct, up to conjugation by an element of $\mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$, a Hitchin homomorphism $\rho \colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ from its triangle invariants and its shearing cycle.
For this, we first normalize $\rho$ to avoid having to worry about conjugations. Fix a component $T_0$ of $\widetilde S-\widetilde \lambda$, with vertices $x_0$, $y_0$, $z_0 \in \partial_\infty \widetilde S$. Also, choose a positive flag triple $(E_0, F_0, G_0)$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:NormalizeHitchinRep}
After conjugating the Hitchin homomorphism $\rho$ by an element of $\mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$, we can arrange that the flag $\mathcal F_\rho(x_0)$ is equal to $E_0$, the flag $\mathcal F_\rho(y_0)$ is equal to $F_0$, and the line $\mathcal F_\rho(z_0)^{(1)}$ is equal to the line $G_0^{(1)}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} By elementary linear algebra, there exists a unique element $\phi \in \mathrm{PGL_n(\R)}$ sending the flag $\mathcal F_\rho(x_0)$ to $E_0$, the flag $\mathcal F_\rho(y_0)$ to $F_0$, and the line $\mathcal F_\rho(z_0)^{(1)}$ to the line $G_0^{(1)}$. Because the set of positive flag triples is connected (see for instance Proposition~\ref{prop:TripRatiosDetermineFlagTriples}), $\phi$ is in the connected component of $\mathrm{PGL_n(\R)}$ that contains the identity, namely $\phi$ is an element of $\mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$.
Conjugating $\rho$ by $\phi \in \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ replaces the flag curve $\mathcal F_\rho \colon \partial_\infty \widetilde S \to \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$ by its composition with the action of $\phi$ on $\mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
The following lemma will help in the exposition, by decreasing the number of cases to consider. Let $g_0$ be the side of $T_0$ joining $x_0$ and $y_0$, and let $h_0$ be the side joining $x_0$ and $z_0$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:NiceGeneratorsForPi1}
The fundamental group $\pi_1(S)$ is generated by finitely many elements $\gamma \in \pi_1(S)$ whose axes cross both $g_0$ and $h_0$, and send $T_0$ to a triangle $\gamma T_0$ contained in the component of $\widetilde S - T_0$ that is adjacent to $g_0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} The axes of $\pi_1(S)$ are dense in the space of geodesics of $\widetilde S$. Therefore, there exists an element $\gamma_0 \in \pi_1(S)$ whose axis crosses both $g_0$ and $h_0$, and whose attracting fixed point in $\partial_\infty \widetilde S$ is contained in the closure of the component $U$ of $\widetilde S - T_0$ delimited by $g_0$. In particular, $\gamma_0 T_0$ is contained in $U$.
Let $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$, \dots, $\gamma_k$ be a set of generators for $\pi_1(S)$. The Pingpong Lemma shows that, for $m_i$, $n_i>0$ large enough, the attracting and repulsing fixed points of $\gamma_i'= \gamma_0^{m_i} \gamma_i \gamma_0^{n_i}$ are very close to the attracting and repulsing fixed points of $\gamma_0$. In particular, the axis of $\gamma_i'$ crosses both $g_0$ and $h_0$, and $\gamma_i'T_0$ is contained in $U$.
Then the family of elements $\gamma_0$, $\gamma_1'$, $\gamma_2'$, \dots, $\gamma_k'$ generates $\pi_1(S)$ and has the required properties.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\SetLabels
(.48 * .2) $ T_0$ \\
(-.02 * .22) $x_0 $ \\
(1.02 *.18 ) $y_0 $ \\
( .64* -.03) $z_0 $ \\
( .5 * .32) $ g_0$ \\
( .4* .13) $h_0 $ \\
( .58*.82 ) $\gamma T_0$ \\
( -.05* .75) $\gamma x_0 $ \\
( .71* 1.02) $\gamma y_0 $ \\
( 1.05* .7) $\gamma z_0 $ \\
( .4*.88 ) $ \gamma g_0$ \\
(.5* .69) $\gamma h_0 $ \\
( .15* .47) $T $ \\
( .4* .42) $ g_T$ \\
( -.03 * .35) $x_T $ \\
( 1.04* .5) $ y_T$ \\
( -.03* .58) $z_T $ \\
(.42 * .54) $ g_T'$ \\
( * ) $ $ \\
( * ) $ $ \\
( * ) $ $ \\
\endSetLabels
\centerline{\AffixLabels{\includegraphics{Reconstruction.eps}}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:Reconstruction}
\end{figure}
For $t=(t_1, t_2, \dots, t_{n-1}) \in \mathbb R^{n-1}$, let $u_1$, $u_2$, \dots, $u_n$ be uniquely determined by the properties that $t_a = u_a - u_{a+1}$ and $\sum_{a=1}^n u_a=0$. Namely, $u_a= \frac1n \sum_{b=1}^{n-1} (n-b) t_b - \sum_{b=1}^{a-1} t_b $. Then, let $\Theta^t_{E_0F_0}\colon \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R^n$ be the element of $\mathrm{SL_n(\R)}$ that acts by multiplication of $\mathrm e^{u_a}$ on each line $E_0^{(a)} \cap F_0^{(n-a+1)}$.
For every generic flag triple $(E,F,G)$, elementary linear algebra provides a unique projective map $\phi \in \mathrm{PGL_n(\R)}$ that sends $E$ to $E_0$, $F$ to $F_0$, and such that
$$
D_a\bigl(E_0, F_0, G_0, \phi(G) \bigr) =1
$$
for every $a\in \{1,2,\dots, n-1\}$. We then define
$$
\mathcal G_{(E_0, F_0, G_0)}(E,F,G) = \phi(G)\in \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n).
$$
In particular, we can apply this to the flag triple $\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(x_0), \mathcal F_\rho(z_0), \mathcal F_\rho(y_0) \bigr)$ associated to the vertices of the base triangle $T_0$. (Note the unusual vertex ordering.) This defines a projective map $\phi_0 \in \mathrm{PGL_n(\R)}$ sending the flag $E_0 = \mathcal F_\rho(x_0)$ to itself, $\mathcal F_\rho(z_0)$ to $F_0=\mathcal F_\rho(y_0)$, and $F_0$ to $\mathcal G_{(E_0, F_0, G_0)}\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(x_0), \mathcal F_\rho(z_0), \mathcal F_\rho(y_0) \bigr)$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:GroupActionAndSlithering}
Let $\rho$ be normalized as in Lemma~{\upshape \ref{lem:NormalizeHitchinRep}}, and let $\gamma\in \pi_1(S)$ be as in Lemma~{\upshape \ref{lem:NiceGeneratorsForPi1}}. Then,
$$
\rho(\gamma) = \Sigma_{g_0(\gamma h_0)}^{-1} \circ \Theta^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, \gamma T_0)}_{E_0F_0}
\circ \phi_0 \in \mathrm{PGL_n(\R)}
$$
where $\Theta^t_{E_0F_0}$ and $\phi_0$ are defined as above, and where $\sigma^\rho(T_0, \gamma T_0)\in \mathbb R^{n-1}$ is the shear vector of $\rho$ between $T_0$ and $\gamma T_0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By definition of the shear parameter
\begin{align*}
\sigma^\rho_a(T_0, \gamma T_0)
&= \log D_a \bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(x_0), \mathcal F_\rho(y_0), \mathcal F_\rho(z_0), \Sigma_{g_0(\gamma h_0)} \circ \mathcal F_\rho(\gamma y_0) \bigr)\\
&= \log D_a \bigl( E_0, F_0, G_0, \Sigma_{g_0(\gamma h_0)} \circ \mathcal F_\rho(\gamma y_0) \bigr),
\end{align*}
where the second equality comes form the fact that the flag $\mathcal F_\rho(x_0)$ is equal to $E_0$, the flag $\mathcal F_\rho(y_0)$ is equal to $F_0$, and the line $\mathcal F_\rho(z_0)^{(1)}$ is equal to the line $G_0^{(1)}$. (Recall that the double ratio $D_a(E,F,G,G')$ does not really depend on the whole flags $G$ and $G'$, only on the lines $G^{(1)}$ and $G'{}^{(1)}$.) Since
$$
D_a\Bigl(E_0, F_0, G_0, \mathcal G_{(E_0, F_0, G_0)}\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(x_0), \mathcal F_\rho(z_0), \mathcal F_\rho(y_0) \bigr) \Bigr) =1,
$$
it follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:ComputeDoubleRatios} that $\Sigma_{g_0(\gamma h_0)} \circ \mathcal F_\rho(\gamma y_0) $ and $\mathcal G_{(E_0, F_0, G_0)}\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(x_0), \mathcal F_\rho(z_0), \mathcal F_\rho(y_0) \bigr)=\phi_0(F_0)$ differ only by the action of $ \Theta^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, \gamma T_0)}_{E_0F_0}$. More precisely,
\begin{align*}
\Sigma_{g_0(\gamma h_0)} \circ \mathcal F_\rho(\gamma y_0) &=
\Theta^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, \gamma T_0)}_{E_0F_0}
\circ
\mathcal G_{(E_0, F_0, G_0)}\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(x_0), \mathcal F_\rho(z_0), \mathcal F_\rho(y_0) \bigr)\\
&= \Theta^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, \gamma T_0)}_{E_0F_0}
\circ \phi_0(F_0) =
\Theta^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, \gamma T_0)}_{E_0F_0}
\circ \phi_0 \circ \mathcal F_\rho(y_0).
\end{align*}
The geodesic $g_0$ has endpoints $x_0$ and $y_0$, and the geodesic $\gamma h_0$ has endpoints $\gamma x_0$ and $\gamma z_0$. Therefore,
$$
\Sigma_{g_0(\gamma h_0)} \circ \mathcal F_\rho(\gamma x_0)
= \mathcal F_\rho( x_0)
= \Theta^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, \gamma T_0)}_{E_0F_0}
\circ \mathcal F_\rho( x_0)
= \Theta^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, \gamma T_0)}_{E_0F_0}
\circ \phi_0 \circ \mathcal F_\rho( x_0)
$$
since the flag $E_0= \mathcal F_\rho( x_0) $ is fixed by $ \Theta^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, \gamma T_0)}_{E_0F_0}$ and by $ \phi_0$.
Similarly, because $ \Theta^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, \gamma T_0)}_{E_0F_0}$ fixes the flag $F_0 = \mathcal F_\rho(y_0)$ and because $\phi_0$ sends $\mathcal F_\rho(z_0)$ to $F_0$,
$$
\Sigma_{g_0(\gamma h_0)} \circ \mathcal F_\rho(\gamma z_0)
= \mathcal F_\rho( y_0)
= \Theta^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, \gamma T_0)}_{E_0F_0}
\circ \mathcal F_\rho( y_0)
= \Theta^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, \gamma T_0)}_{E_0F_0}
\circ \phi_0 \circ \mathcal F_\rho( z_0) .
$$
Remembering that the flag curve is $\rho$--equivariant, so that $\mathcal F_\rho(\gamma x) = \rho(\gamma) \circ \mathcal F_\rho(x)$ for every $x\in \partial_\infty \widetilde S$, we concludes that the projective maps $\Sigma_{g_0(\gamma h_0)} \circ \rho(\gamma)$ and $ \Theta^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, \gamma T_0)}_{E_0F_0}
\circ \phi_0$ coincide on each flag of the generic flag triple $\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(x_0), \mathcal F_\rho(z_0), \mathcal F_\rho(y_0) \bigr)$. This proves that
$$\Sigma_{g_0(\gamma h_0)} \circ \rho(\gamma)= \Theta^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, \gamma T_0)}_{E_0F_0}
\circ \phi_0$$
as projective maps. The result then follows.
\end{proof}
In the formula of Lemma~\ref{lem:GroupActionAndSlithering}, the term $ \Theta^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, \gamma T_0)}_{E_0F_0}$ depends only on the shearing cycle $\sigma^\rho$, while $\phi_0$ is completely determined by the triangle invariants $\tau_{abc}^\rho (s)$ of the base triangle $T_0$. We now turn our attention to the remaining term, the slithering map $\Sigma_{g_0(\gamma h_0)}$.
By Proposition~\ref{prop:RevisitSlithering},
$$
\Sigma_{g_0(\gamma h_0)} =\kern 10pt \overleftarrow{\prod_{\kern -13pt T\in \mathcal T_{g_0(\gamma h_0)}\kern -13pt}} \kern 7pt\widehat\Sigma_T .
$$
with the notation of that statement.
Consider the contribution $\widehat\Sigma_T = \Sigma_{g_0g_T} \circ \Sigma_T \circ \Sigma_{g_0g_T}^{-1}$ of a triangle $T\in \mathcal T_{g_0(\gamma h_0)}$, separating $g_0$ from $\gamma h_0$. Index the vertices of $T$ as $x_T$, $y_T$ and $z_T$, in such a way that the side $g_T = y_T x_T$ is the one that is closest to $g_0=y_0x_0$, and is oriented in parallel with $g_0$. There are two cases to consider, according to whether the side $g_T'$ of $T$ that is closest to $\gamma T_0$ is equal to $z_Tx_T$ or to $y_Tz_T$.
Consider the case where $T$ points to the right, namely where $g_T'$ is equal to $y_Tz_T$, as in Figure~\ref{fig:Reconstruction}. Then, the elementary slithering $\Sigma_T= \Sigma_{g_T^{\phantom i}g_T'}$ is the unique linear map that fixes the flag $\mathcal F_\rho(y_T)$, acts by the identity on each line $\mathcal F_\rho(y_T)^{(a+1)}/\mathcal F_\rho(y_T)^{(a)}$, and sends the flag $\mathcal F_\rho(z_T)$ to $\mathcal F_\rho(x_T)$. It follows that
$\widehat\Sigma_T = \Sigma_{g_0g_T} \circ \Sigma_T \circ \Sigma_{g_0g_T}^{-1}$ is the unique linear map that fixes the flag $\Sigma_{g_0g_T}\circ \mathcal F_\rho(y_T) = F_0$, acts as the identity on each line $F_0^{(a+1)}/F_0^{(a)}$, and sends the flag $\Sigma_{g_0g_T}\circ\mathcal F_\rho(z_T)$ to $\Sigma_{g_0g_T}\circ\mathcal F_\rho(x_T)=E_0$.
We now express $\Sigma_{g_0g_T}\circ\mathcal F_\rho(z_T)$ in terms of the flag $G_T'= \mathcal G_{(E_0, F_0, G_0)} \bigl ( \mathcal F_\rho(x_T), \mathcal F_\rho(y_T), \mathcal F_\rho(z_T) \bigr)$, as defined above Lemma~\ref{lem:GroupActionAndSlithering}. By definition, $G_T'$ is the unique flag such that there is a projective map sending $\mathcal F_\rho(x_T)$ to $E_0$, $\mathcal F_\rho(y_T)$ to $F_0$ and $\mathcal F_\rho(z_T)$ to $G'_T$, and such that
$
D_a \bigl(
E_0, F_0, G_0, G_T' \bigr)
=1
$
for every $a\in \{1,2,\dots, n-1\}$. Also,
\begin{align*}
\sigma^\rho (T_0, T) &= \log
D_a \bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(x_0), \mathcal F_\rho(y_0), \mathcal F_\rho(z_0), \Sigma_{g_0g_T} \circ \mathcal F_\rho(z_T) \bigr)\\
&= \log D_a \bigl( E_0, F_0, G_0, \Sigma_{g_0g_T} \circ \mathcal F_\rho(z_T) \bigr).
\end{align*}
As in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:GroupActionAndSlithering}, we conclude that
$
\Sigma_{g_0g_T} \circ \mathcal F_\rho(z_T) = \Theta_{E_0F_0}^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, T)} (G_T')
$.
Therefore, $\widehat \Sigma_T$ is the unique projective map that sends the flag $F_0$ to itself, acts as the identity on each line $F_0^{(a+1)}/F_0^{(a)}$, and sends $ \Theta_{E_0F_0}^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, T)} (G_T')$ to $E_0$. Because $ \Theta_{E_0F_0}^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, T)}$ fixes the flags $E_0$ and $F_0$, we conclude that
$$
\widehat \Sigma_T = \Theta_{E_0F_0}^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, T)} \circ \widehat\Sigma_T' \circ \Theta_{E_0F_0}^{-\sigma^\rho(T_0, T)}
$$
where $\widehat\Sigma_T'$ is the projective map that fixes $F_0$, acts as the identity on each $F_0^{(a+1)}/F_0^{(a)}$, and sends $G_T'= \mathcal G_{(E_0, F_0, G_0)} \bigl ( \mathcal F_\rho(x_T), \mathcal F_\rho(y_T), \mathcal F_\rho(z_T) \bigr)$ to $E_0$. A key observation here is that $\widehat\Sigma_T'$ depends only on the orbit of the flag triple $\bigl ( \mathcal F_\rho(x_T), \mathcal F_\rho(y_T), \mathcal F_\rho(z_T) \bigr)$ under the action of $\mathrm{PGL_n(\R)}$. In particular, $\widehat\Sigma_T'$ is completely determined by the triangle invariants of the Hitchin homomorphism $\rho$ (and by our normalization conventions).
A similar property holds them $T$ points to the left, namely when $g_t'$ is equal to the geodesic $z_Tx_T$. More precisely,
$$
\widehat \Sigma_T = \Theta_{E_0F_0}^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, T)} \circ \widehat\Sigma_T' \circ \Theta_{E_0F_0}^{-\sigma^\rho(T_0, T)}
$$
where $\Sigma_T'$ fixes $E_0$, acts as the identity on each $E_0^{(a+1)}/E_0^{(a)}$, and sends $ \mathcal G_{(E_0, F_0, G_0)} \bigl ( \mathcal F_\rho(x_T), \mathcal F_\rho(y_T), \mathcal F_\rho(z_T) \bigr)$ to $F_0$. In particular, $\widehat\Sigma_T'$ is completely determined by the triangle invariants of $\rho$ in this case as well.
Combining these observations with Lemma~\ref{lem:GroupActionAndSlithering} gives:
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:GroupActionAndInvariants}
Let $\rho$ be normalized as in Lemma~{\upshape \ref{lem:NormalizeHitchinRep}}, and let $\gamma\in \pi_1(S)$ be as in Lemma~{\upshape \ref{lem:NiceGeneratorsForPi1}}. Then,
$$
\rho(\gamma) = \biggl(\kern 15pt
\overleftarrow{\prod_{\kern -13pt T\in \mathcal T_{g_0(\gamma h_0)}\kern -13pt}} \kern 7pt
\Bigl(
\Theta_{E_0F_0}^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, T)} \circ \widehat\Sigma_T' \circ \Theta_{E_0F_0}^{-\sigma^\rho(T_0, T)}
\Bigr)
\biggr)^{-1}
\circ \Theta^{\sigma^\rho(T_0, \gamma T_0)}_{E_0F_0}
\circ \phi_0
$$
in $\mathrm{PGL_n(\R)}$, with the definitions introduced above. In particular, the maps $\widehat\Sigma_T'$ and $\phi_0$ depend only on the triangle invariants $\tau_{abc}^\rho(s)$ of $\rho$, while the terms $\Theta_{E_0F_0}^{\pm \sigma^\rho(T_0, T)} $ are determined by its shearing cycle $\sigma^\rho \in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1})$. \qed
\end{lem}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:HitchinDeterminedByInvariants}
If two Hitchin homomorphisms $\rho$, $\rho'\colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ that have the same triangle invariants $\sigma_{abc}^{\rho}(s)= \sigma_{abc}^{\rho'}(s) $ and the same shearing cycles $\sigma^\rho = \sigma^{\rho'} \in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^n)$ are conjugate by an element of $\mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$, and therefore represent the same character in $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Conjugate $\rho$ and $\rho'$ by elements of $\mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ to normalize them as in Lemma~\ref{lem:NormalizeHitchinRep}. Then, for every element $\gamma \in \pi_1(S)$ satisfying the conditions of Lemma~\ref{lem:NiceGeneratorsForPi1}, the formula of Lemma~\ref{lem:GroupActionAndInvariants} shows that $\rho(\gamma) = \rho'(\gamma)$. Since these $\gamma$ generate $\pi_1(S)$, this proves that $\rho=\rho'$.
\end{proof}
\section{Length functions}
\label{bigsect:LengthFunctions}
Our next goal is to determine which triangle invariants and shearing cycles can be realized as invariants of Hitchin characters. The length functions considered in this section provide one of the constraints that need to be satisfied by these invariants.
\subsection{Length functions associated to Hitchin characters}
\label{subsect:LengthFunctions}
Let $\rho\colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ be a Hitchin homomorphism. Labourie proves in \cite{Lab1} that for every non-trivial $\gamma \in \pi_1(S)$, the matrix $\rho(\gamma)\in \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ is diagonalizable and its eigenvalues can be indexed as $\mu_1\bigl(\rho(\gamma) \bigr)$, $\mu_2 \bigl(\rho(\gamma) \bigr)$, \dots, $\mu_n \bigl(\rho(\gamma) \bigr)$ in such a way that
$$
\frac{ \mu_a\bigl(\rho(\gamma) \bigr) }{ \mu_{a+1}\bigl(\rho(\gamma) \bigr)} >1
$$
for every $i=1$, $2$, \dots, $n-1$. (Note that eigenvalues of an element of $\mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ are only defined up to sign, but that the quotient between two such eigenvalues makes intrinsic sense.) This property is in fact an easy consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:AnosovProperty}.
Eigenvalues are independent under conjugation. This consequently defines $n-1$ functions
$$
\ell_a^\rho \colon \{\text{non-trivial conjugacy classes of } \pi_1(S) \} \to \mathbb R
$$
by the property that $ \ell_a^\rho(\gamma) = \log \frac{ \mu_a\bigl(\rho(\gamma) \bigr) }{ \mu_{a+1}\bigl(\rho(\gamma) \bigr)} > 0 $. The same conjugation invariance shows that the length function $\ell_a^\rho$ depends only on the Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$, not on the Hitchin homomorphism $\rho\colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ that represents it.
The set of conjugacy classes of the fundamental group $\pi_1(S)$ is discrete, but these length functions have a natural extension to a continuous space. Indeed, endowing the surface $S$ with an arbitrary negatively curved riemannian metric, a conjugacy class of $\pi_1(S)$ uniquely determines an oriented closed geodesic of $S$, and therefore a closed orbit of the geodesic flow of the unit tangent bundle $T^1S$. This closed leaf is endowed with an integer multiplicity $m>0$ if the conjugacy class is not primitive and is an $m$--power of a primitive class. Considering the Dirac transverse measure defined by this closed orbit and this multiplicity, this provides an analytic interpretation of a conjugacy class of $\pi_1(S)$ as a transverse measure for the \emph{geodesic foliation} $\mathcal F_S$ of $T^1S$, whose leaves are the orbits of the geodesic flow.
This defines a completion of the set of conjugacy classes of $\pi_1(S)$ by the space $\mathcal C(S)$ of all (positive Radon) transverse measures for the geodesic foliation $\mathcal F_S$ \cite{Bon86, Bon88, Bon91}, analogous to Thurston's completion \cite{Thu0, FLP, PenH} of the set of isotopy classes of simple closed curves in $S$ by the space $\mathcal{ML}(S)$ of measured laminations on $S$.
For differentiability properties, it is useful to consider more general transverse structures for the geodesic foliation, namely \emph{transverse H\"older distributions} in the sense of \cite{Bon97a, Bon97b}. This embeds the set of conjugacy classes of $\pi_1(S)$ in the topological vector space $\mathcal C^{\mathrm{H{\ddot o}l}}(S)$ of all transverse H\"older distributions for the geodesic foliation $\mathcal F_S$. In other words, we now have embeddings
$$
\{\text{non-trivial conjugacy classes of } \pi_1(S) \} \subset \mathcal C(S) \subset \mathcal C^{\mathrm{H{\ddot o}l}}(S).
$$
The elements of $\mathcal C(S)$ and $\mathcal C^{\mathrm{H{\ddot o}l}}(S)$ are respectively called \emph{measure geodesic currents} and \emph{H\"older geodesic currents} for the surface $S$. See the references mentioned above for a proof that these constructions depend only on the topology of the surface $S$, and in particular are independent of the choice of a negatively curved riemannian metric on $S$.
\begin{thm}
[{\cite{Dre1}}]
\label{thm:LengthFunctions}
For each Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ and for each $a=1$, $2$, \dots, $n-1$, the length function
$$
\ell_a^\rho \colon \{\text{non-trivial conjugacy classes of } \pi_1(S) \} \to \mathbb R
$$
extends to a continuous linear map
$
\ell_a^\rho \colon \mathcal C^{\mathrm{H{\ddot o}l}}(S) \to \mathbb R
$.\qed
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:Dreyer1DifferentConventions}
The reader should beware that the above functions $\ell_a^\rho$ are slightly different from those introduced in \cite{Dre1}. Namely, our functions $\ell_a^\rho$ would be called $\ell_a^\rho - \ell_{a+1}^\rho$ in \cite{Dre1}. Although mathematically equivalent to those of \cite{Dre1}, our conventions tend to be better adapted to the framework of the current article, as can for instance be apparent in Proposition~\ref{prop:MeasureHasPositiveLengths} and Theorem~\ref{thm:ShearingAndLength} below.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:LengthHolderGeodCurrentsUnique?}
By linearity and continuity, the extension $\ell_a^\rho \colon \mathcal C^{\mathrm{H{\ddot o}l}}(S) \to \mathbb R$ is uniquely determined on the closure of the set of all linear combinations of conjugacy classes of $\pi_1(S)$. We do not know if this closure is equal to all of $\mathcal C^{\mathrm{H{\ddot o}l}}(S)$ (this seems unlikely), but it does contain all the H\"older geodesic currents that will occur in this article.
\end{rem}
The following statement will be particularly important in our characterization of which relative tangent cycles can occur as shearing cycles of Hitchin characters.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:MeasureHasPositiveLengths}
Let $\alpha\in \mathcal C(S)$ be a non-zero measure geodesic current. Then,
$$
\ell_a^\rho (\alpha)>0
$$
for every Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ and every $a=1$, $2$, \dots, $n-1$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This is a simple consequence of the Anosov property of Theorem~\ref{thm:AnosovProperty}.
For this, we need to remind the reader of the construction of the length functions $
\ell_a^\rho \colon \mathcal C^{\mathrm{H{\ddot o}l}}(S) \to \mathbb R
$ in \cite{Dre1}, taking Remark~\ref{rem:Dreyer1DifferentConventions} into account. As in \S \ref{subsect:FlagCurve}, consider the geodesic flow $(g_t)_{t\in \mathbb R}$ on the unit tangent bundle $T^1S$ (for an arbitrary metric of negative curvature) and its flat lift to a flow $(G_t)_{t\in \mathbb R}$ on the vector bundle $T^1S \times _{\rho'} \mathbb R^n$, twisted by a homomorphism $\rho' \colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{SL_n(\R)}$ lifting $\rho$. In addition, choose a riemannian metric $\Vert \ \Vert$ on the vector bundle $T^1S \times _{\rho'} \mathbb R^n \to T^1S$.
The vector bundle $T^1S \times _{\rho'} \mathbb R^n \to T^1S$ splits as a direct sum of line bundles $L_a \to T^1S$ as in \S \ref{subsect:FlagCurve}. For $a=1$, $2$, \dots, $n$, this data provides a function $f_a \colon T^1S \to \mathbb R$ defined by the property that for $x\in T^1S$
$$
f_a(x) = - \left( {\textstyle \frac{d}{dt}} \log \left\Vert G_t\bigl(v_a(x)\bigr)\right \Vert_{g_t(x)} \right)_{t=0}
$$
where $v_a(x)$ is an arbitrary non-zero vector in the fiber $L_a(x)$ of the line bundle $L_a \to T^1S$. For a measure geodesic current $\alpha \in \mathcal C(S)$, the length $\ell_a^\rho(\alpha)$ is then defined as the integral
$$
\ell_a^\rho(\alpha)
= \int_{T^1S} (f_a - f_{a+1}) \, \alpha \kern -2pt \times \kern -3pt dt
$$
of the function $(f_a - f_{a+1})$ with respect to the measure $\alpha \kern -2pt \times \kern -3pt dt$ on $T^1S$ that, locally, is the product of the transverse measure $\alpha$ for the geodesic flow $(g_t)_{t\in \mathbb R}$ with the measure $dt$ along the orbits of this geodesic flow. (Remember that what is called $\ell_a^\rho(\alpha)$ in this article was called $\ell_a^\rho(\alpha)-\ell_{a+1}^\rho(\alpha)$ in \cite{Dre1}).
The measure $\alpha \kern -2pt \times \kern -2pt dt$ is invariant under the geodesic flow. Therefore, for every $t_0>0$,
\begin{align*}
\int_{T^1S} f_a \, \alpha \kern -2pt\times \kern -2pt dt &= \int_{T^1S} f_a\circ g_u \, \alpha \kern -2pt\times \kern -2pt dt
= \frac 1{t_0} \int_{T^1S} \int_0^{t_0} f_a\circ g_u \, du \ \alpha\kern -2pt \times \kern -2pt dt \\
&= \frac 1{t_0} \int_{T^1S} \int_0^{t_0} -{\textstyle \frac{d}{du}} \log \left\Vert G_u \bigl(v_a (x)\bigr)\right \Vert_{g_u(x)} \, du \ \alpha\kern -2pt \times \kern -2pt dt(x) \\
&= \frac 1{t_0} \int_{T^1S}
\log \frac{\left\Vert v_a(x) \right\Vert_{x}}
{\left\Vert G_{t_0} \bigl(v_a(x) \bigr)\right \Vert_{g_{t_0}\kern -1pt(x)} \kern -18pt}
\kern 10pt \alpha\kern -2pt \times \kern -2pt dt(x)
\end{align*}
so that
$$
\ell_a^\rho(\alpha) = \frac 1{t_0} \int_{T^1S}
\log \frac{\left\Vert v_a(x) \right\Vert_{x}}
{\left\Vert G_{t_0} \bigl(v_a(x) \bigr)\right \Vert_{g_{t_0}\kern -1pt(x)} \kern -18pt}
\kern 10pt
\frac
{\left\Vert G_{t_0} \bigl(v_{a+1}(x) \bigr)\right \Vert_{g_{t_0}\kern -1pt(x)} \kern -18pt}
{\left\Vert v_{a+1}(x) \right\Vert_{x}}
\kern 20 pt
\alpha\kern -2pt \times \kern -3pt dt(x).
$$
Theorem~\ref{thm:AnosovProperty} provides constants $A$, $B>0$ such that
$$
\log \frac{\left\Vert v_a(x) \right\Vert_{x}}
{\left\Vert G_{t_0} \bigl(v_a(x) \bigr)\right \Vert_{g_{t_0}\kern -1pt(x)} \kern -18pt}
\kern 10pt
\frac
{\left\Vert G_{t_0} \bigl(v_{a+1}(x) \bigr)\right \Vert_{g_{t_0}\kern -1pt(x)} \kern -18pt}
{\left\Vert v_{a+1}(x) \right\Vert_{x}}
\kern 20 pt
\geq \log A + Bt_0
$$
for every $t_0>0$. In particular, this integrant is strictly positive for $t_0$ large enough, and it follows that the integral $\ell_a^\rho(\alpha)$ is strictly positive.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Shearing cycles and length functions}
\label{subsect:ShearingAndLength}
We now consider a special type of H\"older geodesic current.
We saw in \S \ref{subsect:TangentCycles} that a positive tangent cycle $\mu \in \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda; \mathbb R)$ determines a transverse measure for $\widehat \lambda$. A general tangent cycle $\alpha \in \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda; \mathbb R)$ determines a transverse H\"older distribution, which lifts to a H\"older geodesic current $\alpha \in \mathcal C^{\mathrm{H{\ddot o}l}}(S)$ \cite{Bon97a, Bon97b}. This provides an embedding $\mathcal C(\widehat \lambda ; \mathbb R) \subset \mathcal C^{\mathrm{H{\ddot o}l}}(S)$, and the length functions $\ell_a^\rho \colon \mathcal C^{\mathrm{H{\ddot o}l}}(S) \to \mathbb R$ of the previous section restrict to linear functions $\ell_a^\rho \colon \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda; \mathbb R) \to \mathbb R$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:ShearingAndLength}
Let $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ be a Hitchin character with shearing cyle $\sigma^\rho \in \mathcal C(\lambda,\mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1}) \linebreak \subset \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$. Then, for every $a=1$, $2$, \dots, $n-1$, the $a$--th component $\sigma_a^\rho \in \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R) \cong H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ of $\sigma^\rho$ is related to the length function $\ell_a^\rho \colon \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda; \mathbb R) \to \mathbb R$ by the property that
$$
\ell_a^\rho(\alpha) = [\alpha] \cdot [\sigma_a^\rho]
$$
for every tangent cycle $\alpha \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda; \mathbb R) \cong H_1(\widehat U; \mathbb R)$, where $\cdot $ denotes the algebraic intersection number of relative homology classes in the train track neighborhood $\widehat U$ of the orientation cover $\widehat \lambda$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} We will split the proof into several lemmas.
We first give a different computation of the shearing cycle that uses the functions $f_a$ that we encountered in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:MeasureHasPositiveLengths}. Actually, we will consider the differential 1--form $\omega_a= f_a\, dt$ defined along the orbits of the geodesic flow. By restriction, this form projects to a differential form along the leaves of the orientation cover $\widehat\lambda$, that we will also denote by $\omega_a$.
We now extend this $\omega_a$ to a closed 1--form on the neighborhood $\widehat U$ of $\widehat\lambda$, in a weaker sense because of the low regularity of the line bundle $L_a$. Remember that a differential form is closed if and only if it is locally exact. This leads us to define a \emph{topological closed $1$--form} on $\widehat U$ as the data, at each point of $ \widehat U$, of a germ of continuous function well-defined up to an additive constant; in addition we require these function germs to be locally compatible in the sense that, when $y$ is sufficiently close to $x \in \widehat U$, the germ associated to $y$ is the restriction of the germ associated to $x$. Such a topological closed 1--form is \emph{H\"older continuous} if it is defined by a family of germs of H\"older continuous functions.
In our case, the 1--form $\omega_a$ was locally defined on each leaf $g$ of $\lambda$ as $\omega_a = dF_a$ for an explicit smooth function $F_a(t) = -\log \left\Vert G_t(\bigl(v_a(x) \bigr) \right\Vert_{g_t(x)}$ defined on that leaf and, locally, uniquely determined up to an additive constant. The construction of this function $F_a$ involves the line bundle $L_a$ and the choice of a riemannian metric on the bundle $T^1S \times_{\rho'}\mathbb R^n$. In particular, because the line bundle $L_a$ is H\"older continuous by Proposition~\ref{prop:FlagCurve}, this function $F_a$ can be chosen to be locally H\"older continuous on $\widehat\lambda$. Since a H\"older continuous function defined on a closed subset of a metric space always extends to a Holder continuous function over the larger space, this enables us to extend $\omega_a$ to a H\"older continuous topological closed $1$--form $\omega_a$ on $\widehat U$.
The definition of topological closed 1--form is specially designed so that the integral $\int_k \omega_a$ makes sense for every continuous arc $k$ in $\widehat U$. In particular, $\omega_a$ determines a cohomology class $[\omega_a] \in H^1(\widehat U; \mathbb R)$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:LengthIsEvaluationOmega}
For every tangent cycle $\alpha \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda;\mathbb R)$, the length $\ell_a^\rho(\alpha)$ is equal to the evaluation
$$
\ell_a^\rho(\alpha) = \bigl \langle [\omega_a] - [\omega_{a+1}], [\alpha] \bigr\rangle
$$
of the cohomology class $[\omega_a] - [\omega_{a+1}] \in H^1(\widehat U; \mathbb R)$ over the homology class $[\alpha] \in H_1(\widehat U; \mathbb R)$ determined by $\alpha$ as in Proposition~{\upshape\ref{prop:HomologyTangentCycles}}.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} The tangent cycle $\alpha\in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda; \mathbb R)$ defines a transverse H\"older distribution for the geodesic lamination $\widehat\lambda$; see \cite{Bon97a, Bon97b}. As in \cite{RueSul}, we can then interpret the data of the geodesic lamination $\widehat\lambda$ endowed with this transverse H\"older distribution as a closed de Rham current in $\widehat U$. The homology class of $H_1(\widehat U; \mathbb R)$ defined by this de Rham current is exactly the class $[\alpha]$ introduced in Proposition~\ref{prop:HomologyTangentCycles}.
By definition, the length $\ell_a^\rho(\alpha) $ is obtained by locally integrating the differential form $\omega_a - \omega_{a+1}$ over the leaves of $\widehat\lambda$, and then integrating the corresponding function of the leaves of $\widehat\lambda$ with respect to the transverse H\"older distribution defined by $\alpha$. See \cite{Dre1} for precise details, using a suitable partition of unity for $T^1S$. This construction is identical to the expression of \cite{RueSul} for the evaluation of $[\omega_a - \omega_{a+1}] \in H^1(\widehat U; \mathbb R)$ over the homology class $[\alpha] \in H_1(\widehat U; \mathbb R)$ represented by the de Rham current $\alpha \in \mathcal C^{\mathrm{H{\ddot o}l}}(\widehat\lambda)$.
\end{proof}
To relate the shearing cycles $\sigma_a^\rho$ to the forms $\omega_a$, consider an arc $k$ in $\widehat U$ that is tightly transverse to $\widehat\lambda$. As usual, orient $k$ to the right of the leaves of $\widehat\lambda$, and lift $k$ to an oriented arc $\widetilde k$ in the universal cover $\widetilde S$. Consistently with the canonical orientation of the leaves of $\widehat\lambda$, we orient the leaves of $\widetilde\lambda$ that meet $\widetilde k$ to the left of $\widetilde k$.
We first consider a component $d$ of $\widetilde k-\widetilde\lambda$ that does not contain any of the two endpoints of $k$. In particular, the positive and negative endpoints $x_d^+$ and $x_d^-$ of $d$ belong to $\widetilde \lambda$.
The tangent of the oriented leaf of $\widetilde\lambda$ passing through $x_d^\pm$ determines an element $u_d^\pm\in T^1\widetilde S$ of the unit tangent bundle of $\widetilde S$. If $g_d^\pm$ denotes the leaf of $\widetilde\lambda$ passing through $x_d^\pm$ and if we use the same letter to denote the projection $d\subset k\subset \widehat U$ of the arc $d\subset \widetilde k\subset \widetilde S$, we now connect the integral $\int_d \omega_a$ to the elementary slithering map $\Sigma_{g_d^+ g_d^-} \colon \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R^n$. The riemannian metric on the vector bundle $T^1 S \widetilde\times_{\rho'} \mathbb R^n$ used in the definition of the forms $\omega_a=f_a\,dt$ along $\widehat\lambda$ defines, for each $u\in T^1 \widetilde S$, a norm $\Vert \ \Vert_u$ on $\mathbb R^n$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\SetLabels
( .37* .34) $ \widetilde k$ \\
\tiny
( .395* .485) $d $ \\
( .455*.535 ) $ x_d^+$ \\
( .44*.44 ) $x_d^- $ \\
( .25* .57) $u_d^+ $ \\
(.25 * .42) $ u_d^-$ \\
( .76*.52 ) $ y_d^+$ \\
( .76*.43 ) $y_d^- $ \\
( .6*.52 ) $w_d^+ $ \\
( .6* .43) $ w_d^-$ \\
( .51*.76 ) $ d^+$ \\
(.5 * .68) $x_{d^+}^- $ \\
(.3 * .68) $ u_{d^+}^-$ \\
( .43* .18) $d^- $ \\
( .44*.28 ) $ x_{d^-}^+$ \\
(.25 * .29) $u_{d^-}^+ $ \\
( -.0*.77 ) $ x$ \\
( 1* .81) $ y$ \\
( .63*1 ) $ z$ \\
( * ) $ $ \\
( * ) $ $ \\
( * ) $ $ \\
\endSetLabels
\centerline{\AffixLabels{\includegraphics{LengthIntersection.eps}}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:LengthIntersection}
\end{figure}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:IntegralOmegaOverGap}
Let $k$ be an arc in $\widehat U$ that is tightly transverse to $\widehat\lambda$, and let $d$ be a component of $k-\widehat\lambda$ that contains none of the two endpoints of $k$. Then,
$$
\int_d \omega_a = \log\frac{\Vert v_a (u_d^-) \Vert_{u_{d}^-}}{\bigl\Vert \Sigma_{g_d^+ g_d^-}\bigl(v_a (u_{d}^-) \bigr)\bigr\Vert_{u_{d}^+}}
$$
for any non-zero vector $v_a (u_d^-) $ in the line $ \widetilde L_a (u_d^-)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The two leaves $g_d^+$ and $g_d^-$ are asymptotic. We can therefore find points $y_d^+\in g_d^+$ and $y_d^- \in g_d^-$ which are arbitrarily close to each other. Let $w_d^\pm $ be the element of the unit tangent bundle $T^1\widetilde S$ determined by the tangent of the oriented geodesic $g_d^\pm$ at the point $y_d^\pm$. See Figure~\ref{fig:LengthIntersection}. We can then deform $d$ to an arc consisting of the arc from $x_d^-$ to $y_d^-$ in the leaf $g_d^-$, followed by a short arc from $y_d^-$ to $y_d^+$, and completed by the arc from $y_d^+$ to $x_d^+$ in $g_d^+$. Then, by definition of the form $\omega_a$,
\begin{align*}
\int_d \omega_a &= \int_{x_d^-}^{y_d^-} \omega_a + \int_{y_d^-}^{y_d^+} \omega_a + \int_{y_d^+}^{x_d^+} \omega_a \\
&= \log \frac{\Vert v_a (u_d^-) \Vert_{u_{d}^-}} {\Vert v_a(u_d^-) \Vert_{w_{d}^-}}
+ \int_{y_d^-}^{y_d^+} \omega_a +
\log \frac{\Vert v_a (u_d^+) \Vert_{w_{d}^+}} {\Vert v_a (u_d^+) \Vert_{u_{d}^+}}
\end{align*}
for arbitrary non-zero vectors $v_a (u_d^+) \in \widetilde L_a (u_d^+)$ and $v_a (u_d^-) \in \widetilde L_a (u_d^-)$. In particular, we can choose $v_a (u_d^+) = \Sigma_{g_d^+ g_d^-}\bigl(v_a (u_{d}^-) \bigr)$, in which case
$$
\int_d \omega_a
= \log\frac{\Vert v_a (u_d^-) \Vert_{u_{d}^-}}{\bigl\Vert \Sigma_{g_d^+ g_d^-}\bigl(v_a(u_{d}^-) \bigr)\bigr\Vert_{u_{d}^+}}
- \log\frac{\Vert v_a (u_d^-) \Vert_{w_{d}^-}}{\bigl\Vert \Sigma_{g_d^+ g_d^-}\bigl(v_a(u_{d}^-) \bigr)\bigr\Vert_{w_{d}^+}}
+ \int_{y_d^-}^{y_d^+} \omega_a .
$$
Now, we let the points $y_d^+$ and $y_d^-$ tend to the common endpoint of $g_d^+$ and $g_d^-$ in such a way that the distance from $y_d^+$ to $y_d^-$ tends to 0. Looking at the projections to $S$, the integral $\int_{y_d^-}^{y_d^+} \omega_a $ tends to 0, while the quotient $\frac{\Vert v_a (u_d^-) \Vert_{w_{d}^-}}{\bigl\Vert \Sigma_{g_d^+ g_d^-}\bigl(v_a(u_{d}^-) \bigr)\bigr\Vert_{w_{d}^+}} $ tends to 1 (compare Lemma~\ref{lem:EstimateElemSlithering} and use the $\rho$--equivariance of the riemannian metric $\Vert\ \Vert$). It follows that
$$
\int_d \omega_a = \log\frac{\Vert v_a(u_d^-) \Vert_{u_{d}^-}}{\bigl\Vert \Sigma_{g_d^+ g_d^-}\bigl(v_a(u_{d}^-) \bigr)\bigr\Vert_{u_{d}^+}}
$$
for any non-zero vector $v_a(u_d^-) \in \widetilde L_a (u_d^-)$.
\end{proof}
We will now choose preferred vectors $v_a(u_d^-) \in \widetilde L_a (u_d^-)$.
Let $d^+$ and $d^-$ be the components of $\widetilde k-\widetilde\lambda$ that contain the positive and negative endpoints of $\widetilde k$, respectively. In particular, their endpoints $x_{d^+}^-$ and $x_{d^-}^+$ are the points of $\widetilde k \cap \widetilde \lambda$ that are closest to the positive and negative endpoints in $\widetilde k$, respectively. As usual, let $u_{d^\pm}^\mp\in T^1 \widetilde S$ be defined by the vector tangent to the (oriented) leaf $g_{d^\pm}^\mp$ of $\widetilde\lambda$ passing through $x_{d^\pm}^\mp$. See Figure~\ref{fig:LengthIntersection}.
The flag map $\mathcal F_\rho \colon \partial_\infty \widetilde S \to \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$ associates several lines of $\mathbb R^n$ to the vector $u_{d^+}^-\in T^1 \widetilde S$. This includes the $n$ lines $\widetilde L_a(u_{d^+}^-) = \mathcal F_\rho(x)^{(a)} \cap \mathcal F_\rho(y)^{(n-a+1)} $ of \S \ref{subsect:FlagCurve}, defined by the flags $ \mathcal F_\rho (x)$ and $ \mathcal F_\rho (y)$ respectively associated to the positive endpoint $x$ and the negative endpoint $y$ of the leaf $g_{d^+}^-$. We can also consider the line $\mathcal F_\rho (z)^{(1)}$ of the flag $ \mathcal F_\rho (z)$ associated to the third vertex $z$ of the triangle component of $\widetilde S - \widetilde \lambda$ that contains $d^+$. Pick a non-trivial vector $v(u_{d^+}^-) $ in this line $\mathcal F_\rho (z)^{(1)}$, and let $v_a(u_{d^+}^-)\in \widetilde L_a(u_{d^+}^-)$ be the projection of $v(u_{d^+}^-)$ parallel to the $\widetilde L_b(u_{d^+}^-)$ with $b\neq a$.
In particular, considering the riemannian metric $\Vert\ \Vert$, the quantity $\frac{\Vert v_a (u_{d^+}^-) \Vert_{u_{d^+}^-}}{\Vert v_{a+1} (u_{d^+}^-) \Vert_{u_{d^+}^-}}$ is independent of the choice of the vector $ v(u_{d^+}^-) \in \mathcal F_\rho (z)^{(1)}$. Note that this ratio is finite and positive by genericity of the flag triple $\bigl( \mathcal F_\rho(x), \mathcal F_\rho(y), \mathcal F_\rho(z) \bigr)$.
We can introduce similar definitions at the point $x_{d^-}^+$ of $\widetilde k \cap \widetilde \lambda$ that is closest to the negative endpoint of $\widetilde k$. Considering the triangle component of $\widetilde S- \widetilde\lambda$ that contains the negative endpoint of $\widetilde k$, this leads to a well-defined positive ratio $\frac{\Vert v_a (u_{d^-}^+) \Vert_{u_{d^-}^+}}{\Vert v_{a+1} (u_{d^-}^+) \Vert_{u_{d^-}^+}}$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:IntegrateOmegaTransverseArc}
Let $k$ be an arc in $\widehat U$ that is tightly transverse to $\widehat\lambda$. Then, for the above definitions,
$$
\sigma_a^\rho(k) = \int_{k-d^+ \cup d^-}( \omega_a
- \omega_{a+1} )
+ \log\frac{\Vert v_a (u_{d^+}^-) \Vert_{u_{d^+}^-}}{\Vert v_{a+1} (u_{d^+}^-) \Vert_{u_{d^+}^-}}
- \log \frac{\Vert v_a (u_{d^-}^+) \Vert_{u_{d^-}^+}}{\Vert v_{a+1} (u_{d^-}^+) \Vert_{u_{d^-}^+}}.
$$
\end{lem}
Note that the notation is ambiguous in the special case where $u_{d^+}^-=u_{d^-}^+$, which occurs when the arc $k$ crosses $\widehat\lambda$ in only one point. We will leave to the reader the easy task of lifting the ambiguity in this case.
\begin{proof}
By a well-known result of Birman-Series \cite{BirSer}, the intersection $\widetilde k \cap \widetilde \lambda$ has Hausdorff dimension 0. Since the topological closed 1--form $\omega$ is H\"older continuous, if follows that
$$
\int_{k-d^+ \cup d^-} \omega_a = \sum_d \int_{d} \omega_a
$$
where the sum is over all components $d$ of $\widetilde k-\widetilde\lambda$ that are different from $d^+$ and $d^-$. (The critical property is that the image of a set of Hausdorff dimension 0 under a H\"older continuous function has Hausdorff dimension 0, and in particular has Lebesgue measure 0 in $\mathbb R$.)
We now apply Lemma~\ref{lem:IntegralOmegaOverGap} while choosing $v_a (u_d^-) = \Sigma_{g_{d}^-g_{d^-}^+}\bigl(v_a(u_{d^-}^+) \bigr) \in L_a(u_d^-)$, where $v_a(u_{d^-}^+) \in \widetilde L_a(u_{d^-}^+)$ is determined as above by the vertices of the triangle component of $\widetilde S - \widetilde \lambda$ that contains $d^+$. Then,
$$
\int_{k-d^+ \cup d^-} \omega_a
= \sum_d \log\frac
{\bigl\Vert \Sigma_{g_{d}^-g_{d^-}^+}\bigl(v_a(u_{d^-}^+) \bigr) \bigr\Vert_{u_{d}^-}}
{\bigl\Vert\Sigma_{g_{d}^+g_{d^-}^+}\bigl(v_a(u_{d^-}^+) \bigr) \bigr\Vert_{u_{d}^+}}
$$
by observing that
$$\Sigma_{g_d^+ g_d^-}\bigl(v_a(u_{d}^-) \bigr) = \Sigma_{g_d^+ g_d^-} \circ \Sigma_{g_{d}^-g_{d^-}^+}\bigl(v_a(u_{d^-}^+) \bigr) = \Sigma_{g_d^+ g_{d^-}^+}\bigl(v_a(u_{d^-}^+) \bigr).
$$
If $g_x$ denotes the oriented leaf of $\widetilde\lambda$ passing through $x\in \widetilde k \cap \widetilde \lambda$ and if $u_x\in T^1 \widetilde S$ is the unit vector tangent to $g_x$ at $x$, the map $x \mapsto \bigl\Vert \Sigma_{g_x g_{d^-}^+}\bigl(v_a(u_{d^-}^+) \bigr) \bigr\Vert_{u_x}$ is H\"older continuous, because $g_x$ depends Lipshitz continuously on $x$ by \cite[\S 5.2.6]{CEG}), and because the slithering map $\Sigma_{gg_{d^-}^+}$ is a H\"older continuous function of the leaf $g$ by Proposition~\ref{prop:Slithering}. Using again the fact that $\widetilde k \cap \widetilde \lambda$ has Hausdorff dimension 0, it follows that
$$
\int_{k-d^+ \cup d^-} \omega_a
=\sum_d \log\frac
{\bigl\Vert \Sigma_{g_{d}^-g_{d^-}^+}\bigl(v_a(u_{d^-}^+) \bigr) \bigr\Vert_{u_{d}^-}}
{\bigl\Vert\Sigma_{g_{d}^+g_{d^-}^+}\bigl(v_a(u_{d^-}^+) \bigr) \bigr\Vert_{u_{d}^+}}
= \log \frac
{\Vert v_a (u_{d^-}^+) \Vert_{u_{d^-}^+}}
{\bigl\Vert \Sigma_{g_{d^+}^-g_{d^-}^+}\bigl(v_a(u_{d^-}^+) \bigr)\bigr\Vert_{u_{d^+}^-}}.
$$
By construction, the slithering map $\Sigma_{g_{d^+}^-g_{d^-}^+}$ sends $\widetilde L_a(u_{d^-}^+)$ to $\widetilde L_a(u_{d^+}^-)$. In particular, there exists a non-zero number $\mu_a$ such that $\Sigma_{g_{d^+}^-g_{d^-}^+} \bigl( v_a(u_{d^-}^+) \bigr) = \mu_a v_a(u_{d^+}^-)$. Then,
\begin{align*}
\int_{k-d^+ \cup d^-}( \omega_a - \omega_{a+1} )
&=
\log \frac
{\Vert v_a (u_{d^-}^+) \Vert_{u_{d^-}^+}}
{\Vert v_{a+1} (u_{d^-}^+) \Vert_{u_{d^-}^+}}
-
\log \frac
{\Vert v_a (u_{d^+}^-) \Vert_{u_{d^+}^-}}
{\Vert v_{a+1} (u_{d^+}^-) \Vert_{u_{d^+}^-}}
-\log\left|\frac{\mu_a}{\mu_{a+1}} \right| \\
&=
\log \frac
{\Vert v_a (u_{d^-}^+) \Vert_{u_{d^-}^+}}
{\Vert v_{a+1} (u_{d^-}^+) \Vert_{u_{d^-}^+}}
-
\log \frac
{\Vert v_a (u_{d^+}^-) \Vert_{u_{d^+}^-}}
{\Vert v_{a+1} (u_{d^+}^-) \Vert_{u_{d^+}^-}}
+ \sigma_a^\rho(k)
\end{align*}
by definition of the shear parameter $\sigma_a^\rho(k)$ (use Lemma~\ref{lem:ComputeDoubleRatios}).
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:EvaluateOmegaIsIntersection}
For every homology class $[\alpha] \in H_1(\widehat U; \mathbb R)$,
$$
\bigl \langle [\omega_a] - [\omega_{a+1}], [\alpha] \bigr\rangle = [\alpha] \cdot [\sigma_a^\rho].
$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We already observed, in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:RelativeHomologyTangentCycles}, that $H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ admits a basis where each element is represented by a generic tie of $\widehat U$. We can therefore write the image $[\alpha]\in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ as a linear combination $[\alpha] = \sum_i \mu_i [k_i]$ of classes represented by generic ties $k_i$, with coefficients $\mu_i\in \mathbb R$.
Recall that the ties of $\widehat U$ are oriented to the right for the canonical orientation of the leaves of $\widehat \lambda$. In particular, the components of the horizontal boundary $\partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U$ are of two types: those components where the orientation of the ties point outside of $\widehat U$, and those where it points inside. Also, because of this orientation convention,
$$
[\alpha] \cdot [\sigma_a^\rho] = \sum_i \mu_i \,[k_i] \cdot [\sigma_a^\rho] = \sum_i \mu_i \, \sigma_a^\rho(k_i)
$$
by definition of the homology class $[\sigma_a^\rho] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ associated to the relative tangent cycle $\sigma_a^\rho \in \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$ by Proposition~\ref{prop:RelativeHomologyTangentCycles}.
We now modify each arc $k_i$ by a homotopy respecting $\widehat \lambda$ and $\partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U$ to obtain an arc $k_i'$ such that the following holds: for every component $C$ of the horizontal boundary $\partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U$, there is an arc $k_C\subset \widehat U$ such that, for every arc $k_i'$ with an endpoint in $C$, the component of $k_i'-\widehat\lambda$ containing this endpoint is equal to $k_C$. The only case where this regrouping of arcs near the horizontal boundary requires some care is when the original tie $k_i$ meets $\widehat\lambda$ in one point; in this special situation, one needs to first choose the relevant arcs $k_C$ so that $k_i'=k_i$, and then modify the other $k_j$ accordingly.
Now, by Lemma~\ref{lem:IntegrateOmegaTransverseArc},
\begin{align*}
\sum_i \mu_i\, \sigma_a^\rho(k_i') &= \sum_i \mu_i \int_{k_i'}( \omega_a - \omega_{a+1} ) \\
&\qquad - \sum_i \mu_i \int_{d_i^+ }( \omega_a
- \omega_{a+1} ) - \sum_i \mu_i \int_{ d_i^-}( \omega_a
- \omega_{a+1} )\\
&\qquad+ \sum_i \mu_i \log\frac{\Vert v_a (u_{d_i^+}^-) \Vert_{u_{d_i^+}^-}}{\Vert v_{a+1} (u_{d_i^+}^-) \Vert_{u_{d_i^+}^-}}
- \sum_i \mu_i \log \frac{\Vert v_a (u_{d_i^-}^+) \Vert_{u_{d_i^-}^+}}{\Vert v_{a+1} (u_{d_i^-}^+) \Vert_{u_{d_i^-}^+}}
\end{align*}
where $d_i^+$ and $d_i^-$ are the components of $k_i' - \widehat\lambda$ containing the positive and negative components of $k_i'$, respectively. In particular, each $d_i^\pm$ is equal to one of the arcs $k_C$ associated to the components $C$ of the horizontal boundary $\partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U$.
The key observation is now that $[\alpha] =\sum_i \mu_i [k_i] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ comes from an element of $H_1(\widehat U; \mathbb R)$, and in particular has boundary 0. This implies that, for each component $C$ of $\partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U$ where the ties point outwards, the sum of the $\mu_i$ such that $k_i$ has an endpoint in $C$ is equal to 0; equivalently, the $\mu_i$ such that $d_i^+=k_C$ add up to 0. Similarly, for each component $C$ of $\partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U$ where the ties point inwards, the sum of the coefficients $\mu_i$ such that $d_i^- = k_C$ is equal to 0.
This implies that most terms cancel out in the above sum, and that
$$
\sum_i \mu_i \sigma_a^\rho(k_i') = \sum_i \mu_i \int_{k_i'}( \omega_a - \omega_{a+1} )= \bigl \langle [\omega_a] - [\omega_{a+1}], [\alpha] \bigr\rangle.
$$
For the second equality note that, because the $\mu_i$ for which the positive (resp. negative) endpoint of $k_i'$ is in a given component $C$ of $\partial_{\mathrm h}\widehat U$ add up to 0, the chain $\sum_i \mu_i k_i'$ is closed and represents the class $[\alpha]\in H_1(\widehat U; \mathbb R)$.
This proves that
\begin{equation*}
[\alpha] \cdot [\sigma_a] = \sum_i \mu_i \sigma_a(k_i) = \sum_i \mu_i \sigma_a(k_i') = \bigl \langle [\omega_a] - [\omega_{a+1}], [\alpha] \bigr\rangle. \qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
The combination of Lemmas \ref{lem:LengthIsEvaluationOmega} and \ref{lem:EvaluateOmegaIsIntersection} completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:ShearingAndLength}.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:TransMeasureHasPositiveIntersection}
Let $\mu$ be a non-trivial transverse measure for the orientation cover $\widehat\lambda$, and let $[\mu] \in H_1(\widehat U; \mathbb R)$ be its associated homology class as in \S {\upshape\ref{subsect:SpaceTangentCycles}}. Then,
$$
[\mu] \cdot [\sigma_a^\rho] >0
$$
for each component $\sigma_a^\rho \in \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R) \cong H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ of the shearing cycle $\sigma^\rho \in \mathcal C(\lambda,\mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1})$ of a Hichin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
This is an immediate consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:ShearingAndLength} and Proposition~\ref{prop:MeasureHasPositiveLengths}.
\end{proof}
\section{Parametrizing Hitchin components}
\label{bigsect:Param}
In \S \ref{bigsect:TriangleInv} and \S \ref{subsect:ShearingCycle}, we associated certain invariants to a Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$.
The first type of invariants are the triangle invariants $\tau_{abc}^\rho(s)$, defined as $s$ ranges over the slits of $\lambda$ and $a$, $b$, $c\geq 1$ range over all integers such that $a+b+c=n$. Noting that there are $\frac{(n-1)(n-2)}2$ such triples $(a,b,c)$ and $12(g-1)$ slits of $S-\lambda$, we can combine all these invariants into a single map
$$
\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S) \to \mathbb R^{6(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)}.
$$
The second invariant is the shearing cycle $\sigma^\rho \in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits};\widehat\mathbb R^n)$, which provides a map
$$
\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S) \to \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits};\widehat\mathbb R^n) \cong \mathbb R^{18(g-1)(n-1)}.
$$
Combining these two maps, we define
$$
\Phi \colon \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S) \to \mathbb R^{6(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)} \times \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits} ;\widehat\mathbb R^n)\cong \mathbb R^{6(g-1)(n+1)(n-1)},
$$
which sends each Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ to its triangle invariants and its shearing cycle. We will show that $\Phi$ induces a homeomorphism between $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ and an open convex polyhedral cone $\mathcal P$ contained in a linear subspace of $ \mathbb R^{6(g-1)(n+1)(n-1)}$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:InvariantsContinuous}
The above map
$$
\Phi \colon \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S) \to \mathbb R^{6(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)} \times \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits} ;\widehat\mathbb R^n)
$$
is continuous.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} The key property is that the flag curve $\mathcal F_\rho \colon \partial_\infty \widetilde S \to \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$ depends continuously on the Hitchin homomorphism $\rho\colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$, and is uniformly H\"older continuous as $\rho$ ranges over a compact subset of the space of homomorphisms $ \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$. These two properties follow from the application to the setup of \S \ref{subsect:FlagCurve} of the classical structural stability theorems for Anosov flows, and H\"older continuity properties for their stable and unstable foliations; see for instance \cite[\S18--19]{KatHas}.
The continuity property immediately shows that the triangle invariants $\tau_{abc}^\rho(s)$ depend continuously on $\rho$.
The case of the shearing cycle $\sigma^\rho \in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits};\widehat\mathbb R^n)$ requires an additional argument, because its construction relies on the slithering maps $\Sigma_{gg'}\colon \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R^n$. The uniform H\"older continuity property makes the estimates used in the construction of slithering maps in \S \ref{subsect:Slithering} uniform, and guarantees uniform convergence in this construction. It follows that, for any two leaves $g$, $g'$ of $\widetilde \lambda$, the slithering map $\Sigma_{gg'}$ depends continuously on $\rho$. After this, the continuous dependence of the flag map $\mathcal F_\rho$ on $\rho$ is enough to prove that $\sigma^\rho$ depends continuously on $\rho$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Constraints between invariants}
\label{subsect:ConstraintsInvariants}
There are clear constraints on the image of $\Phi$. The first one is the following consequence of Lemma~\ref{lem:SymmetriesTripleRatios}, which we have already encountered in Lemma~\ref{lem:RotateTriangleInvariants}.
\medskip
\noindent\textsc{Triangle Rotation Condition:} If the spikes of the component $T$ of $S-\lambda$ are indexed as $s$, $s'$, $s''$ in counterclockwise order around $T$, then$$
\tau_{abc}^\rho(s) = \tau_{bca}^\rho(s') = \tau_{cab}^\rho(s'').
$$
\smallskip
The second constraint comes from the quasi-additivity property of the shearing cycle $\sigma^\rho$. Recall that the lack of additivity of the $a$--th component $\sigma_a^\rho \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits} ; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ of $\sigma^\rho \in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits} ; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1}) \subset \mathcal C( \widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ is measured by its boundary $\partial\sigma^\rho_a$, which associates a number $\sigma^\rho_a(\widehat s)\in \mathbb R$ to each spike $\widehat s$ of the orientation cover $\widehat \lambda$ of the geodesic lamination $\lambda$. The spikes $\widehat s$ can be \emph{positive} of \emph{negative}, according to whether the canonical orientation of the leaves of $\widehat\lambda$ orients the two leaves that are adjacent to $\widehat s$ towards $\widehat s$ or away from $\widehat s$.
The following constraint comes from the computation of $\partial \sigma_a^\rho$ provided by Lemmas~\ref{lem:ShearingCycleIsCycle} and \ref{lem:ExpressThetaTriangleInvariants}.
\medskip
\noindent\textsc{Shearing Cycle Boundary Condition:} For every positive slit $ s^+$ of $\widehat\lambda$ projecting to a slit $s$ of $\lambda$,
$$
\partial \sigma^\rho_a( s^+) =\sum_{b+c=n-a} \tau^\rho_{abc}(s) .
$$
\medskip
Note that this property for positive slits, combined with the equivariance property of $\sigma^\rho \in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits} ; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1}) \subset \mathcal C( \widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ with respect to the covering involution of the cover $\widehat\lambda \to \lambda$, determines $\partial \sigma^\rho_a$ on negative slits. More precisely,
$$
\partial \sigma^\rho_a( s^-) =-\sum_{b+c=a} \tau^\rho_{(n-a)bc}(s)
$$
for every negative slit $ s^-$ of $\widehat\lambda$ projecting to a slit $s$ of $\lambda$.
The last condition is provided by Corollary~\ref{cor:TransMeasureHasPositiveIntersection}.
\medskip
\noindent\textsc{Positive Intersection Condition:}
$$
[\mu ]\cdot [\sigma^\rho_a] >0
$$
for every transverse measure $\mu$ for $\widehat\lambda$, where $[\mu] \in H_1(\widehat U; \mathbb R)$ and $[\sigma_a^\rho] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ are the homology classes respectively defined by $\mu\in \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda; \mathbb R)$ and by the $a$--th component $\sigma_a^\rho \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$ of the shearing cycle $\sigma^\rho \in \mathcal C(\lambda; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1}) \subset \mathcal C( \widehat \lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$, and where $\cdot$ denotes the algebraic intersection in~$\widehat U$.
\medskip
Let $\mathcal P $ be the set of pairs $(\tau, \sigma)$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\tau$ is a function associating a number $\tau_{abc}(s)\in \mathbb R$ to each triple of integers $a$, $b$, $c\geq 1$ with $a+b+c=n$, and to each slit $s$ of $\lambda$;
\item $\sigma \in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1})$ is a tangent cycle for $\lambda$ valued in the coefficient bundle $\widehat\mathbb R^{n-1}$ and relative to the slits of $\lambda$; in particular, $\sigma$ is defined by $n-1$ relative tangent cycles $\sigma_a \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$;
\item $\tau$ and $\sigma$ satisfy the above Triangle Rotation Condition, Shearing Cycle Boundary Condition and Positive Intersection Condition.
\end{enumerate}
We will call a function $\tau \in \mathbb R^{6(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)} $ as in {\setcounter{enumi}{1}\labelenumi} a \emph{triangle data function}. It is \emph{rotation invariant} when it satisfies the Triangle Rotation Condition.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:ComputePolytopeDim}
The space $\mathcal P$ is an open convex polyhedral cone in a $2(g-1)(n^2-1)$--dimensional subspace of $\mathbb R^{6(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)} \times \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1})$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} The transverse measures for the geodesic lamination $\widehat\lambda$ form a positive cone over a finite-dimensional simplex \cite{Kato, Papa}. It therefore suffices to check the Positive Intersection Condition on the vertices of this simplex (corresponding to ergodic measures). This reduces the Positive Intersection Condition to finitely many linear inequalities. As a consequence, $\mathcal P$ is an open convex polyhedral cone in the linear subspace of $ \mathbb R^{6(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)} \times \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits} ;\widehat\mathbb R^n)$ defined by the Triangle Rotation Condition and the Shearing Cycle Boundary Condition. We need to compute its dimension, which will require a few lemmas.
The Triangle Rotation Condition divides the dimension of the space of triangle data functions by $3$, in the sense that the space of rotation invariant triangle data functions $\tau \in \mathbb R^{6(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)}$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)}$. Indeed, if we pick a spike $s_j$ for each triangle component $T_j$ of $S-\lambda$, such a rotation invariant $\tau$ is completely determined by the $2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)$ numbers $\tau_{abc}(s_j)$. We will use this observation to denote by $\mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)}$ the space of all rotation invariant triangle data functions $\tau$.
Consider the linear subspace $\mathcal L \subset \mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)} \times \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1})$ consisting of all pairs $(\tau, \sigma)$ where $\tau$ is a rotation invariant triangle data function, where $\sigma$ is a twisted tangent cycle for $\lambda$ relative to its slits, and where $\tau$ and $\sigma$ satisfy the Shearing Cycle Boundary Condition.
To analyze $\mathcal L$, we introduce a new vector space $\mathcal C(\mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$, consisting of all functions $\theta \colon \{ \text{slits of } \lambda\} \to \mathbb R^{n-1}$. For $a=1$, $2$, \dots, $n-1$, we denote the $a$--th component of such a $\theta\in \mathcal C(\mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ by $\theta_a \colon\{ \text{slits of } \lambda\} \to \mathbb R$. The definition of the space $\mathcal L$ can then be expressed in terms of two maps $\partial\colon \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1}) \to \mathcal C(\mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ and $\Theta \colon \mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)} \to \mathcal C(\mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$.
The first map $\partial\colon \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1}) \to \mathcal C(\mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ is the usual boundary map, and associates to a relative cycle $\sigma \in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1})$ the restriction $\partial \sigma \colon \{ \text{positive slits of } \widehat\lambda\} = \{ \text{slits of } \lambda\} \to \mathbb R^{n-1}$ of its boundary $\partial \sigma$ to positive slits of the orientation cover $\widehat \lambda$. (Recall that this restriction completely determines $\partial \sigma$ by definition of twisted relative tangent cycles, as $\partial \sigma_a(s^-) =- \partial\sigma_{n-a}(s^+)$ when the negative slit $s^-$ of $\widehat\lambda$ projects to the same slit of $\lambda$ as the positive slit $s^+$.)
The second map $\Theta \colon \mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)} \to \mathcal C(\mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ associates to each rotation invariant triangle data function $\tau \in \mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)}$ the function $\theta^\tau \colon \{ \text{slits of } \lambda\} \to \mathbb R^{n-1}$ defined by the property that
$$
\theta_a^\tau (s) = \sum_{b+c=n-a} \tau_{abc}(s) \in\mathbb R
$$
for every slit $s$ of $\lambda$ and every $a=1$, $2$, \dots, $n-1$.
Then the subspace $\mathcal L$ consists of all pairs $( \tau, \sigma) \in \mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)} \times \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1})$ such that $\partial \sigma = \Theta(\tau)$ in $ \mathcal C(\mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:ImageBoundaryMap}
The image of $\partial\colon \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1}) \to \mathcal C(\mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ consists of all $\theta \in \mathcal C(\mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ such that
$$
\sum_{s\text{ slit of } \lambda} \theta_a(s) = \sum_{s\text{ slit of } \lambda} \theta_{n-a}(s)
$$
for every $a=1$, $2$, \dots, $n-1$. This image has codimension $\lfloor \frac{n-1}2 \rfloor$ in $\mathcal C(\mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1}) \cong \mathbb R^{12(g-1)(n-1)}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} This is an immediate consequence of the homological interpretation of twisted relative tangent cycles in \S \ref{subsect:TwistedRelTangentCycles}, and more precisely of the isomorphism $\mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1}) \cong H_1( U, \partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1})$ constructed there.
This construction is well behaved with respect to the boundary maps $\partial$ in the following sense. There is a unique isomorphism $\mathcal C(\mathrm{slits};\mathbb R^{n-1} )\cong H_0(\partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1})$ defined as follows: this isomorphism associates to $\theta\in \mathcal C(\mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ the element of $H_0 (\partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1}) \subset H_0(\partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1}) $ that assigns to each component of $\partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U$ facing a positive slit $s^+$ the multiplicity $\theta(s) \in \mathbb R^{n-1}$ associated by $\theta$ to the projection $s$ of $s^+$ (and assigns multiplicity $-\theta_{n-a}(s)$ to the component of $\partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U$ facing a negative slit $s^-$ projecting to $s$). Then, for these isomorphisms $\mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1}) \cong H_1( U, \partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1})$ and $\mathcal C(\mathrm{slits};\mathbb R^{n-1} )\cong H_0(\partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1})$, the boundary homomorphism $\partial \colon \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1}) \to \mathcal C(\mathrm{slits};\mathbb R^{n-1} )$ corresponds to the homological boundary $\partial \colon H_1( U, \partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1}) \to H_0(\partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1})$.
Lemma~\ref{lem:ImageBoundaryMap} is then an immediate consequence of the long exact sequence
$$
\dots \to H_1( U, \partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1}) \to H_0(\partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1})\to H_0( U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1})\to H_0( U, \partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1}) ,
$$
using the properties that, because $\widehat U$ is connected and $\partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U$ is non-empty, $\dim H_0( U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1}) = \lfloor \frac{n-1}2 \rfloor$ and $ H_0( U, \partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1}) =0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:ImageTheta}
For $n>3$, the image of $\Theta \colon \mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)} \to \mathcal C(\mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ consists of all $\theta \in \mathcal C(\mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ such that
\begin{align*}
\theta_{n-1}(s_1) &= 0 \\
\text{and }
\theta_1(s_1) &= \sum_{a=2}^{n-2} ({\textstyle \frac{a-1}{n-3}} -1) \theta_a(s_1) + \sum_{a=2}^{n-2} {\textstyle \frac{a-1}{n-3}}\, \theta_a(s_2)+ \sum_{a=2}^{n-2} {\textstyle \frac{a-1}{n-3}}\, \theta_a(s_3)
\end{align*}
whenever $s_1$, $s_2$ and $s_3$ are the three spikes of the same component $T$ of $S-\lambda$. In particular, the image of $\Theta$ has dimension $ 12(g-1)(n-3)$.
When $n=3$, the image of $\Theta \colon \mathbb R^{4(g-1)} \to \mathcal C(\mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{2})$ consists of all $\theta \in \mathcal C(\mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{2})$ such that
\begin{align*}
\theta_{2}(s_1) &= 0 \\
\text{and }
\theta_1(s_1) &= \theta_1(s_2) = \theta_1(s_3)
\end{align*}
whenever $s_1$, $s_2$ and $s_3$ are the three spikes of the same component $T$ of $S-\lambda$. In particular, the image of $\Theta$ then has dimension $ 4(g-1)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} By definition, if $\theta^\tau = \Theta(\tau)$ for a rotation invariant function $\tau\in \mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)}$ , then $\theta_{n-1}^\tau (s) = \sum_{b+c=1} \tau_{(n-1)bc}(s)=0$ for every slit $s$ since all indices $b$, $c$ are supposed to be at least 1.
Less trivially, if $n>3$ and if $s_1$, $s_2$, $s_3$ are the three spikes of a same component $T$ of $S-\lambda$, in this order counterclockwise around $T$,
\begin{align*}
\sum_{a=2}^{n-2} {\textstyle \frac{a-1}{n-3}} \, \theta_a^\tau (s_1) &+ \sum_{a=2}^{n-2} {\textstyle \frac{a-1}{n-3}}\, \theta_a^\tau(s_2)+ \sum_{a=2}^{n-2} {\textstyle \frac{a-1}{n-3}}\, \theta_a^\tau(s_3)\\
&=
\sum_{a=1}^{n-2}{\textstyle \frac{a-1}{n-3}} \kern -4pt \sum_{b+c=n-a} \kern -8pt \tau_{abc} (s_1) +
\sum_{a=1}^{n-2}{\textstyle \frac{a-1}{n-3}} \kern -4pt \sum_{b+c=n-a} \kern -8pt \tau_{abc} (s_2) +
\sum_{a=1}^{n-2}{\textstyle \frac{a-1}{n-3}} \kern -4pt \sum_{b+c=n-a} \kern -8pt \tau_{abc} (s_3) \\
&=
\sum_{a=1}^{n-2}{\textstyle \frac{a-1}{n-3}} \kern -4pt \sum_{b+c=n-a}\kern -8pt \tau_{abc} (s_1) +
\sum_{b=1}^{n-2}{\textstyle \frac{b-1}{n-3}} \kern -4pt \sum_{a+c=n-b} \kern -8pt \tau_{abc} (s_1) +
\sum_{c=1}^{n-2}{\textstyle \frac{c-1}{n-3}} \kern -4pt \sum_{a+b=n-c} \kern -8pt \tau_{abc} (s_1) \\
&= \sum_{a,b,c} \bigl( {\textstyle \frac{a-1}{n-3}} + {\textstyle \frac{b-1}{n-3}} + {\textstyle \frac{c-1}{n-3} }\bigr) \tau_{abc} (s_1)
= \sum_{a,b,c} \tau_{abc} (s_1)= \sum_{a=1}^{n-1} \theta_a^\tau(s_1)
\end{align*}
where the second equality uses the rotation invariance of $\tau$. It follows that
$$
\theta_1^\tau(s_1)
= \sum_{a=2}^{n-2} \bigl( {\textstyle \frac{a-1}{n-3}} -1) \theta_a^\tau(s_1) + \sum_{a=2}^{n-2} {\textstyle \frac{a-1}{n-3}}\, \theta_a^\tau(s_2)+ \sum_{a=2}^{n-2} {\textstyle \frac{a-1}{n-3}}\, \theta_a^\tau(s_3).
$$
As a consequence, any function $\theta= \Theta(\tau)$ in the image of $\Theta$ satisfies the relations of Lemma~\ref{lem:ImageTheta}.
Conversely, as $a$ ranges from $2$ to $n-2$ and $s$ ranges over all slits of $\lambda$, the functions $\tau \mapsto \theta_a^\tau(s)$ are linearly independent over the space $\mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)}$ of rotation invariant triangle data functions $\tau$. Indeed, this follows from a simple computation focusing on the coefficients of the terms $\tau_{1bc}(s)$ and $\tau_{2bc}(s)$ in any linear relation between these functions.
The dimension computation then follows from the fact that $\lambda$ has $12(g-1)$ slits. This completes the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:ImageTheta} in the case considered, when $n>3$.
The proof is much simpler when $n=3$, as the triangle data function $\tau$ assigns only one number $\tau_{111}(s)$ to each slit $s$. This makes the argument in this case completely straightforward.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:IntersectionImagesBoundaryMapTheta}
The intersection $\mathrm{im}(\partial) \cap \mathrm{im}(\Theta)$ of the images $\mathrm{im}(\partial) = \partial \bigl( \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1}) \bigr)$ and $ \mathrm{im}(\Theta) = \Theta(\mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)})$ has dimension $ 12(g-1)(n-3) - \lfloor \frac{n-1}2 \rfloor $ if $n>3$, and $4g-5$ if $n=3$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
This is an immediate consequence of the characterization of these images in Lemmas~\ref{lem:ImageBoundaryMap} and \ref{lem:ImageTheta}. Indeed, one very easily checks that the restrictions of the $\lfloor \frac{n-1}2 \rfloor $ relations of Lemma~\ref{lem:ImageBoundaryMap} to the image $\mathrm{im}(\Theta)$ are linearly independent.
\end{proof}
We now return to the subspace $\mathcal L \subset \mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)} \times \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1})$, consisting of all pairs $( \tau, \sigma)$ such that $\partial \sigma = \Theta(\tau)$ in $ \mathcal C(\mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$. The maps $\Theta$ and $\partial$ combine to give a linear map $ \mathcal L \to \mathcal C(\mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R^{n-1})$, whose image is $\mathrm{im}(\partial) \cap \mathrm{im}(\Theta)$ and whose kernel is the direct sum of $\ker \Theta$ and $\ker \partial$. Note that $\ker\partial $ is just the space $\mathcal C(\lambda; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1})$ of closed tangent cycles. Therefore, by combining Lemma~\ref{lem:IntersectionImagesBoundaryMapTheta}, Lemma~\ref{lem:ImageTheta} and Proposition~\ref{prop:ComputeTwistedTgentCycles},
\begin{align*}
\dim \mathcal L &= \dim \mathrm{im}(\partial) \cap \mathrm{im}(\Theta) + \dim \ker \Theta + \dim \ker \partial\\
&= 12(g-1)(n-3) - {\textstyle\lfloor \frac{n-1}2 \rfloor} \\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad+ 2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2) -12(g-1)(n-3) \\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad+ 6(g-1)(n-1) + {\textstyle\lfloor \frac{n-1}2 \rfloor } \\
&= 2(g-1)(n^2-1)
\end{align*}
when $n>3$.
When $n=3$ the same argument gives that
$$
\dim \mathcal L= ( 4g-5 ) + 0 + ( 12g-11) = 16(g-1),
$$
which is equal to $2(g-1)(n^2-1)$ in this case as well.
Since $\mathcal P$ is an open convex polyhedral cone in the space $\mathcal L$, this concludes the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:ComputePolytopeDim}.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:InvariantsLocalHomeo}
The map $\Phi\colon \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S) \to \mathcal P$ is a local homeomorphism.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The map $\Phi$ is continuous by Lemma~\ref{lem:InvariantsContinuous}, and injective by Corollary~\ref{cor:HitchinDeterminedByInvariants}. By the Invariance of Domain Theorem, it is therefore a local homeomorphism since $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ and $\mathcal P$ have the same dimension by Proposition~\ref{prop:ComputePolytopeDim}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{An estimate from the Positive Intersection Condition}
\label{subsect:PositiveIntersectionRevisited}
This section is devoted to an estimate that will be crucial to prove that the above map $\Phi\colon \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S) \to \mathcal P$ is a global homeomorphism.
In the universal cover $\widetilde S$ of $S$, we want to introduce a measure of the topological complexity of the components $T$ of the complement $\widetilde S - \widetilde \lambda$ of the preimage $\widetilde\lambda$ of the maximal geodesic lamination $\lambda$. For this, we choose a train track neighborhood $U$ of $\lambda$, with preimage $\widetilde U$ in $\widetilde S$.
We also select an oriented arc $\widetilde k$ tightly transverse to $\widetilde \lambda$ in $\widetilde S$; recall that this means that $\widetilde k$ is transverse to the leaves of $\widetilde\lambda$ and that, for each component $T$ of $\widetilde S - \widetilde\lambda$, the intersection $T\cap \widetilde k$ is either empty, or an arc containing an endpoint of $\widetilde k$, or an arc joining two distinct components of $\partial T$. As in \S \ref{subsect:RelTgtCyclesDifferentView}, using Proposition~\ref{prop:TrainTrackMaxGeodLam}, we can arrange by a homotopy respecting $\widetilde\lambda$ that $\widetilde k$ is contained in $\widetilde U$.
Let $T$ be a component of $\widetilde S - \widetilde\lambda$ that meets $\widetilde k$, and does not contain any of the endpoints of $\widetilde k$. Then $\widetilde k \cap T$ consists of a single arc since $\widetilde k$ is tightly transverse to $\widetilde\lambda$, and can be joined to the complement $T- \widetilde U$ by a path contained in $T$. We define the \emph{divergence radius} $r(T)\geq 1$ of $T$ with respect to $\widetilde U$ and $\widetilde k$ as the minimum number of edges of $\widetilde U$ that are met by a path joining $\widetilde k \cap T$ to the complement $T - \widetilde U$ in $T$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:BoundedDivergenceRadius}
For every integer $r_0$, the number of triangles $T$ with divergence radius $r(T) = r_0$ is uniformly bounded, independently of $r_0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Instead of counting the components $T$ of $\widetilde S - \widetilde\lambda$ meeting $\widetilde k$, it is easier to count the components of $\widetilde k - \widetilde \lambda$. Cutting $\widetilde k$ into smaller arcs if necessary, we can assume without loss of generality that $\widetilde k$ is sufficiently short that it projects to an arc $k$ embedded in $S$. Then there is a natural correspondence between the components of $\widetilde k - \widetilde \lambda$ and those of $k-\lambda$. For each component $d$ of $k-\lambda$, let $T_d$ be the component of $\widetilde S - \widetilde \lambda$ that contains the component of $\widetilde k- \widetilde \lambda$ corresponding to $d$, and define $r(d) = r(T_d)$. We need to show that the number of components $d$ of $ k - \lambda$ with $r(d)=r_0$ is uniformly bounded.
As $e$ ranges over all edges of the train track neighborhood $U$, the components of $e-\lambda$ form a family of rectangles $R_i$ whose union is equal to $U - \lambda$. In particular, this decomposes $U-\lambda$ in two pieces:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the union of the finitely many rectangles $R_i$ that meet the boundary $\partial U$;
\item $12(g-1)$ infinite chains of rectangles $R_{i_1} \cup R_{i_2} \cup \dots \cup R_{i_k} \cup \cdots$, where each $R_{i_k}$ shares with $R_{i_{k+1}}$ a side contained in a tie of $U$, that form the spikes of $U-\lambda$.
\end{enumerate}
Compare Proposition~\ref{prop:TrainTrackMaxGeodLam} and Figure~\ref{fig:TrainTrackMaxGeodLam}.
If $d$ is a component of $k-\lambda$ whose divergence radius $r(d)$ is equal to 1, then it meets one of the finitely many rectangles $R_i$ of (1) above.
The number of components of $k-\lambda$ meeting a given rectangle $R_i$ is uniformly bounded, by a constant depending on the minimum distance between $\widetilde k$ and its iterates under the action of $\pi_1(S)$. Therefore, there are only finitely many components of $k-\lambda$ with divergence radius 1.
If $d$ is a component of $k-\lambda$ with $r(d)>1$, it is contained in one of the spikes $R_{i_1} \cup R_{i_2} \cup \dots \cup R_{i_k} \cup \cdots$ as in (2) above. In fact, $d$ meets the $(r(d)-1)$--th rectangle $R_{i_{r(d)-1}}$ of this spike by definition of the divergence radius $r(d)$. Since the number of components of $k-\lambda$ meeting each $R_i$ is uniformly bounded, and since there are only $12(g-1)$ spikes, it follows that for $r_0>1$ the number of components $d$ of $k-\lambda$ with $r(d)=r_0$ is uniformly bounded.
\end{proof}
To explain the divergence radius terminology, consider the two sides of $T$ that meet $\widetilde k$. These two leaves of $\widetilde\lambda$ follow the same train route in $\widetilde U$ over a length of approximately $r(T)$ edges (up to a bounded error term) before diverging at some switch of $\widetilde U$.
The side of the oriented arc $\widetilde k$ where this divergence occurs will greatly matter. There are two possibilities for the two sides of $T$ meeting $\widetilde k$: Either they are asymptotic on the left-hand side of $\widetilde k$, or they are asymptotic on the right-hand side. We will say that $T$ \emph{points to the left} of $\widetilde k$ in the first case, and \emph{points to the right} in the second case.
Finally, remember that $\widehat \lambda$ denotes the orientation cover of $\lambda$, and that the covering map $\widehat\lambda \to \lambda$ uniquely extends to a cover $\widehat U \to U$ for some train track neighborhood $\widehat U$ of $\widehat \lambda$. .
Let $T_0$ be the component of $\widetilde S - \widetilde \lambda$ containing the negative endpoint of $\widetilde k$. Using the point of view of \S \ref{subsect:RelTgtCyclesDifferentView}, a relative tangent cycle $\sigma \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$ associates a number $\sigma(T_0, T) \in \mathbb R$ to each component $T$ of $\widetilde S - \widetilde \lambda$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:PositiveIntersectionCondnEstimate}
Suppose that the relative tangent cycle $\sigma \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)\cong H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ satisfies the following Positive Intersection Property: $[\mu] \cdot [\sigma]>0$ for every transverse measure $\mu$ for $\widehat \lambda$, defining a homology class $[\mu] \in H_1(\widehat U ; \mathbb R)$. Then, there exists a constant $C>0$ such that, for all but finitely many components $T$ of $\widetilde S - \widetilde \lambda$ meeting $\widetilde k$,
\begin{itemize}
\item $\sigma(T_0, T) \geq C r(T)$ if $T$ points to the right of $\widetilde k$;
\item $\sigma(T_0, T) \leq -C r(T)$ if $T$ points to the left of $\widetilde k$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Pick a tie $k_e$ in each edge $e$ of the train track neighborhood $\widehat U$. Then, for each transverse measure $\mu$ for $\widehat\lambda$, define
$$
\Vert \mu \Vert = \sum_e \mu(k_e)
$$
where the sum is over all edges $e$ of $\widehat U$. This defines a norm $\Vert \ \Vert$ on the space $\mathcal M(\widehat\lambda) \subset \mathcal C(\widehat \lambda; \mathbb R)$ of transverse measures for $\widehat\lambda$.
The space of transverse measures of norm 1 is compact for the weak${}^*$ topology, and there consequently exists a number $\epsilon>0$ such that $[\mu] \cdot [\sigma]\geq \epsilon $ for every transverse measure $\mu$ with $\Vert \mu \Vert =1$. We will show that the conclusion of the lemma holds for every $C<\epsilon$.
For this, we use a proof by contradiction. Suppose that the property does not hold. Then, there exists a sequence of distinct components $T_n$ of $\widetilde S - \widetilde \lambda$ meeting $\widetilde k$ such that $\sigma(T_0, T_n)< C r(T_n)$ if $T_n$ points to the right of $\widetilde k$, and $\sigma(T_0, T_n)> -C r(T_n)$ if it points to the left. Passing to a subsequence if necessary, we can arrange that either all $T_n$ point to the right, or they all point to the left.
Let us focus attention on the case where all $T_n$ point to the left, in which case $\sigma(T_0, T_n)>- C r(T_n)$ for every $n$. The other case will be similar.
Let $\widetilde k_n$ be the subarc of $\widetilde k$ going from the negative endpoint of $\widetilde k$ to an arbitrary point of $\widetilde k \cap T_n$. Let $k_n$ be the projection of $\widetilde k_n \subset \widetilde U$ to $U$. Among the two lifts of $k_n$ to the cover $\widehat U$ of $U$, let $\widehat k_n$ be the one where the canonical orientation of the leaves of $\widehat\lambda$ points to the left for the orientation of $\widehat k_n$ coming from the orientation of $\widetilde k$. (We are here using the fact that $\widetilde k$ is tightly transverse to $\widetilde\lambda$.)
In particular, $\widehat k_n$ is tightly transverse to $\widehat\lambda$ in $\widehat U$, and $\sigma(T_0, T) = \sigma(\widehat k_n)$ by the construction of \S \ref{subsect:RelTgtCyclesDifferentView}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\SetLabels
( .45* .1) $ \widehat U$ \\
(.05 * .145) $\partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U $ \\
(.93 * .49) $ \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U$ \\
( .3* .21) $ l_0$ \\
( .243*.21 ) $ t_0$ \\
( .65* .49) $l_n $ \\
(.86 * .445) $ t_n$ \\
( .375* .374) $\widehat k_n'' $ \\
(.365 *.9 ) $ \widehat k$ \\
( .8* .75) $\widehat U $ \\
( -.01* .65) $\widehat\lambda $ \\
\endSetLabels
\centerline{\AffixLabels{\includegraphics{ShearEstimate.eps}}}
\caption{}
\label{fig:PositiveIntersectionCondition}
\end{figure}
Let $[\widehat k_n] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ be the relative homology class associated to $\widehat k_n$ as in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:RelativeHomologyTangentCycles}. Namely, $[\widehat k_n]$ is represented by an arc $\widehat k_n' \subset \widehat U$ with $\partial\widehat k_n' \subset \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U$ that is made up of the following five pieces: the arc $\widehat k_n''$ obtained from $\widehat k_n$ by removing the two components of $\widehat k_n-\widehat\lambda$ that contain its endpoints; two arcs $l_0$ and $l_n$ in the leaves of $\widehat\lambda$ that contain the endpoints of $\widehat k_n''$; two arcs $t_0$ and $t_n$ contained in ties of $\widehat U$, with one endpoint in the horizontal boundary $\partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U$, with the other endpoint in $\widehat\lambda$, and whose interior is disjoint from $\widehat\lambda$. We choose the indexing so that $l_n$ joins the positive endpoint of $\widehat k_n''$ to the negative endpoint of $t_n$, and $l_0$ joins the positive endpoint of $t_0$ to the negative endpoint of $\widehat k_n''$. In addition, we can arrange that $t_0$ and $l_0$ are independent of $n$. See Figure~\ref{fig:PositiveIntersectionCondition}.
By Step 2 of the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:RelativeHomologyTangentCycles}, the homology classes $[\sigma] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ and $[\widehat k_n] = [\widehat k_n'] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ are such that
$$
[\widehat k_n'] \cdot [\sigma]= \sigma( \widehat k_n) = \sigma(T_0, T_n).
$$
By definition of the divergence radius $r(T_n)$, the arc $l_n$ crosses approximately $r(T_n)$ edges of $\widehat U$ (counted with multiplicity). Because the triangles $T_n$ are all distinct, $r(T_n)$ tends to infinity as $n$ tends to $\infty$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:BoundedDivergenceRadius}. Passing to a subsequence if necessary, the standard weak${}^*$ compactness argument provides a nontrivial transverse measure $\mu$ for $\widehat\lambda$ such that
$$
\int_k \mu = \lim_{n\to \infty} {\textstyle\frac1{r(T_n)}} \# k\cap l_n
$$
for every arc $k$ transverse to $\widehat\lambda$, where $\# k \cap l_n$ demotes the number of points of $k \cap l_n$. In addition, $\Vert\mu\Vert=1$ by definition of the norm $\Vert \ \Vert$.
Note that $\widehat k_n' - l_n$ has uniformly bounded length. In addition, the orientation of $l_n$ coming from the orientation of $\widehat k_n'$ is opposite the canonical orientation of the leaf of $\widehat\lambda$ that contains it. Therefore,
$$
\lim_{n\to \infty} {\textstyle\frac1{r(T_n)}} [\widehat k_n'] = - [\mu]
$$
in $ H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$.
Intersecting with the class $[\sigma]\in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ defined by $\sigma \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$ then gives
$$
[\mu]\cdot [\sigma] = -\lim_{n\to \infty} {\textstyle\frac1{r(T_n)}} [\widehat k_n'] \cdot [\sigma] =
-\lim_{n\to \infty} {\textstyle\frac1{r(T_n)}} \sigma(T_0, T_n) \leq C
$$
since $\sigma(T_0, T_n)> -C r(T_n)$ by hypothesis.
Therefore, we have constructed a transverse measure $\mu$ for $\widehat\lambda$ such that $[\mu]\cdot [\sigma] \leq C$ and $\Vert\mu\Vert=1$. But this contradicts our hypothesis that $C<\epsilon \leq [\mu]\cdot [\sigma]$ for any such $\mu$, and provides the contradiction sought when all $T_n$ point to the left of $\widetilde k$.
The argument is similar when all $T_n$ point to the right. The only difference is that the transverse measure $\mu$ then constructed has associated homology class $[\mu] = + \lim_{n\to \infty} {\textstyle\frac1{r(T_n)}} [\widehat k_n'] $ in $ H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$, because the orientation of $l_n$ now coincides with the canonical orientation of the leaf of $\widehat\lambda$ containing it. Since the inequality $\sigma(T_0, T_n)<C r(T_n)$ is also reversed, this again provides a transverse measure $\mu$ for $\widehat\lambda$ such that $[\mu]\cdot [\sigma] <C<\epsilon$ and $\Vert\mu\Vert=1$, concluding the proof in this case as well.
\end{proof}
\begin{comp}
\label{comp:PositiveIntersectionCondnEstimate}
The conclusion of Lemma~{\upshape\ref{lem:PositiveIntersectionCondnEstimate}} holds when $\sigma$ is replaced by any $\sigma'$ in a small neighborhood of $\sigma$ in $\mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$.
\end{comp}
\begin{proof}
By compactness of the space of transverse measures $\mu$ with $\Vert\mu\Vert=1$, we can choose $\epsilon>0$ so that $[\mu] \cdot [\sigma']\geq \epsilon $ for every $\sigma' \in \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \mathbb R)$ sufficiently close to $\sigma$ and every transverse measure $\mu$ with $\Vert \mu \Vert =1$. Then the proof shows that the conclusion of Lemma~\ref{lem:PositiveIntersectionCondnEstimate} holds for any such $\sigma'$ and $C<\epsilon$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Realization of invariants, and parametrization of $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$}
\label{subsect:RealizeInvariants}
At the beginning of \S \ref{bigsect:Param}, we introduced the map
$$
\Phi \colon \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S) \to \mathcal P \subset \mathbb R^{6(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)} \times \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits};\widehat\mathbb R^n)
$$
that associates its triangle invariants and shearing cycle to a Hitchin character. We showed in \S \ref{subsect:ConstraintsInvariants} that the image of $\Phi$ is contained in the convex polyhedral cone $\mathcal P$ defined by the Triangle Rotation Condition, the Shearing Cycle Boundary Condition, and the Positive Intersection Condition. We also showed in Corollary~\ref{cor:InvariantsLocalHomeo} that $\Phi \colon \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S) \to \mathcal P$ is a local homeomorphism.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:InvariantsProper}
The map $\Phi \colon \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S) \to \mathcal P$ is proper.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We need to prove the following property: Let $(\rho_i)_{i\in \mathbb N}$ be a sequence in $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ such that $\bigl ( \Phi(\rho_i) \bigr)_{i\in\mathbb N} = \bigl ((\tau^{\rho_i}, \sigma^{\rho_i}) \bigr)_{i\in\mathbb N}$ converges to a point $(\tau^\infty, \sigma^\infty) \in \mathcal P$; then the sequence $(\rho_i)_{i\in \mathbb N}$ admits a converging subsequence.
For this, we will revisit our proof that a Hitchin character is determined by its triangle invariants and its shearing cycle, as in \S \ref{subsect:ParamInjective}. In that proof, we showed that the fundamental group $\pi_1(S)$ is generated by elements $\gamma$ of the type described in Lemma~\ref{lem:NiceGeneratorsForPi1}, and then proved that
$$
\rho_i(\gamma) = \biggl(\kern 15pt
\overleftarrow{\prod_{\kern -13pt T\in \mathcal T_{g_0(\gamma h_0)}\kern -13pt}} \kern 7pt
\Bigl(
\Theta_{E_0F_0}^{\sigma^{\rho_i} (T_0, T)} \circ \widehat\Sigma_T^i \circ \Theta_{E_0F_0}^{-\sigma^{\rho_i} (T_0, T)}
\Bigr)
\biggr)^{-1}
\circ \Theta^{\sigma^{\rho_i}(T_0, \gamma T_0)}_{E_0F_0}
\circ \phi_0^i \in \mathrm{PGL_n(\R)}
$$
with the notation of Lemma~\ref{lem:GroupActionAndInvariants} (except that $\widehat\Sigma_T^i$ and $ \phi_0^i$ were respectively called $\widehat\Sigma_T'$ and $ \phi_0$ there).
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:ShearLeftRightEstimate}
There exists a constant $C$, independent of $T$, such that
$$
\bigl\Vert \Theta_{E_0F_0}^{\sigma^{\rho_i} (T_0, T)} \circ \widehat\Sigma_T^i \circ \Theta_{E_0F_0}^{-\sigma^{\rho_i} (T_0, T)} - \mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n} \bigr\Vert
\leq
C \max_a \mathrm e^{-(n-1)\sigma_a^{\rho_i} (T_0, T)}
$$
if $T$ points to the right between $T_0$ and $\gamma T_0$ (as seen from $T_0$), and
$$
\bigl\Vert \Theta_{E_0F_0}^{\sigma^{\rho_i} (T_0, T)} \circ \widehat\Sigma_T^i \circ \Theta_{E_0F_0}^{-\sigma^{\rho_i} (T_0, T)} - \mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n} \bigr\Vert
\leq
C \max_a \mathrm e^{(n-1)\sigma_a^{\rho_i} (T_0, T)}
$$
if $T$ points to the left.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Choose for $\mathbb R^n$ a basis in which the $a$--th term belongs to the line $E_0^{(a)}\cap F_0^{(n-a+1)}$. Then, by definition, the matrix of $ \Theta_{E_0F_0}^{\sigma^{\rho_i} (T_0, T)} $ in this basis is diagonal, with diagonal entries $\mathrm{e}^{u_1}$, $\mathrm{e}^{u_2}$, \dots, $\mathrm{e}^{u_n}$
where $u_1$, $u_2$, \dots, $u_n$ are uniquely determined by the properties that $ u_{a} - u_{a+1}= \sigma^{\rho_i}_a (T_0, T)$ and $\sum_{a=1}^n u_a=0$.
Consider for instance the case where $T$ points to the left. Then the map $\widehat\Sigma_T^i $ respects the flag $E_0$, and acts by the identity on each of the lines $E_0^{(a)}/E_0^{(a-1)}$. Therefore, in the above basis for $\mathbb R^n$, the matrix $A$ of $\widehat\Sigma_T^i $ is upper triangular with all diagonal entries equal to 1.
By construction, the map $\widehat\Sigma_T^i $ is completely determined by, and depends continuously on, the triangle invariants $\tau_{abc}^{\rho_i}(s)$ associated to the slit $s$ of $\lambda$ that is the projection of the spike of $T$ delimited by the two components of $\partial T$ that separate $T_0$ from $\gamma T_0$. Since these triangle invariants converge to $\tau_{abc}^\infty(s)$, we conclude that each $ab$--entry $A_{ab}$ of the matrix $A$ is uniformly bounded by a constant $C$. We already observed that $A_{ab}=0$ if $a>b$ and $A_{aa}=1$.
Multiplying matrices, we conclude that for $a<b$ the $ab$--entry of the matrix of $\Theta_{E_0F_0}^{\sigma^{\rho_i} (T_0, T)} \circ \widehat\Sigma_T^i \circ \Theta_{E_0F_0}^{-\sigma^{\rho_i} (T_0, T)} - \mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n}$ is equal to $A_{ab} \mathrm{e}^{u_a-u_b}$ and bounded by
\begin{align*}
|A_{ab} |\mathrm{e}^{u_a-u_b} & \leq C \mathrm{e}^{u_a-u_b} = C \mathrm{e}^{-\sum_{c=a}^{b-1} (u_{c+1}-u_c)} = C \mathrm{e}^{+\sum_{c=a}^{b-1} \sigma^{\rho_i}_c (T_0, T)} \\
&\leq C \max_c \mathrm{e}^{(n-1)\sigma^{\rho_i}_c (T_0, T)} .
\end{align*}
The other entries of this matrix are 0 since $A_{ab}=0$ if $a>b$, and since $A_{aa}=1$.
This proves the estimate required when the triangle $T$ points to the left.
The proof is almost identical when $T$ points to the right, except that the matrix $A$ is now lower diagonal.
\end{proof}
We now use the property that the limit $(\tau^\infty, \sigma^\infty)\in \mathbb R^{6(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)} \times \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits};\widehat\mathbb R^n) $ actually belongs to the polyhedron $ \mathcal P$, and more precisely the fact that the relative tangent cycle $ \sigma^\infty \in\mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits};\widehat\mathbb R^n) $ satisfies the Positive Intersection Condition.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:BoundedByPositiveIntersection}
For $\gamma \in \pi_1(S)$ as above, the $\rho_i(\gamma)\in \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$ are bounded independently of $i$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Because $ \sigma^\infty $ satisfies the Positive Intersection Condition, the combination of Lemma~\ref{lem:PositiveIntersectionCondnEstimate}, Complement~\ref{comp:PositiveIntersectionCondnEstimate} and Lemma~\ref{lem:ShearLeftRightEstimate} provides constants $C$, $D>0$ such that, in the expression
$$
\rho_i(\gamma) = \biggl(\kern 15pt
\overleftarrow{\prod_{\kern -13pt T\in \mathcal T_{g_0(\gamma h_0)}\kern -13pt}} \kern 7pt
\Bigl(
\Theta_{E_0F_0}^{\sigma^{\rho_i} (T_0, T)} \circ \widehat\Sigma_T^i \circ \Theta_{E_0F_0}^{-\sigma^{\rho_i} (T_0, T)}
\Bigr)
\biggr)^{-1}
\circ \Theta^{\sigma^{\rho_i}(T_0, \gamma T_0)}_{E_0F_0}
\circ \phi_0^i,
$$
the contribution of each triangle $T$ is such that
$$
\bigl\Vert \Theta_{E_0F_0}^{\sigma^{\rho_i} (T_0, T)} \circ \widehat\Sigma_T^i \circ \Theta_{E_0F_0}^{-\sigma^{\rho_i} (T_0, T)} - \mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^n} \bigr\Vert
\leq
C \mathrm{e}^{-D r(T)},
$$
for the divergence radius $r(T)$ defined in \S \ref{subsect:PositiveIntersectionRevisited}. In addition, for every integer $r_0\geq 1$, Lemma~\ref{lem:BoundedDivergenceRadius} shows that the number of triangles $T$ such that $r(T)=r_0$ is bounded independently of $r_0$. It follows that the product
$$
\overleftarrow{\prod_{\kern -13pt T\in \mathcal T_{g_0(\gamma h_0)}\kern -13pt}} \kern 7pt
\Bigl(
\Theta_{E_0F_0}^{\sigma^{\rho_i} (T_0, T)} \circ \widehat\Sigma_T^i \circ \Theta_{E_0F_0}^{-\sigma^{\rho_i} (T_0, T)}
\Bigr)
$$
converges and is uniformly bounded.
By construction, the remaining terms $\Theta^{\sigma^{\rho_i}(T_0, \gamma T_0)}_{E_0F_0}$
and $ \phi_0^i$ are completely determined by, and depends continuously on, the triangle and shear invariants of $\rho_i$. Since these invariants converge, it follows that these two terms are also uniformly bounded.
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{lem:BoundedByPositiveIntersection} shows that the sequence $\bigl(\rho_i(\gamma)\bigr)_{i\in \mathbb N}$ admits a converging subsequence in $\mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$. Doing this for all $\gamma$ in the finite set of generators for $\pi_1(S)$ provided by Lemma~\ref{lem:NiceGeneratorsForPi1}, we conclude that the sequence $(\rho_i)_{i\in \mathbb N}$ admits a converging subsequence in $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$.
Therefore, every sequence of $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ whose image under $\Phi$ converges in the polyhedron $\mathcal P$ admits a converging subsequence in $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$. This proves that the map $\Phi \colon \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S) \to \mathcal P$ is proper, and concludes the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:InvariantsProper}.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:InvariantsHomeomorphism}
The map $\Phi \colon \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S) \to \mathcal P$ is a homeomorphism from the Hitchin component $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ to the polyhedron $\mathcal P \subset \mathbb R^{6(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)} \times \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits};\widehat\mathbb R^n)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The map $\Phi$ is a local homeomorphism by Corollary~\ref{cor:InvariantsLocalHomeo}, and proper by Proposition~\ref{prop:InvariantsProper}. Since $\Phi$ is injective by Corollary~\ref{cor:HitchinDeterminedByInvariants} and since the convex polytope $\mathcal P$ is connected, this proves that $\Phi$ is a homeomorphism.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
The formulas of \S \ref{subsect:ParamInjective}, in particular Lemma~\ref{lem:GroupActionAndInvariants}, provide an explicit construction for the inverse map $\Phi^{-1} \colon \mathcal P \to \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S) $. The boundedness estimates that we just used in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:BoundedByPositiveIntersection} show that the infinite products involved in these formulas do converge. This immediately proves that this inverse map $\Phi^{-1}$ is real analytic.
It can be shown that the forward map $\Phi$ is also analytic, using the fact \cite{BCLS} that the flag curve $\mathcal F_\rho \colon \partial_\infty \widetilde S \to \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$ depends real analytically on the homomorphism $\rho$. However, this is beyond the scope of this article.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Constraints among triangle invariants, and on shearing cycles}
\label{subsect:ConstraintInvariantsBis}
The Shearing Cycle Boundary Condition does more than connecting the boundary of the shearing cycle $\sigma^\rho$ of a Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ to its triangle invariants $\tau_{abc}^\rho(s)$. It also puts constraints between the triangle invariants themselves, and restricts the twisted relative tangent cycles that can occur as shearing cycles of Hitchin characters. As a complement to Theorem~\ref{thm:InvariantsHomeomorphism}, this section is devoted to emphasizing these somewhat unexpected phenomena, which we already encountered in Lemmas~\ref{lem:ImageBoundaryMap} and \ref{lem:ImageTheta}.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:RestrictionTriangleInvariants}
A rotation invariant triangle data function $\tau \in \mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)}$ is the triangle invariant $\tau^\rho$ of a Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ if and only if
$$
\sum_{s\text{ slit of }\lambda} \ \sum_{b+c=n-a} \tau_{abc}(s) = \sum_{s\text{ slit of }\lambda} \ \sum_{b+c=a} \tau_{(n-a)bc}(s)
$$
for every $a=1$, $2$, \dots, $n-1$.
As a consequence, the triangle invariants of Hitchin characters form a linear subspace of codimension $\lfloor \frac{n-1}2 \rfloor$ in the space $ \mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)}$ of all rotation invariant triangle data functions.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof} Theorem~\ref{thm:InvariantsHomeomorphism} shows that $\tau$ is the triangle invariant of a Hitchin character if and only if there exists a relative cycle $\sigma\in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1})$ such that the pair $(\tau, \sigma)$ satisfies the Shearing Boundary Condition, and such that $\sigma $ satisfies the Positive Intersection Condition.
The proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:ComputePolytopeDim}, and in particular Lemmas~\ref{lem:ImageBoundaryMap} and \ref{lem:IntersectionImagesBoundaryMapTheta}, takes care of the first constraint. More precisely, with the notation of that proof, there exists $\sigma\in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1})$ such that $(\tau, \sigma)$ satisfies the Shearing Boundary Cycle Condition if and only if $\Theta(\tau)$ belongs to the image $\mathrm{im}(\partial) $. Lemma~\ref{lem:ImageBoundaryMap} shows that this is equivalent to the condition stated in Corollary~\ref{cor:RestrictionTriangleInvariants}, while Lemma~\ref{lem:IntersectionImagesBoundaryMapTheta} shows that $\Theta^{-1} \bigl( \mathrm{im}(\partial) \bigr)$ has codimension $\lfloor \frac{n-1}2 \rfloor$ in $ \mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)}$.
The only thing left to prove is that the Positive Intersection Condition has no impact on this property. Namely: If there exists $\sigma\in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1})$ such that $(\tau, \sigma)$ satisfies the Shearing Cycle Boundary Condition, the relative tangent cycle $\sigma$ can be chosen so that, in addition, it satisfies the Positive Intersection Condition.
For this, we will use the existence of a closed twisted tangent cycle $\sigma_0 \in \mathcal C(\lambda; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1})$ that satisfies the Positive Intersection Condition. An easy way to construct such a tangent cycle is to consider the shearing cycle $\sigma_0 = \sigma^{\rho_0} \in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1})$ of a Hitchin character $\rho_0 \in \mathrm{Hit}_2(S) \subset \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ coming from a discrete homomorphism $\rho \colon \pi_1(S) \to \mathrm{PSL}_2(\mathbb R) \subset \mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}$. All triangle invariants $\tau_{abc}^{\rho_0}(s)$ of such a Hitchin character are equal to 0; the easiest way to see this is to apply Lemma~\ref{lem:SymmetriesTripleRatios} and to observe that, for every triangle component of $\widetilde S - \widetilde\lambda$ with vertices $\widetilde s$, $\widetilde s'$ and $\widetilde s''$, there is an element of $\mathrm{PGL_n(\R)}$ coming from an element of $\mathrm{PGL}_2(\mathbb R)$ that fixes the flag $\mathcal F_{\rho_0}(\widetilde s) \in \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$ and exchanges $\mathcal F_{\rho_0}(\widetilde s)$ and $\mathcal F_{\rho_0}(\widetilde s)$. It therefore follows from the Shearing Cycle Boundary Condition that $\partial \sigma_0=0$, namely that $\sigma_0$ is closed.
If the rotation invariant triangle data function $\tau \in \mathbb R^{2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)}$ satisfies the conditions of Corollary~\ref{cor:RestrictionTriangleInvariants}, we just showed that there exists $\sigma \in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1})$ such that $(\tau, \sigma)$ satisfies the Shearing Cycle Boundary Condition. For $c>0$ sufficiently large, $\sigma + c \sigma_0$ satisfies the Positive Intersection Condition since this property holds for $\sigma_0$ and since the space of transverse measures for $\widehat\lambda$ is finite-dimensional \cite{Kato, Papa}. In addition, the pair $(\tau, \sigma + c \sigma_0)$ satisfies the Shearing Cycle Boundary Condition since $\partial(\sigma + c\sigma_0) = \partial \sigma$, and the Triangle Rotation Condition by choice of $\tau$. As a consequence, Theorem~\ref{thm:InvariantsHomeomorphism} provides a Hitchin character $\rho\in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ whose triangle invariant $\tau^\rho$ is $\tau$, and whose shearing cycle $\sigma^\rho$ is equal to $ \sigma + c \sigma_0$.
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{lem:IntersectionImagesBoundaryMapTheta} and Proposition~\ref{prop:ComputeTwistedTgentCycles} similarly give the following characterization of the shearing cycles of Hitchin characters.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:RestrictionShearingCycle}
Suppose that $n>3$.
For a twisted relative tangent cycle $\sigma \in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1}) $ and for $a=1$, $2$, \dots, $n-1$, let $\partial\sigma_a$ be the $a$--th component of its boundary $\partial\sigma \colon \{ \text{slits of } \widehat\lambda \} \to \mathbb R^{n-1}$. Then, $\sigma$ is the shearing cycle $\sigma^\rho$ of a Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ if and only if $\sigma$ satisfies the Positive Intersection Condition and
\begin{align*}
&\partial \sigma_{n-1}(s_1^+) = 0 \\
\text{and }
&\partial\sigma_1(s_1^+) = \sum_{a=2}^{n-2} ({\textstyle \frac{a-1}{n-3}} -1) \partial\sigma_a(s_1^+) + \sum_{a=2}^{n-2} {\textstyle \frac{a-1}{n-3}}\, \partial\sigma_a(s_2^+)+ \sum_{a=2}^{n-2} {\textstyle \frac{a-1}{n-3}}\, \partial\sigma_a(s_3^+)
\end{align*}
whenever $s_1^+$, $s_2^+$ and $s_3^+$ are positive slits of the orientation cover $\widehat \lambda$ that project to the three spikes of the same component $T$ of $S-\lambda$.
As a consequence, the shearing cycles of Hitchin characters form an open convex polyhedral cone in a linear subspace of codimension $24(g-1)$ of $ \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1})\cong \mathbb R^{18(g-1)(n-1)} $. \qed
\end{cor}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:RestrictionShearingCycle3and2}
When $n=3$, a twisted relative tangent cycle $\sigma \in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{2}) $ is the shearing cycle $\sigma^\rho$ of a Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_3(S)$ if and only if $\sigma$ satisfies the Positive Intersection Condition and
\begin{align*}
\partial \sigma_2(s_1^+) &= 0 \\
\text{and }
\partial \sigma_1(s_1^+) &= \partial \sigma_1(s_2^+) =\partial \sigma_1(s_3^+) =0
\end{align*}
whenever $s_1^+$, $s_2^+$ and $s_3^+$ are positive slits of the orientation cover $\widehat \lambda$ that project to the three spikes of the same component $T$ of $S-\lambda$.
As a consequence, the shearing cycles of Hitchin characters form an open convex polyhedral cone in a subspace of codimension $20(g-1)$ of $ \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{2})\cong \mathbb R^{36(g-1)}$.
When $n=2$, a twisted relative tangent cycle $\sigma \in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R) $ is the shearing cycle $\sigma^\rho$ of a Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_2(S)$ if and only if $\sigma$ is closed and satisfies the Positive Intersection Condition. \qed
\end{cor}
We conclude this article by giving, in the next two sections, two brief applications of the machinery developed in this article. In particular, these applications require the full generality of geodesic laminations (as opposed to the much simpler case of geodesic laminations with finitely many leaves considered in \cite{BonDre}).
\section{The action of pseudo-Anosov homeomorphisms on the Hitchin component}
\label{bigsect:PseudoAnosov}
Let $\phi \colon S \to S$ be a pseudo-Anosov homeomorphism of the surface $S$. We can use our parametrization of $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ to show that the action of $\phi$ on the Hitchin component $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ is concentrated in a relatively small factor of $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$. This section is only intended as an illustration of the possible applications of the main results of the article; we are consequently limiting its scope to avoid making an already long article much longer.
The pseudo-Anosov property of $\phi$ is usually expressed in terms of transverse measured foliations on the surface $S$ \cite{ThuBAMS, FLP}. It will be more convenient to use the point of view of \cite{CasBlei}, so that the homeomorphism $\phi \colon S \to S$ is (isotopic to) a pseudo-Anosov homeomorphism if there exist a geodesic lamination $\lambda^{\mathrm s}$, a transverse measure $\mu^{\mathrm s}$ for $\lambda^{\mathrm s}$, and a number $R>1$ such that, after an isotopy of $\phi$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item each component of the complement of the topological support $\lambda^{\mathrm s}$ of $\mu^{\mathrm s}$ is a topological disk;
\item $\phi(\lambda^{\mathrm s}) = \lambda^{\mathrm s}$;
\item the pull back $\phi^*(\mu^{\mathrm s})$ of the transverse measure $\mu^{\mathrm s}$ is equal to $R\mu^{\mathrm s}$.
\end{enumerate}
The homomorphism $\phi \colon S \to S$ acts on the character variety $\mathcal X_{\mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}}(S)$ as $\rho \mapsto \phi_* \circ \rho$, where $\phi_* \colon \pi_1(S) \to \pi_1(S)$ is any homomorphism induced by $\phi$ (by choosing a path joining the base point to its image under $\phi$). When $\rho\in \mathcal X_{\mathrm{PSL_n(\R)}}(S)$ comes from a Teichm\"uller character of $\mathrm{Hit}_2(S)$, it is immediate that so does $\rho \circ \phi_*$. By connectedness, it follows that the action $\rho \mapsto \rho \circ \phi_*$ respects the Hitchin component $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$.
Replacing $\phi$ by one of its powers does not significantly change its dynamics.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:GoodPowerPseudoAnosov}
There exists an integer $k>0$ and a maximal geodesic lamination $\lambda^+$ containing $\lambda^{\mathrm s}$ such that $\phi^k(\lambda^+) = \lambda^+$ after isotopy of $\phi^k$. In addition, $\phi^k$ can be chosen so that it respects each slit of $\lambda^+$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The homeomorphism $\phi$ permutes the finitely many slits of $\lambda^{\mathrm s}$. Therefore, there exists $k$ such that $\phi^k$ respects each slit.
Let $\lambda^+$ be any maximal geodesic lamination containing $\lambda^{\mathrm s}$. Because each component of $S-\lambda^{\mathrm s}$ is a topological disk, or more precisely an ideal polygon, $\lambda^+$ is obtained from $\lambda^{\mathrm s}$ by adding finitely many diagonal leaves joining spikes of these polygons. Since $\phi^k$ respects each slit of $\lambda^{\mathrm s}$, namely each spike of $S-\lambda^{\mathrm s}$, it can easily be isotoped to respect these diagonal leaves (as well as $\lambda^{\mathrm s}$). By construction, $\phi^k$ respects each slit of $\lambda^+$.
\end{proof}
We can now use the maximal geodesic lamination $\lambda^+$ to construct a parametrization of the Hitchin component $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ by the polytope $ \mathcal P \subset \mathbb R^{6(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)} \times \mathcal C(\lambda^+, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1})$ as in Theorem~\ref{thm:InvariantsHomeomorphism}.
Because $\phi^k$ respects the geodesic lamination $\lambda^+$, it acts on $ \mathcal C(\lambda^+, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1})$ as follows. Lift $\phi$ to a homeomorphism $\widetilde \phi \colon \widetilde S \to \widetilde S$ of the universal cover $\widetilde S$; in particular, $\widetilde \phi^k$ respects the pre-image $\widetilde\lambda^+$ of $\lambda^+$. Then, using the point of view of \S \ref{subsect:RelTgtCyclesDifferentView}, define $\phi_{\bullet}^k \colon \mathcal C(\lambda^+, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1}) \to \mathcal C(\lambda^+, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1}) $ by the property that $\phi_\bullet^k (\alpha)(T, T')= \alpha \bigl( \widetilde \phi^k(T), \widetilde \phi^k(T') \bigr)$ for any two components $T$, $T'$ of $\widetilde S - \widetilde\lambda^+$.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:ActionPseudoAnosov}
For the homeomorphism
$$\Phi \colon\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S) \to \mathcal P \subset \mathbb R^{6(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)} \times \mathcal C(\lambda^+, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1})$$
provided by Theorem~{\upshape\ref{thm:InvariantsHomeomorphism}}, the action of $\phi^k$ on $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ corresponds to the restriction to $\mathcal P$ of the product of the identity $\mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb R^{6(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)}}$ and of the action of $\phi^k$ on $ \mathcal C(\lambda^+, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1})$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} For $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$, we need to compare the triangle invariants $\tau_{abc}^{\rho \circ\phi_*^k}(s)$ and the shearing cycle $\sigma^{\rho \circ\phi_*^k} \in \mathcal C(\lambda^+, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1})$ of $\rho \circ\phi_*^k$ to those of $\rho$.
Lift $\phi$ to a homeomorphism $\widetilde \phi \colon \widetilde S \to \widetilde S$ of the universal cover $\widetilde S$, which is equivariant with respect to $\phi_* \colon \pi_1(S) \to \pi_1(S)$ in the sense that $\widetilde\phi(\gamma x) = \phi_*(\gamma)\widetilde \phi(x)$ for every $x\in \widetilde S$ and $\gamma \in \pi_1(S)$. The flag maps $\mathcal F_{\rho}$ and $\mathcal F_{\rho \circ \phi_*^k} \colon \partial_\infty \widetilde S \to \mathrm{Flag}(\R^n)$ are then related by the property that $\mathcal F_{\rho \circ \phi_*^k} = \mathcal F_\rho \circ \widetilde \phi^k$. Going back to the definitions of these invariants and remembering that $\phi^k$ respects each slit of $\lambda^+$, it immediately follows that $\rho$ and $\rho \circ \phi_*^k$ have the same triangle invariants $\tau_{abc}^{\rho \circ\phi_*^k}(s)=\tau_{abc}^{\rho}(s)$, and that $\sigma^{\rho \circ\phi_*^k}= \phi_\bullet^k(\sigma^{\rho})$.
\end{proof}
This is better described in terms of the map $\pi \colon \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S) \to \mathbb R^{6(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)} $ corresponding to the projection of $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)\cong \mathcal P $ to the first factor of $ \mathbb R^{6(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)} \times \mathcal C(\lambda^+, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1})$. Namely, $\pi$ associates its triangle invariants $\tau_{abc}^{\rho}(s)$ to a Hitchin character $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$. The image $\mathcal L = \pi\bigl( \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S) \bigr)$ is the vector space of dimension $2(g-1)(n-1)(n-2)- \lfloor \frac{n-1}2 \rfloor$ determined by Corollary~\ref{cor:RestrictionTriangleInvariants}. This defines a fibration $\pi \colon \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S) \to \mathcal L$, where the fiber $\pi^{-1}(\tau)$ above each $\tau \in \mathcal L$ is a convex polyhedral cone of dimension $3(g-1)(n-1)+ \lfloor \frac{n-1}2 \rfloor$ in $ \mathcal C(\lambda^+, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1})\cong \mathbb R^{18(g-1)(n-1)}$.
Then, Proposition~\ref{prop:ActionPseudoAnosov} states that the action of $\phi^k$ on $\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$ respects each fiber $\pi^{-1}(\tau)$, and acts on each of these polyhedral cones $\pi^{-1}(\tau) \subset \mathcal C(\lambda^+, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1})$ by restriction of $\phi_{\bullet}^k \colon \mathcal C(\lambda^+, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1}) \to \mathcal C(\lambda^+, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1}) $.
In $U$ is a train track neighborhood of $\lambda^+$, the endomorphism $\phi_{\bullet}^k$ of $ \mathcal C(\lambda^+, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1}) \cong H_1(U, \partial_{\mathrm v} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1})$ can be explicitly explicitly described in terms of a classical object associated to the pseudo-Anosov homeomorphism $\phi$, namely the incidence matrix of $\phi$ with respect to the train track $U$ (see for instance \cite[Exp. 9-10]{FLP}). However, this would take us beyond the intended scope of this article.
\section{Length functions of measured laminations}
\label{bigsect:LengthMeasLam}
One of the motivations for this article is to extend to the Hitchin component the differential calculus of lengths of simple closed curves that was developed for hyperbolic geometry in \cite{Thu0, Thu1, Bon97b, Bon96}.
For a Hitchin character $\rho\in\mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}}(S)$, the length functions $\ell_1^\rho$, $\ell_2^\rho$, \dots, $\ell_{n-1}^\rho$, of \cite{Dre1} and \S \ref{subsect:LengthFunctions} can be restricted to Thurston's space $\mathcal{ML}(S)$ of measured geodesic laminations. There is just a little subtlety, which is that the geodesic currents discussed in \S \ref{subsect:LengthFunctions} form a completion of the set of homotopy classes of \emph{oriented} closed curves, whereas $\mathcal{ML}(S)$ completes the set of homotopy classes of \emph{unoriented} simple closed curves.
An unoriented simple closed curve $\gamma$ in $S$ defines two oriented curves $\gamma^*$ and $\gamma^{**}$, one for each orientation. Then there is a unique continuous embedding $\iota \colon \mathcal{ML}(S) \to \mathcal C(S)$ that is homogeneous, in the sense that $\iota(t\mu) = t\iota(\mu)$ for every $\mu \in \mathcal{ML}(S)$ and every $t>0$, and such that $\iota(\gamma) = \frac12(\gamma^* + \gamma^{**})$ for every simple closed curve $\gamma \in \mathcal{ML}(S)$; see for instance \cite{Bon88}. Combining this embedding with $\ell^\rho_a \colon \mathcal C(S) \to \mathbb R$ defines, for each $a=1$, $2$, \dots, $n-1$, a length function $\ell^\rho_a \colon \mathcal{ML}(S) \to \mathbb R$. The definition, and in particular the introduction of the factor $\frac12$, is designed so that when $n=2$ the function $\ell_1^\rho$ coincides with Thurston's length function $\ell^\rho \colon \mathcal{ML}(S) \to \mathbb R$ for the hyperbolic metric on $S$ associated to $\rho \in \mathrm{Hit}_2(S)$, which plays a fundamental r\^ole in hyperbolic geometry; see for instance \cite{ThuBAMS, FLP, Thu0, Bon88, Mirza} for a few applications of this length function~$\ell^\rho$.
Because $\ell_a^\rho(\gamma^{**}) = \ell_{n-a}^\rho(\gamma^*)$, the length functions $\ell_a^\rho$ and $\ell_{n-a}^\rho$ coincide on $\mathcal{ML}(S)$ so that, in practice, we have only $\lfloor \frac n2 \rfloor$ length functions $\ell^\rho_a \colon \mathcal{ML}(S) \to \mathbb R$.
The space $\mathcal{ML}(S)$ of measured geodesic laminations is homeomorphic to $\mathbb R^{6(g-1)}$, but admits no differentiable structure that is respected by the action of the mapping class group. As a consequence, we cannot use the standard concepts of differential calculus on this space.
However, $\mathcal{ML}(S)$ is naturally endowed with a piecewise integral linear structure; this means that it admits an atlas locally modelling it over $\mathbb R^{6(g-1)}$ where the coordinate changes are piecewise linear and where the linear pieces of these coordinate changes have integer coefficients \cite{Thu0, PenH}. In particular, because a piecewise linear map does have a tangent map, a consequence of the piecewise linear structure is that $\mathcal{ML}(S)$ admits a well-defined tangent space $T_\mu \mathcal{ML}(S)$ at each point $\mu\in \mathcal{ML}(S)$.
Each tangent space $T_\mu \mathcal{ML}(S)$ is homeomorphic to $\mathbb R^{6(g-1)}$ and is homogeneous, in the sense that there is a well defined multiplication of tangent vectors by non-negative numbers, but it is not always a vector space. Indeed, there exists points $\mu\in \mathcal{ML}(S)$ where the tangent space $T_\mu \mathcal{ML}(S)$ admits no vector space structure which is respected by all coordinate charts; a typical example of such points are the positive real multiples of simple closed curves, which are dense in $\mathcal{ML}(S)$. Conversely, at a measured geodesic lamination $\mu$ whose support is a maximal geodesic laminations, the piecewise integral linear structure does define a natural vector space structure on the tangent space $T_\mu \mathcal{ML}(S)$; these $\mu$ form a subset of full measure in $\mathcal{ML}(S)$. See \cite{Thu1} for instance.
\begin{thm}[{\cite[\S 3.2]{Dre1}}]
\label{thm:DerivativeLengthMLexists}
For a Hitchin character $\rho\in \mathrm{Hit}_{\mathrm{n}} (S)$ and for $a=1$, $2$, \dots, $\lfloor \frac n2 \rfloor$, the length function $\ell^\rho_a \colon \mathcal{ML}(S) \to \mathbb R$ admits a tangent map $T_\mu \ell^\rho_a \colon T_\mu \mathcal{ML}(S) \to \mathbb R$ at each $\mu\in \mathcal{ML}(S)$, in the following sense. For $\mu\in \mathcal{ML}(S)$ and $v\in T_\mu\mathcal{ML}(S)$, let $t\mapsto \alpha_t$ be a curve in $ \mathcal{ML}(S)$ such that $\alpha_0=\mu$ and the right-hand-side tangent derivative $\frac {d\ }{dt^+}\alpha_t{}_{|t=0}$ exists and is equal to $v$, then $\frac {d\ }{dt^+} \ell_r^i(\alpha_t)_{|t=0} = T_{\mu} \ell^\rho_a( v )\in \mathbb R$. \qed
\end{thm}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:DerivativeLengthMLexists} relies on two key ingredients: the analytic interpretation \cite{Bon97a, Bon97b} of tangent vectors $v\in T_\mu \mathcal{ML}(S)$ as a certain type of H\"older geodesic currents as in \S \ref{subsect:LengthFunctions}; and the continuity of the length function $\ell_a^\rho \colon \mathcal C^{\mathrm{H{\ddot o}l}}(S) \to \mathbb R$ for the H\"older topology, proved in \cite{Dre1}. In particular, $T_{\mu} \ell^\rho_a( v )$ is equal to the $a$--th length $\ell_a^\rho(v)$ of the H\"older geodesic current $v\in \mathcal C^{\mathrm{H{\ddot o}l}}(S)$ associated to $v\in T_\mu\mathcal{ML}(S)$.
The results of the current paper, and in particular Theorem~\ref{thm:ShearingAndLength}, provide a description of the tangent map $T_{\mu} \ell^\rho_a$ on the faces of $T_\mu \mathcal{ML}(S)$.
This is based on a more combinatorial interpretation, also developed in \cite{Bon97b, Bon97a}, of tangent vectors $v\in T_\mu \mathcal{ML}(S)$ as tangent cycles for geodesic laminations $\lambda$ containing the support $\lambda_\mu$ of $\mu$; these tangent cycles must satisfy a certain positivity condition (unrelated to the Positive Intersection Condition of \S \ref{subsect:ConstraintsInvariants}). This decomposes the tangent space $ T_\mu \mathcal{ML}(S)$ into a family of cones $F_\lambda$, indexed by geodesic laminations $\lambda$ containing the support $\lambda_\mu$ of $\mu$, where $F_\lambda$ consists of those tangent vectors $v\in T_\mu \mathcal{ML}(S)$ that can be described as tangent cycles for $\lambda$. In particular, each $F_\lambda$ is naturally identified to a convex polyhedral cone in the vector space $\mathcal C(\lambda;\mathbb R)$ of all tangent cycles for $\lambda$, and the partial vector space structure induced on $F_\lambda$ by $\mathcal C(\lambda;\mathbb R)$ is compatible with the piecewise linear structure of $\mathcal{ML}(S)$. The $F_\lambda$ are the \emph{faces} of $ T_\mu \mathcal{ML}(S)$ for the piecewise linear structure of $\mathcal{ML}(S)$. See \cite{Thu1} for a slightly different approach.
In the generic case where the support $\lambda_\mu$ of $\mu \in \mathcal{ML}(S)$ is maximal there is only one face in $T_\mu \mathcal{ML}(S)$, namely $F_{\lambda_\mu}$. This face $F_{\lambda_\mu}$ is equal to the whole vector space $\mathcal C(\lambda_\mu; \mathbb R)$ of tangent cycles for $\lambda_\mu$.
Because of the positivity condition involved in the interpretation of tangent vectors $v\in T_\mu \mathcal{ML}(S)$ as tangent cycles for geodesic laminations,
it is quite possible that different geodesic laminations $\lambda$ and $\lambda'$ define the same face $F_\lambda= F_{\lambda'}$.
The correspondence $\lambda \mapsto F_\lambda$ can be made bijective by restricting attention to chain recurrent geodesic laminations \cite{Thu1, Bon97a}. Instead, we will focus on the case where the geodesic lamination $\lambda$ is maximal, as it is better adapted to our purposes. Every geodesic lamination $\lambda'$ is contained in a maximal geodesic lamination $\lambda$, so that every face of $T_\mu \mathcal{ML}(S)$ is contained in a face $F_\lambda$ associated to a maximal geodesic lamination $\lambda$. Note that, although $\lambda$ is maximal, the dimension of the associated face $F_\lambda$ may be significantly smaller than the dimension $6(g-1)$ of $T_\mu \mathcal{ML}(S)$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:DerivativeLengthMLFormula}
The tangent map $T_\mu \ell^\rho_a \colon T_\mu \mathcal{ML}(S) \to \mathbb R$ is linear on each face of $T_\mu \mathcal{ML}(S)$.
More precisely, if the face $F_\lambda \subset T_\mu \mathcal{ML}(S)$ is associated to a maximal geodesic lamination $\lambda$, if we interpret the tangent vector $v\in F_\lambda$ as a tangent cycle for $\lambda$, and if $\sigma^\rho \in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat\mathbb R^{n-1})$ is the shearing cycle of $\rho$, then
$$
T_{\mu} \ell^\rho_a( v ) = [\sigma_a^\rho] \cdot [v]
$$
where, as in {\upshape \S \ref{subsect:RelativeHomologyTangentCycles}} and {\upshape \S \ref{subsect:ShearingAndLength}}, the dot $\cdot$ denotes the algebraic intersection number in a train track neighborhood $\widehat U$ of the orientation cover $\widehat\lambda$ of $\lambda$, $[\sigma_a^\rho] \in H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm v} \widehat U; \mathbb R)$ is the $a$--th component of the twisted relative homology class $[\sigma^\rho] \in H_1(U, \partial_{\mathrm h} U; \widetilde \mathbb R^{n-1}) \subset H_1(\widehat U, \partial_{\mathrm h} \widehat U; \mathbb R^{n-1})$ defined by $\sigma^\rho\in \mathcal C(\lambda, \mathrm{slits}; \widehat \mathbb R^{n-1})$, and $[v] \in H_1(\widehat U; \mathbb R)$ is the homology class represented by $v\in \mathcal C(\lambda; \mathbb R) \subset \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda; \mathbb R)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} We already observed that $T_{\mu} \ell^\rho_a( v ) = \ell^\rho_a( v )$ where the right hand side interprets $v$ as a tangent cycle for $\lambda$ and involves the function $\ell_a^\rho \colon \mathcal C(\widehat\lambda) \to \mathbb R$ introduced in \S \ref{subsect:LengthFunctions}. The formula then occurs as a special case of Theorem~\ref{thm:ShearingAndLength}.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{amsalpha}
|
\section{Introduction}
Low-dimensional signal models have played an important role in many signal processing applications in the recent decade, where in many cases the use of these models has provided state of the art results \cite{Bruckstein09From, Romberg08Imaging, Willett11Compressed, Elad10Sparse}. All have relied on the fact that the treated signals, which have high ambient dimension, reside in a low dimensional manifold \cite{Lu08Theory, Blumensath09Sampling, Eldar12Compressed, Foucart13Mathematical, Plan14High, Vershynin14High}, or a union of manifolds, e.g., a union of subspaces.
The fact that a signal belongs to a low dimensional manifold may make it possible to recover it from few measurements. This is exactly the essence of the compressed sensing \cite{Donoho06Compressed, Candes06Near} and matrix completion \cite{Candes09Exact} problems.
Our core problem is to recover an unknown signal $\vect{x} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ from a given set of its linear measurements
\begin{eqnarray}
\vect{y} = \mat{A} \vect{x} + \vect{z},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mat{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times d}$ is the measurement matrix with $m \ll d$ and $\vect{z}$ is an additive noise which can be either adversarial with bounded energy \cite{Candes06Near, Donoho06Stable, Candes05Decoding} or random with a certain given distribution, e.g., Gaussian \cite{Candes07Dantzig}.
In the standard compressed sensing problem the low dimensionality of $\vect{x}$ is modeled using the synthesis sparsity model. The signal $\vect{x}$ is assumed to be either explicitly sparse, i.e., has a small number of non-zeros, or with a sparse representation under a given dictionary $\mat{D} \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times n}$.
If every group of $2k$ columns in $\mat{A}\mat{D}$ (if $\vect{x}$ is explicitly sparse then $\mat{D} = \Id$) are independent, where $k$ is the sparsity of the signal, then $\vect{x}$ can be uniquely recovered from $\vect{y}$ in the noiseless case ($\vect{z} = 0$) \cite{Donoho03Optimal, Giryes13CanP0} using a combinatorial search.
The above observation shows that it is possible to recover the signal with a number of measurements of the order of its manifold dimension $k$. However, the \rg{combinatorial} search is not feasible for any practical size of $d$ \cite{NP-Hard}. Therefore several relaxation techniques have been proposed \cite{Candes06Near, Chen98overcomplete, MallatZhang93, Needell10Signal, Needell09CoSaMP, Dai09Subspace,Blumensath09Iterative,Foucart11Hard}.
It has been shown that if $\mat{A}\mat{D}$ is a subgaussian random matrix
or a partial Fourier matrix then it is possible using these practical methods to recover $\vect{x}$ from $\vect{y}$ using only $O(k \log^c(n))$ measurements ($c$ is a given constant) \cite{Candes05Decoding, Rudelson06Sparse}.
Note that up to the log factor, the number of needed measurements is of the order of the manifold dimension of the signal.
Noise is easily incorporated into these results. The same number of measurements guarantees robustness to adversarial noise.
Further, in the case of random white Gaussian noise the recovery error turns to be of the order of $k \sigma^2 \log(n)$ \cite{Candes07Dantzig,Bickel09Simultaneous, Giryes12RIP}, where $k\sigma^2$ is roughly the energy of the noise in the low dimensional subspace the signal resides in.
Similar results hold outside of the standard (synthesis) sparsity model of compressed sensing. Indeed, in the \textit{matrix completion} problem, in which the signal is a low-rank matrix, once again one may reconstruct the matrix from a number of measurements proportional to the manifold dimension \cite{Candes09Exact, Candes10Matrix}. Further, there exists a body of literature giving an abstract theory of signal reconstruction based on manifold dimension \cite{Vershynin14High, Eldar12Uniqueness, baraniuk2009random, wakin2010manifold, yap2011stable, eftekhari2013new}.
\subsection{The Cosparse Analysis Model}
Recently, a new signal sparsity framework has been proposed: the cosparse analysis model \cite{elad07Analysis, Nam12Cosparse} that looks at the behavior of the signal after applying a given operator $\mat{\Omega} \in \mathbb{R}^{p \times d}$ on it. We introduce it with an important example: the vertical and horizontal finite difference operator (2D-DIF). The motivation for the usage of this operator is that in many cases the image is not sparse but its gradient is, so the signal ``becomes sparse'' only after the application of 2D-DIF. Therefore it is common to represent the structure of an image through its behavior after the application of the 2D-DIF operator.
Note that 2D-DIF, when used with $\ell_1$-minimization (See \eqref{eq:analysis_l1_noiseless} hereafter), corresponds to the anisotropic two dimensional total variation (2D-TV) \cite{Needell13Stable}.
For simplicity, we suppose that $d$ is a square number and consider an $\sqrt{d} \times \sqrt{d}$ signal matrix $X$, e.g., an image. Then the horizontal differences operator, $\mat{H}$, and the vertical finite differences operator, $\mat{V}$, are defined as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
& \mat{H}(X)_{i,j} := X_{i,j} - X_{i, j+1} \\ & \mat{V}(X)_{i,j} := X_{i,j} - X_{i+1, j}
\end{eqnarray}
with addition of indices being done mod $\sqrt{d}$. One may then unfold the signal $X$ into vector form, and correspondingly represent $\mat{H}$ and $\mat{V}$ as $d \times d$ matrices. Thus, we take $\mat{\Omega} \in \mathbb{R}^{2d \times d}$, in the 2D-DIF model, to be the horizontal differences matrix stacked on top of the vertical differences matrix .
In the general case, for a given operator $\mat{\Omega} \in \mathbb{R}^{p \times d}$, the cosparse analysis model assumes that $\mat{\Omega} \vect{x}$ should be sparse.
The subspace in which the signal resides is characterized by the zeros in $\mat{\Omega}\vect{x}$. The number of zeros in $\mat{\Omega}\vect{x}$ is denoted as the cosparsity of the signal.
Each zero entry characterizes a row in $\mat{\Omega}$ to which the signal is orthogonal. Denoting by $T$ the unknown support (the locations of the non-zero entries) of $\mat{\Omega}\vect{x}$ and by $\mat{\Omega}_T$ the submatrix of $\mat{\Omega}$ restricted to the rows in $T$ we have that the subspace of $\vect{x}$ is the one orthogonal to the subspace spanned by the rows of $\mat{\Omega}_{T^c}$. In what follows, define
\begin{eqnarray}
K_T := \{ \vect{x} \in \mathbb{R}^d : \mat{\Omega}_{T^c} \vect{x} = 0\}
\end{eqnarray}
to be such a subspace. \rg{Notice that the dimension of $K_T$, which we denote by $b$, equals $d- \rank(\mat{\Omega}_{T^c})$.}
In general, $T$ is not known, and so it is natural to assume a signal structure of the following form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:signal structure}
K_b := \bigcup_{\text{dim}(K_T) = b} K_T.
\end{equation}
Note that this is a finite union of $b$-dimensional subspaces. \rg{As each signal in $K_b$ belongs to a subspace of dimension $b$, we say that $K_b$ has a {\em manifold dimension} $b$.}\footnote{\yp{See \cite{lee2003smooth} for a definition of manifolds and manifold dimension. We note that $K_b$ is technically not a manifold, but this can be easily remedied. Consider the slightly smaller set: $K'_b = K_b \backslash \bigcup K_T \cap K_{T'}$ in which we take the union over all $T \neq T'$ such that $\text{dim}(K_T) = \text{dim}(K_{T'}) = b$. $K'_b$ is a manifold, and none of the proofs would change under this alternative definition of the signal set. Nevertheless, we define $K_b$ as in Equation \eqref{eq:signal structure} for simplicity of presentation.}}
Recent literature \cite{Needell13Stable, Candes11Compressed, Liu12Compressed, Giryes13Greedy, Kabanava13Analysis, Giryes13TDIHT} shows that $\vect{x}$ may be reconstructed efficiently and stably from $O(\abs{T} \log(p) )$ random linear measurements. How does this compare to the manifold dimension of the signal?
Assume $\abs{T}$ is fixed and $\mat{\Omega}$ is in general position, e.g., each entry is taken from a Gaussian ensemble. Then $\vect{x} \in K_b$, where $b = (d - p + \abs{T})_+$ (as $\vect{x}$ is orthogonal to $p - \abs{T}$ rows in $\mat{\Omega}$). In particular, if \rg{$\abs{T} = p-d+1$} then $b=1$ and therefore $\vect{x}$ resides in a $1$-dimensional subspace. Surprisingly, modern theory requires more than \rg{$\abs{T} = p-d+1$} measurements for recovering the signal, i.e., more measurements than the ambient dimension \rg{in the case $ p \ge 2d$}.
\rg{This behavior is not unique only to the case of $\mat{\Omega}$ in general position. For example, consider the 2D-DIF model with $b=2$. In this case $K_2$ consists of images with only two connected components.\footnote{All images in the subspace $K_T$ have the same pattern of edges, defined by the indices of $T$ (two adjacent pixels have an edge when they may take different values). The edges of $T$ separate the image into connected components.
If there are only two connected components it is enough to use only two numbers, which set the grey value of each component, to define each image in this subspace. In this case, $K_T$ is a two-dimensional subspace.} However, also in this case the current theory requires the number of measurements to be proportional to $\abs{T}$, the number of edges in these images, which might be much larger than $2$. Notice that for the same manifold dimension, we may have different number of edges in different images.
For example, in Fig.~\ref{fig:blob} the number of edges is roughly proportional to $\sqrt{d}$ and in Fig.~\ref{fig:packingpic_oneconfig} it is roughly proportional to $d$.
}
\rg{Following the above two examples,} it is natural to ask whether the state of the art theory may be improved.
Indeed, let $\mat{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times d}$ be a Gaussian matrix and observe that by solving
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:analysis_l0_noiseless}
\min_{\vect{x}'}\zeronorm{\mat{\Omega}\vect{x}'} & s.t.& \vect{y} = \mat{A}\vect{x}',
\end{eqnarray}
where $\norm{\cdot}_0$ is the $\ell_0$ pseudo-norm that counts the number of non-zeros in a vector, one may recover any $\vect{x} \in K_1$ using only two measurements. In the general case there is a need for $2 b$ measurements to recover a signal in $K_b$ \cite{Nam12Cosparse}.
However, solving~\eqref{eq:analysis_l0_noiseless} is NP-hard and requires a \rg{combinatorial} search. Thus, there is a large gap between the theory for tractable, stable signal recovery and what can be done by combinatorial search with noiseless measurements.
\subsection{Our Contribution}
With these observations before us, it is natural to ask whether the gap between the required number of measurements and the manifold dimension is a deficiency of the utilized approximation strategies and the used proof techniques, or \rg{whether} there exists a real barrier with recovering the cosparse signals by relying only on the manifold dimension. \yp{Is there any algorithm that can robustly reconstruct a cosparse signal from a number of measurements proportional to the manifold dimension $b$?}
This paper addresses this question by considering the effect of Gaussian noise. We show that unless the number of measurements is much larger than the manifold dimension, there is no estimator that can stably reconstruct the signal. We show this for two different analysis dictionaries: 1) the vertical and horizontal finite difference operator and 2) a random Gaussian matrix. We show that when $m < d < p$, the error must be exponentially larger than the noise no matter what estimator is used.
We state our two main theorems below.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:TV_main_theorem}
Let $\mat{\Omega}$ be the 2D-DIF operator and let $K_2$ be the union of $2$-dimensional subspaces generated by this matrix.
Suppose $\vect{y} = \mat{A} \vect{x} + \vect{z}$ for some $\vect{x} \in K_2$, $\mat{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times d}$ with $\opnorm{\mat{A}} \leq 1$, and $\vect{z} \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2\cdot \Id)$. Then for any estimator $\hat{\vect{x}}(\vect{y})$ we have
\[\max_{\vect{x} \in K_2} \E \twonorm{\hat{\vect{x}} - \vect{x}} \geq C \sigma \exp(c d/m).\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:Gaussian_main_theorem}
Let $\mat{\Omega} \in \mathbb{R}^{p \times d}$ be a matrix with independent standard normal entries and let $K_1$ be the union \rg{of} $1$-dimensional subspaces generated by this matrix. Suppose $\vect{y} = \mat{A} \vect{x} + \vect{z}$ for some $\vect{x} \in K_1$, $\mat{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times d}$ with $\opnorm{\mat{A}} \leq 1$, and $\vect{z} \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2\cdot \Id)$. Then for any estimator $\hat{\vect{x}}(\vect{y})$ we have
\[ \max_{\vect{x} \in K_1} \E \twonorm{\hat{\vect{x}} - \vect{x}} \geq
C \sigma \exp\left(C\frac{d-1}{m}\left(1 - \frac{d-2}{p}\right)\right).\]
\end{theorem}
The theorems are proven in Section~\ref{sec:pack_construct} by providing packings for the sets $K_1$ and $K_2$, and combining these with a hypothesis testing argument.
We can say that both theorems show that $O(d)$ measurements are needed for any algorithm to get signal reconstruction without incurring a huge error if $p \ge 2d$; the latter assumption is implicit in Theorem~\ref{thm:TV_main_theorem} where $p=2d$. \rg{Notice that in Theorem~\ref{thm:Gaussian_main_theorem}, if $d < p < 2d$ then we need $m = O(p-d)$, which is still remarkably larger than the manifold dimension $b=1$.}
Remarkably, both theorems lower bound the efficacy of any estimator, tractable or not, and thus show that even the performance of $\ell_0$ minimization is not characterized well by the manifold dimension of the signal.
Therefore we may conclude that the fact that the needed number of measurements is of the order of $\abs{T}$ is not a result of a flaw in the existing reconstruction guarantees or a problem with the studied methods.
We perform several experiments to demonstrate this fact and show that indeed, the size of $\abs{T}$ (determined by the cosparsity of the signal, the number of zeros in $\mat{\Omega}\vect{x}$) is a better measure for its compressibility than its manifold dimension.
\subsection{Organization}
The paper is organized as follows.
Section~\ref{sec:pack_construct} gives the proofs of Theorems \ref{thm:TV_main_theorem} and \ref{thm:Gaussian_main_theorem}.
In Section~\ref{sec:exp} we demonstrate the lower bounds we have developed through several experiments that use the $\ell_1$-minimization technique with a Gaussian matrix and the 2D-DIF operator as the analysis dictionary. In Section~\ref{sec:conc} we discuss the implications of the derived results and conclude the work.
\section{Proofs of Theorems \ref{thm:TV_main_theorem} and \ref{thm:Gaussian_main_theorem}}
\label{sec:pack_construct}
Both of our main theorems are proven by construction of random packings, followed by a hypothesis testing argument. Recall that a packing $\mathcal{X} \subset K$ with $\ell_2$ balls of radius $\delta$ is a set satisfying $\twonorm{x - y} \geq \delta$ for any $\vect{x}, \vect{y} \in \mathcal{X}$ with $\vect{x} \neq \vect{y}$. We denote by $P(K, \delta)$ the maximal cardinality of such a set, i.e., the \textit{packing number}.
We now gather supporting lemmas and then put them together in Section \ref{sec:finals steps}.
We will construct a packing when $\mat{\Omega}$ is the vertical and horizontal differences operator and when $\mat{\Omega}$ is Gaussian. In both cases, we will make a random construction using the following observation.
\begin{lemma}[Random packing]
\label{lem:random packing}
Let ${F}$ be a distribution supported on some set $K \in \mathbb{R}^n$. Let $\vect{x}, \vect{x}'$ be independently chosen from ${F}$. Suppose that
\[\Pr{\twonorm{\vect{x} - \vect{x}'} < \delta} \leq \eta\]
for some $\eta, \delta > 0$. Then,
\[P(K, \delta) \geq \eta^{-1/2}.\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $q$ be $\eta^{-1/2}$ rounded up to the next nearest integer. Pick $q$ points independently from $K$. Then, by considering each of the ${q \choose 2}$ pairs and using the union bound we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pr{\min_{\vect{x} \neq \vect{x}'} \twonorm{\vect{x} - \vect{x}'} < \delta} \leq {q \choose 2} \eta
< \frac{(\eta^{-1/2} + 1) \eta^{-1/2}}{2} \cdot \eta < 1
\end{eqnarray}
so long as $\eta < 1$. The minimum above is taken over all $\vect{x} \neq \vect{x}'$ in the $q$ random points. Thus, with probability greater than 0, the $q$ points satisfy
\[\twonorm{\vect{x} - \vect{x}'} \geq \delta \qquad \text{for } \vect{x} \neq \vect{x}'.\]
Thus, there must exist at least one such arrangement of points, making the requisite packing.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Packing when $\mat{\Omega}$ is the vertical and horizontal differences operator}
We construct a packing for the set $K := K_2 \cap S^{d-1}$ when $\mat{\Omega}$ is the vertical and horizontal finite differences operator.
\begin{lemma} Suppose that $d \geq 64$ is a square number. Then
\label{lem:pack finite differences}
\[P(K, 1/2) \geq \exp(d/64).\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
$\mat{\Omega}$ is most simply visualized acting on images. Thus, set $n:=\sqrt{d}$ to be the number of vertical or horizontal pixels in an image. We make the corresponding abuse of notation and take $\mat{\Omega}: \mathbb{R}^{n \times n} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^p$ and $K \subset \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$. Each zero entry of $\mat{\Omega} \vect{x}$ forces two adjacent entries of $\vect{x}$ to be equal. Thus, the set $K$ is precisely the set of \rg{normalized} images $\vect{x}$ composed of two connected components, $\vect{x}_1$ and $\vect{x}_2$, with $\vect{x}$ constant on each component (See Figure \ref{fig:blob}). Our question reduces to constructing a packing for pairs of blobs in $\mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$. We restrict our attention to blobs with the pictorial representation of Figure \ref{fig:packingpic}.
\rg{Naturally, our packing is "non-exhaustive", as it aims at enumerating a large number of images (and not all images) that reside in $K$.}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.25 \textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{blob}
\caption[]{A point in $K_2$. All green squares have one value and all white squares have another.}
\label{fig:blob}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.25 \textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{packingpic}
\caption[]{Visualization of packing patterns. Green corresponds with $1/n$, white corresponds with $-1/n$, and ? can be either.}
\label{fig:packingpic}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.25 \textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{oneconfig}
\caption[]{One possible point in the packing.}
\label{fig:packingpic_oneconfig}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[]{}
\end{figure}
Note that each entry of our blobs has magnitude $1/n$. Each of the $q:= n(n-2)/3$ question marks can take the value $1/n$ or $-1/n$. Thus, our problem reduces to constructing a packing of the Hamming cube
\[\tilde{K}:= \frac{1}{n} \{+1, -1\}^q.\]
Such packings are well known. We use a random construction.
We pack $\tilde{K}$ by randomly picking a number of points in it and showing that with nonzero probability each pairwise distance is at least 1/2. Thus, let $\vect{x}$ and $\vect{x}'$ be two points picked uniformly at random from $\tilde{K}$. Note that $\twonorm{n \cdot \vect{x} - n \cdot \vect{x}'}^2 \sim 4\cdot \text{Binomial}(q, 1/2)$. It follows from Hoeffding's inequality that
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pr{\twonorm{ \vect{x} - \vect{x}'}^2 < \frac{q}{d}} = \Pr{\twonorm{n \cdot \vect{x} - n \cdot \vect{x}'}^2 < q} \leq \exp(-q/8).
\end{eqnarray}
We conclude the construction of the packing by applying Lemma \ref{lem:random packing}. In using the lemma, note that we assumed $d \geq 64$, and thus $q = n(n-2)/3\geq d/4$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Gaussian $\mat{\Omega}$}
We now construct a packing when $\mat{\Omega}$ is Gaussian.
In this section we take $\mat{\Omega} \in \mathbb{R}^{p \times d}$ to have $\textit{i.i.d.}$ standard normal entries.
Note that with probability 1 the rows of $\mat{\Omega}$ are in general position and thus
\[K_b := \bigcup_{\abs{T} = p - (d - b)} K_T.\]
Let $K := K_1 \cap S^{d-1}$. We construct a packing for $K$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem: pack Gaussian}
\[P(K, 1/2) \geq
\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \exp\left(\frac{d-1}{8} \cdot \left(1 - \frac{d-2}{p} \right)\right).\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As above, we randomly construct our packing. We will pick a series of points in $K$ as follows. First, pick $d-1$ rows of $\mat{\Omega}$ uniformly at random indexed by the set $\Lambda \in [p]$. Take $\vect{x}$ which satisfies $\mat{\Omega}_{\Lambda} = 0$. This restricts $\vect{x}$ to a 1-dimensional space. Since $\vect{x}$ must be on the unit sphere, there are only two possible points. Pick one at random.
Take $\vect{x}$ and $\vect{x}'$ to be two randomly generated points; we must show that they are far apart with high probability. Let $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda'$ be the corresponding rows of $\mat{\Omega}$, so that $\mat{\Omega}_{\Lambda} \vect{x} = 0$ and $\mat{\Omega}_{\Lambda'} \vect{x}' = 0$. Note that $\vect{x}$ and $\vect{x}'$ are both drawn uniformly from the sphere, but they are not independent because $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda'$ may have some intersection. The proof will follow by controlling their dependence. First, we note that $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda'$ do not have an overly large intersection (with high probability).
\begin{lemma}[Bounding $\abs{\Lambda \cap \Lambda'}$]
\label{lem:overlap}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pr{\abs{\Lambda \cap \Lambda'} \geq (d-1) \cdot \left(\frac{d + p}{2p}\right)}
\leq \exp\left(-\frac{(d-1)(p - d+2)}{2p}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
An application of Corollary 1.1 in \cite{Serfling74Probability} (an extension of Hoeffding's inequality for sampling without replacement \cite{Hoeffding63Probability}) gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pr{\abs{\Lambda \cap \Lambda'} \geq \frac{(d-1)^2}{p} + t}
\leq \exp\left(-\frac{2t^2}{(d-1)(1-\frac{d-2}{p})}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
The lemma follows by taking $t = (d-1)(p - d+2)/(2 p)$.
\end{proof}
Now condition on $\Lambda, \Lambda'$, and $\mat{\Omega}_{\Lambda \cap \Lambda'}$. Both $\vect{x}$ and $\vect{x}'$ must satisfy $\mat{\Omega}_{\Lambda \cap \Lambda'} \vect{x} = 0$, thus reducing the dimension of the space they live in to $d - \abs{\Lambda \cap \Lambda'}$. Set $T := \Lambda \setminus \Lambda'$ and $T' := \Lambda' \setminus \Lambda$. Note that $\mat{\Omega}_T$ and $\mat{\Omega}_{T'}$ are independent. Thus, by the rotational invariance of the Gaussian distribution, $\vect{x}$ and $\vect{x}'$ are distributed uniformly at random in the orthogonal complement to span($\mat{\Omega}_{\Lambda \cap \Lambda'}$). The distance between $\vect{x}$ and $\vect{x}'$ is equal in distribution to the distance between two points chosen uniformly at random on $S^{q-1}$ where $q := d - \abs{\Lambda \cap \Lambda'}$. Let $z := \twonorm{\vect{x} - \vect{x}'}$. Note that the geodesic distance between $\vect{x}$ and $\vect{x}'$ is equal to $2 \arcsin(z)$. The distribution of $z$ does not change if we fix $\vect{x}'$, and thus, the probability that $z \leq 1/2$ is precisely the normalized measure of a spherical cap with geodesic radius $2 \arcsin(1/2) \leq 0.52$. Bounds for this quantity are well known (see \cite{Talagrand91Probability}[Theorem 1.1]) giving
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pr{ \twonorm{\vect{x} - \vect{x}'} \leq \frac{1}{2}} \leq 2 \exp\left(-\frac{q}{2}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
We only need to bound $q$, but this is done in Lemma \ref{lem:overlap}. Let $E$ be the good event that $\abs{\Lambda \cap \Lambda'} \geq (d-1) \cdot \left(\frac{d + p}{2p}\right)$. By Lemma \ref{lem:overlap}, $\Pr{E} \geq 1 - \exp\left(-\frac{(d-1)(p - d+2)}{2p}\right)$. On the event $E$, we have $q \geq d - (d-1) \cdot \left(\frac{d + p}{2p}\right) = 1+ (d-1) \cdot \left(\frac{p - d}{2p}\right)$.
Putting these pieces together, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Pr{\twonorm{\vect{x} - \vect{x}'} \leq \frac{1}{2}}
&\leq & \Pr{\twonorm{\vect{x} - \vect{x}'} \leq \frac{1}{2} \mid E} + \Pr{E^c}\\
& \leq & 2 \exp\left(-\frac{1}{2} - \frac{(d-1)(p-d)}{4p}\right) + \exp\left(-\frac{(d-1)(p - d+2)}{2p}\right)\\ &\leq& 3 \exp\left(-\frac{(d-1)(p - d+2)}{4p}\right),
\end{eqnarray*}
where in the last line we have used the fact that $\frac{2(d-1)}{4p} \le \frac{1}{2}$.
Complete the proof by applying Lemma \ref{lem:random packing} with $\delta = 1/2$ and $\eta$ as in the last line of the above equation.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Implications of Set Packing}
Consider a vector $\vect{x}$ which is known to reside in a set $K$. We show that if $K$ admits a large packing, then $\vect{x}$ cannot be robustly reconstructed from few linear measurements by any method. The proof proceeds by showing that the distance between some pair of points in the packing will be reduced immensely when subsampling, and thus the corresponding two points in $K$ will be nearly indistinguishable amid noise.
We need the following lemma in the proof. This lemma is a classical result about packing numbers. In this lemma and the ones to follow, we denote by $B^n$ \rg{($\subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$)} the $\ell_2$ ball of radius 1 centered at the origin.
\begin{lemma}[Minimum distance in a packing]
\label{lem:packing_dist}
Let $\mathcal{X} \subset B^m$ be a finite set of points. Then
\[\min_{\stackrel{x \neq y}{x,y \in \mathcal{X}}} \twonorm{\vect{x} - \vect{y}} \leq \frac{4}{\abs{\mathcal{X}}^{1/m}}.\]
\end{lemma}
The proof is a simple and classical volumetric argument, see \cite{pisier1999volume}.
The following lemma begins to address the problem of signal estimation.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:fails on packing}
Let $\mathcal{X} \subset B^d$ be a finite set of points. Suppose $\vect{y} = \mat{A} \vect{x} + \vect{z}$ for some $\vect{x} \in \mathcal{X}$, $\mat{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times d}$ with $\opnorm{\mat{A}} \leq 1$, and $\vect{z} \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2\cdot \Id)$. Assume
\[\frac{4}{\abs{\mathcal{X}}^{1/m}} \leq \sigma.\]
Let $\hat{\vect{x}} = \hat{\vect{x}}(\vect{y})$ be any estimator of $\vect{x}$. Then,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:minimax_prob}
\min_{\vect{x} \in \mathcal{X}} \Pr{\hat{\vect{x}} = \vect{x}} \leq \frac{3}{4}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will lower-bound the worst-case probability of error by the probability of error under a suitably unfavorable prior. (This reduction from minimax to Bayesian is a standard trick, see, for example, \cite[Equation 2]{guntuboyina}).
First, apply the packing bound (Lemma \ref{lem:packing_dist}) to $\mat{A} \mathcal{X}$ to show that there are some two points $\mat{A} \vect{x}_1, \mat{A} \vect{x}_2 \in \mat{A} \mathcal{X}$ satisfying
\[\twonorm{\mat{A} \vect{x}_1 - \mat{A} \vect{x}_2} := \varepsilon \leq \frac{4}{\abs{\mathcal{X}}^{1/m}} \leq \sigma. \]
Consider the prior distribution which picks $\vect{x}_1$ with probability $1/2$ and $\vect{x}_2$ with probability $1/2$. For any given estimator, the worst-case probability of error (the left-hand side of Equation \eqref{eq:minimax_prob}) is lower-bounded by the probability of error under this prior. This is further minimized by the \textit{Bayes Estimator} which chooses $\vect{x}_1$ or $\vect{x}_2$ based on which has the highest posterior probability conditional on $\vect{y}$. The Bayes estimator simply takes
\[\hat{\vect{x}} = \arg\min_{\vect{x}_1, \vect{x}_2} \twonorm{\mat{A} \vect{x} - \vect{y}}.\]
It is straightforward to show that this estimator \rg{satisfies},
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pr{\hat{\vect{x}} = \vect{x}} = \Pr{\mathcal{N}(0,1) \leq \frac{\varepsilon}{2 \sigma}}
\leq \Pr{\mathcal{N}(0,1) \leq \frac{1}{2}} \leq \frac{3}{4}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{proof}
The following proposition is the synthesized tool relating packings to minimax error that we will use to prove our main theorems.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:main proposition}
Let $K \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ be a cone. Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a $\delta$-packing of $K \cap B^d$. Suppose $\vect{y} = \mat{A} \vect{x} + \vect{z}$ for $\vect{x} \in K$, $\mat{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times d}$ with $\opnorm{\mat{A}} \leq 1$, and $\vect{z} \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2\cdot \Id)$. Then for any estimator $\hat{\vect{x}} = \hat{\vect{x}}(\vect{y})$, we have
\[\sup_{\vect{x} \in K} \E \twonorm{\hat{\vect{x}} - \vect{x}} \geq \frac{\delta \sigma \abs{\mathcal{X}}^{1/m}}{32} .\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We begin by rescaling the problem so that the noise level is just large enough that a signal in $\mathcal{X}$ will be hard to recover, i.e., so that we may use Lemma \ref{lem:fails on packing}. Let
\[\lambda := \frac{4}{\abs{\mathcal{X}}^{1/m} \sigma}\]
and set $\tilde{\vect{y}} = \lambda \vect{y}, \tilde{\vect{x}} = \lambda \vect{x},$ and $\tilde{\vect{z}} = \lambda \vect{z}$. Thus, $\tilde{\vect{y}} = \mat{A} \tilde{\vect{x}} + \tilde{\vect{z}}$ and $\tilde{\vect{z}}, \mathcal{X}$ satisfy the conditions of Lemma \ref{lem:fails on packing}. Note also that $\tilde{\vect{x}} \in \lambda K = K$. We further restrict $\tilde{\vect{x}}$ to lie in $\mathcal{X}$.
Now, by Lemma \ref{lem:fails on packing}, for any estimator $\hat{\vect{x}} = \hat{\vect{x}}(\vect{y})$,
\[\min_{\tilde{\vect{x}} \in \mathcal{X}}\Pr{\hat{\vect{x}}(\vect{y}) = \tilde{\vect{x}}} \leq 3/4.\]
Since no estimator can reliably guess $\tilde{\vect{x}}$ on a $\delta$-packing, it follows that no estimator can estimate $\tilde{\vect{x}}$ to accuracy better than $\delta/2$ with high probability. Otherwise, such an estimator could be projected onto $\mathcal{X}$ to make a reliable guess. In other words,
\[\min_{\tilde{\vect{x}} \in \mathcal{X}} \Pr{\twonorm{\hat{\vect{x}}(\vect{y}) - \tilde{\vect{x}}} < \delta/2} \leq 3/4.\]
This implies that
\[\max_{\tilde{\vect{x}} \in \mathcal{X}} \E \twonorm{\hat{\vect{x}} - \tilde{\vect{x}}} \geq \frac{\delta}{8} .\]
Divide both sides of the equation by $\lambda$ to undo the scaling and finish the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=10cm]{random_noise_N500_sigma0_d200}}
\caption{Recovery error of $\ell_1$-minimization with Gaussian analysis dictionary in the noiseless case. Experiment setup: $d=200$, $\delta = \frac{m}{d}$ and $\rho = \frac{p}{d}$. For each configuration we average over $500$ realizations.
Color attribute: Mean Squared Error.
}
\label{fig:l1_gauss_recovery}
\end{figure}
\begin{remark}[Interpretation in terms of complexity, or metric dimension, of $K$]
While the manifold dimension of a signal set determines signal recoverability in the noiseless case \cite{Eldar12Uniqueness}, it can fail to characterize the noisy case. Instead, a classical metric notion of dimension, following ideas of Kolmogorov and Le Cam, provides a more apt characterization. Indeed, set $D(K) := \log(P(K\cap B^d, 1/2))$. Le Cam \cite{le1986asymptotic} showed that $D(K)$ is a effective metric characterisation of the complexity (or dimension) of the set $K$ in regards to many point estimation problems. As a simple example, if $K$ is a $q$-dimensional subspace it is well-known that $D(K)$ is proportional to $q$, just like the manifold dimension. However, in contrast to the manifold dimension, this metric definition takes into account the geometry of the set, thus allowing characterization of signal recoverability amid noise. The above proposition states that signal recovery error is at least proportional to $\exp(D(K)/m)$, i.e., if the number of measurements is below the effective dimension, the error amid noise blows up exponentially fast as a function of the ratio.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Putting it together}
\label{sec:finals steps}
Theorem \ref{thm:TV_main_theorem} now follows by combining the packing number of Lemma \ref{lem:pack finite differences} with Proposition \ref{prop:main proposition}. Theorem \ref{thm:Gaussian_main_theorem} follows by combing Lemma \ref{lem: pack Gaussian} with Proposition \ref{prop:main proposition}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=10cm]{random_noise_N500_sigma001_d200}}
\caption{Recovery error of $\ell_1$-minimization with Gaussian analysis dictionary in the noisy case with $\sigma = 0.01$. Experiment setup: $d=200$, $\delta = \frac{m}{d}$ and $\rho = \frac{p}{d}$. For each configuration we average over $500$ realizations.
Color attribute: Mean Squared Error.}
\label{fig:l1_gauss_denoising}
\end{figure}
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:exp}
To demonstrate the results of the theorems, in this section we look at the performance of analysis $\ell_1$-minimization
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:analysis_l1_noiseless}
\min_{\vect{x}'}\onenorm{\mat{\Omega}\vect{x}'} & s.t.& \twonorm{\vect{y} - \mat{A}\vect{x}'} \le \sqrt{m}\sigma,
\end{eqnarray}
in recovering signals with low dimensionality and different cosparsity levels. In all the experiments the measurement matrix $\mat{A}$ is a random Gaussian matrix with normalized columns.
In the first experiment, we select $\mat{\Omega}$ to be a random Gaussian matrix and the signal $\vect{x}$ to be a Gaussian random vector projected to a one dimensional subspace orthogonal to randomly selected $d-1$ rows from $\mat{\Omega}$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:l1_gauss_recovery} we present the recovery performance in the noiseless case for a fixed signal ambient dimension $d=200$ and
different combinations of the sampling rate $\delta = \frac{m}{d}$ and the redundancy ratio $\rho = \frac{p}{d}$. Interestingly, \rg{we observe empirically} that the theoretical instability to noise (Theorem \ref{thm:Gaussian_main_theorem}) also implies instability to $\ell_1$ relaxation.
Indeed, notice that though the manifold dimension of the signal is equal to 1 in all the experiments, the success in recovery heavily depends on $p$, which changes only the cosparsity of the signal. As expected from the theory, as soon as $p$ increases to be slightly larger than $d$, the number of measurements needed to reconstruct the signal increases enormously.
In Fig~\ref{fig:l1_gauss_denoising} we present the reconstruction error in the noisy case when an additive random white Gaussian noise with standard deviation $\sigma = 0.01$ is added to the measurements.
Notice that the error is saturated by $1$, the signal energy, as when the noise is very large the best estimator is the zero estimator, for which the error equals to the signal energy.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=10cm]{gaussian_error_vs_m}}
\caption{Recovery error of $\ell_1$-minimization with Gaussian analysis dictionary in the noisy case with $\sigma = 0.01$ as a function of $\delta = \frac{m}{d}$ for different selections of $\rho = \frac{p}{d}$. The signal dimension is $d=200$ and we average over $500$ realizations.
Color attribute: The color of each graph corresponds to the value of $\rho$. The bottom graph corresponds to $\rho = 1$ and the upper one to $\rho = 3.5$.}
\label{fig:l1_gauss_denoising_vs_m}
\end{figure}
As predicted from the theorem, when $\rho > 1$
the recovery error grows exponentially as $m$, the number of measurements, decreases. This becomes clearer for larger values of $\rho$.
To show it more clearly we present in Fig.~\ref{fig:l1_gauss_denoising_vs_m} the recovery error as a function of the sampling rate, which is a function of $m$. The bottom graph corresponds to $\rho = 1$, where the manifold dimension equals $d$ minus the cosparsity, for which we get a good recovery almost for all values of $m$. This is not surprising because when $d = m$, $\Omega$ is invertible and the analysis cosparse model may be recast into the standard synthesis model, in which one expects $O(log (p))$ measurements to suffice. Indeed, we see that already when we have ten percent of the measurements (corresponds to $20 > 2\log(p) \simeq 10.6$ measurements) we get a very good recovery. However, the behavior is quite different as soon as $\rho$ increases to slightly greater than 1. The rest of the graphs are above it and ordered according to increasing values of $\rho$. As $\rho$ becomes larger the error increases and its behavior as a function of $m$ becomes more and more exponential.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=10cm]{random_noise_TV_N500_sigma0_d144}}
\caption{Recovery error of $\ell_1$-minimization with the 2D-DIF analysis dictionary in the noiseless case. Experiment setup: $d=144$, $\delta = \frac{m}{d}$ and $\cosp$ is the cosparsity level. For each configuration we average over $500$ realizations.
Color attribute: Mean Squared Error.
}
\label{fig:l1_TV_recovery}
\end{figure}
In the second experiment we consider the 2D-DIF operator.
Notice that for this operator we may have different cosparsity levels for the same manifold dimension.
We consider vectors of size $d =144$ that represent two dimensional images of size $12 \times 12$ with manifold dimension two.
An image of dimension two is an image with two connected components, each with a different gray value. We generate randomly such images with different cosparsity levels. The values in the first and second connected components are selected randomly from the ranges $[0,1]$ and $[-1,0]$ respectively. Note that the cosparsity level defines the length of the edge in the image. The images are generated by setting all the pixels in the image to a value from the range $[0,1]$ and then picking one pixel at random and starting a random walk (from its location) that assigns to all the pixels in its path a value from the range $[-1, 0]$ (the same value). The random walk stops once it gets to a pixel that it has visited before. With high probability the resulted image will be with only two connected components. We generate many images like that and sort them according to their cosparsity (eliminating images that have more than two connected components). Note that the larger the cosparsity the shorter the edge.
We test the reconstruction performance for different cosparsity levels and sampling rates.
The recovery error in the noiseless and noisy cases are presented in Figs.~\ref{fig:l1_TV_recovery} and \ref{fig:l1_TV_denoising}.
It can be clearly seen that the recovery performance in both cases is determined by the cosparsity level and not the manifold dimension of the signal which is fixed in all the experiments.
As predicted by Theorem~\ref{thm:TV_main_theorem}, if we rely only on the manifold dimension we get a very unstable recovery. However, if we take into account also the cosparsity level we can have a better prediction of our success rate.
As we have seen in the previous experiment, also here we can see that instability in the noisy case also implies instability to relaxation.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=10cm]{random_noise_TV_N500_sigma001_d144}}
\caption{Recovery error of $\ell_1$-minimization with the 2D-DIF dictionary in the noisy case with $\sigma = 0.01$. Experiment setup: $d=144$, $\delta = \frac{m}{d}$ and $\cosp$ is the cosparsity level. For each configuration we average over $500$ realizations.
Color attribute: Mean Squared Error.}
\label{fig:l1_TV_denoising}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conc}
In this work we have inquired whether it is possible to provide recovery guarantees for compressed sensing with signals from the cosparse analysis framework by only having information about their manifold dimension. Though the answer for this question is positive for standard compressed sensing (with the standard sparsity model) and the matrix completion problem, we have shown that this is not the case here. We have demonstrated this with two analysis dictionaries, the Gaussian matrix and the 2D-DIF operator, both in theory and simulations. Our conclusion is that in the cosparse analysis framework the ``correct" measure to use for predicting the recovery success of any tractable method is the cosparsity of the signal (number of zeros) and not the manifold dimension.
\rg{It would be interesting to check whether it is possible to carry over the results in this paper to non-subspace models such as curved manifolds. Notice that some theoretical guarantees have already been given for the latter case \cite{baraniuk2009random, wakin2010manifold}, showing that it is possible to recover a $b$-dimensional submanifold from a number of samples proportional to $b$. However, these results also depend on a number of other quantities, such as the volume and condition number of the manifold. Therefore, another direction would be to see whether adding similar assumptions to the analysis model would allow sampling in the manifold dimension. }
\rg{An additional open question raised by this work is whether instability in the noisy case leads to instability to relaxation. Indeed, we have observed this phenomenon empirically in the experiments and therefore believe
that there is a room to prove such a result.}
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The authors thank the reviewers of the manuscript for their suggestions which improved the paper.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{introduction}
The excited states of atomic nuclei, especially those of light nuclei, show strong $\alpha$ clustering, and
many different types of $\alpha$ cluster structure appear as the excitation energy increases
\cite{wild58,shel60,abe80,ortz06,hori12}. In particular, the linear-chain configuration of three $\alpha$
particles (linearly aligned three $\alpha$ particles) suggested by Morinaga \cite{mori56} has long been an
important and interesting subject because of its exotic structure and large deformation equivalent to
hyperdeformation. The Hoyle state ($0^+_2$ state of $^{12}$C) was the first candidate of the linear chain,
but later it turned out that it does not have the linear-chain configuration but are loosely coupled
3$\alpha$ particles with dilute gas-like nature \cite{uega77,kami81,tohs01,funa03}. In turn, the instability
of the linear-chain configuration against the bending motion (deviation from linear alignment) was pointed
out and the bent-armed configuration was predicted by the antisymmetrized molecular dynamics (AMD)
\cite{enyo97} and Fermionic molecular dynamics (FMD) calculations \cite{neff07}.
The interest in the linear-chain state is reinforced by the unstable nuclear physics, because
the addition of the valence neutrons will increase the stability of $\alpha$ cluster structure by their
glue-like role. For example, 2$\alpha$ cluster structures of Be isotopes are assisted by valence
neutrons that are well described in terms of the molecular-orbits
\cite{seya81,oert96,itag00,yeny99,amd1,amd2}. Naturally, we expect that the linear-chain configurations of
3$\alpha$ clusters can be stabilized by the assist of valence neutrons in neutron-rich C isotopes. Indeed,
there are a number of studies to theoretically predict and experimentally search for the linear-chain states
in neutron-rich carbon isotopes \cite{itag01,gree02,bohl03,oert04,ashw04,itag06,pric07,suha10,furu11}.
Among C isotopes, $^{16}$C is very interesting and important nucleus as the most promising candidate of
the stable linear-chain state, because its stability against the bending motion was pointed out by
molecular-orbital model calculation \cite{itag01}. Assuming 3$\alpha$ cluster core and $3/2^-_\pi$,
$1/2^-_\pi$ and $1/2^-_\sigma$ molecular-orbits of valence neutrons, it was shown that the linear-chain
configuration with valence neutrons occuping $(3/2^-_\pi)^2(1/2^-_\sigma)^2$ molecular-orbits is
stable. Therefore, it is very important and interesting to investigate the linear-chain state in $^{16}$C
without a-priori assumption on the cluster core and valence neutron orbits. Furthermore, in addition to
the linear-chain configuration, triangular configurations of 3$\alpha$ particles are also suggested in the
neighbouring nuclei such as $^{13}$C and $^{14}$C \cite{suha10,furu11,oert03,itag04}. Therefore, it is also
interesting to search for analogous state in $^{16}$C.
For this purpose, we discuss 3$\alpha$ cluster states in $^{16}$C based on AMD which has
been successfully applied to the studies of the clustering in unstable nuclei
\cite{amd1,amd2,furu08,kimu07,kimu11}. Our aim in the present study is two-fold. The first is to search for
and show the linear-chain and other cluster states in $^{16}$C without a-priori assumption on the structure
and to test the stability against the bending motion. We will show that two different types of the
3$\alpha$ cluster states exist, triangular and linear-chain configurations. It is also shown that the
valence neutron orbits are qualitatively understood in terms of the molecular-orbits, and the linear-chain
configuration is stable with the help of those valence neutrons. The second aim is to provide a quantitative
and reliable prediction of their properties for the experimental survey. We predict the band-head states of
the triangular and linear-chain bands at 8.0 and 15.5 MeV, and the $J^\pi=10^+$ state of the linear-chain
configuration becomes the yrast state at $J^\pi=10^+$ with $E_x=27.8$ MeV owing to its very large moment of
inertia comparable with hyperdeformation.
\section{theoretical framework}
\subsection{variational calculation and generator coordinate method}
The microscopic $A$-body Hamiltonian used in this study is written as,
\begin{align}
\hat{H} = \sum_{i=1}^A \hat{t}(i) + \sum_{i<j}^A \hat{v}_n(ij) + \sum_{i<j}^Z \hat{v}_C(ij)
- \hat{t}_{c.m.},
\end{align}
where the Gogny D1S interaction \cite{gogn91} is used as an effective nucleon-nucleon interaction
$\hat{v}_n$ and the Coulomb interaction $\hat{v}_C$ is approximated by a sum of seven Gaussians. The
center-of-mass kinetic energy $\hat{t}_{c.m.}$ is exactly removed.
The intrinsic wave function $\Phi_{int}$ of the system is represented by a Slater determinant
of single particle wave packets, and we employ the parity-projected wave function $\Phi^\pi$ as the
variational wave function,
\begin{align}
\Phi^\pi &= \frac{1+\pi \hat{P}_x}{2}\Phi_{int},\quad
\Phi_{int} ={\mathcal A} \{\varphi_1,\varphi_2,...,\varphi_A \},
\label{EQ_INTRINSIC_WF}
\end{align}
where $\varphi_i$ is the single particle wave packet which is a direct product of the deformed Gaussian
spatial part \cite{kimu04}, spin ($\chi_i$) and isospin ($\xi_i$) parts,
\begin{align}
\varphi_i({\bf r}) &= \exp\biggl\{-\sum_{\sigma=x,y,z}\nu_\sigma
\Bigl(r_\sigma -
\frac{Z_{i\sigma}}{\sqrt{\nu_\sigma}}\Bigr)^2\biggr\}\chi_i\xi_i, \label{eq:singlewf}\\
\chi_i &= a_i\chi_\uparrow + b_i\chi_\downarrow,\quad
\xi_i = {\rm proton} \quad {\rm or} \quad {\rm neutron}.\nonumber
\end{align}
In this study, we focus on the positive-parity states of $^{16}{\rm C}$.
The parameters ${\bm Z}_i$, $a_i$, $b_i$ and $\nu_\sigma$ are optimized by the variational calculation
explained below. To investigate 3$\alpha$ cluster states, we first perform the variational calculation with
the constraint on the quadrupole deformation parameter $\beta$. In this calculation, we do not impose
constraint on the parameter $\gamma$, and hence, thus-obtained wave functions have $\gamma$ values that give
the largest binding energies for given values of $\beta$. As shown in the next section, we have obtained the
linear-chain configuration located at $(\beta,\gamma)=(1.10,0)$ as well as the triangular
configuration. We performed another variational calculation to test its stability against bending
motion (deviation from the linear alignment of 3$\alpha$ clusters). Namely, starting from the above
mentioned linear-chain configuration, we gradually increased the parameter $\gamma$ keeping $\beta=1.10$ by
applying the constraints on $\beta$ and $\gamma$ simultaneously. This calculation generates the energy curve
of the linear-chain configuration as function of $\gamma$.
After the variational calculation, the eigenstate of the total angular momentum $J$ is projected out from
the wave functions $\Phi^+_i$ obtained by variational calculations,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi^{J+}_{MKi} = \frac{2J+1}{8\pi^2}\int d\Omega D^{J*}_{MK}(\Omega)\hat{R}(\Omega)\Phi^{+}_i.
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $D^{J}_{MK}(\Omega)$ is the Wigner $D$ function and $\hat{R}(\Omega)$ is the rotation operator. The
integrals over three Euler angles $\Omega$ are evaluated numerically. Then, we perform the GCM calculation
by employing the quadrupole deformation parameter $\beta$ as the generator coordinate. The wave functions
$\Phi^{J+}_{MKi}$ are superposed,
\begin{align}
\Psi^{J+}_{M\alpha} = \sum_{Ki}g^{J}_{Ki\alpha}\Phi^{J+}_{MKi},\label{eq:gcmwf}
\end{align}
where the coefficients $g^{J}_{Ki\alpha}$ and eigenenergies $E^{J+}_\alpha$ are obtained by solving the
Hill-Wheeler equation \cite{hill54},
\begin{align}
\sum_{i'K'}{H^{J+}_{KiK'i'}g^{J}_{K'i'\alpha}} &= E^{J+}_\alpha \sum_{i'K'}{N^{J+}_{KiK'i'}g^{J}_{K'i'\alpha}},\\
H^{J+}_{KiK'i'} &= \braket{\Phi^{J+}_{MKi}|\hat{H}|\Phi^{J+}_{MK'i'}}, \\
N^{J+}_{KiK'i'} &= \braket{\Phi^{J+}_{MKi}|\Phi^{J+}_{MK'i'}}.
\end{align}
The wave functions $\Psi^{J+}_{M\alpha}$ that describe the ground and excited states of $^{16}$C are called
GCM wave function in the following.
\subsection{single particle orbits}
To investigate the motion of the valence neutrons around the core nucleus, we calculate the neutron
single-particle orbits of the intrinsic wave function. We first transform the single particle wave packet
$\varphi_i$ of each optimized intrinsic wave function $\Phi_{int}$ to the orthonormalized basis,
\begin{align}
\widetilde{\varphi}_\alpha = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda_\alpha}}\sum_{i=1}^{A}c_{i\alpha}\varphi_i.
\end{align}
Here, $\lambda_\alpha$ and $c_{i\alpha}$ are the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the
overlap matrix $B_{ij}=\langle\varphi_i|\varphi_j\rangle$. Using this basis, the
Hartree-Fock single particle Hamiltonian is derived,
\begin{align}
h_{\alpha\beta} &=
\langle\widetilde{\varphi}_\alpha|\hat{t}|\widetilde{\varphi}_b\rangle +
\sum_{\gamma=1}^{A}\langle
\widetilde{\varphi}_\alpha\widetilde{\varphi}_\gamma|
{\hat{v}_n+\hat{v}_C}|
\widetilde{\varphi}_\beta
\widetilde{\varphi}_\gamma -
\widetilde{\varphi}_\gamma\widetilde{\varphi}_\beta\rangle,\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\gamma,\delta=1}^{A}
\langle\widetilde{\varphi}_\gamma\widetilde{\varphi}_\delta
|\widetilde{\varphi}_\alpha^*\widetilde{\varphi}_\beta
\frac{\delta\hat{v}_n}{\delta \rho}|\widetilde{\varphi}_\gamma
\widetilde{\varphi}_\delta - \widetilde{\varphi}_\delta \widetilde{\varphi}_\gamma
\rangle.
\end{align}
The eigenvalues $\epsilon_s$ and eigenvectors $f_{\alpha s}$ of $h_{\alpha\beta}$ give the single particle
energies and the single particle orbits,
$\widetilde{\phi}_s = \sum_{\alpha=1}^{A}f_{\alpha s}\widetilde{\varphi}_\alpha$. To discuss the properties
of the single particle levels, we also calculate the amount of the positive-parity component,
\begin{align}
p^+ = |\langle \widetilde{\phi}_s|\frac{1+P_x}{2}| \widetilde{\phi}_s\rangle|^2, \label{eq:sp1}
\end{align}
and angular momenta in the intrinsic frame,
\begin{align}
j(j+1)&= \langle \widetilde{\phi}_s|\hat{j}^2| \widetilde{\phi}_s\rangle, \quad
|j_z| = \sqrt{\langle \widetilde{\phi}_s|\hat{j}_z^2| \widetilde{\phi}_s\rangle},\label{eq:sp2}\\
l(l+1)&= \langle \widetilde{\phi}_s|\hat{l}^2| \widetilde{\phi}_s\rangle, \quad
|l_z| = \sqrt{\langle \widetilde{\phi}_s|\hat{l}_z^2| \widetilde{\phi}_s\rangle}.\label{eq:sp3}
\end{align}
\section{results and discussions}
\subsection{3$\bm \alpha$ clustering and valence neutron configurations on the energy curve}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{C16surface.eps}
\caption{(color online) The energy curve of the $J^\pi=0^+$ states as functions of quadrupole deformation
parameter $\beta$ obtained by the angular momentum projection. Filled symbols show the energy
minimum states for given values of $\beta$, while open symbols show local energy minima. There appears
three different structures shown by circles, triangles and boxes (see text). Dashed lines show the
thresholds energies for 1$n$, $2n$ and cluster decays.}
\label{fig:surface}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{C16density.eps}
\caption{(color online) The density distribution of the ground (a)(b), triangular (c)(d) and linear-chain
(e)(f) configurations at their energy minima. The contour lines show the proton density distributions and
are common to the upper and lower panels. The colour plots show the single particle orbits occupied by
four valence neutrons. The lower panels show the most weakly bound two neutrons, while the upper panel
show the other two valence neutrons.}
\label{fig:density}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{mol_illust.eps}
\caption{The schematic figure showing the $3/2^-_\pi, 1/2^-_\pi$ and $1/2^-_\sigma$ molecular orbits
introduced in Ref. \cite{itag01}. If the system has axial symmetry and the effect of the spin-orbit
interaction is negligible, these orbits are the eigenstates of $\hat j_z$ and $\hat l_z$.}
\label{fig:illust}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{The properties of valence neutron orbits shown in Fig. \ref{fig:density}. Each column show the
single particle energy $\varepsilon$ in MeV, the amount of the positive-parity component $p^+$ and the
angular momenta (see Eqs. (\ref{eq:sp1})-(\ref{eq:sp3})).}
\label{table:spo}
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
orbit & $\varepsilon $ & $p^+$ & $j$ & $|j_{z}|$ & $l$ & $|l_{z}|$ \\ \hline
(a) & $-8.24$ & 0.00 & 0.75 & 0.51 & 1.05 & 0.97 \\
(b) & $-5.23$ & 0.99 & 2.21 & 0.51 & 1.80 & 0.38 \\ \hline
(c) & $-5.74$ & 0.99 & 2.31 & 1.96 & 1.93 & 1.63 \\
(d) & $-3.29$ & 0.98 & 2.33 & 1.88 & 2.07 & 1.83 \\ \hline
(e) & $-5.32$ & 0.13 & 2.09 & 1.49 & 1.72 & 0.99 \\
(f) & $-4.18$ & 0.03 & 2.89 & 0.53 & 2.72 & 0.18 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Figure \ref{fig:surface} shows the energy curves as functions of quadrupole deformation parameter $\beta$
for $J^\pi=0^+$ states obtained by the variational calculation with the constraint on the parameter
$\beta$. The filled symbols show the energy minimum for given values of $\beta$, and on this energy curve,
three different structures appear which are shown by circles, triangles and boxes. These structures are also
obtained as the local energy minima above the lowest energy states, and are shown by open symbols. It is
also noted that there are other local energy minima with different structure above the energy curve. They do
not have cluster structure and are not shown in Fig. \ref{fig:surface}, but included as the basis wave
function of the GCM calculation. We first discuss three different structures with and without clustering
that appear on the energy curve by referring their density distributions (Fig. \ref{fig:density}) and the
properties of valence neutron orbits (Tab. \ref{table:spo}). The lowest energy configuration shown by
circles is prolately deformed and has the minimum at $E=-110.4$ MeV and $(\beta,\gamma)=(0.44,0)$. As seen
in its proton and valence neutron density distribution (Fig.\ref{fig:density} (a) and (b)), it has no
pronounced clustering, and four valence neutrons have an approximate $(0p_{1/2})^2(0d_{5/2})^2$
configuration that is also confirmed from the properties of neutron single particle orbits listed in
Tab. \ref{table:spo} (a) and (b). Namely the first two valence neutrons occupy the orbit (a) with negative
parity, $j\simeq 1/2$ and $l\simeq 1$, and the last two neutrons occupy the orbit (b) with positive parity,
$j\simeq5/2$ and $l\simeq2$. The deviation from the spherical $p_{1/2}$ and $d_{5/2}$ orbits owes to
prolate deformation of this state. Different from the AMD results by Kanada-En'yo \cite{yeny05}
in which the different proton and neutron deformation of $^{16}$C was discussed ({\it i.e.} proton is
oblately deformed, while neutron is prolately deformed), the present result shows that the both proton
and neutron are prolately deformed in the ground state. This difference may be attributed to the difference
of the basis wave functions used in this study and Ref. \cite{yeny05}. In the present study, we use the
deformed Gaussian (Eq. \ref{eq:singlewf}) whose deformation is {\it common} to protons and neutrons, as a
result, the different deformation between proton and neutron may be energetically unfavoured.
As deformation increases, other valence neutron configuration appears and it induces 3$\alpha$
clustering. A triaxially deformed 3$\alpha$ cluster configuration shown by triangles appears around
$\beta=0.7$ and has the local energy minimum at $E=-102.2$ MeV and $(\beta,\gamma)=(0.70,41)$. At the energy
minimum, this configuration has 3$\alpha$ cluster core of an approximate isosceles triangular configuration
with 3.2 fm long sides and 2.3 fm short side (Fig. \ref{fig:density} (c) and (d)) which is the origin of the
triaxial deformation, and an approximate $(0d_{5/2})^4$ configuration ($2\hbar\omega$ excitation) of valence
neutrons are confirmed from Tab. \ref{table:spo}. It is also notable that $|j_z|$ of valence neutron
orbits deviate from half-integer value because of axial symmetry breaking caused by the triangular
configuration. Thus, by increasing the nuclear deformation, valence neutron configuration changes and it
triggers the clustering of the core nucleus. This feature is common to the well-known 2$\alpha$ clustering
of Be isotopes and theoretically predicted clustering in O, F and Ne \cite{furu08,kimu07,kimu11} isotopes.
Further increase of nuclear deformation realizes the exotic cluster configuration with the linear
alignment of 3$\alpha$ particles which is denoted by boxes. This configuration has a local minimum at
$E=-93.9$ MeV and $(\beta,\gamma)=(1.10,0)$ whose energy is very close to the $^{4}$He+$^{12}$Be and
$^{6}$He+$^{10}$Be cluster thresholds, and the ratio of deformation axis is approximately equal to 3:1. As
clearly seen in Fig. \ref{fig:density} (e) and (f), a linearly aligned 3$\alpha$ cluster core is
accompanied by four valence neutrons whose configuration may be roughly understood as $(1p)^2(0f)^2$,
although the deviation from ordinary spherical shell is fairly large due to very strong deformation.
An alternative and more appropriate interpretation of the valence neutron configuration is given by the
molecular orbits. Namely, the valence neutron orbits are in good accordance with the
$3/2^-_\pi$ and $1/2^-_\sigma$ orbits \cite{itag01} that are the linear combinations of the
$p$-orbits around $\alpha$ clusters as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:illust}. Indeed, the density
distribution and properties of these orbits shown in Fig. \ref{fig:density} are in very good agreement
with those of the molecular-orbital model. It is also noted that the $(3/2^-_\pi)^2(1/2^-_\pi)^2$
configuration was not obtained in this study, and hence, the present results support the instability of
$(3/2^-_\pi)^2(1/2^-_\pi)^2$ configuration and stability of $(3/2^-_\pi)^2(1/2^-_\sigma)^2$ configuration.
Thus, concerning the linear-chain configuartion of $^{16}$C, the present calculation yielded qualitatively
the same conclusion with the molecular-orbital model. However, it is worthwhile to focus on the
quantitative differences. The linear-chain configuration
obtained in this study has parity asymmetric structure and shows $^{10}{\rm Be}+\alpha+2n$ like correlation,
which is analogous to $^{10}{\rm Be}+\alpha$ correlation in $^{14}$C reported by Suhara {\it et al.}
\cite{suha11}. Namely, the $3/2^-_\pi$-orbit has non-negligible parity mixing ($p^+=0.13$) and is localized
between the left and center $\alpha$ clusters showing similar structure to $^{10}$Be. Indeed, owing to
the glue-like role of $3/2^-_\pi$ orbit, the distance between the left and center $\alpha$ clusters (3.5
fm) is shorter than that between the right and center (3.8 fm). On the other hand, the $1/2^-_\sigma$
orbit has almost no parity mixing ($p^+=0.03$) and distributes around the entire system to
bond $^{10}{\rm Be}$ and $\alpha$ clusters. Therefore, this state can be alternatively interpreted as
$^{10}{\rm Be}+\alpha$ clusters accompanied by two covalent neutrons in $1/2^-_\sigma$-orbit. This
interpretation may explain why the excitation energy of the linear-chain configuration is is much lower than
that predicted by the molecular-orbital model and located in the vicinity of the $^{6}$He+$^{10}$Be and
$^{4}$He+$^{12}$Be thresholds. It is evident that the parity-projection plays a crucial role to yield this
asymmetric internal structure, because we only obtain parity-symmetric intrinsic wave functions if we do not
perform parity-projection.
\subsection{stability of the linear-chain state}
One of the main concerns about the linear-chain configuration is its stability against the bending motion,
and we confirm it by investigating its response to $\gamma$ deformation.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{C16gamma.eps}
\caption{(color online) The boxes show the energy of the linear-chain configuration with $J^\pi=0^+$
as function of quadrupole deformation parameter $\gamma$. The solid line shows the overlap
between the linear-chain state ($0^+_5$ state) and the basis wave functions.}
\label{fig:gamma}
\end{figure}
Starting from the linear-chain configuration shown in Fig. \ref{fig:density} (e)(f), we gradually increased
$\gamma$ but kept $\beta$ constant by using the constraint on $\beta$ and
$\gamma$. Thus obtained energy curve of the linear-chain configuration with $J^\pi=0^+$ as function of
$\gamma$ is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:gamma}. It is almost constant for small value of $\gamma$ and has the
minimum at $\gamma=3.1$ degrees, but rapidly increases for larger values of $\gamma$. Then, including all
the basis wave functions, we performed GCM calculation to obtain the excitation spectrum and band structure
which will be discussed in the next subsection. Here, we focus on the band-head state of the linear-chain
band ($0^+_5$ state) to see the stability against $\gamma$ deformation. For this purpose, we calculated the
overlap between the $0^+_5$ state and the basis wave function with $\gamma$ deformed linear-chain
configuration defined as,
\begin{align}
O(\gamma) = |\langle\Psi(0^+_5)|\Phi^{0^+}(\gamma)\rangle|^2.
\end{align}
Here, $\Psi(0^+_5)$ and $\Phi^{0^+}(\gamma)$ denote the GCM wave function of the $0^+_5$ state and the basis
wave function with $\gamma$ deformed linear-chain configuration shown in Fig. \ref{fig:gamma}.
The calculated overlap shown by the solid line in Fig. \ref{fig:gamma} has its maximum value 0.92 at
$\gamma=3.1$ degrees and falls off very quickly as $\gamma$ increases. Therefore the wave function of the
linear-chain state is well confined within a region of small $\gamma$, and hence stable against the bending
motion. Further extensive investigation of the stability of the linear-chain state including other carbon
isotopes will be discussed in our forthcoming paper.
\subsection{excitation spectrum}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{C16spectrum.eps}
\caption{(color online) The calculated and observed positive-parity energy levels of $^{16}$C up to
$J^\pi=12^+$ states. Open boxes show the observed states with the definite spin-parity assignments, and
other symbols show the calculated result. The filled circles, triangles and lines show
the ground, triangular and linear-chain bands, while lines show the states without cluster structure.}
\label{fig:spectrum}
\end{figure*}
Figure \ref{fig:spectrum} shows the spectrum up to $J^\pi=12^+$ state obtained by the GCM calculation
including whole basis wave functions. We classified the obtained states to the 'ground band', 'triangular
band', 'linear-chain band' and other non-cluster states based on their $B(E2)$ strengths and the overlap
with the basis wave functions. Table \ref{tab:band} shows the member
states of these bands with small angular momenta.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Excitation energies (MeV) and proton and neutron root-mean-square radii (fm) of several member
states of the 'ground band', 'triangular band' and 'linear-chain band'. Numbers in the parenthesis are the
observed data.}\label{tab:band}
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
band & $J^\pi$ & $E_x$ & $r_{p}$ & $r_{n}$\\
\hline
ground & $0^+_1$ & 0.0 & 2.61 & 2.84 \\
& $2^+_1$ & 1.3 (1.77) & 2.60 & 2.83 \\
& $4^+_1$ & 3.9 (4.14) & 2.56 & 2.77 \\
\hline
triangular & $0^+_2$ & 8.0 & 2.75 & 3.09 \\
$K^\pi=0^+$ & $2^+_4$ & 9.4 & 2.74 & 3.08 \\
& $4^+_4$ & 12.7 & 2.76 & 3.06 \\
\hline
triangular & $2^+_5$ & 10.1 & 2.74 & 3.08 \\
$K^\pi=2^+$ & $3^+_3$ & 11.7 & 2.74 & 3.07 \\
& $4^+_6$ & 13.7 & 2.74 & 3.08 \\
\hline
linear-chain & $0^+_5$ & 15.5 & 3.54 & 3.71 \\
& $2^+_9$ & 15.9 & 3.14 & 3.27 \\
& $2^+_{10}$ & 16.3 & 3.38 & 3.54 \\
& $4^+_{11}$ & 17.6 & 3.22 & 3.38 \\
& $4^+_{12}$ & 17.8 & 3.21 & 3.39 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The member states of the ground band shown by circles in Fig. \ref{fig:spectrum} are dominantly composed of
the basis wave functions with $(sd)^2$ configuration on the energy curve. The ground state has the largest
overlap with the basis wave function shown in Fig. \ref{fig:density} (a)(b) that amounts to 0.95, and the
calculated binding energy is $-110.6$ MeV that nicely agrees with the observed value ($-110.8$ MeV). The
excitation energies of the $2^+_1$ and $4^+_1$ states are also reasonably
described. However our result considerably overestimates the observed $B(E2;2^+_1\rightarrow 0^+_1)$
strength reported by experiments \cite{imai04,ong06,ong08,wied08,petr12} that ranges from 0.92 to 4.2
$e^2\rm fm^4$. There have been many discussions about the possible hindrance \cite{yeny05,petr12,saga04} of
$B(E2)$, and in the case of the AMD study \cite{yeny05}, the origin of the hindrance was attributed to the
different proton and neutron deformation. On the other hand, the present results does not describe it as
mentioned before, and it leads to the overestimation of $B(E2)$ (Tab. \ref{table:be2}).
Owing to its triaxial deformed shape, the triangular configuration generates two rotational
bands built on the $0^+_2$ and $2^+_5$ states. We call them $K^\pi=0^+$ and $2^+$ bands in the following,
although the mixing of the $K$ quantum number in their GCM wave functions (Eq. (\ref{eq:gcmwf})) is
not negligible. Compared to the linear-chain state, these bands have less pronounced clustering and $\alpha$
clusters are considerably distorted, therefore the band head energies are well below the cluster
thresholds. The member states have large overlap with the basis wave function shown in
Fig. \ref{fig:density} (c)(d) which amount to, for example, 0.93 in the case of the $0^+_2$ state. However,
the member states with larger angular momentum with $J^\pi\geq 5^+$ are fragmented into several states due
to the coupling with other non-cluster configurations. The fragmentation gets stronger as the angular
momentum increases, and hence the member states with $J^\pi\geq 9$ and band terminal are unclear. Due
to larger deformation of the triangular states, the inter- and intra-band $B(E2)$ strengths
between the $K^\pi=0^+$ and $K^\pi=2^+$ bands are enhanced compared to the ground band.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{The calculated intra- and inter-band $B(E2;J_i\rightarrow J_f)$ ($e^2\rm fm^4$) strengths for
low-spin member states of the ground, triangular and linear-chain bands. Transitions less than 5 $e^2\rm
fm^4$ are not shown.}
\label{table:be2}
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
& $J_i\rightarrow J_f$ & $B(E2;J_i\rightarrow J_f)$ \\ \hline
ground $\rightarrow$ ground& $2^{+}_{1}\rightarrow 0^{+}_{1}$ & 6.0 \\
& $4^{+}_{1} \rightarrow 2^{+}_{1}$ & 5.1 \\ \hline
triangular & $2^{+}_{4} \rightarrow 0^{+}_{2}$ & 10.9 \\
$K^\pi=0^+$ $\rightarrow$ $K^\pi=0^+$ & $4^{+}_{4}\rightarrow 2^{+}_{4}$ & 15.7 \\\hline
triangular & $3^{+}_{3} \rightarrow 2^{+}_{5}$ & 17.9 \\
$K^\pi=2^+$ $\rightarrow$ $K^\pi=2^+$ & $4^{+}_{6}\rightarrow 3^{+}_{3}$ & 9.5 \\
& $4^{+}_{6}\rightarrow 2^{+}_{5}$ & 6.2 \\\hline
triangular & $2^{+}_{5} \rightarrow 0^{+}_{2}$ & 6.9 \\
$K^\pi=2^+$ $\rightarrow$ $K^\pi=0^+$ & $3^{+}_{3}\rightarrow 2^{+}_{4}$ & 10.4 \\
& $3^{+}_{3}\rightarrow 4^{+}_{4}$ & 8.3 \\\hline
linear-chain $\rightarrow$ linear-chain & $2^{+}_{9}\rightarrow 0^{+}_{5}$ & 58.9\\
& $2^{+}_{10}\rightarrow 0^{+}_{5}$ & 182.4\\
& $4^{+}_{11}\rightarrow 2^{+}_{9}$ & 114.3\\
& $4^{+}_{11}\rightarrow 2^{+}_{10}$ & 70.8\\
& $4^{+}_{12}\rightarrow 2^{+}_{9}$ & 29.5\\
& $4^{+}_{12}\rightarrow 2^{+}_{10}$ & 158.0\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The linear-chain configuration generates a rotational band built on the $0^+_5$ state at 15.5 MeV,
that is close to the $^{4}$He+$^{12}$Be and $^{6}$He+$^{10}$Be threshold energies. The band head state
$0^+_5$ has the largest overlap with the basis wave function shown in Fig.\ref{fig:density} (e)(f) which
amounts to 0.92, but the member states with $J^\pi=2^+$, $4^+$ and $6^+$ are fragmented into two states due
to the coupling with other non-cluster basis wave functions. For example, the $2^+_9$ and $2^+_{10}$ states
respectively have 0.30 and 0.65 overlaps with the basis wave function of Fig.\ref{fig:density} (e)(f). By
averaging the excitation energies of the fragmented member states, the moment-of-inertia is estimated as
$\hbar/2\Im=112$ keV. Because of this strong deformation comparable with hyperdeformation, the member states
has huge intra-band $B(E2)$ that is about several tens times as large as those in other bands. Naturally,
as the angular momentum increases, the excitation energy of the linear-chain state is lowered relative to
other structures, and the $J^\pi=10^+$ member state at $E_x=27.8$ MeV becomes the yrast state. Different
from the triangular band, the high-spin member states with $J^\pi \geq 8^+$ are not fragmented and the band
structure looks rather clear. Since the excitation energy of the high-spin state with linear-chain
configuration is relatively lower than others, the coupling with the non-cluster states and hence the
fragmentation of the
states may be hindered. Thus, we predict the stable linear-chain configuration with
molecular-orbits whose band-head energy is around $^{4}$He+$^{12}$Be and $^{6}$He+$^{10}$Be
thresholds. Owing to its large moment-of-inertia, the $J^\pi=10^+$ member state becomes an yrast
state. Those suggest that the linear-chain band might be populated in the $^{4}$He+$^{12}$Be and
$^{6}$He+$^{10}$Be reaction channels.
\section{SUMMARY}
We have studied 3$\alpha$ cluster states of $^{16}$C based on the AMD calculations. By the variational
calculation with the constraint on the quadrupole deformation parameter $\beta$, it was found that two
different 3$\alpha$ cluster states appear depending on the magnitude of the deformation and the valence
neutron configurations. The triangular configuration of 3$\alpha$ clusters is accompanied by the valance
neutrons in a $(sd)^4$ configuration, while the linear-chain configuration has the valence neutrons with a
$(sd)^2(pf)^2$ configuration. From the analysis of the neutron single particle orbits, it is shown that
the valence
neutron orbits of the linear-chain configuration is understood well in terms of molecular-orbits and it
is qualitatively in good accordance with the $(3/2^-_\pi)^2(1/2^-_\sigma)^2$ configuration suggested by
molecular-orbital model. We also pointed out parity asymmetry of the linear-chain configuration that
originates in
$^{10}{\rm Be}$+$\alpha$+$2n$ cluster nature. The GCM calculation demonstrated that the wave function of the
linear-chain state is well confined within a region of small $\gamma$, and hence, it is stable against
bending motion. We predict the presence of rotational bands associated with 3$\alpha$ cluster states. In
particular, the linear-chain band is built in the vicinity of the $^{4}$He+$^{12}$Be and $^{6}$He+$^{10}$Be
thresholds energies, and the $J^\pi=10^+$ state becomes an yrast state.
\acknowledgements
Part of the numerical calculations were performed on the HITACHI SR16000 at KEK. One of the authors (M.K.)
acknowledges the support by the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas from MEXT
(Grant No. 2404:24105008) and JSPS KAKENHI Grant 563 No. 25400240.
|
\section{Introduction}
The idea of using the theory of quantum mechanics to obtain computers potentially exponentially faster for certain applications, such as the factorization of prime numbers, arouses considerable interest and research efforts from the scientific community nowadays. In quantum computation, information is represented and manipulated using quantum properties. An obstacle for the construction of large quantum computers is the problem of quantum decoherence, that can be viewed as the loss of information of the quantum system due to the interaction with the environment. It terms of the computation goal, quantum decoherence can be also understood as unwanted noise introduced in quantum computation \cite{Sarma_et_al:2006}. One possible solution to this problem is the design of quantum systems immune to quantum decoherence on a hardware level.
Topological quantum computing (TQC) \cite{Bonesteel_et_al:2005,Sarma_et_al:2006} investigates quantum computing systems that, given the properties of quasiparticles they use, are not affected by quantum decoherence. The key idea of these systems is that quantum information can be stored in global properties of the system and thus affected only by global operations but not by local perturbations such as noise. In TQC, quantum gates are carried out by adiabatically braiding quasiparticles around each other. This braiding is used to perform the unitary transformations of a quantum computation.
One of the essential questions to design a TQC is to find a product of braid generators (matrices) that approximates a quantum gate with the smallest possible error and, if possible, as short as possible to prevent loss \cite{Mcdonald_and_Katzgraber:2013}. Some approaches that treat this question as an optimization problem have been proposed. Exhaustive search \cite{Bonesteel_et_al:2005} has been applied to search for braids of manageable size (up to $46$ exchanges). More recently, McDonald and Katzgraber \cite{Mcdonald_and_Katzgraber:2013} have proposed the use of genetic algorithms to find optimal braids. They also introduce a function that takes into account the goals of maximizing the accuracy and minimizing the length. In this paper, we build on their results to propose an analysis of the braid optimization problem using probabilistic modeling of the space of braid solutions. For braid problems of small size, we show that the regularities that exist in the search space can be captured by the probabilistic models. We then extend these results to propose the application of evolutionary algorithms (EAs) able to capture statistical regularities of the best solutions.
Estimation of distribution algorithms (EDAs) \cite{Larranhaga_and_Lozano:2002r,Muhlenbein_and_Paas:1996r,Larranaga_et_al:2012} are EAs that apply learning and sampling of distributions instead of classical crossover and mutation operators. Modeling the dependencies between the variables of the problem can serve to efficiently orient the search to more promising areas of the search space by explicitly capturing and exploiting potential relationships between the problem variables. In addition, the information contained in the models can reveal previously unknown information about the problem.
The paper is organized as follows: The next section briefly describes braids and Fibonacci anyons \cite{Bonesteel_et_al:2005}. The problem formulation, including the problem representation and fitness functions used are presented in Section~\ref{sec:PROBFORM}. The framework for probabilistic analysis of braids is introduced in Section~\ref{PROBBRAIDS}. This section also includes a number of experiments that help to illustrate the rationale of our approach. Section \ref{sec:EDAs} presents the different variants of EDAs proposed for the braids problem. Work related to our approach is discussed in Section~\ref{sec:RELWORK}. Section~\ref{sec:EXPE} describes the experimental framework to evaluate our proposal and presents the numerical results of our experiments. The main contributions of the paper are summarized in Section~\ref{sec:CONCLU} where some lines for future research are also discussed.
\section{Braids and anyons} \label{sec:BRAIDS}
Qubits play in quantum computation a role similar to that played by bits in digital computers. A braid operation can be represented by a matrix that acts on the qubit space. These matrices are referred to as generators, and the quantum gate that a braid represents is the product of the generators that encode the individual braid operations.
Let $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ represent two possible generators. $\sigma_1^{-1}$ and $\sigma_2^{-1}$ respectively represent their inverses. Given a braid $B$, $len()$ is a function that returns the braid's length $l$ (e.g. $B=\sigma_1 \sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_1^{-1}$, $l=len(B)=4$).
Since the product of a matrix by its inverse reduces to the identity matrix, some braids can be simplified reducing their length. Therefore, we also define function $elen()$, that has a braid as its argument and returns the braid's \emph{effective length} which is the length of braid after all possible simplifications have been conducted.
\begin{align}
\sigma_1 \sigma_1 \sigma_1 \sigma_1 \sigma_1^{-1} =& \sigma_1 \sigma_1 \sigma_1 \label{eq:EL1} \\
\sigma_2^{-1} \sigma_1 \sigma_1 \sigma_1^{-1} \sigma_1^{-1} \sigma_2 \sigma_1^{-1} =& \sigma_1^{-1} \label{eq:EL2}
\end{align}
In the braids shown in examples \eqref{eq:EL1} and \eqref{eq:EL2}, the effective length values are $3$ and $1$, respectively.
Let $T$ represent the target matrix (gate to be emulated), the braid error is calculated with the following metric \cite{Mcdonald_and_Katzgraber:2013}:
\begin{equation}
\epsilon = |B-T| \label{eq:ERROR}
\end{equation}
where the matrix norm used is
\begin{equation}
|M| = \sqrt{\sum_{ij}M_{ij}^2}.
\end{equation}
The problem of finding braiding operations that approximate gates is then reduced to finding a product chain of the reduced generators and their inverses that approximates the matrix representing the quantum gate. Two elements that describe the quality of a braid are its error $\epsilon$ and its length $l$.
\subsection{Fibonacci anyon braids}
Anyons appear as emergent quasiparticles in fractional quantum Hall states and as excitations in microscopic models of frustrated quantum magnets that harbor topological quantum liquids \cite{Read_and_Rezayi:1999}. Fibonacci anyons are the simplest anyons with non-Abelian braiding statistics that can give rise to universal quantum computation. Fibonacci anyon braids \cite{Bonesteel_et_al:2005} only encompasses one-qubit gates. In such systems, the braid transition operators result in a phase change for the non computational state, and therefore it can be ignored. Overall, phases in the problem can also be ignored. Therefore the transition matrices can be projected onto SU(2) by a multiplication with $e^{\frac{i \pi}{10}}$, yielding for the generators
\begin{equation}
\sigma_1 = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
e^{\frac{-i7\pi}{10}} & 0 \\
0 & -e^{\frac{-i3\pi}{10}} \end{array} \right) \label{eq:SIG1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\sigma_2 = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
-\tau e^{\frac{-i \pi}{10}} & -i \sqrt{\tau} \\
-i \sqrt{\tau} & -\tau e^{\frac{-i\pi}{10}}
\end{array} \right) \label{eq:SIG2}
\end{equation}
where $\tau = \frac{\sqrt{5} -1}{2}$.
In this paper we address the problem of finding a product of generator matrices for Fibonacci anyon braids. Although the methodology we propose can be extended to other braids, we focus on anyon braids since they are one of the best known in TQC \cite{Mcdonald_and_Katzgraber:2013,Xu_and_Xin:2008}. As a target gate for computing the error \eqref{eq:ERROR} we use
\begin{equation}
T= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
i & 0 \\
0 & i
\end{array} \right).
\end{equation}
\section{Problem formulation} \label{sec:PROBFORM}
\subsection{Problem representation}
Let ${\bf{X}}=(X_1,\ldots ,X_n)$ denote a vector of discrete random variables. We use ${\bf{x}}=(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)$ to denote an assignment to the variables. $I$ denotes a set of indices in $\{1, \ldots, n\}$, and $X_I$ (respectively $x_I$) a subset of the variables of ${\bf{X}}$ (respectively ${\bf{x}}$) determined by the indices in $I$.
In our representation for the quasiparticle braids problem, ${\bf{X}}=(X_1,\ldots ,X_n)$ represents a braid of length $n$, where
$X_i$ takes values in $\{0,1, \dots, 2g-1\}$ and $g$ is the number of generators. Given an order for the generators $\sigma_1, \sigma_2, \dots, \sigma_g$, $X_i=j, j<g$ means that the matrix in position $i$ is $\sigma_{j+1}$. If $X_i =j, j \geq g$, then the matrix in position $i$ is $\sigma^{-1}_{(j-g)+1}$. For example, for generators shown in Equations~\eqref{eq:SIG1} and~\eqref{eq:SIG2}, and $B=\sigma_1 \sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_2^{-1} \sigma_1^{-1}$, the corresponding braid representation is ${\bf{x}}=(0,0,1,3,2)$.
\subsection{Fitness function}
We are interested in the solution of an optimization problem formulated as ${\bf{x}}^* = arg max_{{\bf{x}}} f({\bf{x}})$, where $f : S \rightarrow R$ is called the objective or fitness function. The optimum ${\bf{x}}^*$ is not necessarily unique.
To evaluate the fitness function associated to a solution ${\bf{x}}$, firstly the product of braid matrices $B$ is computed according to ${\bf{x}}$ and then the error $\epsilon$ is calculated from $B$ as in~\eqref{eq:ERROR}.
The fitness function \cite{Mcdonald_and_Katzgraber:2013} is defined as:
\begin{equation}
f({\bf{x}}) = \frac{1-\lambda}{1+\epsilon} + \frac{\lambda}{l} \label{eq:FITNESS}
\end{equation}
where $l$ is the braid's length, and the parameter $\lambda$ serves to balance the two conflicting goals, i.e., having short braids or low approximation error. When $\lambda=0$, braids are optimized only for the error and the function reaches its maximum value when this error is minimized.
We define functions $\hat{f}({\bf{x}})$ and $\bar{f}({\bf{x}})$ as two variations of function~\eqref{eq:FITNESS}. Function $\hat{f}({\bf{x}})$ is identical to $f({\bf{x}})$, except that the effective length $\hat{l}=elen(B)$ is used instead of the braid's length. Function $\bar{f}({\bf{x}})$ outputs the maximum value of the function for any of the braids contained in $B$ that start from the first position, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\bar{f}({\bf{x}}) = max_{{\bf{y}}, {\bf{y}} \in \{(x_1),(x_1,x_2),(x_1, \dots,x_i), (x_1,\dots,x_n)\}} f({\bf{y}})
\end{equation}
\section{Probabilistic modeling of braids} ~\label{PROBBRAIDS}
To optimize the braid problem we use a class of evolutionary algorithms that capture and exploit statistical regularities in the best solutions. These methods assume that such regularities exist. As a preliminary proof of concept on the existence of such regularities, we investigate the Boltzmann distribution for braids of manageable size. A similar approach has been successfully applied to investigate the dependencies that arise in the configurations of simplified protein models \cite{Santana_et_al:2008a} and conductance-based neuron models \cite{Santana_et_al:2012h}.
\subsection{Boltzmann distribution}
When the dimension of the braid problem is small, complete enumeration and evaluation of all possible solutions is feasible. In this situation, brute force can be applied to identify the optimal solutions. We use complete enumeration to define a probability distribution on the space of all possible braids for $n = 10$. Using the fitness value as an energy function, we associate to each possible braid a probability value $p({\bf{x}})$ according to the Boltzmann probability distribution. The Boltzmann probability distribution $p_B({\bf{x}})$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
p_B({\bf{x}}) = \frac{e^{\frac{g({\bf{x}})}{T}}}{
\sum_{{\bf{x}}'} e^{\frac{g({\bf{x}}')}{T}}}, \label{eq:BOLTPROB}
\end{equation}
where $g({\bf{x}})$ is a given objective function and $T$ is the system temperature that can be used as a parameter to smooth the the probabilities.
The Boltzmann probability distribution is used in statistical physics to associate a probability with a system state according to its energy \cite{VanKampen:1992}. In our context of application, $p_B({\bf{x}})$ assigns a higher probability to braids that gives a more accurate approximation to the target gate. The solutions with the highest probability correspond to the braids that maximize the objective function. We use an arbitrary choice of the temperature, $T=1$, since our idea is to compare the distributions associated to different fitness functions for the same parameter $T$.
Using the Boltzmann distribution we can investigate how potential regularities of the fitness function are translated into statistical properties of the distribution. In particular, we investigate the marginal probabilities associated to the variables and the mutual information between pairs of variables. Figure~\ref{fig:BOLT} shows the probabilities assigned by the Boltzmann distribution to functions $f$, $\hat{f}$, $\bar{f}$, for $n=10$. The search space comprises $4^{10}=1,048,576$ braids.
It can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:BOLT}a) that probabilities assigned by the Boltzmann distribution to function $f$ and $\hat{f}$ are very similar although not identical. For both functions, only few points have a high probability. The important difference between functions $f$ and $\bar{f}$ is evident in Figure~\ref{fig:BOLT}b). The probability assigned by the Boltzmann distribution to a braid is always higher or equal for function $\bar{f}$ than for function $f$. The reason is that $\bar{f}$ considers a greater space of solutions. Differences between functions $f$ and $\hat{f}$ can be also detected by comparing figures~\ref{fig:BOLT}b) and~\ref{fig:BOLT}c). For the three functions, the space of solutions with lower fitness is more dense that the solutions with higher fitness.
\subsection{Statistical analysis of the braids space}
Figure~\ref{fig:UNIV} shows the univariate probabilities computed from the Boltzmann distribution for the three functions analyzed and the $10$ variables. $p_1$, $p_2$, $p_3$, and $p_4$ respectively represent the univariate probabilities for braid generators $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$, $\lambda_1^{-1}$, and $\lambda_2^{-1}$. For all the functions, higher probabilities for $p_3$ indicate that $\lambda_1^{-1}$ is more likely to be present in the best solutions. This is the type of statistical regularities that can be detected and exploited by EAs that learn probabilistic models. If a particular configuration is more likely to be present in the best solutions, then, these configurations could be sampled more frequently at the time of generating new solutions.
Analysis of Figure~\ref{fig:UNIV} also reveals the similarities between functions $f$ and $\hat{f}$ since they determine similar univariate distributions for all the variables. A remarkable fact is that for function $\bar{f}$ (Figure~\ref{fig:UNIV}c)) the univariate probabilities notably differ for the first variables and are more similar as the index of the variables increases. One possible explanation for this behavior is that the first variables are present in more solutions of those considered by function $\bar{f}$. Changes in these variables are more influential in the function. Finally, another remarkable observation is that the univariate probabilities associated to $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_1^{-1}$ are always very close for the three functions.
Finally, using the Boltzmann probabilities, we compute the bivariate marginal distributions between every pair of variables and derive the values of the mutual information. The mutual information is a measure of statistical dependence between the variables and can serve to identify variables that are dependent. A strong dependence between two variables may indicate that their joint effect has a strong influence on the function. Figure~\ref{fig:MI} shows the mutual information computed for the three functions analyzed.
It can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:MI} that for the three functions the strongest dependencies are between adjacent variables, although for functions $f$ and $\hat{f}$ there is also a strong dependence between the first variable and the last variable. Although the pattern of dependence is similar in functions $f$ and $\hat{f}$, the mutual information is higher for function $\hat{f}$. It can also appreciated in Figure~\ref{fig:MI}c) that the dependencies between adjacent variables decreases with the index for function $\bar{f}$.
Summarizing, the statistical analysis of the Boltzmann distribution shows that there are at least two types of regularities of the braid problem that are translated into statistical features. Firstly, there are different frequencies associated to the generators in the space of the best solutions. Secondly, there are strong dependencies between the variables, particularly those that are adjacent in the braid representation.
\begin{figure*}[hbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{newBM_ELBM.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{newBM_BESTBM.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{newELBM_BESTBM.eps}
\begin{pspicture}(0,-0.25)(12,0)
\rput(1,-0.125){a)} \rput(6.2,-0.125){b)} \rput(12.0,-0.125){c)}
\end{pspicture}
\caption{Boltzmann distribution computed for different functions. a) $f$ vs $\hat{f}$ , b) $f$ vs $\bar{f}$, and c) $\hat{f}$ vs $\bar{f}$.}
\label{fig:BOLT}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[hbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{newUnivNormal.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{newUnivEL.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{newUnivBest.eps}
\begin{pspicture}(0,-0.25)(12,0)
\rput(1,-0.125){a)} \rput(6.2,-0.125){b)} \rput(12.0,-0.125){c)}
\end{pspicture}
\caption{Univariate probabilities computed from the Boltzmann distribution for : a) $f$ , b) $\hat{f}$, and c) $\bar{f}$.}
\label{fig:UNIV}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[hbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{newUnivMI.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{newELMI.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{newBESTMI.eps}
\begin{pspicture}(0,-0.25)(12,0)
\rput(1,-0.125){a)} \rput(6,-0.125){b)} \rput(12.0,-0.125){c)}
\end{pspicture}
\caption{Mutual information computed from the Boltzmann distribution for: a) $f$, b) $\hat{f}$, and c) $\bar{f}$.}
\label{fig:MI}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
{$ \begin{array}{|c|l|} \hline
n & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\text{braid}} \\ \hline \hline
50 & \sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2^{3}\sigma_1^{-2}\sigma_2\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2\sigma_1^{-2}\sigma_2^{3}\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2\sigma_1^{-2}\sigma_2\sigma_1^{-2}\sigma_2\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2^{3}\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2^{2}\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2\sigma_1^{-2}\sigma_2^{2}\sigma_1^{-3}\sigma_2^{2} \\ \hline
100 & \sigma_1\sigma_2^{-2}\sigma_1^{4}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-4}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{3}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{2}\sigma_2^{-2}\sigma_1^{4}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-4}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{6}\sigma_2^{2}\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_1\sigma_2^{2}\sigma_1^{3}\sigma_2^{5}\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2\sigma_1^{-3}\sigma_2\sigma_1^{3}\sigma_2^{5} \\ \hline
150 & \sigma_2\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{2}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-4}\sigma_1^{2}\sigma_2^{-2}\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{-2}\sigma_2^{-4}\sigma_1^{2}\sigma_2^{-4}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{2}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2\sigma_1^{-3}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{3}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-4}\sigma_1^{2}\sigma_2^{-4}\sigma_1^{2}\sigma_2^{-3}\\ \hline
200 & \sigma_2^{-2}\sigma_1^{4}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-4}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{2}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{3}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-4}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{4}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-2}\sigma_1^{2}\sigma_2^{2}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{-5}\sigma_2\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2^{-6}\sigma_1^{-2}\sigma_2^{3} \\ \hline
250 & \sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{-3}\sigma_2^{4}\sigma_1^{-2}\sigma_2^{4}\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2\sigma_1^{2}\sigma_2\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2^{4}\sigma_1^{-2}\sigma_2^{4}\sigma_1^{-3}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2^{2}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{2}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-4} \sigma_1^{2}\sigma_2^{-4}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{4}\\
& \sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{-4}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{4}\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-4}\sigma_1^{2}\sigma_2^{-4}\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-2}\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2^{5}\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2\sigma_1^{-4}\sigma_2^{2}\sigma_1^{-4}\sigma_2^{2}\sigma_1^{-4}\sigma_2^{2}\sigma_1^{-1} \\ \hline
\end{array}$}
\end{center}
\caption{Best braids found by the EDAs for each value of $n$.}
\label{tab:BESTSOL}
\end{table*}
\section{Modeling the braid space} \label{sec:EDAs}
Using the Boltzmann distribution to find the statistical regularities is not feasible for real problems for which the space of solutions can not be inspected exhaustively. However, statistical regularities can be detected in samples of solutions selected according to their fitness. EDAs use samples of solutions to learn a model that captures some of the regularities that may exist in the data. The pseudocode of an EDA is shown in Algorithm~\ref{alg:EDA}.
\begin{BAlgo}{Estimation of distribution algorithm}
\label{alg:EDA}
\item Set $t\Leftarrow 0$. Generate $N$ solutions randomly.
\item \Do
\item \T {Evaluate the solutions using the fitness function.}
\item \T {Select a population $D_t^S$ of $K \leq N$ solutions according to a selection
method.}
\item \T {Calculate a probabilistic model of $D_t^S$.}
\item \T {Generate $N$ new solutions sampling from the distribution represented
in the model.}
\item \T {$t \Leftarrow t+1$}
\item \Until{Termination criteria are met.}
\end{BAlgo}
The model used by the EDA will determine the type of regularities that will be captured from the data and also the cost of the optimization algorithm since more complex models are generally more computationally costly.
In this paper we use three types of probabilistic graphical models: 1) Univariate model. 2) $1$-order Markov model. 3) Tree model. We work with positive distributions denoted by $p$. $p(x_I)$ denotes the marginal probability for ${\bf{X}}_I={\bf{x}}_I$. $p(x_i \mid x_j)$ denotes the conditional probability distribution of $X_i=x_i$ given $X_j=x_j$.
In the univariate model variables are considered to be independent, and the probability of a solution is the product of the univariate probabilities for all variables:
\begin{equation}
p_{u}({\bf{x}}) = \prod_{i=1}^{n} p(x_{i}) \label{eq:UNIV}
\end{equation}
In the $1$-order Markov model, the configuration of variable $X_i$ depends on the configuration of its previous variable:
\begin{equation}
p_{MK}({\bf{x}}) = p(x_{1}) \prod_{i=2}^{n} p(x_{i} \mid {x_{i-1}}) \label{eq:MKFACT}
\end{equation}
A probability distribution $p_{\mathcal{T}}({\bf x})$ that is conformal with a tree is defined as:
\begin{equation}
p_{\mathcal{T}} ({\bf{x}}) =\prod_{i=1}^{n} p(x_i|pa(x_i)),
\end{equation}
where $Pa(X_i)$ is the parent of $X_i$ in the tree, and $p(x_i|pa(x_i))=p(x_i)$ when $pa(X_i)=\emptyset$, i.e. $X_i$ is a root of the tree. We allow the existence of more than one root in the PGM (i.e. forests) although for convenience of notation we refer to the model as tree.
Univariate approximations are expected to work well for functions that can be additively decomposed into functions of order one (e.g. $g({\bf{x}})= \sum_i x_i$). However, other non additively decomposable functions can be easily solved with EDAs that use univariate models (e.g. $g({\bf{x}})= \prod_i x_i + \sum_i x_i $) \cite{Muhlenbein_et_al:1999}. Therefore, it makes sense to test the univariate approximation for the braid problem. The 1-order Markov model captures only dependencies between adjacent variables, and the tree model can represent a maximum of $n-1$ bivariate dependencies.
EDAs that used univariate, one-order Markov, and tree models were respectively introduced in \cite{Baluja:1994,Muhlenbein_and_Voosen:1993a}, \cite{DeBonet_et_al:1996r} and~\cite{Baluja_and_Davies:1997r} and details on the methods used to learn and sample the models can be obtained from these references.
\subsection{Enhancements to the EDAs} \label{sec:ENH}
We consider three enhancements to EDAs: 1) Use of a local optimizer. 2) Partial sampling. 3) Recoding.
As is the case of other EAs, EDAs can be enhanced by the incorporation of local optimizers \cite{Pelikan_and_Goldberg:2003r}. We use a greedy optimization algorithm that is applied during the evaluation of the population by the EDA. The algorithm starts from the solution generated by the EDA. In each iteration, the local optimizer evaluates all the $3n$ solutions that are different to the current solution in only one variable (the neighbor solutions). The next selected solution is the neighbor that improves the fitness of the current solution the most. The algorithm stops when none of the neighbors improves the fitness of the current solution.
During the sampling step of an EDA, all variables are assigned their values according to the probabilistic model and the sampling method. For the EDA that uses the univariate model, variables are independently sampled. For 1-order Markov and tree, probabilistic logic sampling (PLS) \cite{Henrion:1988} is used. In both methods, all variables are assigned the new values. However, for some problems with higher-order interactions using a base template solution can be better than generating each new solution from scratch. For the braid problem, careful recombination of the solutions proved to be essential for the genetic algorithm introduced in \cite{Mcdonald_and_Katzgraber:2013}.
In partial sampling, a solution of the population is selected and only a subset of its variables are sampled according to the model. We use two variants of partial sampling I) Partial sampling where the number of variables to be modified is randomly selected between $1$ and $n$. II) Partial sampling, where the number of variables to be modified is randomly selected between $1$ and $\frac{n}{2}$.
Recoding consists in modifying the representation of the solution according to the evaluation. For functions $\hat{f}$ and $\bar{f}$ it is possible to recode the solution by eliminating redundant generators (e.g., pairs $\sigma_i \sigma_i^{-1}$). The rationale of using recoding is that meaningful variables will be located closer to the beginning of the braid. Since solutions have a fixed length, the last variables will be kept unused, i.e. garbage information. Therefore, we devised two ways to fill these gaps: I) Leaving the unused variables as they were in the original solution. II) Replacing the unused variables by a reverse copy of the variables used in the evaluation. The second variant intends to replicate information that has proved to be ``informative'' about the problem. Equations~\eqref{eq:EX3} and~\eqref{eq:EX4} show examples of recoding type I and II, respectively. In this hypothetical examples, the underlined variables are those that provided the best fitness after simplifying the braid and evaluating function $\bar{f}$.
\begin{align}
(\underline{0,3},1,3,\underline{3,3,2},1,2,2) =& (\underline{0,3,3,3,2},3,2,1,2,2) \label{eq:EX3} \\
(\underline{0,3},1,3,\underline{3,3,2},1,2,2) =& (\underline{0,3,3,3,2},2,3,3,3,0) \label{eq:EX4}
\end{align}
\section{Related work} \label{sec:RELWORK}
In addition to the use of genetic algorithms \cite{Mcdonald_and_Katzgraber:2013}, brute force \cite{Bonesteel_et_al:2005} has been proposed to search for a braids of manageable size (up to $46$ exchanges). Other methods such as the Solovay-Kitaev algorithm \cite{Dawson_et_al:2005,Hormozi_et_al:2007,Nielsen_and_Chuang:2010} provide bounds on the accuracy and length of the braids. However, these methods do not allow the user to tune the balance between the accuracy and the length as pioneered in \cite{Mcdonald_and_Katzgraber:2013}.
The Boltzmann distribution has played an important role in the theoretical analysis of EDAs and other authors works have analyzed the relationship between the function structure and the dependencies in the distribution \cite{Muehlenbein_and_Mahnig:2000,Ochoa_and_Soto:2005,Santana:2005}. Other problems from physics have been previously treated with EDAs. In particular, spin glass models with different types of interactions and topologies have been addressed \cite{Pelikan_and_Goldberg:2003r,Pelikan_and_Katzgraber:2009,Shakya_et_al:2011}. Two important differences between the braid problem and the spin glass models that makes it particularly challenging is that its fitness function is multiplicative and that the representation is non binary. In fact the cardinality of the variables can increase with the number of generators.
\section{Experiments} \label{sec:EXPE}
The main objective of our experiments is to evaluate the capacity of the EDAs to find optimal solutions to the braid problem. We run experiments for $n \in \{50,100,150,200,250\}$ in order to evaluate the scalability of the algorithms. A second objective is to compare different variants of the problem formulation and of the algorithm.
\subsection{Experimental settings}
Each EDA is characterized by $5$ parameters:
\begin{itemize}
\item Use of local optimizer. 0: Only EDA is applied, 1: EDA is combined with greedy search as described in Section \ref{sec:ENH}.
\item Type of function and representation. 0: Function $f$, 1: Function $\bar{f}$ without recoding, 2: Function $\bar{f}$ with recoding type I, 3: Function $\bar{f}$ with recoding type II.
\item $\lambda$ value. 0:0.0, 1:0.01, 2:0.05, 3:0.1.
\item Sampling method. 0: Normal, 1: Partial sampling type I, 2: Partial sampling type II.
\item Type of probabilistic model. 0: Univariate, 1: 1-order Markov, 2: Tree.
\end{itemize}
The total number of variants of the algorithm was $2 \times 4 \times 4 \times 3 \times 3 = 288$. All the algorithms use truncation selection, in which the best $5\%$ of the population is selected. EDAs that do not incorporate the greedy local search use a population size $N=10000$. For these EDAs, the number of generations was dependent on $n$ as $N_g = 15n$.
Due to the large number of evaluations spent by the greedy search method, the population size for all hybrid EDAs was $N=100n$ and the number of generations was fixed to $N_g = 100$. For each EDA variant, $100$ experiments were run.
\subsection{Best solutions found by EDAs}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
{$ \begin{array}{|c|r|c|c|c|} \hline
n & l & \epsilon & log_{10}(\epsilon) & log_{10}^{3.97}(\frac{1}{\epsilon}) \\ \hline
50 & 44 & 4.8435 \times 10^{-4} & -3.3148 & 116.47\\ \hline
100 &70 &8.3527 \times 10^{-6} & -5.0782 & 633.37 \\ \hline
150 &64 & 8.3527 \times 10^{-6} & -5.0782 & 633.37 \\ \hline
200 &62 & 8.3527 \times 10^{-6} & -5.0782& 633.37 \\ \hline
250 &124 & 3.5038 \times 10^{-6} & -5.4555 & 841.82\\ \hline
\end{array}$}
\end{center}
\caption{Parameters of the best braids found by the EDAs for each value of $n$.}
\label{tab:BESTSOLPARAM}
\end{table}
Tables~\ref{tab:BESTSOL} and~\ref{tab:BESTSOLPARAM} respectively show the best braids achieved by the EDAs for each value of $n$ and the characteristics of these solutions. In Table~\ref{tab:BESTSOLPARAM}, we show an estimate of the length of the braids ($O[log_{10}^{3.97}(1/\epsilon)]$) that would compute the Solovay-Kitaev algorithm to obtain the same error $\epsilon$ of our best solutions. The lengths of our solutions compare favorably with these estimates.
Figure~\ref{fig:RHCSTEPS} shows the length of all the best solutions found for each value of $n$. It can be observed in Figure~\ref{fig:RHCSTEPS} that EDAs are able to find several braids with different lengths for $n=150$ and $n=200$.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6.0cm]{newBestSolsDist.eps}
\caption{Length of the best solutions found for each value of $n$.}
\label{fig:RHCSTEPS}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Behavior of the different EDA variants}
We further investigate the behavior of the different EDA variants. Figure~\ref{fig:VIO} shows the violin plots \cite{Hintze_and_Nelson:1998} with the distribution of the best values found in all the executions for: a) All EDA variants without local optimizer ($14400$ runs), b) All EDA variants that incorporate the greedy search ($14400$ runs), c) EDAs with local optimizer, recoding type II, and that use partial sampling type II ($300$ runs). Each violin plot shows a histogram smoothened using a kernel density with Normal kernel. The mean and median are shown as red crosses and green squares, respectively.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5.3cm]{newViolinOnlyEDA.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.3cm]{newViolinEDAGreedy.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.3cm]{newViolinF7Dist.eps}
\begin{pspicture}(0,-0.25)(12,0)
\rput(1,-0.125){a)} \rput(6,-0.125){b)} \rput(13.0,-0.125){c)}
\end{pspicture}
\caption{Violin plots showing the distribution of the best values found in all the executions for: a) All EDAs variants without local optimizer ($14400$ runs), b: All EDAs variants with local optimizer ($14400$ runs), c: EDAs with local optimizer, recoding type II, and that use partial sampling type II ($300$ runs).}
\label{fig:VIO}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
In Figure~\ref{fig:VIO}, the modes of the Normal distribution indicate the existence of a local optimum with a very wide basin of attraction. This local optimum has value $log_{10}f(\epsilon) = -2.50785$ and the majority of the EDA runs can be trapped in this value. Differences between the EDAs due to the application of the greedy method can be appreciated for $n=200$ and $n=250$ (Figures~\ref{fig:VIO}a) and~\ref{fig:VIO}b)). Also, Figure~\ref{fig:VIO}c) reveals how a particular combination of the EDA's parameters can improve the results of the search. This is shown in detail in Table~\ref{tab:F5RES} that comprises all EDA variants that reached one of the best solutions in at least one of the $100$ runs.
\begin{table}[htb]
\scriptsize
\begin{center}
{$ \begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r||r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline
L & tf& t \lambda & ts & pm &50 & 100 &150 & 200 &250 & tot \\ \hline\hline
0&3& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 1& 0& 2\\
0&3& 1& 1& 0& 1& 0& 1& 4& 0& 6\\
0&3& 1& 1& 1& 0& 0& 1& 2& 0& 3\\
0&3& 1& 1& 2& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 1\\
0&3& 1& 2& 0& 0& 0& 0& 2& 0& 2\\
0&3& 1& 2& 1& 0& 0& 0& 2& 0& 2\\
0&3& 1& 2& 2& 0& 0& 0& 3& 1& 4\\
0&3& 2& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 1\\
0&3& 2& 1& 0& 0& 0& 4& 3& 0& 7\\
0&3& 2& 1& 1& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 1\\
0&3& 2& 1& 2& 0& 0& 1& 1& 0& 2\\
0&3& 2& 2& 0& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 2\\
0&3& 2& 2& 1& 0& 1& 1& 1& 0& 3\\
0&3& 2& 2& 2& 0& 0& 2& 3& 0& 5\\ \hline
1&2& 2& 1& 2& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 1\\
1&3& 0& 1& 2& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 1\\
1&3& 1& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 2& 0& 2\\
1&3& 1& 1& 2& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 1\\
1&3& 1& 2& 0& 0& 0& 9& 12& 0& 21\\
1&3& 1& 2& 1& 0& 2& 14& 21& 0& 37\\
1&3& 1& 2& 2& 0& 1& 18& 19& 0& 38\\
1&3& 2& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 4& 0& 4\\
1&3& 2& 1& 1& 0& 0& 1& 1& 0& 2\\
1&3& 2& 1& 2& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 1\\
1&3& 2& 2& 0& 0& 0& 4& 20& 0& 24\\
1&3& 2& 2& 1& 0& 0& 2& 9& 0& 11\\
1&3& 2& 2& 2& 0& 0& 4& 11& 1& 16 \\\hline
\end{array}$}
\caption{EDAs variants that obtained one of the best solutions at least one in the $100$ experiments. $L$: Local optimizer, tf: Type of function and representation, $t\lambda$: type of $\lambda$ value, $ts$: type of sampling, $pm$: probabilistic model.}
\label{tab:F5RES}
\end{center}
\end{table}
There are a number of commonalities between the best EDA variants included in Table~\ref{tab:F5RES}. Except in one case, all EDAs use recoding of type II. Similarly, except in one case, in all the variants $\lambda \in \{ 0.01, 0.05\}$. Except in two cases, the sampling method selected was partial sampling. The application of the local optimizer notably improved the results for $n \in \{150, 200\}$ but in terms of the best solution found it did not have an important influence for the other values of $n$.
As a summary, we recommend to use an EDA that incorporates the greedy search, and uses partial sampling of type II and the 1-order Markov model since it is less complex than the tree and results achieved by the two models are similar.
\subsection{Improvement over other search methods}
As a final validation of our method, we compare it with the results achieved using a random search, the greedy local optimizer, and the GA introduced in \cite{Mcdonald_and_Katzgraber:2013}. We compare our best EDA variant as described in the previous section. For the random search, we randomly selected $10000$ solutions and selected the best solution according to function $\bar{f}, \lambda = 0.01$. The same experiment was repeated $100$ times to select the $100$ ``best'' solutions for $n \in \{50,100,150,200,250\}$.
A similar procedure was followed for the greedy local search. The local optimizer was applied to each of the $10000$ solutions until no improvement was possible. For the GA, we used the results of $100$ GA runs used for the work published in \cite{Mcdonald_and_Katzgraber:2013}. Since these results were obtained using solutions of different length, and with a different number of evaluations, care must be taken to interpret the differences. We only compare the GA results with the other algorithms for $n=50$. Similarly, the results of the random search search were very poor for $n>50$ and we only include them in the comparison for $n=50$. Results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:BPn50}. The results of the comparison between the EDA and the greedy search for $n>50$ are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ALLBP}. In the boxplots, the central mark is the median, the edges of the box are the 25th and 75th percentiles, the whiskers extend to the most extreme data points not considered outliers, and outliers are plotted individually.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6.0cm]{newBoxPlotn50.eps}
\caption{Comparison between the Best EDA variant, a random search, the greedy local search and the GA for $n=50$.}
\label{fig:BPn50}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
It can be seen in Figures~\ref{fig:BPn50} and~\ref{fig:ALLBP} that the EDA significantly outperforms all the other methods. Furthermore, as $n$ increases the algorithm is able to scale and find better solutions.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6.0cm]{newBoxPlotAllns.eps}
\caption{Comparison between the Best EDA variant and the greedy local search $n \in \{100,150,200,250\}$.}
\label{fig:ALLBP}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:CONCLU}
In this paper we have proposed the use of different EDA variants for the quasiparticle braid problem. We have shown that the fitness function and general evolutionary optimization approach initially introduced with GAs, can be successfully extended by the application of EDAs. The best braids obtained with our EDAs have lengths up to $9$ times shorter than those expected from braids of the same accuracy obtained with the Solovay-Kitaev algorithm and had not been previously reported to be found by the GA approach. We have also proposed three different methods to enhance the behavior of EDAs. Our results show that although the local optimizer improves the results of the EDA, it is not able to reach solutions of similar quality when applied alone. Decoding, and particularly partial sampling, can be used as effective methods when dealing with other real-world problems as a way to improve usability of the representation and avoid disrupting complex solutions, respectively.
By means of analyzing the Boltzmann distribution we have shown that some of the problem characteristics are translated into statistical regularities of the Boltzmann distribution. In the future we plan to extend this analysis to try to extract more problem specific information that can be useful for designing more effective search methods. Other evolutionary algorithms that use models able to represent higher order dependencies, such as Bayesian networks \cite{Larranhaga_and_Lozano:2002r}, Markov networks \cite{Shakya_and_Santana:2012}, and factor graphs \cite{Helmi_et_al:2014}, could be applied. We also plan to address other braid problems of higher difficulty.
\section{Acknowledgments}
R. Santana has been partially supported by the Saiotek and Research Groups 2013-2018 (IT-609-13) programs (Basque Government), TIN2013-41272P (Ministry of Science and Technology of Spain), COMBIOMED network in computational bio-medicine (Carlos III Health Institute), and by the NICaiA Project PIRSES-GA-2009-247619 (European Commission). H. G. Katzgraber acknowledges support from the NSF (Grant No. DMR-1151387).
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
In view of its importance in quantum computing and quantum information
processing~\cite{chuang}, identification of exclusively quantum
correlations in a collection of identical two level systems, hereafter
referred to as a system of spin-1/2 particles (spin-1/2s), continues to
attract a great deal of attention~\cite{guhne,horormp}. The
correlations are classical if they can be described in terms of a
purely classical local hidden variable (LHV) theory. A sufficient
condition for a quantum state of a system consisting of two subsystems
to admit a LHV description is that the density matrix $\hat\rho$
characterizing its state be separable i.e. it be expressible
as~\cite{werner}
\be
\hat\rho=\sum_{i}p_i\hat\rho^{(1)}_i\otimes\hat\rho^{(2)}_i,
\quad 0\le p_i\le 1, \quad \sum_{i}p_i=1,
\label{n1}
\ee
where $\hat\rho^{(1)}_i$ and $\hat\rho^{(2)}_i$ are the density
matrices of the subsystems numbered 1 and 2. A necessary condition
for separability defined in (\ref{n1}) was derived by
Peres~\cite{peres}. It was subsequently shown that the Peres
condition is also sufficient if the Hilbert space of each of the two
subsystems is two dimensional or if the dimension of the Hilbert space
of one of the systems is two and that of the other is
three~\cite{horodecki1}. Thus, for a system of two spin-1/2s, the
Peres criterion constitutes necessary and sufficient condition for
separability.
Starting with the work of Werner~\cite{werner}, the relationship
between entanglement and non-locality has been investigated
extensively (see for example references~\cite{barrett}-\cite{masanes}
and the references therein). In particular, by constructing a
non-separable mixed state of two subsytems which nevertheless admits
LHV description under projective measurements, Werner~\cite{werner}
showed that separability is a sufficient but not a necessary condition
for classicality. This result has since been generalized to general
measurement processes~\cite{barrett} and to tripartite
systems~\cite{toth}.
In this paper we formulate an approach to identifying classicality
in a system of spin-1/2s along the lines of that followed for
classifying the states of the electromagnetic (e.m.) field as
classical and non-classical which is based on the concept of
quasiprobability distribution (QPD) function corresponding to a
quantum state. Recall that a QPD is constructed by considering
the quantum observables as classical random variables whose
probability distribution is expressed in terms of averages of products
of observables. The observables may correspond to non-commuting
operators. A QPD is constructed by replacing the averages of products
of observables by the expectation values of the corresponding
operators by choosing the order in which the non-commuting operators
be placed in the products of corresponding observables. There is thus
a QPD for each ordering of product of non-commuting operators. The
classicality of a state may be identified as that of the QPD in a
specified operator ordering. The specification of the ordering for the
said purpose is based on physics considerations like the relation
between the operator ordering and the measurement process or some
other desirable physics aspect. For example, the classicality of the
states of the electromagnetic (e.m.) field is defined in terms of the
QPD called Sudarshan-Glauber P-function. That function is the QPD
corresponding to the ordering of the field creation and annihilation
operators appropriate for those processes of measurement, like the
ones by photodetectors, which measure averages of normally ordered
operators~\cite{cahil, puri}.
The physics consideration for constructing the QPD relevant to
identifying quantum nature of correlations in a system of spin-1/2s
could be that it should identify every state of a spin-1/2 as also
every uncorrelated state of a collection of spin-1/2s as classical.
The so called phase space QPDs for spin-1/2s, constructed in analogy
with those for the e.m. field, do not fulfill the desired conditions
~\cite{puri}-\cite{giraud}. The desired end is achieved by invoking
the concept of joint quasiprobability (JQP)~\cite{puri},
\cite{feynman}-\cite{puri1} for the distribution of the eigenvalues of
the components of spins in various directions. Based on that concept,
and by demanding that any state of a single spin-1/2 and any product
of single spin-1/2 states be classical, a criterion has been
introduced in Ref.~\cite{puri1} to classify the
states as classical and non-classical. The said criterion identifies a
state as classical if a suitably defined JQP of the eigenvalues of
spin components in suitably chosen three orthogonal directions is
non-negative i.e. classical. It leads to the conclusion that any
non-factorizable pure state of two spin-1/2s is non-classical. This
result is arrived at also by other approaches~\cite{gisin}.
When applied to mixed states, it is found that the said criterion
as it stands may leave out from the set of states it identifies as
classical some separable states. It also does not identify those
non-separable states as classical which are so identified by other
methods. In this paper we propose a modified JQP based criterion which
is free of the abovementioned lacunae. The modified criterion
identifies as classical, not only those states whose JQP for
suitably chosen three orthogonal components of each spin is
non-negative, but also those for which the JQP for any two of those
three orthogonal components is non-negative. The validity of the
modified criterion is confirmed by examining the classicality and
separability of some of those mixed states of two spin-1/2s and a
state of three spin-1/2s whose said properties are known following
other approaches.
The paper is organized as follows. The Sec.\ref{sec2} summarizes the
main results of the theory of JQP for a system of spin-1/2s as
formulated in~\cite{puri2,puri1} and states the JQP based criterion of
classicality as it stands and its proposed modified version. The
conditions of classicality of certain mixed states of two spin-1/2s
and that of a system of three spin-1/2s are derived using the modified
JQP based criterion and the results are compared with those found
by other methods. The Sec.\ref{sec4} summarizes the conclusions.
\section{Joint Quasiprobability for System of Spin-1/2s}~\label{sec2}
In local hidden variable (LHV) theory a spin-1/2 is visualized as a
vector ${\bf S}$ whose components along any direction can assume
two values, say $\pm 1/2$, and is assumed to be under the influence of
some unknown "hidden" causes or variables acting randomly. The random
influence of the hidden variables results in the components of the spin
in any direction acquiring randomly the values 1/2 and -1/2. The
properties of the spin may then be described in terms of the
probability distribution functions $f(S_{a_1},S_{a_2},
\ldots,S_{a_N)})$ for the components of the spin in various directions
where
\be
S_{a_i}={\bf S}\cdot{\bf a}_i,
\label{new2}
\ee
is the component of spin in the direction ${\bf a}_i$.
Now, let $p(\epsilon_{a_1},\epsilon_{a_2},\ldots,\epsilon_{a_N})$
($\epsilon_{a_i}=\pm 1$) denote the joint probability for the
components of the spin along the directions ${\bf a}_1,{\bf a}_2,
\ldots,{\bf a}_N$ to have the values $\epsilon_{a_1}/2,\epsilon_{a_2}/2,
\ldots,\epsilon_{a_N}/2$ respectively so that
\be
&&f\left(S_{a_1},S_{a_2},\ldots,S_{a_N}\right)\nonumber\\
&&=\sum_{\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,
\ldots,\epsilon_N=\pm 1}\left[\delta\left(S_{a_1}-
\frac{\epsilon_{a_1}}{2}\right)
\delta\left(S_{a_2}-\frac{\epsilon_{a_2}}{2}\right)
\cdots\delta\left(S_{a_N}-\frac{\epsilon_{a_N}}{2}\right)\right]
\nonumber\\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\times p(\epsilon_{a_1},\epsilon_{a_2},\ldots,\epsilon_{a_N}).
\label{new2m}
\ee
From this it is straightforward to see that~\cite{puri2,puri1}
\be
p(\epsilon_{a_1},\epsilon_{a_2},\ldots,\epsilon_{a_N})
=\Big\langle\Big(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon_{a_1}S_{a_1}\Big)
\Big(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon_{a_2}S_{a_2}\Big)
\cdots\Big(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon_{a_N}S_{a_N}\Big)\Big\rangle,
\label{new1}
\ee
where the angular bracket denotes average with respect to the
distribution function $f\left(S_{a_1},S_{a_2},\ldots,S_{a_N}\right)$:
\be
\langle A\rangle=\int~Af\left(S_{a_1},S_{a_2},\ldots,S_{a_N}\right)
\prod_{i=1}^{N}{\rm d}S_{a_i}.
\label{new2p}
\ee
The joint probability distribution for two spins can be similarly
defined and shown to be expressible as
\be
&&p(\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_1},\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_2},\ldots,
\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_M};\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_1},\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_2},
\ldots,\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_N})\nonumber\\
&&=\Big<\Big(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_1}S_{a_1}\Big)
\Big(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_2}S_{a_2}\Big)
\cdots\Big(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_M}S_{a_M}\Big)
\nonumber\\
&&~~~~~~\Big(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_1}S_{b_1}\Big)
\Big(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_2}S_{b_2}\Big)
\cdots\Big(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_N}S_{b_N}\Big)
\Big>.
\label{new3}
\ee
The function $p(\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_1},\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_2},\ldots,
\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_M};\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_1},\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_2},
\ldots,\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_N})$ stands for the probabilty of finding
the components of spin number 1 to have values
$\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_1}/2,\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_2}/2,\ldots,
\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_M}/2$
in the directions ${\bf a}_1,{\bf a}_2,\ldots,{\bf a}_M$ and
the components of spin number 2 to have the values
$\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_1}/2,\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_2}/2,\ldots,
\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_N}/2$ in the directions
${\bf b}_1,{\bf b}_2,\ldots,{\bf b}_N$ with
$\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_i},\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_i}=\pm 1$.
Now, a spin-1/2 in quantum theory is described by the vector operator
$\hat{\bf S}$ and its state is characterized by a density matrix
$\hat\rho$ using which one can evaluate expectation values of relevant
operators. As we know, there is no concept of joint probability of
assigning definite values for two non-commuting observables and hence
there is no place for the joint probabilities, like the ones defined
in (\ref{new1}) and (\ref{new3}), in the quantum theory.
However, the concept of quasiprobabilities has been found useful to
understand the signatures of quantum behaviour. That concept in the
case of single spin-1/2 may be introduced (i) by replacing the
classical random variables $S_{a}$ by the operator $\hat S_{a}$
which obey the commutation relation
\be
[\hat S_{a},~\hat S_{b}]={\rm i}({\bf a}\times{\bf b})\cdot\hat{\bf S},
\label{comel}
\ee
and the anti-commutation relation
\be
\hat S_a\hat S_b+\hat S_b\hat S_a=\frac{{\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}}{2},
\label{new9}
\ee
(ii) by assigning a rule, called the Chosen Ordering (CO), for
ordering operators in a product of non-commuting operators, and
(iii) by replacing the average therein as the quantum mechanical
expectation value wherein the system is described by a density matrix
$\hat\rho$ and the expectation values of an operator $\hat A$ is given
by ${\rm Tr}(\hat A\hat\rho)$. The expression in quantum theory
corresponding to (\ref{new1}) then reads
\be
&&p(\epsilon_{a_1},\epsilon_{a_2},\ldots,\epsilon_{a_N})\nonumber\\
&&={\rm Tr}\Big[\hat\rho\Big\{\Big(\frac{1}{2}
+\epsilon_{a_1}\hat S_{a_1}\Big)
\Big(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon_{a_2}\hat S_{a_2}\Big)
\cdots\Big(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon_{a_N}\hat S_{a_N}\Big)
\Big\}_{{\rm CO}}\Big],
\label{new6}
\ee
where 'CO' stands for Chosen Ordering of the operator product.
In the same way, the quantum analog of the joint quasiprobability for
two spins reads
\be
&&p(\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_1},\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_2},\ldots,
\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_M};\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_1},\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_2},
\ldots,\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_N})\nonumber\\
&&={\rm Tr}\Big[\hat\rho\Big\{\Big(\frac{1}{2}
+\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_1}\hat S_{a_1}\Big)
\Big(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_2}\hat S_{a_2}\Big)
\cdots\Big(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_M}\hat S_{a_M}\Big)
\nonumber\\
&&~~~~~~\Big(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_1}\hat S_{b_1}\Big)
\Big(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_2}\hat S_{b_2}\Big)
\cdots\Big(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_N}\hat S_{b_N}
\Big)\Big\}_{{\rm CO}}\Big].
\label{new7}
\ee
In what follows, it will be seen that an ordering of interest is the
symmetric ordering in which the c-number product is replaced by the
operator product by following correspondence:
\be
S_aS_b&\rightarrow &\frac{1}{2}[\hat S_a\hat S_b+\hat S_b\hat S_a]
=\frac{{\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}}{4},
\nonumber\\
S_aS_bS_c&\ra &\frac{1}{12}[\hat S_a(\hat S_b\hat S_c
+\hat S_c\hat S_b)+(\hat S_b\hat S_c+\hat S_c\hat S_b)\hat S_a
\nonumber\\
&+&(a\ra b, b\ra c, c\ra a)+(a\ra c, c\ra b, b\ra a)\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{12}[{\bf b}\cdot{\bf c}\hat S_a
+{\bf a}\cdot{\bf c}\hat S_b+{\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}\hat S_c].
\label{new8}
\ee
In writing the equation above we have invoked the anti-commutation
relation (\ref{new9}).
On using the correspondence above as the 'CO', the expression
(\ref{new6}) for the probability distribution of the components
of single spin-1/2 in three mutually orthogonal directions ${\bf a}_1,
{\bf b}_1, {\bf c}_1$ assumes the form
\be
p(\epsilon_{a_1},\epsilon_{b_1},\epsilon_{c_1})
=\frac{1}{2^2}{\rm Tr}\Big[\hat\rho\Big(\frac{1}{2}
+\epsilon_{a_1}\hat S_{a_1}+\epsilon_{b_1}\hat S_{b_1}
+\epsilon_{c_1}\hat S_{c_1}\Big)\Big].
\label{new6m}
\ee
Similarly, the expression (\ref{new7}) for the JQP for the
components of spin number 1 in the orthogonal directions
${\bf a}_1,{\bf b}_1, {\bf c}_1$ and those of spin number 2 in the
orthogonal directions ${\bf a}_2,{\bf b}_2, {\bf c}_2$ in the 'CO'
defined in (\ref{new8}) would read
\be
&&p(\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_1},\epsilon^{(1)}_{b_1},\epsilon^{(1)}_{c_1};
\epsilon^{(2)}_{a_2},\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_2},\epsilon^{(2)}_{c_2})
\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{1}{2^4}{\rm Tr}\prod_{j=1}^{2}\Big[\hat\rho\Big(\frac{1}{2}
+\epsilon^{(j)}_{a_j}\hat S_{a_j}+\epsilon^{(j)}_{b_j}\hat S_{b_j}
+\epsilon^{(j)}_{c_j}\hat S_{c_j}\Big)\Big].
\label{8p}
\ee
The generalization of the considerations above leads to the following
expression for the JQP for the components of three spin-1/2s in the
mutually orthogonal directions directions (${\bf a}_i,{\bf b}_i,
{\bf c}_i)$ ($i=1,2,3$):
\be
&&p(\epsilon^{(1)}_{a_1},\epsilon^{(1)}_{b_1},\epsilon^{(1)}_{c_1};
\epsilon^{(2)}_{a_2},\epsilon^{(2)}_{b_2},\epsilon^{(2)}_{c_2};
\epsilon^{(3)}_{a_3},\epsilon^{(3)}_{b_3},\epsilon^{(3)}_{c_3})
\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{1}{2^6}{\rm Tr}\prod_{j=1}^{3}\Big[\hat\rho\Big(\frac{1}{2}
+\epsilon^{(j)}_{a_j}\hat S_{a_j}+\epsilon^{(j)}_{b_j}\hat S_{b_j}
+\epsilon^{(j)}_{c_j}\hat S_{c_j}\Big)\Big].
\label{8p3c}
\ee
The expressions (\ref{new6m})-(\ref{8p3c}) are central for
classifying the states as classical or non-classical.
Now, recall that the states of the e.m. field are labelled classical
or non-classical on the basis of the classicality or otherwise of the
quasiprobability function, called Sudarshan-Glauber P-function.
The choice of the P-function for the purpose is based on the
fact that it serves as a probability distribution function for the
averages of normally ordered field creation
and annihilation operators and that the process of photo-detection
measures the average of normally ordered field operators. Since in the
case of a system of spins, it is the correlations between the spins
which are the desired measure of the quantum nature, it would be
appropriate to formulate the criterion for identifying the
classicality of the states of a system of spin-1/2s by demanding that
the chosen quasiprobability identifies any state of single spin-1/2 as
also any product of single spin-1/2 states to be classical so that
non-classicality, if any, is attributable to spin-spin correlations.
It has been shown in~\cite{puri1} that the the said conditions are
satisfied by the following criterion:
{\it A quantum state of a system of N spin-1/2s is classical if the
joint quasiprobability for the eigenvalues of the components of each
spin in three mutually orthogonal directions, one of which is the
average direction of that spin, is classical in the symmetric ordering
of the operators. It is non-classical if any of those m-spin
($m\le N$) joint quasiprobabilities is negative in the said ordering.}
Hence, according to this criterion, the JQP for classifying the states
of two spin-1/2s as classical or non-classical is the one given in
(\ref{8p}) where one of the three orthogonal directions ${\bf a}_1,
{\bf b}_1,{\bf c}_1$ is the average direction of spin number 1 and one
of the three orthogonal directions ${\bf a}_2,{\bf b}_2, {\bf c}_2$
is the average direction of spin number 2 with similar interpretation
for the expression in (\ref{8p3c}) for the JQP for three spin-1/2s.
When applied to pure states of $N$ spin-1/2s, the criterion above
identifies~\cite{puri1}, (i) the spin coherent state of $N$
spin-1/2s as classical, (ii) any non-factorizable pure state of two
spin-1/2s as non-classical which is in agreement with the conclusion
in~\cite{gisin} for two spin-1/2s arrived at differently, (iii) any
collective spin state $|N,m\rangle$ (with $\hat S_a|N,m\rangle=
m|N,m\rangle$) as non-classical if $m\ne\pm N/2$, and (iv) a squeezed
state of $N$ spin-1/2s as non-classical for all $N\ge 2$. Thus, except
the states in which all the spins are uncorrelated, all the other pure
states of spin-1/2s examined by applying the said criterion turn out
to be non-classical. This is analogous to the result that, other
than its coherent state, any pure state of the electromagnetic field
is non-classical~\cite{cahil,puri}.
However, when applied to mixed states, it is found that the criterion
above may not identify all the separable states as classical and that
it does not identify those non-separable states as classical which
have been shown to be so by following other methods. Those
deficiencies of the criterion can be remedied by modifying it to read
as follows:
{\it A quantum state of a system of N spin-1/2s is classical
(i) if joint quasiprobability (JQP) for the eigenvalues of
the components of each spin in three mutually orthogonal directions,
one of which is the average direction of that spin, is classical in
the symmetric ordering of the operators. The state in this case is
also separable.
\noi
or
\noi
(ii) if the JQP for two of the three orthogonal components prescribed
as above is classical. The state in this case may or may not be
separable.}
The states identified as classical as per the condition in (i) in the
criterion above will, of course, be so according to the condition
in part (ii) as well. However, the states identified as classical as
per part (i) are separable which need not be the case for those
identified as classical as per part (ii). It should be emphasized that
the criterion, based as it is on the non-negativity of suitably
defined JQP, is meant basically to identify classical states. The
separability is not related with non-negativity of the JQP. The
separability conjectured in the criterion is based, not on any
fundamental consideration, but on the inference drawn from the study
of separability of some systems.
In the next section we demonstrate the validity of the criterion above
by investigating the classicality and separability of some widely
studied mixed states of two spin-1/2s and a state of three spin-1/2s.
\section{JQP Based Classicality and separability of Some Mixed States}
~\label{sec3}
Let the spin number $j$ be described in the basis constituted by the
eigenstates $|\pm a_j,j\rangle$, corresponding to the eigenvalues
$\pm 1/2$ of its component $\hat S^{(j)}_{a_j}$ in the direction
$\vec{a}_j$. In what follows, we will deal with systems of two and
three spin-1/2s such that $\vec{a}_1=\vec{a}_2=\vec{a}_3
\equiv\vec{a}$, we denote the basis states of the $j^{{\rm th}}$ spin
simply by $|\pm,j\rangle$. We describe a combined state of the system
in terms of the basis of direct product orthonormal states
$|\pm,\pm\rangle \equiv |\pm,1 \rangle\otimes|\pm,2\rangle$ or their
symmeterised orthonormal combinations,
\be
|\psi_{0,1}\rangle={1\over \sqrt{2}}\left(|+,-\rangle
\mp|-,+\rangle\right),\qquad
|\psi_{2,3}\rangle={1\over\sqrt{2}}\left(|+,+\rangle
\pm|-,-\rangle\right).
\label{7}
\ee
The state $|\psi_0\rangle$, antisymmetric under the exchange of spins,
is the singlet whereas the other three, symmetric under the exchange
of spins, constitute the triplet. Siimilarly, the basis states of
three spin-1/2s shall be denoted by $|\pm,\pm, \pm\rangle \equiv
|\pm,1 \rangle\otimes|\pm,2\rangle\otimes|\pm,3\rangle$.
In the examples below, the average direction of the spins is
identical. The JQPs in (\ref{8p}) and (\ref{8p3c}) then assume the
form
\be
&&p\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_a,\epsilon^{(1)}_b,
\epsilon^{(1)}_c;\epsilon^{(2)}_a,\epsilon^{(2)}_b,
\epsilon^{(2)}_c\right)\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{1}{2^4}{\rm Tr}\left[\hat\rho\prod_{j=1}^{2}\left({1\over 2}
+\epsilon^{(j)}_a \hat S^{(j)}_{a}
+\epsilon^{(j)}_b \hat S^{(j)}_{b}
+\epsilon^{(j)}_c \hat S^{(j)}_{c}\right)\right],
\label{8}
\ee
for the system of two spin-1/2s and, for the system of three
spin-1/2s,
\be
&&p\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_a,\epsilon^{(1)}_b,
\epsilon^{(1)}_c;\epsilon^{(2)}_a,\epsilon^{(2)}_b,
\epsilon^{(2)}_c;\epsilon^{(3)}_a,\epsilon^{(3)}_b,
\epsilon^{(3)}_c\right)\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{1}{2^6}{\rm Tr}\left[\hat\rho\prod_{j=1}^{3}\left({1\over 2}
+\epsilon^{(j)}_a \hat S^{(j)}_{a}
+\epsilon^{(j)}_b \hat S^{(j)}_{b}
+\epsilon^{(j)}_c \hat S^{(j)}_{c}\right)\right],
\label{8c3}
\ee
where $\epsilon^{(j)}_{a,b,c}=\pm 1$; ($\hat S^{(j)}_a,
\hat S^{(j)}_b, \hat S^{(j)}_c$) are the components of the
$j^{{\rm th}}$ spin in the mutually orthogonal directions
$(\vec{a},\vec{b},\vec{c})$ in which $\vec{a}$ is the
average direction of each of the spins in the state described by
$\hat\rho$. In the examples in which the average value of the spin is
zero, $(\vec{a},\vec{b},\vec{c})$ can be any set of mutually
orthogonal directions. The expectation values involving the
operators $\hat S^{(j)}_{b,c}$ may be evaluated conveniently by noting
that if $\hat S^{(j)}_{a\pm}$ are the raising and lowering operators
on the eigenstates of $\hat S^{(j)}_a$ i.e. if
\be
\hat S^{(j)}_{a+}|-,j\rangle=|+,j\rangle,\qquad
\hat S^{(j)}_{a+}|+,j\rangle=0,\nonumber\\
\hat S^{(j)}_{a-}|+,j\rangle=|-,j\rangle,\qquad
\hat S^{(j)}_{a-}|-,j\rangle=0,
\label{n11}
\ee
then $\hat S^{(j)}_b=(\hat S^{(j)}_{a+}+\hat S^{(j)}_{a-})/2$ and
$\hat S^{(j)}_c=(\hat S^{(j)}_{a+}-\hat S^{(j)}_{a-})/2{\rm i}$.
\vskip .2 in\noi
1. Consider first Werner's density matrix~\cite{werner}
\be
\hat\rho={1-x\over 4}I+x|\psi_0\rangle\langle\psi_0|,
\qquad 0\le x\le 1,
\label{9}
\ee
where $I$ is the identity operator, and $|\psi_0\rangle$ is as in
(\ref{7}). The non-zero expectation values needed for evaluating
the expression in (\ref{8}) in this case are
(with $\langle\hat A\rangle\equiv{\rm Tr}[\hat\rho\hat A]$),
\be
\langle\hat S^{(1)}_\mu\hat S^{(2)}_\mu\rangle=-{x\over 4},
\qquad (\mu=a,b,c).
\label{10}
\ee
The JQP of (\ref{8}) then assumes the form
\be
&&p\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_a,\epsilon^{(1)}_b,
\epsilon^{(1)}_c;\epsilon^{(2)}_a,\epsilon^{(2)}_b,
\epsilon^{(2)}_c\right)\nonumber\\
&&={1\over 2^6}\left[1-x\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_a\epsilon^{(2)}_a
+\epsilon^{(1)}_b\epsilon^{(2)}_b+\epsilon^{(1)}_c\epsilon^{(2)}_c
\right)\right].
\label{11}
\ee
The minimum value of $p$ is
\be
&&p_{{\rm min}}={1\over 2^6}\left[1-3x\right].
\label{12}
\ee
This is non-negative if $x\le 1/3$. Hence, according to the part (i)
of the JQP based criterion, the state (\ref{9}) is classical and also
separable if $x\le 1/3$. This is the same as the condition
for separability of (\ref{9}) according to the Peres
criterion~\cite{peres}.
\vskip .1 in\noindent
Next, we identify the classical states as per the part (ii) of the
JQP based criterion. To that end,, consider the reduced JQP
$p^{(r)}(\epsilon^{(1)}_a,
\epsilon^{(1)}_b;\epsilon^{(2)}_a,\epsilon^{(2)}_b)$ for the
probability of spin components in the directions ${\bf a}$ and
${\bf b}$ obtained by summing (\ref{11}) over $\epsilon^{(1)}_c$ and
$\epsilon^{(2)}_c$ so that
\be
&&p^{r}\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_a,\epsilon^{(1)}_b;
\epsilon^{(2)}_a,\epsilon^{(2)}_b
\right)\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{1}{2^4}\left[1-x\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_a\epsilon^{(2)}_a
+\epsilon^{(1)}_b\epsilon^{(2)}_b\right)\right].
\label{11n1}
\ee
The minimum value of $p^{r}$ is
\be
&&p^{r}_{{\rm min}}=\frac{1}{2^4}\left[1-2x\right].
\label{12n1}
\ee
This is non-negative if $x\le 1/2$. This shows that the state
(\ref{9}) is classical, not only for the values of $x\le 1/3$ for
which it is separable, but also for the values $1/3<x\le 1/2$ for
which it is not separable. The condition $x\le 1/2$ for the
classicality of the Werner state is the same as the one arrived at
in~\cite{toth} by another method.
\vskip .2 in\noindent
2. Consider the system described by the density matrix~\cite{peres}
\be
\hat\rho= x|\psi_0\rangle\langle\psi_0|+(1-x)|+,+\rangle\langle +,+|,
\qquad 0\le x\le 1.
\label{13n}
\ee
The non-zero expectation values needed for evaluating (\ref{8}) are
\be
&&\langle\hat S^{(1)}_a\rangle=\langle\hat S^{(2)}_a\rangle
={1-x\over 2},\qquad
\langle\hat S^{(1)}_a\hat S^{(2)}_a\rangle={1-2x\over 4},\nonumber\\
&&\langle\hat S^{(1)}_b\hat S^{(2)}_b\rangle
=\langle\hat S^{(1)}_c\hat S^{(2)}_c\rangle=-{x\over 4}.
\label{14n}
\ee
Consequently, the JQP (\ref{8}) is given by
\be
&&p\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_a,\epsilon^{(1)}_b,
\epsilon^{(1)}_c;\epsilon^{(2)}_a,\epsilon^{(2)}_b,
\epsilon^{(2)}_c\right)\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{1}{2^6}\Big[1+(1-x)(\epsilon^{(1)}_a+\epsilon^{(2)}_a)
+\epsilon^{(1)}_a\epsilon^{(2)}_a(1-2x)\nonumber\\
&&-x\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_b\epsilon^{(2)}_b+
\epsilon^{(1)}_c\epsilon^{(2)}_c\right)\Big].
\label{15n}
\ee
The minimum value of the $p$ above may easily be seen to be given
by
\be
&&\left[p\right]_{{\rm min}}=-{x\over 32}.
\label{16n}
\ee
For $0\le x\le 1$, the expression above is non-negative only for
$x=0$ implying that the system admits a LHV description and is
classical only for $x=0$. For this value of $x$, the state (\ref{13n})
is evidently separable. The test of Peres shows that (\ref{13n}) is
indeed separable only for $x=0$. Thus, the JQP based criterion gives
results in agreement with those derived by applying Peres criterion.
\vskip .1 in\noi
3. Consider the density matrix~\cite{horodecki3}
\be
\hat\rho=\sum_{i=0}^{3}x_i|\psi_i\rangle\langle\psi_i|,
\qquad \sum_{i=0}^{3}x_i=1,
\label{27}
\ee
where $|\psi_i\rangle$ are as in (\ref{7}). The non-zero expectation
values in (\ref{8}) in this case are
\be
&&\langle\hat S^{(1)}_a\hat S^{(2)}_a\rangle={1\over 4}(x_2+x_3
-x_0-x_1),\nonumber\\
&&\langle\hat S^{(1)}_b\hat S^{(2)}_b\rangle
={1\over 4}(x_2+x_1-x_0-x_3),\nonumber\\
&&\langle\hat S^{(1)}_c\hat S^{(2)}_c\rangle
={1\over 4}(x_1+x_3-x_0-x_2).
\label{28}
\ee
On substituting these values in (\ref{8}), the JQP corresponding to
(\ref{27}) reads
\be
&&p\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_a,\epsilon^{(1)}_b,
\epsilon^{(1)}_c;\epsilon^{(2)}_a,\epsilon^{(2)}_b,
\epsilon^{(2)}_c\right)\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{1}{2^6}
\Big[1+\epsilon^{(1)}_a\epsilon^{(2)}_a(x_2+x_3-x_0-x_1))
+(\epsilon^{(1)}_b\epsilon^{(2)}_b-\epsilon^{(1)}_c\epsilon^{(2)}_c)
(x_2-x_3)\nonumber\\
&&+(\epsilon^{(1)}_b\epsilon^{(2)}_b+\epsilon^{(1)}_c\epsilon^{(2)}_c)
(x_1-x_0)\Big].
\label{29}
\ee
It may be verified that
\be
&&p(\epsilon_a,\epsilon_b,\epsilon_c;\epsilon_a,\epsilon_b,
\epsilon_c)=\frac{1}{2^5}(1-2x_0),\nonumber\\
&&p(\epsilon_a,\epsilon_b,\epsilon_c;\epsilon_a,-\epsilon_b,
-\epsilon_c)=\frac{1}{2^5}(1-2x_1),\nonumber\\
&&p(\epsilon_a,\epsilon_b,\epsilon_c;-\epsilon_a,-\epsilon_b,
\epsilon_c)=\frac{1}{2^5}(1-2x_2),\nonumber\\
&&p(\epsilon_a,\epsilon_b,\epsilon_c;-\epsilon_a,\epsilon_b,
-\epsilon_c)=\frac{1}{2^5}(1-2x_3).
\label{30}
\ee
The $p's$ for other combinations of the $\epsilon's$ are
non-negative for all values of the $x_i's$. The $p's$ in the
expressions above will also be non-negative i.e. the system will
admit LHV description and will be separable if $x_i\le 1/2$
($i=0,1,2,3$). It may be verified that the same condition is
obtained for the system to be separable according to the Peres
criterion.
\vskip .2 in\noi
4. Consider next the state ~\cite{gisin2}
\be
\hat\rho=x|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|+{1-x\over 2}
\left(|+,+\rangle\langle +,+|+|-,-\rangle\langle -,-|\right),
\label{13}
\ee
where
\be
|\psi\rangle=\alpha|+,-\rangle+\beta|-,+\rangle,\qquad
|\alpha|^2+|\beta|^2=1.
\label{14}
\ee
For the sake of simplicity of illustration, we let $\alpha$ and
$\beta$ to be real. It is then straightforward to show that non-zero
expectation values needed for evaluating (\ref{8}) are given by
\be
&&\langle\hat S^{(1)}_a\rangle=-\langle\hat S^{(2)}_a\rangle
={x\over 2}\left(|\alpha|^2-|\beta|^2\right),
\langle\hat S^{(1)}_a\hat S^{(2)}_a\rangle={1\over 4}(1-2x),
\nonumber\\
&&\langle\hat S^{(1)}_b\hat S^{(2)}_b\rangle
=\langle\hat S^{(1)}_c\hat S^{(2)}_c\rangle=
{x\alpha\beta\over 2}.
\label{15}
\ee
On substituting these values in (\ref{8}), the JQP corresponding to
the state (\ref{13}) reads
\be
&&p\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_a,\epsilon^{(1)}_b,
\epsilon^{(1)}_c;\epsilon^{(2)}_a,\epsilon^{(2)}_b,
\epsilon^{(2)}_c\right)\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{1}{2^6}\Big[1+x(|\alpha|^2-|\beta|^2)(\epsilon^{(1)}_a
-\epsilon^{(2)}_a)
+\epsilon^{(1)}_a\epsilon^{(2)}_a(1-2x)\nonumber\\
&&+2x\alpha\beta\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_b\epsilon^{(2)}_b+
\epsilon^{(1)}_c\epsilon^{(2)}_c\right)\Big].
\label{16}
\ee
It is straightforward to see that the minimum of (\ref{16}) with
respect to $(\epsilon^{(i)}_b,\epsilon^{(i)}_c)$ is achieved when
$\epsilon^{(1)}_b\epsilon^{(2)}_b=\epsilon^{(1)}_c\epsilon^{(2)}_c
=-\alpha\beta/|\alpha||\beta|\equiv s$ so that
\be
&&p\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_a,\epsilon_b,\epsilon_c;
\epsilon^{(2)}_a,s\epsilon_b, s\epsilon_c\right)
\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{1}{2^6}\Big[1+x(|\alpha|^2-|\beta|^2)(\epsilon^{(1)}_a
-\epsilon^{(2)}_a)\nonumber\\
&&+\epsilon^{(1)}_a\epsilon^{(2)}_a(1-2x)-4x|\alpha||\beta|\Big].
\label{17}
\ee
Now, for $\epsilon^{(1)}_a=\epsilon^{(2)}_a=\epsilon$,
\be
&&p\left(\epsilon,\epsilon_b,\epsilon_c;
\epsilon,s\epsilon_b, s\epsilon_c\right)
=\frac{1}{2^5}(1-x-2x|\alpha||\beta|),
\label{18}
\ee
whereas for $\epsilon^{(1)}_a=-\epsilon^{(2)}_a=1$,
\be
&&p\left(1,\epsilon_b,\epsilon_c;
-1,s\epsilon_b, s\epsilon_c\right)
=|\alpha|x(|\alpha|-|\beta|)/16,
\label{19}
\ee
and for $\epsilon^{(1)}_a=-\epsilon^{(2)}_a=-1$,
\be
&&p\left(-1,\epsilon_b,\epsilon_c;
1,s\epsilon_b, s\epsilon_c\right)
=|\beta|x(|\beta|-|\alpha|)/16.
\label{20}
\ee
The JQP's in the equations (\ref{18})-(\ref{20}) are non-negative for
any $x$ if $\alpha\beta=0$. The state (\ref{13}) in this case is
clearly separable. However, if $\alpha\beta\ne 0$ then the JQP's
(\ref{18})-(\ref{20}) are non-negative if $|\alpha|=|\beta|$ and
\be
x\le (1+2|\alpha||\beta|)^{-1}.
\label{21}
\ee
Thus, according to the part (i) of the JQP based criterion, the system
is classical and separable if $|\alpha|=|\beta|$ and $x$ obeys the
condition in (\ref{21}). The condition in the equation above is also
the one for separability according to the Peres criterion~\cite{peres}
but without the additional condition $|\alpha|=|\beta|$. Since
separable states are classical, the set of classical states predicted
by part (i) of the JQP based criterion leaves out the states having
the value of $x$ as in (\ref{21}) but $|\alpha|\ne |\beta|$. Hence it
is necessary to determine classical states as per part (ii) of that
criterion to find whether the set of those states contains the ones
identified as separable by Peres criterion. To that end, it may be
seen from (\ref{16}) that the JQP for the components along ${\bf b}$
and ${\bf c}$ for each of the two spins is given by
\be
p\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_b,\epsilon^{(1)}_c;\epsilon^{(2)}_b,
\epsilon^{(2)}_c\right)
=\frac{1}{2^4}\Big[1+
2x\alpha\beta\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_b\epsilon^{(2)}_b+
\epsilon^{(1)}_c\epsilon^{(2)}_c\right)\Big].
\label{16n1}
\ee
This is non-negative for all $\alpha,\beta$ if
\be
x\le \frac{1}{4|\alpha||\beta|}.
\label{16n2}
\ee
Keeping in mind the fact that $|\alpha|^2+|\beta|^2=1$, it is seen
that the condition (\ref{16n2}) incorporates (\ref{21}). Hence the JQP
based criterion indeed identifies the set of all separable states as
classical and, in addition, predicts classicality for non-separable
states i.e. the states which satisfy (\ref{16n2}) but not (\ref{21})
as classical. One can construct other two-component JQPs and find
the conditions under which they are non-negative. Those conditions
need not be same as the one found above. However, it is sufficient to
construct one non-negative two-component JQP to identify a state as
classical.
\vskip .2 in\noi
5. Next, we consider a state described by~\cite{horodecki1}
\be
\hat\rho=(1-x)|\phi\rangle\langle\phi|+x|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|,
\label{22}
\ee
where $|\psi\rangle$ is as in (\ref{14}) and
\be
|\phi\rangle=\alpha|+,+\rangle+\beta|-,-\rangle,\qquad
|\alpha|^2+|\beta|^2=1.
\label{23}
\ee
For the sake of simplicity, we let $(\alpha,\beta)$ to be real. The
non-zero expectation values needed for evaluating (\ref{8}) are
given by
\be
&&\langle\hat S^{(1)}_a\rangle={1\over 2}(|\alpha|^2-|\beta|^2),\qquad
\langle\hat S^{(2)}_a\rangle={(1-2x)\over 2}(|\alpha|^2-|\beta|^2),
\nonumber\\
&&\langle\hat S^{(1)}_a\hat S^{(2)}_a\rangle={1\over 4}(1-2x),
\nonumber\\
&&\langle\hat S^{(1)}_b\hat S^{(2)}_b\rangle={\alpha\beta\over 2},
\qquad
\langle\hat S^{(1)}_c\hat S^{(2)}_c\rangle=
{\alpha\beta(1-2x)\over 2}.
\label{24}
\ee
Substitution of these values in (\ref{8}) yields
\be
&&p\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_a,\epsilon^{(1)}_b,
\epsilon^{(1)}_c;\epsilon^{(2)}_a,\epsilon^{(2)}_b,
\epsilon^{(2)}_c\right)\nonumber\\
&&={1\over 64}\Big[1+(|\alpha|^2-|\beta|^2)(\epsilon^{(1)}_a+(1-2x)
\epsilon^{(2)}_a)+\epsilon^{(1)}_a\epsilon^{(2)}_a(1-2x)\nonumber\\
&&+2\alpha\beta\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_b\epsilon^{(2)}_b+(1-2x)
\epsilon^{(1)}_c\epsilon^{(2)}_c\right)\Big].
\label{25}
\ee
With $s=-\alpha\beta/|\alpha||\beta|$, it follows that
\be
&&p\left(1,\epsilon_b,\epsilon_c;
1,s\epsilon_b,s\epsilon_c\right)
=(1-x)|\alpha|(|\alpha|-|\beta|)/16,\nonumber\\
&&p\left(1,\epsilon_b,\epsilon_c;
1,s\epsilon_b,-s\epsilon_c\right)=
|\alpha|[(1-x)|\alpha|-|\beta|x]/16,\nonumber\\
&&p\left(1,\epsilon_b,\epsilon_c;
-1,s\epsilon_b,-s\epsilon_c\right)=
|\alpha|x(|\alpha|-|\beta|)/16,\nonumber\\
&&p\left(1,\epsilon_b,\epsilon_c;
-1,s\epsilon_b,s\epsilon_c\right)=
|\alpha|[|\alpha|x-(1-x)|\beta|]/16,\nonumber\\
&&p\left(-1,\epsilon_b,\epsilon_c;
1,s\epsilon_b,s\epsilon_c\right)=
|\beta|[x\beta-(1-x)|\alpha|]/16,\nonumber\\
&&p\left(-1,\epsilon_b,\epsilon_c;
-1,s\epsilon_b,-s\epsilon_c\right)
=|\beta|x(|\beta|-|\alpha|)/16,\nonumber\\
&&p\left(-1,\epsilon_b,\epsilon_c;
-1,s\epsilon_b,s\epsilon_c\right)=
|\beta|(1-x)(|\beta|-|\alpha|)/16,\nonumber\\
&&p\left(-1,\epsilon^{(1)}_b,\epsilon^{(1)}_c;
-1,s\epsilon_b,-s\epsilon_c\right)
=|\beta|[(1-x)|\beta|-x|\alpha|]/16.
\label{26}
\ee
The JQP (\ref{25}) for combinations of the $\epsilon's$ other than
those appearing in the equations above are non-negative for all values
of $(x,\alpha,\beta)$. The JQPs in the equation above will also be
non-negative for all $0\le x\le 1$ if $\alpha\beta=0$. In this case
the density matrix (\ref{22}) is clearly separable.
If $\alpha\beta\ne 0$ then the $p's$ in (\ref{26}) are non-negative if
$|\alpha|=|\beta|$ and $x=1/2$ in which case the given state is
classical and separable as per the part (i) of the JQP based
criterion. However, the separability criterion of Peres
leads to the condition $x=1/2$~\cite{horodecki1} without the
restriction $|\alpha|=|\beta|$. Since separable states are classical,
we look for the left out classical states by the part (i) of the
criterion by examining the JQP for two orthogonal components as per
its part (ii). To that end, note from (\ref{25}) that the JQP for the
components in the directions ${\bf b}$ and ${\bf c}$ for spin 1 and
those in the directions ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf c}$ for spin 2 is given by
\be
p\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_b,\epsilon^{(1)}_c;\epsilon^{(2)}_a,
\epsilon^{(2)}_c\right)
={1\over 16}\left[1+(1-2x)\{(|\alpha|^2-|\beta|^2)\epsilon^{(2)}_a
+2\alpha\beta\epsilon^{(1)}_c\epsilon^{(2)}_c\}\right].
\label{25n1}
\ee
This is non-negative if $x=1/2$ for all $\alpha,\beta$. The JQP based
criterion thus identifies all those states as classical which are
found to be separable according to Peres criterion. As stated
before, one may find additional classical states by examining the
positivity of the JQPs corresponding to other combinations of two of
the three components.
\vskip .2 in\noi
6. Lastly, we show that the condition for classicality predicted by
the JQP based criterion of the following state of a system of three
spin-1/2s, introduced in~\cite{toth}, is the same as the one obtained
in that reference by another method:
\be
\hat\rho&=&\frac{I}{8}+\frac{1}{6}\sum_{\mu=x,y,z}
\hat S^{(2)}_\mu\hat S^{(3)}_\mu
-\frac{c}{4}\sum_{\mu=x,y,z}\left[\hat S^{(1)}_\mu
\hat S^{(3)}_\mu
+\hat S^{(1)}_\mu\hat S^{(2)}_\mu\right].
\label{3spin1}
\ee
Note that $\langle\hat S^{(i)}_\mu\rangle=0$. We choose the
$z$-direction as the average direction ${\bf a}$ of the spins. Recall
the expression (\ref{8c3}) for the JQP for three spins and evaluate
required averages to get
\be
&&p\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_a,\epsilon^{(1)}_b,\epsilon^{(1)}_c;
\epsilon^{(2)}_a,\epsilon^{(2)}_b,\epsilon^{(2)}_c;
\epsilon^{(3)}_a,\epsilon^{(3)}_b,\epsilon^{(3)}_c\right)\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{1}{2^9}\Big[1+\frac{1}{3}\left\{
\epsilon^{(2)}_a\epsilon^{(3)}_a+\epsilon^{(2)}_b\epsilon^{(3)}_b
+\epsilon^{(2)}_c\epsilon^{(3)}_c\right\}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{c}{2}\left\{\epsilon^{(1)}_a\left(
\epsilon^{(2)}_a+\epsilon^{(3)}_a\right)
+\epsilon^{(1)}_b\left(\epsilon^{(2)}_b+\epsilon^{(3)}_b\right)
+\epsilon^{(1)}_c\left(\epsilon^{(2)}_c+\epsilon^{(3)}_c\right)
\right\}\Big].
\label{3spin2}
\ee
It is straightforward to verify that $p$ above is non-negative if
$c\le 2/3$. This shows that, according to the part (i) of the JQP
based criterion, the state is classical and separable if
$c\le 2/3$.
\vskip .1 in\noi
To find the other set of classical states, we invoke the part (ii)
of the criterion. To that end, we construct from (\ref{3spin2}) the
reduced distribution for the directions ${\bf b},{\bf c}$ for spin 1
and the directions ${\bf a},{\bf b}$ for spins 2 and 3 to get
\be
&&p^{(r)}\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_b,\epsilon^{(1)}_c;
\epsilon^{(2)}_a,\epsilon^{(2)}_b;
\epsilon^{(3)}_a,\epsilon^{(3)}_b\right)\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{1}{2^6}\Big[1+\frac{1}{3}\left\{
\epsilon^{(2)}_a\epsilon^{(3)}_a+\epsilon^{(2)}_b\epsilon^{(3)}_b
\right\}-\frac{c}{2}\left\{
\epsilon^{(1)}_b\left(\epsilon^{(2)}_b+\epsilon^{(3)}_b\right)
\right\}\Big].
\label{3spin4}
\ee
The probability above is non-negative if $c\le 1$. It may be verified
that the upper bound on the value of $c$ for which the JQPs
corresponding to other combinations of two of the three components are
non-negative is less than 1. Hence the JQP based criterion predicts
classicality of the three spins-1/2 state (\ref{3spin1}) if $c\le 1$.
This is in agreement with the result of~\cite{toth} that $\hat\rho$ in
(\ref{3spin1}) admits LHV description if $c\le 1$.
It is also of interest to study the properties of the reduced density
matrix corresponding to the spins numbered 1 and 2. It is obtained by
summing (\ref{3spin2}) over $\epsilon^{(3)}_\mu$ ($\mu=a,b,c)$ and reads
\be
p\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_a,\epsilon^{(1)}_b,\epsilon^{(1)}_c;
\epsilon^{(2)}_a,\epsilon^{(2)}_b,\epsilon^{(2)}_c\right)
=\frac{1}{2^6}\Big[1-\frac{c}{2}
\left(\epsilon^{(1)}_a\epsilon^{(2)}_a
+\epsilon^{(1)}_b\epsilon^{(2)}_b
+\epsilon^{(1)}_c\epsilon^{(2)}_c\right)\Big].
\label{3spin3}
\ee
The probability in the expression above is evidently positive if
$c\le 2/3$. This implies that the reduced density matrix is classical
and separable for $c\le 2/3$. This is in agreement with the result
reported in~\cite{toth} that the reduced density matrix corresponding
to spins 1 and 2 exhibits entanglement if $c>2/3$. The same results
hold for the system of spins 1 and 3 described by the corresponding
reduced density matrix.
\section{Conclusions}~\label{sec4}
Based on the concept of joint quasiprobability distribution of the
eigenvalues of the components of spins, a criterion has been proposed
to identify the classical states of a system of spin-1/2s. Its
validity has been demonstrated by applying it to mixed states of such
systems of two spin-1/2s and a system of three spin-1/2s whose
classicality and separability properties are known by other methods
and showing that the proposed criterion gives results in agreement
with the known ones. The criterion offers a unified approach to study
classicality of a system of any number of spin-1/2s and also
offers the possibility of identifying the processes of
measurement~\cite{pop1}-\cite{horodeckin}
under which the predicted classicality can be observed.
\vskip .1 in\noi
Acknowledgement: The author would like to thank one of the referees
for very useful comments.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
At hadron colliders, top-quarks are produced predominantly in pairs ($\ttbar$) via the
strong interaction but can also be produced singly through the electroweak interaction.
At leading order in perturbation theory, there are three possible single top-quark
production modes: an exchange of a virtual $\Wboson$ boson either in the $t$-channel
or in the $s$-channel, or the associated production of a top-quark and a $\Wboson$ boson.
In the $s$-channel, the exchange of a time-like $\Wboson$ boson produces a top-quark
and a bottom-quark in the final state~\cite{Cortese:1991}. Independent measurements of
these three modes are of great interest since different impacts on their production rates
are predicted by the various proposed scenarios beyond the Standard Model~\cite{Tait:2000}.
Single top-quark production was first observed at the Tevatron in proton--antiproton
collisions by the CDF and D0 Collaborations in measurements of the combined $s$- and
$t$-channel production~\cite{CDF:2009,Dzero:2009}. The observation of the $s$-channel
process alone through the combination of the CDF~\cite{CDF:2014} and D0~\cite{Dzero:2013}
cross-section measurements was reported recently~\cite{CDF_Dzero:2014}. At the Large Hadron
Collider (LHC), the production cross-section of single tops in proton--proton ($\proton\proton$)
collisions was measured both in the $t$-channel and in association with a $\Wboson$ boson by
the CMS~\cite{CMS_tchan,CMS_tchan_2,CMS_Wt,CMS_Wt_2} and ATLAS~\cite{ATLAS_tchan,ATLAS_tchan_2,ATLAS_Wt}
Collaborations. Measuring the $s$-channel process is more difficult due to a much smaller
signal-to-background ratio, this production mode being disadvantaged at the LHC due
to the need for a sea antiquark in the initial state.
Calculations at approximate next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) precision in QCD are available
for the production cross-section of single tops~\cite{Kidonakis_tchan,Kidonakis_Wt,Kidonakis_schan}.
These approximate NNLO results include the contributions due to the next-to-next-to-leading-logarithm
(NNLL) resummation of soft-gluon bremsstrahlung. For the $s$-channel process, the total inclusive
cross-section for $\proton\proton$ collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\unit[8]{TeV}$ is predicted to be
$\sigma_s\!=\!\unit[5.61\pm0.22]{pb}$. This assumes a top-quark mass of $\unit[172.5]{\GeV}$ and
uses the MSTW2008~\cite{PDF_Martin} NNLO set of parton distribution functions (PDFs). The quoted
uncertainty includes the QCD scale uncertainty and the correlated PDF--$\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}$
uncertainty. The cross-sections calculated at approximate NNLO for the dominant $t$-channel and $Wt$
processes are $\sigma_t=\unit[87.8^{+3.4}_{-1.9}]{pb}$~\cite{Kidonakis_tchan} and
$\sigma_{Wt}=\unit[22.4\pm1.5]{pb}$~\cite{Kidonakis_Wt}, respectively.
This Letter presents a search for $s$-channel single top-quark production in $\proton\proton$ collisions
at $\sqrt{s}=8$~TeV carried out at the LHC by the ATLAS Collaboration. Only leptonic decay modes
of the top-quark giving an electron or a muon are considered and the signal is extracted from a
likelihood fit to the distribution of a multivariate discriminant. For all reported results,
the electron and muon channels are merged independently of the lepton charge in order to measure
the combined production cross-section of top-quarks and top-antiquarks.
\section{Data sample}
\label{sec:data}
The analysis is performed on $\proton\proton$ collision data collected by the ATLAS detector~\cite{ATLAS_detector}
in 2012 at a centre-of-mass energy of $\unit[8]{TeV}$ and corresponding to an integrated luminosity
of $\unit[20.3\pm0.6]{fb^{-1}}$~\cite{ATLAS_lumi}.
The ATLAS detector is a multipurpose apparatus consisting of a precise tracking system, calorimeters
and a muon spectrometer. The inner tracking system contains a high-granularity silicon pixel detector,
a silicon microstrip tracker and a straw-tube transition radiation tracker. This system exploits a
$\unit[2]{T}$ axial magnetic field and provides charged-particle tracking in the
pseudorapidity\footnote{ATLAS uses a right-handed coordinate system with its origin at the nominal
interaction point in the centre of the detector and the $z$-axis along the beam pipe. The pseudorapidity
is defined in terms of the polar angle $\theta$ as $\eta\!=\!-\ln\tan(\theta/2)$. Distances in
($\eta$,$\phi$) space are defined by $\Delta R=\sqrt{(\Delta\eta)^2+(\Delta\phi)^2},$ where $\phi$
denotes the azimuthal angle around the beam pipe.} region $|\eta|<2.5$. The central calorimeter system
(barrel) is divided into a liquid-argon electromagnetic sampling calorimeter with high granularity
and a hadron calorimeter consisting of iron and scintillator tiles. The former covers a range
of $|\eta|<1.47$, while the latter extends to $|\eta|=1.7$. The two endcap regions are equipped with
liquid-argon calorimeters for electromagnetic and hadronic energy measurements up to $|\eta|=4.9$.
The muon spectrometer consists of three large superconducting toroids with eight coils each, and
includes precision tracking chambers for momentum measurements up to $|\eta|=2.7$ and fast trigger
chambers covering the range $|\eta|<2.4$. A three-level trigger system, consisting of custom-made
hardware followed by two software-based selections, is used to yield a recorded event rate of about
$\unit[400]{Hz}$.
Events recorded by single-electron or single-muon triggers under stable beam conditions and with good
quality data from all detector subsystems are selected for the analysis. The chosen trigger
thresholds give a constant efficiency for lepton candidates passing the offline selections.
Each triggered event includes on average about $\unit[20]{}$ additional $\proton\proton$ collisions (pile-up)
from the same bunch crossing.
\section{Event reconstruction and selection}
\label{sec:selection}
The experimental signature of the searched-for $s$-channel single top events consists of a
single isolated electron or muon, significant missing transverse momentum due to the undetected
neutrino from the $\Wboson$ boson leptonic decay, and exactly two $b$-tagged jets, one of
them being associated with the top-quark decay. Events in which the $\Wboson$ boson decays to a
$\tau$ lepton are also included if the $\tau$ lepton decays subsequently to an electron or a muon.
Electron candidates are reconstructed from an isolated electromagnetic energy deposit matched to
an inner detector track and passing tight identification requirements~\cite{ATLAS_electrons}. The
candidates are required to have a transverse energy greater than $\unit[30]{\GeV}$ and a pseudorapidity
$\abseta<2.47$, excluding the barrel--endcap transition regions of the electromagnetic calorimeters,
$1.37<\abseta<1.52$. Muon candidates are reconstructed by combining tracks reconstructed in both the
inner detector and the muon spectrometer~\cite{ATLAS_muons, ATLAS_muons_2}. The candidates are required
to have a transverse momentum $p_{\text{T}}$ greater than $\unit[30]{\GeV}$ and $\abseta<2.5$. The electron
and muon candidates must also fulfill isolation requirements, as described in Ref.~\cite{Top_isolation},
in order to reduce contributions from misidentified jets, non-prompt leptons from heavy-flavour decays
and non-prompt electrons from photon conversions.
Jets are reconstructed, using the anti-$k_{t}$ algorithm~\cite{Antikt} with a radius parameter of
$0.4$, from calorimeter energy clusters calibrated with the local cluster weighting method~\cite{ATLAS_jets_1}.
Jets are calibrated using an energy- and $\eta$-dependent simulation-based calibration scheme with
in situ corrections based on data~\cite{ATLAS_jets_2}. In this analysis, jets with $p_{\text{T}}>\unit[30]{\GeV}$
and $\abseta<2.5$ are selected. Jets likely to originate from the hadronization of $b$-quarks are
identified using a multivariate discriminant which makes use of track impact parameters and reconstructed
secondary vertices~\cite{ATLAS_btag_2}. Jets are defined to be $b$-tagged (hereinafter referred to
as $b$-jets) if the discriminant value is above a threshold corresponding to a $b$-tagging
efficiency of 70\% for simulated $\ttbar$ events~\cite{ATLAS_btag_3}; the associated rejection factors
against light-quark and charm-quark jets are about $140$ and $5$, respectively~\cite{ATLAS_btag_2}.
The missing transverse momentum, with magnitude $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$, is reconstructed from the vector sum of
all clusters of energy deposits in the calorimeters calibrated at the electromagnetic scale; the
contributions associated with the reconstructed electrons and jets are corrected
to the corresponding energy scales~\cite{ATLAS_met_1}. Contributions from muons are also taken into account using their
measured transverse momentum. The $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ is a measurement of the escaping neutrinos but also
includes energy losses due to detector inefficiencies. In this analysis, $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ is required to
be greater than $\unit[35]{\GeV}$.
Events are required to have at least one reconstructed primary vertex with at least five associated
tracks with $p_{\text{T}}>\unit[400]{\MeV}$, and no jets failing reconstruction quality requirements. To enhance
the signal content of the sample of events containing a single isolated lepton and exactly two
$b$-jets, the events are in addition not allowed to contain any other jets with a transverse
momentum greater than $\unit[25]{\GeV}$. In addition, the $\Wboson$ boson transverse
mass,\footnote{The $\Wboson$ boson transverse mass is computed from the lepton transverse momentum
$p_{\text{T}}^{\ell}$, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ and their difference in azimuthal angle as
$m_{\text{T}}^{\Wboson}=\sqrt{2\Etmissp_{\text{T}}^{\ell}\left(1-\cos(\Delta\phi(E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}},\,p_{\text{T}}^{\ell}))\right)}\,$.}
$m_{\text{T}}^{\Wboson}$, must be greater than $\unit[50]{\GeV}$ in order to reduce the multijet background contribution.
The kinematics of the neutrino and of the top-quark are reconstructed. The transverse momentum of the
neutrino is assumed to be given by the $x$- and $y$-components of the missing transverse momentum,
while the unmeasured longitudinal component of the neutrino momentum is extracted by imposing a
$\Wboson$ boson mass constraint on the lepton--neutrino system. The latter leads to a quadratic
equation in the longitudinal momentum component of the neutrino, $p_{\mathit{z}}^{\nu}$. If there
are two real solutions the ambiguity is resolved by choosing the one with the smallest
$|p_{\mathit{z}}^{\nu}|$. For complex solutions due to the non-perfect resolution of the missing
transverse momentum measurement, the imaginary component is eliminated by modifying
$E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ in such a way that the transverse mass of the $\Wboson$ candidate fulfills the $\Wboson$
mass constraint, while preserving the direction of the missing transverse momentum. The kinematics
of two top-quark candidates are then reconstructed by combining the four-momenta of the lepton and
neutrino with each of the two $b$-jets (called leading and sub-leading jets according to their
ranking in $p_{\text{T}}$). The top-quark candidate with an invariant mass closest to $\unit[172.5]{\GeV}$
defines the best candidate. To improve the signal-to-background ratio of the selected events, events
for which the transverse momentum of the $b$-jet corresponding to the best top-quark candidate
is lower than $\unit[50]{\GeV}$ are rejected.
After all selection requirements, 16031 events are selected from the analyzed data sample.
\section{Simulated samples}
\label{sec:simulations}
Simulated event samples are used in the analysis for comparison with the data as well as to
evaluate signal and background contributions and uncertainties. The simulation samples for
the single top and $\ttbar$ processes are produced with the next-to-leading-order (NLO)
matrix-element generator {\sc Powheg-Box} (v1\_r2129)~\cite{Powheg} using the CT10 PDF
set~\cite{PDF_Lai}. The generator is interfaced to {\sc Pythia}~(6.42)~\cite{Pythia} for
parton showering, hadronization and underlying-event modelling with parameters set to the
values of the Perugia 2011C tune~\cite{PerugiaTune}.
For the evaluation of the uncertainty due to the generator and parton shower modelling,
additional samples for the $s$-channel, $\Wboson\!\topquark$ and $\ttbar$ processes are produced using
the {\sc MC@NLO} generator~(4.03)~\cite{MCatNLO_1,MCatNLO_2,MCatNLO_3,MCatNLO_4}
interfaced to {\sc Herwig}~(6.52)~\cite{Herwig_1,Herwig_2}
for parton showering and {\sc Jimmy}~(4.31)~\cite{Jimmy} for the underlying-event modelling
with the ATLAS AUET2 tune~\cite{AUETTune} and the CT10 PDFs. For single-top $t$-channel
production, the {\sc MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO}~(2.0)~\cite{aMCatNLO} generator also interfaced with
{\sc Herwig} and {\sc Jimmy} is employed. To estimate the uncertainty coming from the amount
of initial-state and final-state radiation, samples of $\ttbar$ events are produced with the
leading-order (LO) {\sc AcerMC}~(3.8)~\cite{AcerMC} generator using the CTEQ6L1 PDF
set~\cite{PDF_Pumplin}. The generator is interfaced to {\sc Pythia}~(6.42) and the parameters
controlling the radiation emission are varied. The parameter settings are constrained by jet
activity measurements in $\ttbar$ production~\cite{ATLAS_ISRFSR_2}. The impact of scale variations
on the signal events is studied using $s$-channel samples generated with {\sc Powheg-Box},
interfaced to {\sc Pythia}, with values of the factorization and renormalization scales being
increased or decreased by a factor of two; this scale variation also causes the jet multiplicity
to vary.
All samples involving top-quark production are generated using a top-quark mass of $\unit[172.5]{\GeV}$.
The single top samples are normalized to the approximate NNLO cross-section
predictions~\cite{Kidonakis_tchan,Kidonakis_Wt,Kidonakis_schan} presented in Section~\ref{sec:introduction}.
The $\ttbar$ samples are normalized to the cross-section, $\sigma_{\ttbar}=\unit[253^{+13}_{-15}]{pb}$,
calculated at NNLO in QCD including resummation of NNLL soft-gluon terms with
Top{\scriptsize ++}2.0~\cite{Cacciari:2011,Baernreuther:2012,Czakon:2012a,Czakon:2012b,Czakon:2013,Czakon:2011}.
Event samples simulating the production of $\Wboson$ and $\Zboson$ bosons in association with
jets ($\Wboson\!\text{+jets}$ and $\Zboson\text{+jets}$) are produced using the LO multiparton generator {\sc Alpgen}~(2.14)~\cite{Alpgen},
with the CTEQ6L1 set of PDFs, and interfaced to {\sc Pythia}~(6.42). The {\sc Alpgen} matrix elements
include diagrams with up to five partons. $\Wboson\!\text{+jets}$ samples with only light-quark jets as well as samples
with heavy-flavour quarks ($Wb\bar{b}$+jets, $Wc\bar{c}$+jets, $Wc$+jets) are produced separately. To
evaluate the modelling uncertainty related to $\Wboson\!\text{+jets}$ production, alternative samples are produced using
the LO multiparton generator {\sc Sherpa}~(1.4.1)~\cite{Sherpa} with the CT10 PDF set. The diboson
processes ($WW$, $WZ$, $ZZ$) are simulated using the {\sc Herwig}~(6.52) and {\sc Jimmy} generators
with the ATLAS AUET2 tune and the CTEQ6L1 PDF set. The single-boson and diboson samples are normalized
to their inclusive production cross-sections calculated at NNLO~\cite{Anastasiou:2003} or
NLO~\cite{Campbell:2011} precision.
All generated events are passed through the full ATLAS detector simulation~\cite{ATLAS_FullSim}
based on {\sc Geant}4~\cite{GEANT4}, or through a faster simulation making use of parameterized
calorimeter showers~\cite{ATLAS_FastSim}. Minimum-bias events, generated with {\sc Pythia}~(8.1)~\cite{Pythia8},
are overlaid to simulate the pile-up effects from additional $\proton\proton$ collisions in the same and nearby
bunch crossings. All simulated events are then processed using the same reconstruction and analysis
chain as for data.
\section{Background estimation}
\label{sec:backgrounds}
The predicted event yields for the signal and backgrounds after the selection described in
Section~\ref{sec:selection} are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:yields} with a comparison of the
total expectation to the data.
The main background contribution is due to $\ttbar$ events, which account for 67\% of the total
expected yield. The two next-largest backgrounds come from $t$-channel single top and
$\Wboson\!\text{+heavy-flavour}$ production, each process accounting for 12\% of the total expectation. The rather
large predicted cross-sections for these processes which involve one lepton and one or two
$b$-jets, coupled to a non-negligible misidentification of jets originating from lighter
quark flavours, explain their significant contributions. The individual contributions associated
with the $Wt$, $\Wboson\!\text{+light-jets}$, $\Zboson\text{+jets}$ and diboson background processes are all lower than 3\%.
The estimated contribution due to multijet events is about 2\%. Multijet events pass the signal
selection if in addition to two reconstructed and $b$-tagged jets an extra jet is misidentified
as an isolated lepton, or a non-prompt lepton appears to be isolated (both referred to as a fake lepton).
This background is estimated from data using the matrix method~\cite{MatrixMethod}. In this approach,
a set of equations is solved, which relates the observed sample composition in terms of selected leptons
of two different categories, loose and tight, to its true composition in terms of prompt (real) and fake
leptons. The tight category corresponds to the signal selection mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:selection},
while the isolation requirements are removed to define the loose category, which also has a loosened
identification quality in the electron case. The real and fake efficiencies are measured using dedicated
samples of data enriched in real and fake isolated leptons. An uncertainty of 50\% on the multijet event
yield is evaluated from comparisons with alternative procedures for the efficiency extraction and
alternative criteria for the selection of the real- and fake-enriched samples.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lr@{$\,\pm\,$}l}
\hline
\hline
Process & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Event yield} \\
\hline
Single top $s$-channel & 457 & 50 \\
Single top $t$-channel, $\Wboson\!\topquark$ & 2270 & 240 \\
$\ttbar$ & 10200 & 1600 \\
$\Wboson\!\text{+jets}$ & 1900 & 1200 \\
$\Zboson\text{+jets}$, diboson & 108 & 68 \\
Multijet & 230 & 120 \\[1ex]
Total expectation & 15200 & 2000 \\
Data & \multicolumn{2}{c}{16031} \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Predicted and observed event yields after all selection requirements. The quoted
errors include all systematic uncertainties described in Section~\ref{sec:systematics}
added in quadrature with the simulation statistical uncertainties. For the multijet background,
the data-driven estimate is reported.}
\label{tab:yields}
\end{table}
The modelling of the backgrounds is validated by comparing the expected event distributions to the
data in two control regions. The first control sample is defined by requiring both jets to pass a
relaxed $b$-tagging selection with an efficiency of 80\%, while requiring at least one
of them to fail the tighter 70\% $b$-tagging selection used for the signal selection. The
dominant contribution, which comes from the $\Wboson\!\text{+jets}$ process, is expected to represent 56\% of the
events while the expected signal-to-background ratio is lower than 1\%. The second control sample is
selected by requiring two jets that are not $b$-tagged in addition to the two signal $b$-jets.
This control region is dominated by $\ttbar$ events (around 90\% of the total) with a negligible
$s$-channel single top contribution. For both control selections, the threshold on the $\Wboson$ boson
transverse mass is lowered to $\unit[30]{\GeV}$ and the selection on the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the $b$-jet
associated with the best top-quark candidate is not applied. Good overall agreement between data and
expectation is observed in both control regions.
\section{Multivariate analysis}
\label{sec:analysis}
After event selection, the estimated signal-to-background ratio is about 3\%. To improve the
separation of $s$-channel single top events from backgrounds, several kinematic and topological
variables are combined into one discriminant through a multivariate classification technique.
The event classification is based on boosted decision trees (BDTs)~\cite{BDT} in the TMVA
framework~\cite{TMVA}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[\label{subfig:dPhiTop2Bjet}]{\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{fig_01a.pdf}}
\subfigure[\label{subfig:HtLeptonMet}]{\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{fig_01b.pdf}}
\subfigure[\label{subfig:WtransMass}]{\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{fig_01c.pdf}}
\subfigure[\label{subfig:dEtaLeptonBjet}]{\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{fig_01d.pdf}}
\caption
{Observed and predicted distributions in the signal region of four of the most discriminating
variables used in the BDT classifier
\subref{subfig:dPhiTop2Bjet} azimuthal angle between the leading $b$-jet and the top-quark
candidate reconstructed with the sub-leading $b$-jet,
\subref{subfig:HtLeptonMet} scalar sum of the lepton momentum and the missing transverse momentum,
\subref{subfig:WtransMass} $\Wboson$ boson transverse mass, and
\subref{subfig:dEtaLeptonBjet} difference in pseudorapidity between the lepton and the leading
$b$-jet. The simulated distributions are normalized to the result of the binned maximum-likelihood
fit described in Section~\ref{sec:xsection}. The hatched bands represent the normalization uncertainty
of all processes after the fit added in quadrature with the simulation statistical uncertainty.
The lower panels show the ratio of data to prediction. The first (last) bin of the histograms includes
underflows (overflows).}
\label{fig:BDT_variables}
\end{figure*}
Nineteen variables with significant separation power are used as input to the BDT classifier. The number
of variables is chosen in order to maximize the expected signal significance and all of the retained
variables are well modelled by simulation in the signal region and in the two control regions defined
in Section~\ref{sec:backgrounds}. The two most discriminating variables are the differences in azimuthal
angle ($|\Delta\phi|$) between the leading (sub-leading) $b$-jet and the top-quark candidate reconstructed
with the sub-leading (leading) $b$-jet. The four next-most important variables are the scalar sum
of the lepton $p_{\text{T}}$ and $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$, $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$, the $\Wboson$ boson transverse mass, and the lepton $p_{\text{T}}$.
The other variables, which have a smaller discriminating power, are (grouped according to their type):
({\it i}) the differences in pseudorapidity ($|\Delta\eta|$) between the lepton and the leading (sub-leading)
$b$-jet, the $|\Delta\eta|$ between the leading $b$-jet and the top-quark candidate reconstructed with the
sub-leading $b$-jet, the $|\Delta\eta|$ between the reconstructed neutrino and the $b$-jet not
associated with the best top-quark candidate, ({\it ii}) the $|\Delta\phi|$ between the lepton and the missing
transverse momentum, the $|\Delta\phi|$ between the two $b$-jets, ({\it iii}) the scalar sum of the $p_{\text{T}}$
of all objects (lepton, $b$-jets, neutrino), the magnitude of the vector sum of the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the two
$b$-jets, the invariant mass of the two $b$-jets, and ({\it iv}) the cosine of the angle ($\cos\vartheta$)
between the missing transverse momentum and the sub-leading $b$-jet, the $\cos\vartheta$ between the
lepton in the $\Wboson$ rest frame and the $\Wboson$ boson in the top-quark candidate rest frame reconstructed with
the leading $b$-jet, the $\cos\vartheta$ between the lepton in the top-quark candidate rest frame and the top-quark
candidate reconstructed with the leading (sub-leading) $b$-jet in the centre-of-mass frame defined with all objects.
The multivariate classifier is trained using simulated events selected with relaxed criteria: the threshold on the
$\Wboson$ boson transverse mass is lowered to $\unit[30]{\GeV}$ and the selection on the transverse momentum
of the $b$-jet associated with the best top-quark candidate is not applied. The classifier response is
tuned with the gradient boosting algorithm\ \cite{TMVA} and with only the $\ttbar$ and $\Wboson\!\text{+heavy-flavour}$ background
contributions included in the training phase.
Fig.~\ref{fig:BDT_variables} shows the comparison between data and prediction for four of the main
discriminating variables used as input to the BDT classifier. The observed and expected distributions of
the BDT response are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:BDT_response}. The observed and expected signal distributions
of the BDT response are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:BDT_result}; the former is obtained by subtracting the background
contributions from the data. The simulated distributions are normalized to the result of the binned
maximum-likelihood fit performed to extract the signal content from the observed distribution (see
Section~\ref{sec:xsection}). The $t$-channel and $Wt$ single top contributions as well as the $\Zboson\text{+jets}$ and
diboson components are merged.
\section{Systematic uncertainties}
\label{sec:systematics}
Several sources of systematic uncertainty affect the signal acceptance and the background normalizations,
as well as the shape of the BDT distribution. The impact on the distribution of using simulation samples
of limited size is also taken into account. The various sources of systematic uncertainties considered
when extracting the $s$-channel single top signal are described below.
Systematic uncertainties on the reconstruction and energy calibration of jets, electrons and muons
are propagated in the analysis through variations in the modelling of the detector response. For the
jets, the main source of uncertainty is the energy scale, evaluated using a combination of in situ
techniques~\cite{ATLAS_jets_2}. Other jet-related uncertainty sources are the modelling of the energy
resolution~\cite{ATLAS_jets_3} and reconstruction efficiency~\cite{ATLAS_jets_2}, and the modelling of
the tagging efficiencies of $b$-jets, $c$-jets and light-quark jets~\cite{ATLAS_btag_2,ATLAS_btag_3}.
Uncertainties related to the leptons come from trigger, identification and isolation efficiencies, as
well as from the energy scale and resolution~\cite{ATLAS_electrons,ATLAS_muons_2}. The uncertainties from
the energy scale and resolution corrections applied to leptons and jets are propagated to the computation
of the missing transverse momentum. The scale and resolution uncertainties due to soft jets ($p_{\text{T}}<\unit[20]{\GeV}$) and to
contributions of calorimeter energy deposits not associated with any reconstructed objects are also
considered and evaluated independently (uncertainties referred to as $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ scale and resolution).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.52\textwidth]{fig_02.pdf}
\caption
{Observed and predicted distributions of the BDT response. The simulated distributions are normalized
to the result of the binned maximum-likelihood fit. The hatched band represents the normalization
uncertainty of all processes after the fit added in quadrature with the simulation statistical
uncertainty. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to prediction.}
\label{fig:BDT_response}
\end{figure}
The luminosity measurement is calibrated using dedicated beam-separation scans and the same methodology
as that detailed in Ref.~\cite{ATLAS_lumi}. The resulting uncertainty on the integrated luminosity is 2.8\%.
Systematic uncertainties on the simulation of the signal and background processes ($\ttbar$, $t$-channel
single top, $Wt$ and $\Wboson\!\text{+jets}$) are also taken into account in the analysis. They include contributions
from the modelling of the hard process, parton showers and hadronization and of initial-state and final-state
radiation (ISR/FSR). The uncertainty due to the choice of renormalization and factorization scales is also
considered for the signal. These various uncertainties are estimated by comparing simulation samples produced,
as described in Section~\ref{sec:simulations}, with different generators, different shower models and different
settings for the amount of additional radiation ($\ttbar$) or for the scales ($s$-channel).
The systematic uncertainties associated with the PDFs are taken into account for all simulated samples.
They are assessed according to the PDF4LHC prescription~\cite{PDF4LHC} and using the MSTW2008~\cite{PDF_Martin},
CT10~\cite{PDF_Lai}, and NNPDF2.1~\cite{PDF_Ball} sets.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{fig_03.pdf}
\caption
{Observed and predicted (filled histogram) signal distributions of the BDT response after background
subtraction. The signal and subtracted simulated background contributions are normalized to the result
of the binned maximum-likelihood fit. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainty of the data
added in quadrature with the simulation statistical uncertainties and with the systematic uncertainties
on the background normalizations described in Section~\ref{sec:systematics}. The empty histogram
represents the predicted signal distribution renormalized to the observed cross-section upper limit
reported in Section~\ref{sec:results}.}
\label{fig:BDT_result}
\end{figure}
Other sources of uncertainty are related to the background normalizations, which are taken from the theory
predictions with their associated uncertainties, except for the multijet production for which a data-driven
normalization is used. Theoretical uncertainties of 6\% and 5\% are considered for $\ttbar$ and for the
combination of the $t$-channel and $Wt$ single top contributions, respectively. For $\ttbar$, the PDF and
$\alpha_\mathrm{s}$ uncertainties, calculated using the PDF4LHC prescription~\cite{PDF4LHC} with the MSTW2008
NNLO~\cite{PDF_Martin,PDF_Martin_2}, CT10 NNLO~\cite{PDF_Lai,PDF_Gao} and NNPDF2.3 5f FFN~\cite{PDF_Ball}
PDF sets, are added in quadrature to the QCD scale uncertainty. The normalization uncertainties for the
$\Wboson\!\text{+jets}$ and for the combined $\Zboson\text{+jets}$ and diboson backgrounds are estimated to be 60\%; they include an
estimate of the uncertainty on the heavy-flavour fraction of 50\%, added in quadrature with a theory
uncertainty of 5\% for the inclusive process, and a Berends scaling uncertainty of 24\% for each extra
jet~ \cite{Ellis:1985,Berends:1990}. For multijet events, a normalization uncertainty of 50\% is estimated
(see Section~\ref{sec:backgrounds}). The theoretical uncertainty of 4\% on the $s$-channel single-top
cross-section is considered when evaluating the signal significance.
\section{Signal extraction}
\label{sec:xsection}
The signal contribution to the selected sample of data is extracted by performing a binned
maximum-likelihood fit to the BDT output distribution. The likelihood function is given by
the product of Poisson probability terms for the individual distribution bins (see
Ref.~\cite{ATLAS_tchan}), combined with the product of Gaussian functions to constrain the
background rates to their predicted values within the associated uncertainties. The rates of the
$\ttbar$, $\Wboson\!\text{+jets}$, and combined $t$-channel\,/\,$Wt$ and $\Zboson\text{+jets}$\,/\,diboson backgrounds
are thus fitted within their theoretical uncertainties described in Section~\ref{sec:systematics};
since the multijet component is obtained from the data it is not allowed to vary and is fixed to
its data-driven estimate. The production cross-section is derived from the adjusted signal rate
for which the logarithm of the likelihood function reaches its maximum.
The systematic uncertainties on the measurement are determined using pseudo-experiments involving
variations of the signal and background rates and of the shape of the BDT distributions, due to all the
sources of uncertainty described in Section~\ref{sec:systematics}. The uncertainties due to
the limited size of the data and simulation samples are also assessed via pseudo-experiments implementing
statistical fluctuations. The impact of an individual source of uncertainty is evaluated by running
dedicated pseudo-experiments with only the corresponding variation included. The total uncertainty
is evaluated from pseudo-experiments including all variations simultaneously.
The sensitivity to the $s$-channel single top signal is determined by testing both the background-only
and the signal-plus-background hypotheses via the generation of dedicated sets of pseudo-experiments;
in the second case, the signal yield is set to the approximate NNLO prediction. A test statistic, defined
as the logarithm of the ratio combining the maximum-likelihood estimates of the two alternative hypotheses,
is computed for each pseudo-experiment. The test statistic distribution is used to derive the $p$-value of
the background-only ensemble test, which is then interpreted in terms of signal significance. A cross-section
upper limit is extracted using the CLs procedure~\cite{Junk:1999,Read:2002}, which is based on the $p$-values
calculated for both the background-only and the signal-plus-background ensemble tests.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
Using the frequentist approach presented above, the observed (expected) significance of the $s$-channel
single top measurement is found to be 1.3 (1.4) standard deviations and an observed (expected) upper
limit on the production cross-section of $\unit[14.6]{pb}$ ($\unit[15.7]{pb}$, $\unit[9.4]{pb}$) is set
at the 95\% confidence level. The two quoted expected upper limits correspond to the signal-plus-background
and background-only hypotheses, respectively. The simulated BDT distribution of the signal events
renormalized to the observed upper limit is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:BDT_result} for comparison with
the signal distribution extracted from the data.
\begin{table}[t!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\hline
\hline
Source & $\Delta\sigma/\sigma$ [\%] \\
\hline
Data statistics & $\pm$35 \\
Simulation statistics & $\pm$29 \\[1ex]
$E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ scale & $\pm$54 \\
$E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ resolution & $+$0/$-$3 \\
Jet energy scale & $\pm$39 \\
Jet energy resolution & $\pm$5 \\
Jet tagging efficiencies & $\pm$4 \\
Jet reconstruction efficiency & $<$ 1 \\
Lepton energy scale/resolution & $<$ 1 \\
Lepton efficiencies & $+$2/$-$1 \\[1ex]
Signal modelling and scale & $\pm$11 \\
$\ttbar$ modelling & $\pm$6 \\
$\Wboson\!\text{+jets}$ shape modelling & $\pm$8 \\
ISR/FSR & $\pm$3 \\
PDF & $<$ 1 \\[1ex]
Background normalization & $\pm$7 \\
Multijet normalization & $\pm$12 \\[1ex]
Integrated luminosity & $\pm$5 \\[1ex]
Total systematic & $\pm$80 \\
Total & $\pm$87 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Contributions of the sources of statistical and systematic uncertainty to the total
uncertainty on the measured cross-section. They are given in percent.}
\label{tab:breakdown}
\end{table}
The fitted value of the cross-section is found to be:
$\sigma_s=\unit[5.0\pm1.7\text{\,(stat.)}\pm4.0\text{\,(syst.)}]{pb}=\unit[5.0\pm4.3]{pb}$;
this measurement should be compared with the cross-section of $\unit[5.61\pm0.22]{pb}$ calculated
at approximate NNLO. Table~\ref{tab:breakdown} summarizes the various contributions to the
measurement uncertainty. The largest systematic uncertainties arise from the scale of the missing
transverse momentum (54\%) and of the jet energy (39\%). These large uncertainties are due to a strongly
distorted shape of the BDT distribution obtained when adding bin-per-bin the systematic variations
affecting the signal and background contributions. The limited size of the data sample and the simulated
samples also contribute significantly to the final uncertainty (35\% and 29\%, respectively). Smaller
uncertainties are due to the background normalizations (12\% for the data-driven multijet contribution
and 7\% from theory for the simulated backgrounds) and process modelling (11\%, 8\% and 6\% for signal,
$\Wboson\!\text{+jets}$ and $\ttbar$, respectively). Other modelling and instrumental effects play only a minor role.
\section{Summary}
\label{sec:summary}
This Letter presents a search for $s$-channel single top production at the LHC from the $pp$
collision data sample of $\unit[20.3]{fb^{-1}}$ recorded by the ATLAS detector at a centre-of-mass
energy of $\unit[8]{TeV}$. A multivariate analysis, based on boosted decision trees, is carried out to
discriminate signal from background events. The observed signal significance is 1.3 standard deviations,
the expected sensitivity being 1.4 standard deviations. The observed upper limit on the $s$-channel single
top cross-section is $\unit[14.6]{pb}$ at the 95\% confidence level. The evaluated production cross-section
is $\sigma_s=\unit[5.0\pm1.7\text{\,(stat.)}\pm4.0\text{\,(syst.)}]{pb}=\unit[5.0\pm4.3]{pb}$ and it is
consistent with the Standard Model prediction.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank CERN for the very successful operation of the LHC, as well as
the support staff from our institutions without whom ATLAS could not
be operated efficiently.
We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina; YerPhI, Armenia; ARC,
Australia; BMWFW and FWF, Austria; ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus;
CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil; NSERC, NRC and CFI, Canada; CERN; CONICYT,
Chile; CAS, MOST and NSFC, China; COLCIENCIAS, Colombia; MSMT CR, MPO
CR and VSC CR, Czech Republic; DNRF, DNSRC and Lundbeck Foundation,
Denmark; EPLANET, ERC and NSRF, European Union; IN2P3-CNRS,
CEA-DSM/IRFU, France; GNSF, Georgia; BMBF, DFG, HGF, MPG and AvH
Foundation, Germany; GSRT and NSRF, Greece; ISF, MINERVA, GIF, I-CORE
and Benoziyo Center, Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST,
Morocco; FOM and NWO, Netherlands; BRF and RCN, Norway; MNiSW and NCN,
Poland; GRICES and FCT, Portugal; MNE/IFA, Romania; MES of Russia and
ROSATOM, Russian Federation; JINR; MSTD, Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS
and MIZ\v{S}, Slovenia; DST/NRF, South Africa; MINECO, Spain; SRC and
Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; SER, SNSF and Cantons of Bern and
Geneva, Switzerland; NSC, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, the Royal
Society and Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, United
States of America.
The crucial computing support from all WLCG partners is acknowledged
gratefully, in particular from CERN and the ATLAS Tier-1 facilities at
TRIUMF (Canada), NDGF (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), CC-IN2P3 (France),
KIT/GridKA (Germany), INFN-CNAF (Italy), NL-T1 (Netherlands), PIC
(Spain), ASGC (Taiwan), RAL (UK) and BNL (USA) and in the Tier-2
facilities worldwide.
\section*{References}
\bibliographystyle{atlasBibStyleWoTitle}
|
\section{Introduction}
The trapping of ultracold atoms in periodic lattices has gained great attention in atomic physics research over the past decade. It has enhanced our understanding in atomic and molecular physics, as well as of condensed matter phenomena such as quantum phase transitions.
Nearly all of the experiments in this field have been based on optical lattices~\cite{Jaksch98PRL,Morsch06,Bloch08}, in which the lattice potential is produced by the interference of intersecting laser beams. Such experiments have provided, for example, unprecedented access to studies of low-dimensional quantum gases~\cite{Paredes04,Kinoshita06}, the Josephson effect~\cite{Cataliotti01,Albiez05}, the Mott insulator to superfluid quantum phase transition~\cite{Greiner02} and applications in quantum information processing~\cite{Calarco00,Monroe07}. Particularly exciting applications arise in the context of quantum simulation~\cite{Lewenstein07}. However, optical lattices have certain limitations, such as a low degree of design flexibility, difficulty in generating arbitrary trap geometries and restrictions on the lattice spacing imposed by the optical wavelength.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Fig1.pdf}
\caption{\label{Layeredfilm} Schematic of the different layers in the magnetic film used to fabricate the nanostructures (not to scale). The film structure is composed of Pd(1.1~nm) $+$ 8 $\times$ [Pd(0.9~nm)/Co(0.28~nm)] $+$ Pd(3.0~nm) $+$ Ta(3.0~nm) + SiO$_2$ $+$ Si(001).}
\end{figure}
A promising alternative that may overcome some of these limitations involves the use of magnetic lattice potentials~\cite{Ghanbari06,Gerritsma06,Xing07,Gerritsma07,Boyd07,Singh08,Whitlock09,Abdelrahman10,Llorente10,Leung11,Jose14}, in which patterned perpendicularly magnetized planar films create an array of magnetic microtraps able to trap ultracold atoms. In principle, such magnetic lattices provide robust potentials for manipulating atoms, combined with a high degree of design freedom, allowing arbitrary trap geometries and lattice spacings not restricted to certain fractions of the optical wavelengths. Other promising characteristics are the state selectivity of the traps (only atoms in weak-field seeking states remain trapped allowing manipulation using radiofrequency fields) and the possibility to incorporate other on-chip manipulation and detection devices.
The realization of arbitrary lattice patterns with sub-micron period would allow tunneling between the traps, ultimately enabling the study of exotic condensed matter
phenomena in nontrivial geometries, such as triangular, hexagonal, kagome, and superlattices, including honeycomb lattices. However, despite these potential benefits of magnetic lattices, no magnetic lattices with sub-micron period have been implemented to date.
\begin{figure*}[Hbt!]%
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.96\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig2a}%
\caption{}%
\label{MOKE}%
\end{subfigure}\qquad%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.80\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig2b.pdf}%
\caption{}%
\label{GrainSize}%
\end{subfigure}%
\caption{(a) Hysteresis loop of the Co/Pd multilayer film measured by Kerr rotation. (b) Scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of the surface of the Co/Pd film. From this image one can monitor the homogeneity of the material and the grain size. The measured average grain size is around 10~nm. Inset: Magnetic force microscope (MFM) image shows a Co/Pd multilayer in the demagnetized state revealing large magnetic domains with magnetization pointing up or down perpendicular to the film plane due to the strong PMA of this material.}
\end{figure*}
This paper describes the design, fabrication and characterization of sub-micron period one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) lattices of magnetic Ioffe-Pritchard microtraps for ultracold neutral atoms. The microtraps are produced near the surface of a patterned Co/Pd film with perpendicular magnetization. The magnetic lattices described here are a 1D lattice and two 2D lattices with square and triangular geometries with a period of $a=0.7$~$\mu$m. Scaling down the lattice period will increase the energy scales in the Hubbard model~\cite{Greiner02} used to describe quantum gases in optical lattices. The recoil energy, $E_{R}=(\pi \hbar)^{2}/2ma^2$ where $m$ is the atom mass, is used as a natural unit for these energy scales. Due to this dependence on the lattice period $a $ the tunneling rate $J$ and the on-site interaction $U $ can be scaled with the period of the lattice~\cite{Bloch08}, becoming large for sub-micron period lattices. In our case with a period of 0.7~$\mu$m and with a barrier height $V_{0}\thicksim 12 E_{R}$ or $6 E_{R}$, the critical tunneling rate is estimated to be $J_{C}\thicksim17$~Hz or 76~Hz~\cite{Bakr09}.
\section{Co/Pd magnetic films}
Recently, magnetic thin films, including multilayered systems, have been studied largely because of their interesting magnetic properties and possible applications for practical devices. In particular, studies of Co/Pd and Co/Pt~\cite{Carcia85,Broeder87,Draaisma87,Draaisma88,Carcia88,Sato88,Broedcr89,Ochiai89,Hashimoto90} systems have been performed extensively because they exhibit perpendicular magnetic anisotropy (PMA), small grain size and large Kerr rotation at short wavelengths, which makes them promising candidates for ultra-high density magnetic recording media~\cite{Grobis11} and also for atom optics research~\cite{Eriksson04}. We have chosen Co/Pd multilayer films for fabrication of our magnetic sub-micron structures to trap ultracold atoms because of its high degree of homogeneity, high saturation magnetization and small grain size.
A strong PMA is necessary so that all the magnetic domains are aligned to give smooth and well defined magnetic potentials to trap the atoms on a sub-micron scale. At the same time, a high PMA leads to large coercivities necessary to withstand the external magnetic fields that are applied during the magnetic trapping of the atoms. In these multilayer films the large PMA is related to the reduced symmetry at the interface between the magnetic Co and the non-magnetic Pd layers. The magnetic film consists of a set of bi-layers of Co/Pd, deposited on a 330~$\mu$m-thick silicon substrate, as shown in figure~\ref{Layeredfilm}. This bi-layered film is set on a layer of 3~nm-thick Pd to provide a good (111) texture to start the deposition of the magnetic layers, leading to an improvement of the crystallographic orientation of the layers and to an improvement of the PMA. The number of bilayers and the thickness of the layers were chosen to have high saturation magnetization and a large PMA; in this case we chose 8 bi-layers of alternating Co (0.28~nm) and Pd (0.9~nm). The Co/Pd multilayers were dc magnetron sputter-deposited at room temperature. The Ar pressure was adjusted to $3.5\times10^{-3}$~mbar for all depositions, while the base pressure of the deposition chamber was $1.0\times10^{-8}$~mbar. The measured coercivity for this film is $H_c=1.0$~kOe (see figure~\ref{MOKE}), and the saturation magnetization for 8 bi-layers of Co/Pd is $4 \pi M_s=5.9$~kG. One can increase the saturation magnetization by increasing the number of bi-layers but the PMA becomes less pronounced~\cite{Lin91} or may even vanish when using many layers. Finally, a layer of 1.1~nm of Pd is deposited on top of the stack to provide protection against oxidation (figure~\ref{Layeredfilm}).
The Co/Pd films can have a grain size down to about 6~nm~\cite{Roy11} and can produce high resolution magnetic structures necessary to prepare high quality 1D and 2D magnetic lattices with periods down to about 0.7~$\mu$m with smooth potentials. The grain size of the film was measured by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (see figure~\ref{GrainSize}); the size of individual grains of Co/Pd within our samples is typically 10~nm. This small grain size currently sets the limit for the dimension of the smallest features we can etch.
\section{Patterning}
Sub-micron magnetic structures can be produced by different microfabrication techniques. These methods range from magneto-optical recording using a focused laser beam~\cite{Lau99,Eriksson04,Jaakkola05}, recording on a hard-disk head~\cite{Eriksson04,Boyd07}, use of grooved substrates plus uniform film coating \cite{Sidorov02,Wang05,Singh09,Jose14}, femtosecond laser ablation~\cite{Wolff09} and optical or e-beam lithography (EBL) followed by reactive ion etching (RIE)~\cite{Xing07B,Gerritsma07,Whitlock09}. We chose EBL and RIE since they provide high resolution and high versatility, arbitrary magnetization patterns are possible, and they can be used to produce the required sub-micron scales.
EBL was used to write the desired patterns onto the Co/Pd film. EBL is a maskless direct write method in which a beam of electrons is focused to expose required patterns on an electron-sensitive resist used as a mask for subsequent etching. The main advantage of EBL is that it can fabricate customized patterns with nanometer resolution; our EBL has 10~nm resolution sufficient for our patterns. The lithographic process was performed in the nano-fabrication facility at Swinburne University of Technology.
The lithography procedure is illustrated in figure~\ref{ebeamlithography}. First, a 300~nm-thick film of PMMA, a positive electron-sensitive resist is spin coated onto the Co/Pd film. Then a focused electron beam is driven by a high speed patterning generator on the mask with the desired design. After exposure of the resist layer to the electron beam this is developed and the exposed resist is removed. After that the magnetic film is plasma-etched by RIE with argon. This is a dry etching technique with good properties for high resolution patterning, no resist adhesion problems and high anisotropic etch profile~\cite{Manos89}. In the final stage the remaining resist is removed by wet etching, using acetone. After the patterning process a metallic reflecting layer of 50~nm thickness is deposited over the surface; this layer is necessary for creating a mirror-MOT. Finally, a layer of silica (25~nm) is deposited to prevent rubidium atoms from sticking to the metallic surface.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Fig3.pdf}
\caption{\label{ebeamlithography} Sequence of the process used to pattern the magnetic film. The colour label is: red resist, blue magnetic film, grey substrate. The process starts with (a) spin coating of PMMA positive resist, (b) EBL exposure, (c) resist development, (d) plasma etching by ion bombardment, and finally (e) removal of the remaining resist.}
\end{figure}
\section{Results for 1D structures}
\subsection{Trapping parameters}
A 1D lattice potential of magnetic microtraps can be created by a periodic array of long, parallel rectangular magnets with out-of-plane magnetization in the presence of suitable bias magnetic fields~\cite{Ghanbari06,Gerritsma06,Boyd07,Singh08}. By superimposing on this potential homogeneous in-plane bias fields in the parallel and perpendicular direction, one can control most of the important parameters related to the atom trapping, such as the distance at which the trap minima are generated from the surface, the trap frequencies and the bias field necessary to have non-zero potential minima at the bottom of the traps to avoid spin-flips. For an infinite 1D lattice periodic in the $y $ direction contained in the $xy $ plane and for distances from the surface large compared with $a/2\pi$ (where $a $ is the lattice period), the trapping magnetic fields can be expressed as~\cite{Singh09}\
\begin{figure*}[htb!]%
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.96\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig4a}%
\caption{}%
\label{1DSEM1}%
\end{subfigure}\quad%
\begin{subfigure}{.96\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig4b.pdf}%
\caption{}%
\label{1DSEM2}%
\end{subfigure}%
\caption{(a) Small-scale SEM image of the 1D structure. The dark regions correspond to the etched part and the bright regions the magnetic film. The image shows a pattern of parallel trenches with a period close to 0.7~$\mu$m. From the image we observe an edge roughness with an amplitude of 40 nm. (b) Large-scale SEM image. A Fourier transform of the SEM image reveals that the peaks are mainly multiples of a base frequency of 688 nm corresponding to the period of the structure. The FWHM of the base frequency peak is 7~nm and the heights of other peaks are less than 1~\%.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{equation}\label{1Dfield}
[B_{x},B_{y},B_{z}]=[B_{bx},B_{0}sin(ky)e^{-kz}+B_{by},B_{0}cos(ky)e^{-kz}],
\end{equation}
where $k=2\pi/a$, $B_{0}=4M_{z}(e^{kt}-1)$ (Gaussian units), $t $ is the magnetic film thickness, $ M_{z}$ is the magnetization and $B_{bx}$, $B_{by}$ are the bias magnetic fields in the
$x $ and $y $ directions. From this equation one can calculate the relevant magnitudes of the trapping potential as a function of the bias fields. The distance to the surface of the minima is
\begin{equation}
z_{min}=\frac{a}{2\pi}ln\left( \frac{B_{0}}{\left|B_{by}\right|}\right)
\end{equation}
The barrier heights are
\begin{equation}
\Delta B_{y}=(B_{bx}^2+4B_{by}^2)^{1/2}-\left|B_{bx}\right|\\
\textnormal{and}\\
\Delta B_{z}=(B_{bx}^2+B_{by}^2)^{1/2}-\left|B_{bx}\right|
\end{equation}
The Ioffe field at the bottom of the minima is $B_{IP}$=$\left|B_{bx}\right|$. The trapping potential is produced by the magnetic dipole interaction, which if the atom adiabatically follows the trapping potential can be expressed as $U(x,y,z)=m_{F}g_{F}\mu_{B} B$. Only atoms in weak-field seeking states can be trapped in a local minimum of the magnetic field, and in order to minimize three-body losses that limit the lifetime of the atoms in the tight microtraps, for $^{87}$Rb we choose the weak-field seeking state $\left|F=1,m_{F}=-1\right\rangle$.
Then the radial trap frequency associated with a harmonic potential in elongated traps can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\omega_{y}\approx\omega_{z}=\frac{2\pi}{a}\left(\frac{m_{F}g_{F}\mu_{B}}{m\left|B_{bx}\right|}\right)^{1/2}B_{by}
\end{equation}
From this equation we can estimate some characteristics of the trapping potential associated with our magnetic film patterned as a 1D array with a period 0.7~$\mu$m. The magnetic film has $4 \pi M_{z}=5.9$~kG and the total magnetic thickness is $t=2.24$~nm. One can create a set of microtraps with $z_{min}=280$~nm, where the required bias field is $B_{by}=3$~G. To avoid Majorana spin-flips the bottom of the trap needs to be raised from zero; if the bottom of the trap is set to $B_{IP}=1$~G, the barrier heights are $\Delta B_{y}=5.1$~G and $\Delta B_{z}=2.2$~G. For $^{87}$Rb atoms in the $ \left|F=1,m=-1 \right\rangle$ state, these barrier heights translate into trap depths of 171~$\mu$K and 73~$\mu$K, respectively, which are sufficient to trap atoms pre-cooled to 10-15~$\mu$K. The trap frequencies in this case are $\omega_{y}/ 2\pi \approx \omega_{z}/ 2\pi \approx 100$~kHz.
Atom surface interactions can limit the lifetime of the atom clouds at distances from the surface of the order of a hundred nanometers. Previous experimental studies show short lifetimes at distances of about 1~$\mu$m~\cite{Harber03,Lin04}. The main reasons for this limit are the van der Waals forces and Johnson noise. In the first case the attractive van der Waals force between the atoms and the surface can shift and alter the magnetic potential so that it is no longer trapping, as happens with the gravity potential if the trap is not tight enough. To compare both forces one can define a critical trap frequency~\cite{Leung11} at which the trapping potential begins to fold due to the van der Waals forces. If the interacting surface is the final reflecting layer and using the previous settings of the potential we can calculate the critical trap frequency, $\omega_{crit}/2\pi=44$~kHz. This frequency value is below the trapping frequency, from which we conclude that the stiffness of the magnetic potential is sufficiently large to compensate the van der Waals force.
Johnson noise comes about because a conducting surface can have random thermal currents flowing in-plane; these currents are a source of magnetic field noise which can induce spin flips and hence loss of atoms from a magnetic trap~\cite{Henkel99,Henkel01,Harber03,Lin04,Rekdal04,Scheel05}. For thin conducting films such that the film thickness $t << z_{min} << \delta $, where $\delta$=$\sqrt{2\rho/ (\mu_{0} \omega_{L}})$ is the skin depth (typically 50-100~$\mu$m) at the spin-flip transition frequency $\omega_L$, the thermal spin-flip transition rate can be written~\cite{Lin04,Scheel05}
\begin{equation}\label{Jlifetime}
\Gamma_{Fm}\approx C_{Fm}^{2} C_0 t /z_{min}^2
\end{equation}
where $C_{Fm}^2 =\left| \left\langle F,m+1\left| S_+\right|F,m\right\rangle \right|^2$, $S_+$ is the electron-spin raising operator, $C_0=\left[ 3\mu_0 g_s \mu_B/\left(8 \hbar\right)\right]^2\left[k_B T /\left(6 \pi \rho \right)\right]=$\\
68~$\mu $m~s$^{-1}(T/300$~K$)(\rho_{Au}/\rho)$~\cite{Lin04}, $\rho$ is the resistivity of the conducting film ($2.22 \times 10^{-8}~\Omega$m for gold), $\mu_0$ is the vacuum permeability, $\omega_L = g_F \mu_{B} B_{IP}/\hbar$ is the Larmor frequency, $g_F$ is the Lande g-factor, $g_S \approx 2$ is the electron spin g-factor and $\mu_B$ is the Bohr magneton. Thus for $t << z_{min} << \delta $ the spin-flip lifetime $\tau=\Gamma_{Fm}^{-1}$ scales approximately as $z_{min}^2 \rho/t$, which is independent of the $\omega_L$ and hence the trap bottom $B_{IP}$. For $^{87}$Rb atoms trapped in the $ \left|F=1,m=-1 \right\rangle$ state, atom loss is assumed to occur via the $ \left|F=1,m=-1 \right\rangle \rightarrow \left|F=1,m=0 \right\rangle$ transition, for which $C_{1,-1}^2 = 1/8$. For a gold reflecting film and $t=0.05$~$\mu$m, $z_{min}=0.28$~$\mu$m, $T=300$~K, we obtain a thermal spin-flip lifetime $\tau_{Au} \approx 180$~ms which is long compared with the estimated tunneling times of 60~ms and 13~ms for a 0.7~$\mu$m-period lattice with barrier heights $V_0 \sim 12 E_{R}$~(20~mG) and $6 E_{R}$~(10~mG), respectively. The spin-flip lifetime could be increased if required by using a reflecting film with higher resistivity, such as palladium ($\rho_{Pd}= 1.05 \times 10^{-7}$~$\Omega$m), for which the spin-flip lifetime becomes $\tau_{Pd} \approx 870$~ms.
\begin{figure*}[htb!]%
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.80\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig5a.png}%
\caption{}%
\label{PhaseMap}%
\end{subfigure}\quad%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{1.1\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig5b.pdf}%
\caption{}%
\label{Decay}%
\end{subfigure}%
\caption{(a) MFM measurement of the 1D magnetic microstructure with a distance between the probe tip and the surface of 50~nm. The MFM image maps the magnetic field above the surface of the 1D sample, which shows oscillations given by the period of the structure. (b) Plot of the natural logarithm of the amplitude of the MFM signal versus tip-surface distance $\Delta z$. The red line is a fitted decay curve. Inset (b): Plot of the profile of the MFM signal in the $y$ direction at a tip surface distance of 50~nm. The red line is the fitted curve to the data points from the oscillating signal.}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Fabrication results}
To obtain these 1D structures a square region of dimension 0.8$\times $0.8~mm${^2}$ of the magnetic film was etched following the method described in figure~\ref{ebeamlithography}. The resulting film was examined with an SEM (figures~\ref{1DSEM1} and~\ref{1DSEM2}) to check the quality of the surface and the period of the grooved structures. A magnetic force microscope (MFM) scan over the magnetized sample was carried out to map the magnetic field over the structures~(figure~\ref{PhaseMap}) This scan is made in the so-called dynamic MFM mode (AC) to increase the signal to noise. However, the resulting magnitude does not give us directly the magnetic field over the surface. The AC MFM mode provides a measure of the difference of the phase of the oscillating cantilever-sample system. The tip oscillates at its resonant frequency with a small amplitude in the vertical $z$ direction. To lowest order the magnetic force causes a phase shift and a shift in the resonant frequency~\cite{Grutter92,Manalis95}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta\phi\approx \frac{Q}{k}\frac{\partial F_z}{\partial z} \propto \frac{\partial^2 B_z}{\partial z^2}, \quad\quad
\Delta f\approx -\frac{f_n}{2k}\frac{\partial F_z}{\partial z} \propto \frac{\partial^2 B_z}{\partial z^2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $Q$ is the cantilever quality factor, $f_n$ is the natural resonant frequency of the cantilever tip and $k$ is the spring constant. Thus the MFM signal is primarily sensitive to the second spatial derivative of the $z$ component of the magnetic field. If we use the magnetic field from equation~\ref{1Dfield}, the MFM signal is just proportional to the magnetic field, an oscillating signal in the $y $ direction with the period of the structures and an amplitude decay length of $k^{-1}=a/2\pi$. A way to check the quality of the magnetic lattice across the sample is to determine the dependence of the amplitude of this oscillating MFM signal on the distance of the MFM tip from the etched magnetic film. From the oscillating profile of the MFM (figure~\ref{Decay} inset, taken at a tip-surface distance of 50~nm), we measure a period of $a_{osc}=651$~$\pm$~3~nm, and from the fitted decay length (figure~\ref{Decay}) we obtain $a_{decay}=662$~$\pm$~11~nm, where the uncertainties come from the residuals of the fits. These values are close to the result from the SEM analysis (figure~\ref{1DSEM2}) confirming the quality of the periodicity of the structure. Some of the difference between the two measurements comes from the calibration of the spatial dimensions in the MFM apparatus or from high harmonic terms that we have neglected in this analysis~\cite{Hughes97}.
\begin{figure*}[htb!]%
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.96\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig6a}%
\caption{}%
\label{SEMTriangular}%
\end{subfigure}\quad%
\begin{subfigure}{.96\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig6b}%
\caption{}%
\label{SEMSquare}%
\end{subfigure}%
\caption{SEM images of the patterns of 2D geometries after the etching process. The dark grey regions correspond to the etched and the light grey magnetic regions are the non-etched. These patterns generate a magnetic lattice with (a) triangular translational symmetry, and (b) square translational symmetry. Both structures exhibit good homogeneity (from the main SEM picture) and the desired single element block which is duplicated across the film (from the inset at the top left of each image)}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results for 2D structures}
The fabrication of magnetic structures to create two-dimensional complex magnetic lattices with sub-micron period for trapping ultracold atoms is the main goal of the present work. Until now 2D lattices with square, triangular, kagome or honeycomb geometries have been created with optical lattices~\cite{Tarruell12,Uehlinger13,Stamper13,Luhman14}, as well as square and triangular lattice geometries for permanent magnetic films~\cite{Whitlock09,Leung14} but with periods of 10~$\mu$m or greater. We have fabricated two magnetic planar structures able to create magnetic potentials with square and triangular symmetries and sub-micron period.
In principle, a planar structure etched in a magnetic film can create arbitrary potentials above the surface~\cite{Schmied10}. To design the magnetic structures related to the desired potentials we have employed an optimization algorithm proposed by Schmied et al.~\cite{Schmied10}. The code automatically generates a planar binary distribution of magnetization patterns with magnetization out of plane, in order to produce the desired lattice symmetries with specified trap parameters. This method makes possible the design of the desired geometries, which would be extremely difficult to obtain using manual methods. The optimization algorithm itself exports a binary image which encodes the magnetic versus non-magnetic regions within one unit cell, so that the generated pattern has pixels with either zero or maximal magnetization. Once a magnetic lattice unit cell has been designed it is necessary to export it in a format for lithographic patterning; then the lithographic software will tile the unit cell to produce the entire lattice. The fabrication process at this point is straightforward due to the binary nature of the pattern generated, by etching away the pixels with zero magnetization.
Our simulations indicate that for a square magnetic lattice produced by a patterned Co/Pd film with $4 \pi M_z=5.9$~kG and $t=2.24$~nm, bias fields of $B_{bx}=1.7$~G, $B_{by}=-0.8$~G create lattice traps at $z_{min} = 350$~nm from the film surface, with a Ioffe field of $B_{IP}=1.1$~G. The trap barrier height is 1.42~G in both the $x $ and $y $ directions and 0.78~G in the $z$ direction. For $^{87}$Rb atoms in the $ \left|F=1,m=-1 \right\rangle$ state, these barrier heights correspond to trap depths of 47~$\mu$K and 26~$\mu$K, respectively. Each trap is approximately cylindrically symmetric with the long axis along the $[1,1,0] $ direction. The calculated trap frequencies are $\omega_{z}/2\pi \approx \omega_{\perp}/2\pi \approx 120$~kHz and $\omega_{\parallel}/2 \pi \approx 37$~kHz.
For the triangular lattice, bias fields of $B_{bx}=0.1$~G, $B_{by}=-1.0$~G create traps at $z_{min} = 350$~nm from the film surface, with a Ioffe field of $B_{IP}=0.36$~G. The trap barrier height is 1.3~G along all three triangular lattice directions and 0.62~G in the $z$ direction. These barrier heights correspond to trap depths of 43~$\mu$K and 21~$\mu$K, respectively. Larger barrier heights can be obtained by using thicker Co/Pd magnetic film. The trap frequencies are $\omega_{x}/2\pi \approx 36$~kHz and $\omega_{y}/2\pi \approx \omega_{z}/2\pi \approx 145$~kHz. For $z_{min}=0.35$~$\mu$m from a gold or palladium layer with $t=0.05$~$\mu$m, we obtain from equation~\ref{Jlifetime} thermal spin-flip lifetimes $\tau_{Au}=290$~ms and $\tau_{Pd}=1360$~ms.
The resulting etched structures for these geometries are shown in figure~\ref{SEMTriangular} and~\ref{SEMSquare}. The measured etch depth is around 10~nm, so that we can be certain that all of the magnetic film is removed in the desired non-magnetic zones for a good reproduction of the binary pattern. From the SEM images we observe good agreement with the designed pattern, and from a far field of view the unit cell is well reproduced for large areas~$>100 \times 100$~$\mu$m$^2$. Some stitching errors appear in the pattern due to the limited area of patterning of the EBL. An effective working area of 100~$\mu$m$^2$ is satisfactory for our purpose, since this corresponds to more than 10$^4$ lattice sites in a 0.7~$\mu$m-period lattice.
We have performed calculations of the magnetic field produced by the optimized square lattice, and in particular for the second derivative of the field for comparison with the MFM data \cite{Hughes97}. Figure~\ref{MFMTest} shows the surface topology and calculated field for the optimized square lattice. The calculated second derivative is in qualitative agreement with the MFM
measurements of the lithographically patterned Co/Pd multilayer. In the MFM data there are several sharper (nearly) horizontal lines within the magnetic islands that are not reproduced by the simulations. This feature could be explained by the formation of magnetic domains near the boundaries of the structure, or by redeposition of material at one edge during etching. Presently, we cannot rule out artifacts introduced by the MFM when the surface topology changes due to residual photoresist on the surface.
\begin{figure*}%
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.48\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig7a}%
\caption{}%
\label{MFMTestA}%
\end{subfigure}\quad%
\begin{subfigure}{.48\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig7b}%
\caption{}%
\label{MFMTestB}%
\end{subfigure}\quad%
\begin{subfigure}{.48\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig7c}%
\caption{}%
\label{MFMTestC}%
\end{subfigure}\quad%
\begin{subfigure}{.48\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig7d}%
\caption{}%
\label{MFMTestD}%
\end{subfigure}%
\caption{(a) Pattern generated by the Schmied et al code~\cite{Schmied10}. The white region corresponds to the magnetic film. The red square is delimiting the unit cell. (b) Calculated magnetic potential of a square magnetic lattice of period $a=$~0.7~$\mu$m at the chosen height of $a/2$ produced by the planar magnetic structure. (c) Calculated second spatial derivative of $B_z$ at a constant height calculated from the designed structures. (d) MFM signal from the fabricated structure, in qualitative agreement with the second spatial derivative. For this calculation (in (a), (b) and (c)) an extra erosion in the film during the patterning was taken into account.}
\label{MFMTest}
\end{figure*}
\section{Summary}
We have fabricated and characterized magnetic structures to create a lattice of magnetic microtraps for ultracold atoms with a period of 0.7~$\mu$m. We fabricated one 1D lattice and two 2D lattices with square and triangular translational geometries. To create the structures we have patterned a Co/Pd magnetic multilayered thin film with electron-beam lithography and reactive ion etching. We have shown that Co/Pd multilayered films have a small grain size and high remanent magnetization and coercivity making them an ideal material to create sub-micron magnetic structures. The scanning electron microscope images displayed the required patterning quality and magnetic force microscope measurements confirm that the structures have the right magnetic potentials to trap ultracold atoms in the diverse lattice geometries. New developments in 3D electron beam and ion beam technologies free from stitching errors may allow us to combine resolution of tens-of-nm with areas having sub-cm cross-sections.
These small periods give access to high energy scales in the Hubbard model and to tight traps with high frequencies for rubidium atoms. This makes them a promising tool for studies of one-dimensional quantum gases, quantum simulation and quantum information processing.
The method demonstrated in this paper offers a great degree of freedom to design and create different magnetic potentials to trap ultracold atoms close to surfaces. Geometries that are difficult to generate with other methods, such as triangular, hexagonal, kagome, and superlattices, may provide a better understanding of the underlying physics of novel materials such as graphene~\cite{Zhu07,Tarruell12,Uehlinger13}, a remarkable material that has great technological potential and is currently the subject of intense interest.
\phantomsection
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Acknowledgments}
We are indebted to James Wang, Stefan Tibus, Brenton Hall, Russell Anderson and Smitha Jose for fruitful discussions. We acknowledge funding from an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Project grant (Grant No. DP130101160).
\phantomsection\
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}
Consider a standard decision-theoretic setting where $\Theta$ and $\mathcal{A}$ are the parameter and action spaces respectively and $L(\theta, a): \Theta \times \mathcal{A} \mapsto [0, \infty)$ is a non-negative loss function. We observe data $X$ taking values in a sample space ${\mathcal{X}}$. The distribution of $X$ depends on the unknown parameter $\theta$ and is denoted by $P_{\theta}$ ($P_{\theta}$ is a probability measure on ${\mathcal{X}}$). The class of probability measures $\{P_{\theta} : \theta \in \Theta\}$ is denoted by ${\mathcal{P}}$. A decision rule is a measurable mapping from ${\mathcal{X}}$ to ${\mathcal{A}}$. The risk of a decision rule ${\mathfrak{d}}$ is defined by ${\mathbb E}_{\theta} L(\theta, {\mathfrak{d}}(X))$, where ${\mathbb E}_{\theta}$ denotes expectation taken under the assumption that $X$ is distributed according to $P_{\theta}$. For a given proper prior $w$ (i.e., $w$ is a probability measure on $\Theta$), the Bayes risk with respect to $w$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) := \inf_{{\mathfrak{d}}} \int_{\Theta} {\mathbb E}_{\theta} L(\theta, {\mathfrak{d}}(X)) w(\mathrm{d}\theta)
\label{eq:R_Bayes}
\end{equation}
where the infimum is over all decision rules ${\mathfrak{d}}$. When $L$ and $\Theta$ are clear from the context, we simply denote the Bayes risk by $R_{\rm Bayes}(w)$. When the prior $w$ is also clear, the notation is further simplified to $R$.
The goal of this paper is to prove new lower bounds for $R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta)$ for any given prior $w$ and loss function $L$. Bayes risk lower bounds are useful for three main reasons: (a) they provide an idea of the difficulty of the decision theoretic problem under a specific prior $w$, (b) they automatically provide lower bounds for the minimax risk:
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{\rm minimax}(L; \Theta):= \inf_{{\mathfrak{d}}} \sup_{\theta \in \Theta} {\mathbb E}_{\theta} L(\theta, {\mathfrak{d}}(X)),
\label{eq:R_minimax}
\end{eqnarray}
which is an important quantity in statistical decision theory, and (c) they are useful in proving admissibility results.
In order to give the reader a flavor of the kind of results proved in this paper, let us consider Fano's classical inequality \citep{Han:94,Cover:IT:06, yu1997assouad} which is one of the most widely used Bayes risk lower bounds in statistics and information theory. The standard version of Fano's inequality applies to the case when $\Theta = {\mathcal{A}} = \{1, \dots, N\}$ for some positive integer $N$ with the indicator loss $L(\theta, a) := \mathbb{I}\{\theta \neq a\}$ ($\mathbb{I}$ stands for the zero-one valued indicator function) and the prior $w$ being the discrete uniform distribution on $\Theta$. In this setting, Fano's inequality states that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:classcial_Fano}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w) \geq 1 - \frac{I(w, \mathcal{P}) + \log 2}{\log N}
\end{equation}
where $I(w, \mathcal{P})$ is the mutual information between the random variables $\theta \sim w$ and $X$ with $X \vert \theta \sim P_{\theta}$ (note that this mutual information only depends on $w$ and ${\mathcal{P}}=\{P_{\theta} : \theta \in \Theta\}$ which is why we denote it by $I(w, {\mathcal{P}})$). Fano's inequality implies that when $I(w; \mathcal{P})$ is large i.e., when the information that $X$ has about $\theta$ is large, then the risk of estimation is small and vice versa.
A natural question regarding Fano's inequality, which does not seem to have been asked until very recently, is the following: does there exist an analogue of \eqref{eq:classcial_Fano} when $w$ is not necessarily the uniform prior and/or when $\Theta$ and ${\mathcal{A}}$ are arbitrary sets, and/or when the loss function is not necessarily $\mathbb{I}\{\theta \neq a\}$? An interesting result in this direction is the following inequality which has been recently proved by \cite{Duchi:Fano} who termed it the continuum Fano inequality. This inequality applies to the case when $\Theta = {\mathcal{A}}$ is a subset of Euclidean space with finite strictly positive Lebesgue measure, $L(\theta, a) = \mathbb{I}\{\|\theta - a\|_2 \geq \epsilon\}$ for a fixed $\epsilon > 0$ ($\|\cdot\|_2$ is the usual Euclidean metric) and the prior $w$ being the uniform probability measure (i.e., normalized Lebesgue measure) on $\Theta$. In this setting, \cite{Duchi:Fano} proved that
\begin{equation}\label{cf}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w) \geq 1 + \frac{I(w, \mathcal{P}) + \log 2}{\log \left( \sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}}
w\{\theta \in \Theta : \|\theta - a\|_2 < \epsilon\} \right)}.
\end{equation}
It turns out that there is a very clean connection between inequalities \eqref{eq:classcial_Fano} and \eqref{cf}. Indeed, both these inequalities are special instances of the following inequality:
\begin{equation}\label{intro_gf}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w) \geq 1 + \frac{I(w, \mathcal{P}) + \log 2}{\log \left( \sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}}
w\{\theta \in \Theta : L(\theta, a) = 0\} \right)}
\end{equation}
Indeed, the term $w\{\theta \in \Theta : L(\theta, a) = 0\}$ equal to $1/N$ in the setting of \eqref{eq:classcial_Fano} and it is equal to $w\{\theta \in \Theta: \|\theta - a\|_2 < \epsilon\}$ in the setting of \eqref{cf}.
Since both \eqref{eq:classcial_Fano} and \eqref{cf} are special instances of \eqref{intro_gf}, one might reasonably conjecture that inequality \eqref{intro_gf} might hold more generally. In Section \ref{sec:Bayes_01}, we give an affirmative answer by proving that inequality \eqref{intro_gf} holds for any zero-one valued loss function $L$ and any prior $w$. No assumptions on $\Theta$, ${\mathcal{A}}$ and $w$ are needed. We refer to this result as \emph{generalized Fano's inequality}. Our proof of \eqref{intro_gf} is quite succinct and is based on the data processing inequality \citep{Cover:IT:06,Liese12} for Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence.
The data processing inequality is not only available for the KL divergence. It can be generalized to any divergence belonging to a general family known as $f$-divergences \citep{Csiszar:63, AliSilvey:66}. This family includes the KL divergence, chi-squared divergence, squared Hellinger distance, total variation distance and power divergences as special cases. For every $f$-divergence, one can define a quantity called $f$-informativity \citep{Csiszar:72} which plays the same role as the mutual information for KL divergence. The precise definitions of $f$-divergences and $f$-informativities are given in Section \ref{sec:pre}. Utilizing the data processing inequality for $f$-divergence, we prove general Bayes risk lower bounds which hold for every zero-one valued loss $L$ and for arbitrary $\Theta$, ${\mathcal{A}}$ and $w$ (Theorem \ref{man}). The generalized Fano's inequality~\eqref{intro_gf} is a special case by choosing the $f$-divergence to be KL. The proposed Bayes risk lower bounds can also be specialized to other $f$-divergences and have a variety of interesting connections to existing lower bounds in the literature such as Le Cam's inequality, Assouad's lemma (see Theorem 2.12 in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara}), Birg\'{e}-Gushchin inequality \citep{Gushchin:03, Birge:ineq}, and many minimax lower bounds in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara} (specifically, Theorem 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 and 2.15 in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara}). These results are provided in Section \ref{sec:Bayes_01}. In Section \ref{sec:compare}, we also provide some qualitative comparisons among the derived Bayes risk lower bounds for different choices of $f$-divergence. We argue that Hellinger distance leads to inequalities that are qualitatively quite different (and less useful in certain applications) from the inequalities corresponding to KL and chi-squared divergences. We also reason that our lower bounds involving KL/chi-squared are useful even in situations where all pairwise KL/chi-squared divergences are infinite.
In Section \ref{sec:Bayes_general}, we deal with arbitrary nonnegative valued loss functions $L$ which are not necessarily zero-one valued. Basically, we use the standard method of lower bounding the general loss function $L$ by a zero-one valued function and then use our results from Section \ref{sec:Bayes_01} for lower bounding the Bayes risk.
This technique, in conjunction with the generalized Fano's inequality, gives the following lower bound (proved in Corollary \ref{cor:bwl})
\begin{equation}\label{eq:intro_I_bayes_KL}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq \frac{1}{2} \sup \left\{t> 0 : \sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w \{\theta : L(\theta, a) <t \} \leq \frac{1}{4} e^{-2 I(w, \mathcal{P})} \right\}.
\end{equation}
This inequality is very general in that it is true for any $\Theta$, ${\mathcal{A}}$, any given nonnegative loss $L$ and prior $w$. In fact, using our $f$-divergence inequalities from Section \ref{sec:Bayes_01}, we prove, in Theorem \ref{bwl}, the following general lower bound for $R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta)$ which holds for any $f$-divergence:
\begin{equation}\label{ggfe}
\frac{1}{2} \sup \left\{t > 0 : \sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w \{\theta : L(\theta, a) < t\} < 1 - u_f(I_f(w, \mathcal{P}))\right\}
\end{equation}
where $I_f(w, \mathcal{P})$ represents the $f$-informativity and $u_f(\cdot)$ is a non-decreasing $[0, 1]$-valued function that depends only on $f$. This function $u_f(\cdot)$ (see its definition from \eqref{ufi}) can be explicitly computed for many $f$-divergences of interest, which gives useful lower bounds in terms of $f$-informativity. For example, for the case of KL divergence and chi-squared divergence, inequality \eqref{ggfe} gives the lower bound in \eqref{eq:intro_I_bayes_KL} and the following inequality respectively,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:intro_I_bayes_chi}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq \frac{1}{2} \sup \left\{t> 0 : \sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w \{\theta : L(\theta, a) < t\} \leq \frac{1}{4(1 + I_{\chi^2}(w, \mathcal{P}))} \right\}.
\end{equation}
where $I_{\chi^2}(w, \mathcal{P})$ is the chi-squared informativity.
Intuitively, inequality \eqref{ggfe} shows that the Bayes risk is lower bounded by half of the largest possible $t$ such that the maximum prior mass of any $t$-radius ``ball" ($w \{\theta : L(\theta, a) < t \}$) is less than some function of $f$-informativity. To apply \eqref{ggfe}, one needs to obtain upper bounds on the following two quantities:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The ``small ball probability" $\sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w \{\theta : L(\theta, a) < t \}$, which does not depend of the family of probability measures ${\mathcal{P}}$.
\item The $f$-informativity $I_f(w, \mathcal{P})$, which does not depend on the loss function $L$.
\end{enumerate}
We note that a nice feature of \eqref{ggfe} is that $L$ and ${\mathcal{P}}$ play separately roles. One may first obtain an upper bound $I_f^{\rm up}$ for the $f$-informativity $I_f(w, \mathcal{P})$, then choose $t$ so that the small ball probability $w \{\theta : L(\theta, a) < t \}$ can be bounded from above by $1 - u_f(I_f^{\rm up})$. The Bayes risk will be bounded from below by $t/2$.
We do not have a general guideline for bounding the small ball probability. It needs to be dealt with case by case based on the prior and the loss function. But for upper bounding the $f$-informativity, we offer a general recipe in Section \ref{sec:upper_f_informativity} for a subclass of divergences of interest (power divergences for $\alpha \notin [0, 1)$), which covers the chi-squared divergence as one of the most important divergences in our applications. These bounds generalize results of \cite{haussler1997} and \cite{Yang:Barron:99} for mutual information to $f$-informativities involving power divergences. As an illustration of our techniques (inequality \eqref{ggfe} combined with the $f$-informativity upper bounds), we apply them to a concrete estimation problem in Section \ref{sec:upper_f_informativity} with more examples in the appendix.
A nontrivial application of our Bayes risk lower bounds to a recent admissibility result of \cite{Sourav14LS} is presented in Section \ref{sec:admis}. The result deals with convex-constrained least squares estimators in the Gaussian sequence model. Consider the problem of estimating a vector $\theta \in {\mathbb R}^n$ in squared Euclidean loss $L(\theta, a)=\|\theta-a\|_2^2$ from a single $n$-dimensional observation $X \sim N(\theta, I_n)$, i.e., $X$ is Gaussian with mean $\theta$ and identity covariance. The true parameter $\theta$ is assumed to be in a known closed convex set $\Theta \subseteq {\mathbb R}^n$. This estimation problem includes many standard problems such as isotonic regression, convex regression, constrained Lasso etc. as special cases.
The most commonly used estimator in this setting is the Least Squares Estimator (LSE) defined as $\widehat{\theta}(X) := \mathop{\rm argmin}_{t \in \Theta} \|X - t\|_2^2$. \citet{Sourav14LS} posed the following fundamental question about the LSE: does $\widehat{\theta}(X)$ satisfy a general optimality property that holds for \textit{every} closed convex set $\Theta$? This is a non-trivial question; the obvious guesses might be admissibility and minimaxity; but the LSE does not satisfy either of these for every $\Theta$. \citet{Sourav14LS} answered this question in the affirmative by proving that $\widehat{\theta}(X)$ is \textit{approximately admissible} for every $\Theta$. The precise statement of Chatterjee's theorem is described below. Let us say that, for a constant $C > 0$, an estimator ${\mathfrak{d}}(X)$ is \emph{$C$-admissible} if for every other estimator $\widetilde{{\mathfrak{d}}}(X)$, there exists $\theta' \in \Theta$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{cad}
C {\mathbb E}_{\theta'} \|{\mathfrak{d}}(X) - \theta' \|_2^2 \leq {\mathbb E}_{\theta'} \|\widetilde{{\mathfrak{d}}}(X) - \theta'\|_2^2.
\end{equation}
Essentially this definition means that it is impossible for any estimator to dominate ${\mathfrak{d}}(X)$ uniformly over $\Theta$ by more than a constant. \cite{Sourav14LS} proved that there exists a universal constant $0 < C \leq 1$ such that for every $n \geq 1$ and closed convex subset $\Theta \subseteq {\mathbb R}^n$, the LSE $\widehat{\theta}(X)$ is $C$-admissible.
Remarkable features of this result are that it is true for every $\Theta$ and that the constant $C$ does not depend on $n$ or $\Theta$.
This is a rather difficult result (in \citeauthor{Sourav14LS}'s own words, ``from a purely mathematical point of view, this is the deepest result of this paper'') and the original proof in \citet{Sourav14LS} is quite complex. In Section \ref{sec:admis}, we show how this proof can be considerably simplified with the use of inequality \eqref{eq:intro_I_bayes_chi}. An outline of our idea is as follows. Analogous to the notion of $C$-admissibility, we can define a notion of $C$-Bayes as follows. For $C > 0$ and a proper prior $w$ over $\Theta$, we say that an estimator ${\mathfrak{d}}(X)$ is $C$-Bayes with respect to $w$ if
\begin{equation}\label{eq:C_Bayes}
C \int_{\Theta} {\mathbb E}_{\theta} \|{\mathfrak{d}}(X) - \theta \|_2^2 w(\mathrm{d}\theta) \leq R_{\rm Bayes}(w):= \inf_{\tilde{{\mathfrak{d}}}} \int_{\Theta} {\mathbb E}_{\theta} \|\tilde{{\mathfrak{d}}}(X) - \theta \|_2^2 w(\mathrm{d}\theta)
\end{equation}
Based on the simple observation that $C$-Bayes for any prior $w$ implies $C$-admissibility, it is enough to construct a prior $w$ such that the LSE $\widehat{\theta}(X)$ is $C$-Bayes with respect to $w$ (for some universal constant $C$). In order to prove that $\widehat{\theta}(X)$ is $C$-Bayes with respect to $w$, it is clear that we need to:
\begin{enumerate}
\item bound $\int_{\Theta} {\mathbb E}_{\theta} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta\|_2^2w(\mathrm{d}\theta)$ from above,
\item bound $R_{\rm Bayes}(w)$ from below
\end{enumerate}
and make sure that the two bounds differ only by the multiplicative factor $C$. Bayes risk lower bounds established in this paper (specifically \eqref{eq:intro_I_bayes_chi}) are directly applicable for carrying out the second step above. In contrast, \citet{Sourav14LS} used a bare hands approach for the second step via ``a sequence of relatively complicated technical steps involving concentration inequalities and second moment lower bounds''.
As we shall demonstrate in Section \ref{sec:admis}, the prior $w$ proposed by \citet{Sourav14LS} is a continuous non-uniform prior on $\Theta$, so that existing Bayes risk lower bounds cannot be directly applied.
Before finishing this introduction section, we briefly describe related work on Bayes risk lower bounds. There are a few results dealing with special cases of finite dimensional estimation problems under (weighted/truncated) quadratic losses. The first results of this kind were established by \cite{VanTree:68}, and ~\cite{Borovkov:80} with extensions by~\cite{Brown:90, Brown:93, gill95,Sato:96, Takada:99}. A few additional papers dealt with even more specialized problems e.g., Gaussian white noise model \citep{BrownLiu:93}, scale models \citep{Gajek:94} and estimating Gaussian variance \citep{Vidakovic:95}. Most of these results are based on the van Trees inequality (see \cite{gill95} and Theorem 2.13 in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara}). Although the van Trees inequality usually leads to sharp constant in the Bayes risk lower bounds, it only applies to weighted quadratic loss functions (as its proof relies on Cauchy-Schwarz inequality) and requires the underlying Fisher information to be easily computable, which limits its applicability. There is also a vast body of literature on minimax lower bounds (see, e.g., \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara}) which can be viewed as Bayes risk lower bounds for certain priors. These priors are usually discrete and specially constructed so that the lower bounds do not apply to more general (continuous) priors. Another related area of work involves finding lower bounds on posterior contraction rates (see, e.g., \citet{Castillo08Lower}).
The rest of the paper is organized in the following way. In Section \ref{sec:pre}, we describe notations and review preliminaries such as $f$-divergences, $f$-informativity, data processing inequality, etc. Section \ref{sec:Bayes_01} deals with inequalities for zero-one valued loss functions. These inequalities have many connections to existing lower bound techniques. Section \ref{sec:Bayes_general} deals with arbitrary loss functions and we provide inequality \eqref{ggfe} and its special cases. Section \ref{sec:upper_f_informativity} presents upper bounds on the $f$-informativity for power divergences for $\alpha \notin [0, 1)$. Some examples are also given in this section. Finally, Section \ref{sec:admis} presents our simplified proof of Theorem \ref{jee}. Due to space constraints, we have relegated all the proofs and some additional examples and results to the .
\section{Preliminaries and notations}
\label{sec:pre}
We first review the notions of $f$-divergence~\citep{Csiszar:63,AliSilvey:66} and $f$-informativity~\citep{Csiszar:72}. Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ denote the class of all convex functions $f: (0, \infty) \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ which satisfy $f(1) = 0$. Because of convexity, the limits $f(0) := \lim_{x \downarrow 0} f(x)$ and $f'(\infty) := \lim_{x \uparrow \infty} f(x)/x$ exist (even though they may be $+\infty$) for each $f \in {\mathcal{C}}$. Each function $f \in {\mathcal{C}}$ defines a divergence between probability measures which is referred to as $f$-divergence. For two probability measures $P$ and $Q$ on a sample space having densities $p$ and $q$ with respect to a common measure $\mu$, the $f$-divergence $D_f(P||Q)$ between $P$ and $Q$ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:df}
D_f(P||Q) := \int f \left(\frac{p}{q} \right)q \mathrm{d} \mu + f'(\infty) P\{q = 0\}.
\end{equation}
We note that the convention $0\cdot \infty= 0$ is adopted here so that $f'(\infty) P\{q = 0\}=0$ when $f'(\infty)=\infty$ and $P\{q=0\}=0$. Note that $D_f(P\|Q) = +\infty$ when $f'(\infty) = +\infty$ and $P\{q = 0\} > 0$. Also note that $f(1) = 0$ implies that $D_f(P \|Q) = 0$ when $P = Q$.
Certain divergences are commonly used because they can be easily computed or bounded when $P$ and $Q$ are product measures. These divergences are the power divergences corresponding to the functions $f_{\alpha}$ defined by
\begin{eqnarray*}
f_\alpha(x) =\begin{cases}
x^{\alpha}-1 & \text{for} \quad \alpha \not \in [0,1];\\
1- x^{\alpha} & \text{for} \quad \alpha \in (0,1);\\
x\log x & \text{for} \quad \alpha=1; \\
-\log x & \text{for} \quad \alpha=0.\\
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
Popular examples of power divergences include:
\textbf{1)} Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence: $\alpha=1$, $D_{f_1}(P||Q)=\bigintssss p \log (p/q) \mathrm{d} \mu$ if $P$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $Q$ (and it is infinite if $P$ is not absolutely continuous with respect to $Q$). Following the conventional notation, we denote the KL divergence by $D(P||Q)$ (instead of $D_{f_1}(P||Q)$).
\textbf{2)} Chi-squared divergence: $\alpha=2$, $D_{f_2}(P||Q)= \bigintssss (p^2/q) \mathrm{d} \mu - 1$ if $P$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $Q$ (and it is infinite if $P$ is not absolutely continuous with respect to $Q$). We denote the chi-squared divergence by $\chi^2(P||Q)$ following the conventional notation.
\textbf{3)} When $\alpha=1/2$, one has $D_{f_{1/2}}(P||Q)= 1- \bigintssss \sqrt{p q} \mathrm{d} \mu$ which is a half of the squared Hellinger distance. That is, $D_{f_{1/2}}(P||Q)=H^2(P ||Q)/2$, where $H^2(P||Q)= \bigintssss (\sqrt{p}-\sqrt{q})^2 \mathrm{d} \mu$ is the squared Hellinger distance between $P$ and $Q$.
The total variation distance $\|P-Q\|_{TV}$ is another $f$-divergence (with $f(x) = |x - 1|/2$) but not a power divergence.
One of the most important properties of $f$-divergences is the ``data processing inequality" (\cite{Csiszar:72} and \citet[Theorem 3.1]{Liese12}) which states the following: let ${\mathcal{X}}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ be two measurable spaces and let $\Gamma: {\mathcal{X}} \rightarrow \mathcal{Y}$ be a measurable function. For every $f \in {\mathcal{C}}$ and every pair of probability measures $P$ and $Q$ on ${\mathcal{X}}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{dpi}
D_f(P\Gamma^{-1} || Q \Gamma^{-1}) \leq D_f(P||Q),
\end{equation}
where $P\Gamma^{-1}$ and $Q \Gamma^{-1}$ denote the \emph{induced measures} of $\Gamma$ on $\mathcal{Y}$, i.e., for any measurable set $B$ on the space $\mathcal{Y}$, $P\Gamma^{-1}(B):=P(\Gamma^{-1}(B))$, $Q\Gamma^{-1}(B):=Q(\Gamma^{-1}(B))$ (see the definition of induced measure from Definition 2.2.1. in \cite{Athreya:06}).
Next, we introduce the notion of $f$-informativity~\citep{Csiszar:72}. Let $\mathcal{P}= \{P_{\theta}: \theta \in \Theta\}$ be a family of probability measures on a space $\mathcal{X}$ and $w$ be a probability measure on $\Theta$. For each $f \in {\mathcal{C}}$, the $f$-informativity, $I_f(w, {\mathcal{P}})$, is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:def_f_info}
I_f(w, {\mathcal{P}})= \inf_{Q} \int D_f(P_{\theta}||Q) w(\mathrm{d} \theta),
\end{eqnarray}
where the infimum is taken over all possible probability measures $Q$ on $\mathcal{X}$. When $f(x)=x\log x$ (so that the corresponding $f$-divergence is the KL divergence), the $f$-informativity is equal to the mutual information and is denoted by $I(w, \mathcal{P})$. We denote the informativity corresponding to the power divergence $D_{f_\alpha}$ by $I_{f_{\alpha}}(w, {\mathcal{P}})$. For the special case $\alpha = 2$, we use the more suggestive notation $I_{\chi^2}(w, {\mathcal{P}})$. The informativity corresponding to the total variation distance will be denoted by $I_{TV}(w, {\mathcal{P}})$.
Additional notations and definitions are described as follows.
Recall the Bayes risk~\eqref{eq:R_Bayes} and the minimax risk~\eqref{eq:R_minimax}. When the loss function $L$ and parameter space $\Theta$ are clear from the context, we drop the dependence on $L$ and $\Theta$. When the prior $w$ is also clear from the context, we denote the Bayes risk by $R$ and the minimax risk by $R_{\rm minimax}$.
We need certain notation for covering numbers. For a given $f$-divergence and a subset $S \subset \Theta$, let $M_f(\epsilon, S)$ denote any upper bound on the smallest number $M$ for which there exist probability measures $Q_1, \dots, Q_M$ that form an $\epsilon^2$-cover of $\{P_{\theta}, \theta \in S \}$ under the $f$-divergence i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{redf}
\sup_{\theta \in S} \min_{1 \leq j \leq M} D_f(P_{\theta} || Q_j) \leq \epsilon^2.
\end{equation}
We write the covering number as $M_{KL}(\epsilon, S)$ when $f(x) = x \log x$ and $M_{\chi^2}(\epsilon, S)$ when $f(x) = x^2 - 1$. We write $M_{\alpha}(\epsilon, S)$ when $f = f_{\alpha}$ for other $\alpha \in {\mathbb R}$. We note that $\log M_f(\epsilon, S)$ is an upper bound on the metric entropy. The quantity $M_f(\epsilon, S)$ can be infinite if $S$ is arbitrary.
For a vector $x=(x_1, \ldots, x_d)$ and a real number $p \geq 1$, denote by $\|x\|_p$ the $\ell_p$-norm of $x$. In particular, $\|x\|_2$ denotes the Euclidean norm of $x$.
$\mathbb{I}(A)$ denotes the indicator function which takes value 1 when $A$ is true and 0 otherwise.
We use $C$, $c$, etc. to denote generic constants whose values might change from place to place.
\section{Bayes risk lower bounds for zero-one valued loss functions and their applications}
\label{sec:Bayes_01}
In this section, we consider zero-one loss functions $L$ and present a principled approach to derive Bayes risk lower bounds involving $f$-informativity for every $f \in {\mathcal{C}}$. Our results hold for any given prior $w$ and zero-one loss $L$. By specializing the $f$-divergence to KL divergence, we obtain the generalized Fano's inequality~\eqref{intro_gf}. When specializing to other $f$-divergences, our bounds lead to some classical minimax bounds of Le Cam and Assouad \citep{Assouad:83}, more recent minimax results of \citet{Gushchin:03, Birge:ineq} and also results in \citet[Chapter 2]{Tsybakov:nonpara}. Bayes risk lower bounds for general nonnegative loss functions will be presented in the next section.
We need additional notations to state the main results of this section. For each $f \in {\mathcal{C}}$, let $\phi_f: [0, 1]^2 \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ be the function defined in the following way: for $a, b \in [0, 1]^2$, $\phi_f(a, b)$ is the $f$-divergence between the two probability measures $P$ and $Q$ on $\{0, 1\}$ given by $P\{1\} = a$ and $Q\{1\} = b$. By the definition \eqref{eq:df}, it is easy to see that $\phi_f(a, b)$ has the following expression (recall that $f'(\infty) := \lim_{x \uparrow \infty} f(x)/x$):
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:phi}
\phi_f(a, b) =\begin{cases}
b f \left(\frac{a}{b} \right) + (1 - b) f \left(\frac{1-a}{1-b}
\right) & \text{for} \quad 0 < b < 1;\\
f(1-a) + a f'(\infty) & \text{for} \quad b = 0;\\
f(a) + (1 - a) f'(\infty) & \text{for} \quad b = 1. \\
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
The convexity of $f$ implies monotonicity and convexity properties of $\phi_f$, which is stated in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:lower_property}
For each $f \in \mathcal{C}$, for every fixed $b$, the map $g(a): a \mapsto \phi_f(a,b)$ is non-increasing for $a \in [0,b]$ and $g(a)$ is convex and continuous in $a$. Further, for every fixed $a$, the map $h(b): b \mapsto \phi_f(a,b)$ is non-decreasing for $b \in [a, 1]$.
\end{lemma}
We also define the quantity
\begin{equation}\label{R0def}
R_0 := \inf_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} \int_{\Theta} L(\theta, a) w(\mathrm{d}\theta),
\end{equation}
where the decision $a$ does not depend on data $X$. Note that $R_0$ represents the Bayes risk with respect to $w$ in the ``no data'' problem i.e., when one only has information on $\Theta$, ${\mathcal{A}}$, $L$ and the prior $w$ but not the data $X$. For simplicity, our notation for $R_0$ suppresses its dependence on $w$. Because the loss function is zero-one valued so that $L(\theta,a)=1-\mathbb{I}(L(\theta,a)=0)$, the quantity $R_0$ has the following alternative expression:
\begin{equation}
\label{alte}
R_0 = 1 - \sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w(B(a)),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{ba}
B(a) := \left\{\theta \in \Theta: L(\theta, a) = 0 \right\},
\end{equation}
and $w(B(a))$ is the prior mass of the ``ball" $B(a)$.
It will be important in the sequel to observe that the Bayes risk, $R_{\rm Bayes}(w)$ is bounded from above by $R_0$. This is obvious because the risk with some data cannot be greater than the risk in the no data problem. Formally, if $\mathcal{D}=\{{\mathfrak{d}}: \exists a \in {\mathcal{A}} ~~ \text{such that} ~~ {\mathfrak{d}}(x) = a~ \forall x \in \mathcal{X}\}$ is the class of the constant decision rules, then $R_0=\inf_{{\mathfrak{d}} \in \mathcal{D}} \int_{\Theta} {\mathbb E}_{\theta}L(\theta, {\mathfrak{d}}(X)) w(\mathrm{d}\theta) \geq R_{\rm Bayes}(w)$. Because $0 \leq R_{\rm Bayes}(w) \leq R_0$, we have $R_{\rm Bayes}(w) = 0$ when $R_0 = 0$. We shall therefore assume throughout this section that $R_0 > 0$.
The main result of this section is presented next. It provides an implicit lower bound for the Bayes risk in terms of $R_0$ and the $f$-informativity $I_f(w, {\mathcal{P}})$ for every $f \in {\mathcal{C}}$. The only assumption is that $L$ is zero-one valued and we do not assume the existence of the Bayes decision rule.
\begin{theorem}\label{man}
Suppose that the loss function $L$ is zero-one valued. For any $f \in {\mathcal{C}}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{man.eq}
I_f(w, {\mathcal{P}}) \geq \phi_f(R_{\rm Bayes}(w), R_0)
\end{equation}
where $\phi_f$ and $R_0$ are defined \eqref{eq:phi} and \eqref{R0def} respectively.
\end{theorem}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{illu_main.png}
\caption{Illustration on why \eqref{man.eq} leads to a lower bound on $R_{\rm Bayes}(w)$. Recall that $R \leq R_0$ and $r \mapsto \phi_f(r, R_0)$ is non-increasing in $r$ for $r \in [0, R_0]$. Given $I_f(w, \mathcal{P})$ as an upper bound of $\phi_f(R_{\rm Bayes}(w), R_0)$, we have $R_{\rm Bayes}(w) >R_L$ and thus $R_L$ serves as a Bayes risk lower bound.
}
\label{fig:phi_r}
\end{figure}
Inequality \eqref{man.eq} provides an implicit lower bound for the Bayes risk $R := R_{\rm Bayes}(w)$ since $R \leq R_0$ and $r \mapsto \phi_f(r, R_0)$ is non-increasing in $r$ for $r \in [0, R_0]$ (Lemma \ref{lem:lower_property}).
As an illustration, we plot $\phi_f(r, R_0)$ for $f(x)=x \log x$ and $r \in [0, R_0]$ in Figure~\ref{fig:phi_r}. The implicit Bayes risk lower bound in \eqref{man.eq} can be easily converted into an explicit bound in the following way. This technique will be used to establish the generalized Fano's inequality (see Corollary \ref{cor:Fano}). In particular, since $r \mapsto \phi_f(r, R_0)$ is convex (see Lemma \ref{lem:lower_property}),
\begin{equation*}
\phi_f(R, R_0) \geq \phi_f(r, R_0) + \phi'_f(r-, R_0) (R - r) \qt{for every $0 < r \leq R_0$}
\end{equation*}
where $\phi_f'(r-, R_0)$ denotes the left derivative of $x \mapsto \phi_f(x, R_0)$ at $x = r$. The monotonicity of $\phi_f(r, R_0)$ in $r$ (Lemma \ref{lem:lower_property}) gives $\phi_f'(r-, R_0) \leq 0$ and we thus have,
\begin{equation*}
R \geq r + \frac{\phi_f(R, R_0) - \phi_f(r, R_0)}{\phi_f'(r-, R_0)} \qt{for every $0 < r \leq R_0$}.
\end{equation*}
Inequality \eqref{man.eq} $I_f(w, {\mathcal{P}}) \geq \phi_f(R, R_0)$ can now be used to deduce that (note that $\phi_f'(r-, R_0) \leq 0$)
\begin{equation}
\label{expb}
R \geq r + \frac{I_f(w, {\mathcal{P}}) - \phi_f(r, R_0)}{\phi_f'(r-, R_0)} \qt{for every $0 < r \leq R_0$}.
\end{equation}
The above inequality provides a general approach to convert \eqref{man.eq} to an explicit lower bound on $R$.
Theorem~\ref{man} is new, but its special case $\Theta = {\mathcal{A}} = \{1, \dots, N\}$, $L(\theta, a) := \mathbbm{I}\{\theta \neq a\}$ and the uniform prior $w$ is known (see \cite{Gushchin:03} and \cite{Aditya:fdiv}). In such a discrete setting, $w(B(a))=1/N$ for any $a \in {\mathcal{A}}$ and thus $R_0=1-1/N$. The proof of Theorem \ref{man} (see Section \ref{sec:proof_man} in the appendix) heavily relies on the following lemma, which is a consequence of the data processing inequality for $f$-divergences (see \eqref{dpi} in Section \ref{sec:pre}).
\begin{lemma}\label{lem.dpi}
Suppose that the loss function $L$ is zero-one valued. For every $f \in {\mathcal{C}}$, every probability measure $Q$ on ${\mathcal{X}}$ and every decision rule ${\mathfrak{d}}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{main.eq1}
\int_{\Theta} D_f(P_{\theta}||Q) w(\mathrm{d}\theta) \geq \phi_f(R^{{\mathfrak{d}}}, R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}})
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_R_Q}
R^{{\mathfrak{d}}} := \int_{\Theta} {\mathbb E}_{\theta} L(\theta, {\mathfrak{d}}(X)) w(\mathrm{d}\theta) ~~, ~~ R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}} := \int_{{\mathcal{X}}} \int_{\Theta} L(\theta, {\mathfrak{d}}(x)) w(\mathrm{d}\theta) Q(\mathrm{d}x).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
We note that Lemma \ref{lem.dpi} is of independent interest, which can be applied to establish minimax lower bound as shown in the following remark.
\begin{remark}\label{rem:minimax}
Lemma \ref{lem.dpi} can also be used to derive minimax lower bounds in a different way. For example, when the minimax decision rule ${\mathfrak{d}}$ exists (e.g., for finite space $\Theta$ and ${\mathcal{A}}$ \citep{Ferguson76decision}), we have $R^{{\mathfrak{d}}} \leq R_{\rm minimax}$. If the probability measure $Q$ is chosen so that $R_{\rm minimax} \leq R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}}$, then, by Lemma~\ref{lem:lower_property}, the right hand side of~\eqref{man.eq} can be lower bounded by replacing $R^{{\mathfrak{d}}}$ with $R_{\rm minimax}$ which yields
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ext_main.eq_1}
\int_{\Theta} D_f(P_{\theta}||Q) w(\mathrm{d}\theta) \geq \phi_f(R_{\rm minimax}, R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}}).
\end{equation}
Similarly, this inequality can be converted to an explicit lower bound on minimax risk. We will show an application of this inequality in deriving Birg\'{e}-Gushchin inequality \citep{Gushchin:03, Birge:ineq} in Section \ref{beig}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Generalized Fano's inequality}
In the next result, we derive the generalized Fano's ienquality \eqref{intro_gf} using Theorem \ref{man}. The inequality proved here is in fact slightly stronger than \eqref{intro_gf}; see Remark \ref{pach} for the clarification.
\begin{corollary}[Generalized Fano's inequality]\label{cor:Fano}
For any given prior $w$ and zero-one loss $L$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{gf}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq 1 + \frac{I(w, \mathcal{P}) + \log (1 + R_0)}{\log \left(\sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w(B(a))\right)},
\end{equation}
where $B(a)$ is defined in \eqref{ba}.
\end{corollary}
To prove this corollary, we simply apply \eqref{expb} to $f(x) = x \log x$ and $r = R_0/(1 + R_0)$ and detailed calculations are provided in Section \ref{sec:proof_fano} in the appendix.
\begin{remark}\label{pach}
This inequality is slightly stronger than \eqref{intro_gf} because $R_0 \leq 1$ (thus $\log(1+R_0) \leq \log 2$). For example, when $\Theta = {\mathcal{A}} = \{0, 1\}$, $L(\theta, a) := \mathbbm{I}\{\theta \neq a\}$ and $w\{0\} = w\{1\} = 1/2$, the inequality \eqref{intro_gf} leads to a trivial bound since the right hand side of \eqref{intro_gf} is negative. However, since $R_0=1/2$, the inequality \eqref{gf} still provides a useful lower bound when $I(w, {\mathcal{P}})$ is strictly smaller than $\log 2 -\log(3/2)$.
\end{remark}
As mentioned in the introduction, the classical Fano inequality \eqref{eq:classcial_Fano} and the recent continuum Fano inequality \eqref{cf} are both special cases (restricted to uniform priors) of Corollary \ref{cor:Fano}. The proof of \eqref{cf} given in \cite{Duchi:Fano} is rather complicated
with a stronger assumption and a discretization-approximation argument. Our proof based on Theorem \ref{man} is much simpler. Lemma \ref{lem.dpi} also has its independent interest. Using Lemma \ref{lem.dpi}, we are able to recover another recently proposed variant of Fano's inequality in \citet[Proposition 2.2]{BraunPokutta}. Details of this argument are provided in Section \ref{sec:supp_Fano} in the appendix.
\subsection{Specialization of Theorem \ref{man} to different $f$-divergences and their applications}
In addition to the generalized Fano's inequality, Theorem \ref{man} allows us to derive a class of lower bounds on Bayes risk for zero-one losses by plugging other $f$-divergences. In the next corollary, we consider some widely used $f$-divergences and provide the corresponding Bayes risk lower bounds by inverting \eqref{man.eq} in Theorem \ref{man}.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:lb_01_f}
Let $L$ be zero-one valued, $w$ be any arbitrary prior on $\Theta$ and $R = R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L, \Theta)$. We then have the following inequalities
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item Chi-squared divergence:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:chi}
R \geq R_0 - \sqrt{R_0(1 - R_0) I_{\chi^2}(w, {\mathcal{P}})} .
\end{equation}
\item Total variation distance:
\begin{equation}
R \geq R_0 - I_{TV}(w, {\mathcal{P}}).
\label{eq:total}
\end{equation}
\item Hellinger distance:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hellinger_3}
R \geq R_0 - (2 R_0 - 1) \frac{h^2}{2} - \sqrt{R_0(1 - R_0) h^2 (2 - h^2)}
\end{equation}
provided $h^2 \leq 2 R_0$. Here $
h^2=\int_{\Theta} \int_{\Theta} H^2(P_{\theta}\| P_{\theta'}) w(\mathrm{d} \theta)w(\mathrm{d} \theta').
$
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
The inequalities in Corollary \ref{cor:lb_01_f} can be proved from Theorem \ref{man}; these proofs are provided in Section \ref{colr} of the appendix. The special case of Corollary \ref{cor:lb_01_f} for $\Theta = {\mathcal{A}} = \{1, \dots, N\}$, $L(\theta, a) = \mathbbm{I}\{\theta \neq a\}$ and $w$ being the uniform prior has been discovered previously in \cite{Aditya:fdiv}. Corollary \ref{cor:lb_01_f} can be used to recover classical inequalities of Le Cam (for two point hypotheses) and Assouad (Theorem 2.12 in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara} with both total variation distance and Hellinger distance) and Theorem 2.15 in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara} that involves fuzzy hypotheses. The details are presented in Section \ref{sec:supp_LeCam} of the appendix.
\subsection{Comparison of the bounds for different divergences}
\label{sec:compare}
We provide some qualitative comparisons of Bayes risk lower bounds given by Theorem \ref{man} for different power divergences.
In particular, let us consider the discrete setting where $\Theta = {\mathcal{A}} = \{\theta_1, \dots, \theta_N\}$, $L(\theta, a) = \mathbbm{I}\{\theta \neq a\}$, and $w$ is the discrete uniform. Note that in such a ``multiple testing problem" setup, $R_0$ is equal to $1 - (1/N)$. We take $N$ sufficiently large so that $R_0$ is close to 1. To establish minimax lower bounds, a typical approach is to reduce the estimation problem to a multiple hypotheses testing problem in the aforementioned setup, then try to prove that the Bayes risk $R \geq c>0$ (see Section 2.2. in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara}). Without loss of generality, we take $c = 1/2$ and we shall see how the three inequalities \eqref{gf}, \eqref{eq:chi} and \eqref{eq:hellinger_3} work to establish $R \geq 1/2$.
Let us start with \eqref{gf} corresponding to KL divergence, which is equivalent to the classical Fano's inequality \eqref{eq:classcial_Fano} in the discrete setting. To establish $R \geq 1/2$, the following condition should hold:
\begin{equation}\label{nef}
I(w, {\mathcal{P}}) \leq \frac{1}{2} \log \left(\frac{N}{4} \right).
\end{equation}
We remark that $I(w, {\mathcal{P}})$ is at most $\log N$ even if every the pairwise KL divergence $D(P_{\theta_i} \| P_{\theta_j})$ equals $\infty$ for $i \neq j$. This fact will be clear from the inequality \eqref{ybp} from Section \ref{sec:upper_f_informativity} (let $M=N$ and $Q_j=P_{\theta_j}$ for $1 \leq j \leq M$). The upper bound on $I(w, \mathcal{P})$ in \eqref{ybp} further provides a sufficient condition to verify \eqref{nef}.
Now we turn to \eqref{eq:chi} corresponding to the chi-squared divergence. Since $R_0 = 1-(1/N)$, inequality \eqref{eq:chi} implies a sufficient condition for $R \geq 1/2$:
\begin{equation}\label{nec}
I_{\chi^2}(w,{\mathcal{P}}) \leq \frac{N^2}{N-1} \left(\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{N} \right)^2.
\end{equation}
When $N$ is large, the above condition is equivalent to $I_{\chi^2}(w, {\mathcal{P}}) \leq N/4$. Note that the maximum possible value of $I_{\chi^2}(w, {\mathcal{P}})$ in this discrete setting is $N - 1$ (even when $\chi^2(P_{\theta_i} \| P_{\theta_j}) = \infty$ for every $i \neq j$) and this follows from our upper bounds on $f$-informativity for a class of power divergences in \eqref{eq:upper_f_power} (see Section \ref{sec:upper_f_informativity}).
The conditions \eqref{nef} and \eqref{nec} don't imply each other. The chi-squared divergence is always greater than the KL divergence (see Lemma 2.7 in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara}), but the upper bound required by~\eqref{nec} is also weaker than that required by~\eqref{nef}. For both divergences, constructing more hypotheses (i.e., choosing $N>2$) is often helpful for showing $R \geq 1/2$.
For the Hellinger distance (inequality \eqref{eq:hellinger_3}), we claim that it gives no more useful bounds than those obtained by a simple two point argument. To see this, since $R_0 = 1 - (1/N)$, inequality \eqref{eq:hellinger_3} implies
\begin{equation*}
R \geq 1 - \frac{1}{N} - \frac{N-2}{N} \frac{h^2}{2} - \frac{\sqrt{N-1}}{N} \sqrt{h^2(2 - h^2)}
\end{equation*}
where $h^2 = \sum_{i, j} H^2(P_{\theta_i} || P_{\theta_j})/N^2$. When $N$ is large, the above inequality reduces to effectively $R \geq 1 - (h^2/2)$. Therefore a sufficient condition for $R \geq 1/2$ is $h^2 \leq 1$, which is equivalent to,
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{N(N-1)/2} \sum_{i < j} H^2(P_{\theta_i}|| P_{\theta_j}) \leq \frac{N}{N-1}.
\end{equation*}
When $N$ is large, the above displayed condition implies the existence of $i < j$ for which $H^2(P_{\theta_i}|| P_{\theta_j}) \leq 1$. Let $\tilde{w}$ denote the prior $\tilde{w}\{i\} = \tilde{w}\{j\} = 1/2$. It is easy to see that the Bayes risk for $\tilde{w}$ equals
$
R_{\rm Bayes}(\tilde{w}) = \frac{1}{2} \left(1 - \|P_{\theta_i} - P_{\theta_j}\|_{TV} \right).
$
By Le Cam's inequality (see Lemma 2.3 in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara}), we have,
\begin{equation*}
R_{\rm Bayes}(\tilde{w}) \geq \frac{1}{2} \left( 1 - H(P_{\theta_i} || P_{\theta_j}) \sqrt{1 - \frac{H^2(P_{\theta_i}|| P_{\theta_j})}{4}} \right)
\end{equation*}
Since $H(P_{\theta_i} || P_{\theta_j}) \leq 1$, it is easy to verify from the above that $R_{\rm Bayes}(\tilde{w}) \geq 1/8$. Therefore in this discrete setting, if inequality \eqref{eq:hellinger_3} implies $R_{\rm Bayes}(w) \geq 1/2$, then there is a much simpler two point prior $\tilde{w}$ for which $R_{\rm Bayes}(\tilde{w}) \geq 1/8$. It shows that for Hellinger distance, considering $N>2$ hypotheses is not more useful than using a pair of hypotheses. The reason is that the Hellinger informativity can be written as an expression involving pairwise Hellinger distances. In particular, it can be seen from the proof of inequality \eqref{eq:hellinger_3} that
\[
I_{f_{1/2}}(w, {\mathcal{P}}) = 1 - \Bigl(1 - \frac{1}{2N^2} \sum_{i, j} H^2(P_{\theta_i} || P_{\theta_j})\Bigr)^{1/2}.
\]
In contrast, the mutual information, $I(w, {\mathcal{P}})$, cannot be written in terms of $D(P_{\theta_i} \| P_{\theta_j})$ for $i \neq j$ (recall that $I(w, {\mathcal{P}})$ is always at most $\log N$ even when $D(P_{\theta_i} \| P_{\theta_j}) = \infty$ for all $i \neq j$). The same holds for $I_{\chi^2}(w, {\mathcal{P}})$ as well (which is always at most $N - 1$ even if $\chi^2(P_{\theta_i} \| P_{\theta_j}) = \infty$ for all $i \neq j$).
If the eventual goal of obtaining Bayes risk lower bounds is to obtain lower bounds upto multiplicative constants on the minimax risk, then the bound in \eqref{eq:hellinger_3} gives no more useful bounds than those obtained by the simple two point argument. In this sense, inequality \eqref{eq:hellinger_3} induced by Hellinger distance is not as useful as inequalities \eqref{gf} and \eqref{eq:chi}. In fact, the Hellinger distance is seldom used in lower bounding minimax risk involving many hypotheses (for example, none of the minimax rates in the examples of \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara} involving multiple hypotheses testing are established via Hellinger distance).
Therefore, in most applications in this paper in Section \ref{sec:upper_f_informativity} and \ref{sec:admis}, we shall only use the bounds involving KL and chi-squared divergence. Also, in Section \ref{sec:upper_f_informativity} on bounding $f$-informativities, we will focus on the bounds involving KL and chi-squared divergences (and more generally for power divergences with $\alpha \geq 1$) as opposed to the Hellinger distance (and more generally for power divergences with $\alpha \in (0, 1)$).
\subsection{Birg\'e-Gushchin's inequality and an application}\label{beig}
In this section, we expand \eqref{eq:ext_main.eq_1} in Remark \ref{rem:minimax} to obtain a minimax risk lower bound due to \cite{Gushchin:03} and \cite{Birge:ineq}, which presents an improvement of the classical Fano's inequality when specializing to KL divergence.
\begin{proposition}\citep{Gushchin:03, Birge:ineq}\label{prop:Birge}
Consider the finite parameter and action space $\Theta={\mathcal{A}}=\{\theta_0, \theta_1, \ldots, \theta_{N} \}$ and the zero-one valued indicator loss $L(\theta, a) = \mathbbm{I}\{\theta \neq a\}$, for any $f$-divergence,
\begin{equation}
\psi_{N,f}(R_{\rm minimax}) \leq \min_{0 \leq j \leq N} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i: i\neq j} D_f\left(P_{\theta_i} || P_{\theta_j} \right),
\label{eq:Birge}
\end{equation}
where $\psi_{N,f}(x):= \frac{N-x}{N} f\left(\frac{Nx}{N-x} \right) + \frac{x}{N} f\left(\frac{N(1-x)}{x}\right).
$
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop:Birge} applied to specific $f$-divergences has interesting connections to several existing risk lower bounds in the literature. In particular, it is possible to derive, via Proposition \ref{prop:Birge}, many inequalities in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara} including Theorem 2.4 (referred to as ``main theorem on lower bounds for the risk" by \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara}) and its corollaries (Proposition 2.3, Theorem 2.5, Proposition 2.4 Theorem 2.6). In order to derive Theorem 2.4 in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara}, we use Proposition \ref{prop:Birge} with a carefully designed $f$-divergence $D_f(\cdot||\cdot)$ induced by the following convex function for fixed $s \in {\mathbb R}$,
\[
f(x)=\min(1,s)-\min(x, s)
\]
The resulting divergence will then involve the likelihood ratio term in Eq. (2.41) in Theorem 2.4 in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara}. This also serves as an interesting application of a specially constructed $f$-divergence other than the commonly used power divergences. Details are provided in Section \ref{sec:likelihood} of the appendix.
\section{Bayes risk lower bounds for nonnegative loss functions}
\label{sec:Bayes_general}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Phi_f}
\caption{$\phi_f(1/2, b)$}
\label{fig:phi}
\end{subfigure}\hspace{0.1cm}
\begin{subfigure}{.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{u_f}
\caption{$u_f(x)$}
\label{fig:u}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Illustration of $\phi_f(1/2,b)$ and $u_f(x)$ for $f(x)=x\log x$.}
\label{fig:phi_u}
\end{figure}
In the previous section, we discussed Bayes risk lower bounds for zero-one valued loss functions. We deal with general nonnegative loss functions in this section. The main result of this section, Theorem \ref{bwl}, provides lower bounds for $R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta)$ for any given loss $L$ and prior $w$. To state this result, we need the following notion.
Fix $f \in {\mathcal{C}}$ and recall the definition of $\phi_f$ in \eqref{eq:phi}. We define $u_f: [0, \infty) \mapsto [1/2,1]$ by
\begin{equation}\label{ufi}
u_f(x) := \inf \left\{1/2 \leq b \leq 1 : \phi_f(1/2, b) > x \right\}
\end{equation}
and if $\phi_f(1/2, b) \leq x$ for every $b \in [1/2, 1]$, then we take $u_f(x)$
to be 1. By Lemma \ref{lem:lower_property}, it is easy to see that $u_f(x)$ is a non-decreasing function of $x$. For example, for KL-divergence with $f(x)= x \log x$, we have $\phi_f(1/2, b)=\frac{1}{2} \log \frac{1}{4b(1-b)}$ and $u_f(x) = \frac{1}{2}+ \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{1-e^{-2x}}$ (see Figure \ref{fig:phi_u}). We are now ready to state the main theorem of this paper.
\begin{theorem}\label{bwl}
For every $\Theta, {\mathcal{A}}, L, w$ and $f \in {\mathcal{C}}$, we have
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq \frac{1}{2} \sup\left\{t > 0 : \sup_{a \in \mathcal{A}} w(B_t(a,L)) < 1- u_f(I_f(w, {\mathcal{P}})) \right\},
\label{eq:main_bwl}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{bta}
B_t(a, L) := \{\theta \in \Theta: L(\theta, a) < t\} \qt{for $a \in {\mathcal{A}}$ and $t > 0$}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Because $u_f(x)$ is non-decreasing in $x$, one can replace $I_f(w, {\mathcal{P}})$ in \eqref{eq:main_bwl} by any upper bound $I_f^{\rm up}$ i.e., for any $I_f^{\rm up} \geq I_f(w, {\mathcal{P}})$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{upbo}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq \frac{1}{2} \sup\left\{t > 0 : \sup_{a \in \mathcal{A}} w(B_t(a,L)) < 1- u_f(I_f^{\rm up}) \right\}.
\end{equation}
This is useful since $I_f(w, {\mathcal{P}})$ is often difficult to calculate exactly. When $f(x)=x\log x$, \cite{haussler1997} provided a useful upper bound on the mutual information $I(w, {\mathcal{P}})$. We describe this result in Section \ref{sec:upper_f_informativity} where we also extend it to power divergences $f_\alpha$ for $\alpha \not \in [0,1]$ (which covers the case of chi-squared divergence).
\begin{remark}
From the proof of Theorem \ref{bwl} (see Section \ref{sec:proof_bwl} in the appendix), it can be observed that the constant $1/2$ in the right hand side of \eqref{eq:main_bwl} and in the definition of $u_f(\cdot)$ can be replaced by any $c \in (0,1]$. This gives the sharper lower bound:
\small
\begin{eqnarray*}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq \sup_{c \in (0,1]} \left( c \sup \left\{t > 0 : \sup_{a
\in {\mathcal{A}}} w \left(B_t(a,L) \right) < 1- u_{f,c}(I_f(w, {\mathcal{P}})) \right\} \right),
\end{eqnarray*}
\normalsize
where $u_{f,c}(x)=\inf\{c\leq b \leq 1: \phi_f(c, b) \geq x \}$. Since obtaining exact constants is not our main concern, the inequality \eqref{eq:main_bwl} is usually sufficient to provide Bayes risk lower bounds with correct dependence on the model and prior.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:Bayes_decomp}
We note that the lower bound presented in Theorem \ref{bwl} might not be tight for some specially constructed priors, e.g., when the prior $w$ has a spike. As a concrete example, let $\Theta = {\mathcal{A}}$ be a subset of a finite dimensional Euclidean space containing the origin with $L$ being the Euclidean distance and let $w$ denote the mixture of the uniform priors over the balls $B_1(0, L)$ and $B_\epsilon(0, L)$ for some very small $0 < \epsilon \ll 1$. In such case, the term $\sup_{a \in \mathcal{A}} w(B_t(a,L))$ will be too large to establish a tight Bayes risk lower bound (consider $a = 0$).
For such situations, the tight lower bound can often be salvaged by partitioning the parameter space $\Theta$ into finite or countably many disjoint subsets $\Theta_i, i \geq 0$ and to apply Theorem \ref{bwl} to $w$ restricted to each $\Theta_i$. To illustrate this technique, suppose that $w$ has a Lebesgue density $f$ that is bounded from above. Let $f_{\max}$ denote the supremum of $f$. We partition the parameter space $\Theta$ into disjoint subsets $\Theta_0,\Theta_1,\dots$ with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:space_part}
\Theta_i := \{\theta\in\Theta: 2^{-(i+1)} f_{\max} < f(\theta) \leq 2^{-i} f_{\max} \}.
\end{equation}
Then, we apply Theorem \ref{bwl} to $w$ restricted to each $\Theta_i$. More specifically, let $w_i$ denote the probability measure $w$ restricted to $\Theta_i$ i.e., $w_i(S) := w(S \cap \Theta_i)/w(\Theta_i)$ for any measurable set $S \subseteq \Theta_i$. we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:prior_decomp}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq \sum_{i} w(\Theta_i) R_{\rm Bayes}(w_i, L; \Theta_i),
\end{equation}
where $R_{\rm Bayes}(w_i, L; \Theta_i)=\inf_{{\mathfrak{d}}} \int_{\Theta_i} {\mathbb E}_{\theta} L(\theta, {\mathfrak{d}}(X)) w_i(\mathrm{d}\theta)$.
To see this, for any decision rule ${\mathfrak{d}}$, we have
$
R^{\mathfrak{d}}(w, L; \Theta) = \sum_{i=1}^\infty w(\Theta_i)R^{{\mathfrak{d}}} (w_i, L; \Theta_i);
$
then take infimum over all possible ${\mathfrak{d}}$ on both sides,
\begin{multline*}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L;\Theta) = \inf_{{\mathfrak{d}}} R^{\mathfrak{d}}(w, L; \Theta) \\ \geq \sum_{i=1}^\infty w(\Theta_i) \inf_{{\mathfrak{d}}} R^{{\mathfrak{d}}} (w_i, L; \Theta_i)=\sum_{i=1}^\infty w(\Theta_i) R_{\rm Bayes}(w_i, L; \Theta_i)
\end{multline*}
One can lower bound each Bayes risk $R_{\rm Bayes}(w_i, L; \Theta_i)$ for all $i$ using Theorem \ref{bwl}. Since the density of $w_i$ differs by a factor at most $2$, the spiking prior problem will no longer exist while applying Theorem \ref{bwl} for $w_i$. We also note that another useful application of such a partitioning technique is presented in Corollary \ref{nd}.
Now take the concrete example of the mixture of the uniform priors over $B_1:=B_1(0, L)$ and $B_\epsilon:= B_\epsilon(0, L)$. It is clear from \eqref{eq:space_part} that $\Theta_0=B_\epsilon$ and $\Theta_k=B_1\backslash B_\epsilon$ for some $k>0$ and the rest of $\Theta_i$'s are empty sets.
Applying \eqref{eq:prior_decomp}, we have
\begin{align*}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq & w(B_{\epsilon}) R_{\rm Bayes}(w_1, L; B_{\epsilon}) + w(B_1 \backslash B_{\epsilon}) R_{\rm Bayes}(w_2, L; B_1 \backslash B_{\epsilon}) \\
\geq & w(B_1 \backslash B_{\epsilon}) R_{\rm Bayes}(w_2, L; B_1 \backslash B_{\epsilon})
\end{align*}
Note that $w(B_1 \backslash B_{\epsilon})$ is lower bounded by a universal constant. Then we can lower bound $R_{\rm Bayes}(w_2, L; B_1 \backslash B_{\epsilon})$ using Theorem \ref{bwl} and obtain a tight lower bound up to a constant factor that is independent of $\epsilon$ (see an example of deriving Bayes risk lower bound for estimating the mean of a Gaussian model with uniform prior on a ball in Section~\ref{sec:upper_f_informativity}).
\end{remark}
For specific $f \in {\mathcal{C}}$, the right hand side of \eqref{upbo} can be explicitly evaluated. This is the next corollary whose proof is given in Section \ref{sec:supp_bwl} of the appendix.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:bwl}
Fix $\Theta, {\mathcal{A}}, L, w$ and ${\mathcal{P}}$. The Bayes risk $R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta)$ satisfies each of the following inequalities (the quantity $I_f^{\rm up}$ represents an upper bound on the corresponding $f$-informativity):
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item KL divergence:
\small
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w,L;\Theta) \geq \frac{1}{2} \sup \left\{t > 0 : \sup_{a
\in {\mathcal{A}}} w\left(B_t(a,L)\right)< \frac{1}{4} e^{-2 I_f^{\rm up}} \right\}.
\label{eq:I_bayes_KL}
\end{equation}
\normalsize
\item Chi-squared divergence:
\small
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L;\Theta) \geq \frac{1}{2} \sup \left\{t > 0 :
\sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w \left( B_t(a,L) \right) < \frac{1}{4\left(1+ I_f^{\rm up}\right)} \right\}.
\label{eq:I_bayes_chi}
\end{equation}
\normalsize
\item Total variation distance:
\small
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L;\Theta) \geq \frac{1}{2} \sup \left\{t> 0 :
\sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w \left(B_t(a,L) \right) < \frac{1}{2} - I_f^{\rm up} \right\}.
\label{eq:I_bayes_TV}
\end{equation}
\normalsize
\item Hellinger distance:
If $I_f^{\rm up} < 1-1/\sqrt{2}$, then we have
\small
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w,L;\Theta) \geq \frac{1}{2} \sup \left\{t > 0 :
\sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w \left(B_t(a,L) \right) < \frac{1}{2} - \left(1- I_f^{\rm up}\right)\sqrt{ I_f^{\rm up}\left(2- I_f^{\rm up}\right)} \right\}.
\label{eq:I_bayes_Hellinger}
\end{equation}
\normalsize
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\section{Upper bounds on $f$-informativity and examples}
\label{sec:upper_f_informativity}
To apply Theorem~\ref{bwl}, we need upper bounds on the $f$-informativity $I_f(w; {\mathcal{P}})$. In this section, we focus on the power divergence $f_{\alpha}$ for some $\alpha \geq 1$. Recall that in Section \ref{sec:compare}, we provided motivation for restricting our attention to such divergences. We assume that there is a measure $\mu$ on ${\mathcal{X}}$ that dominates $P_{\theta}$ for every $\theta \in \Theta$. We will also implicitly make the assumption that any other probability measure on ${\mathcal{X}}$ is also dominated by $\mu$. None of our results depend on the choice of the dominating measure $\mu$.
When the $f$-informativity is the mutual information,~\cite{haussler1997} have proved useful upper bounds which we briefly review here. Let $P$ and $\{Q_{\vartheta}, \vartheta \in \Xi\}$ be probability measures on ${\mathcal{X}}$
having densities $p$ and $\{q_{\vartheta}, \vartheta \in \Xi\}$ respectively. Let $\nu$ be an arbitrary probability measure on $\Xi$ and $\bar{Q}$ be the probability measure on ${\mathcal{X}}$ having density $\bar{q}=\int_{\Xi} q_{\vartheta} \nu(\mathrm{d}\vartheta)$. \cite{haussler1997} proved the following inequality
\begin{eqnarray}
D\left(P||\bar{Q} \right) \leq - \log\left(\int_{\Xi} \exp\left(-D(P||Q_{\vartheta}) \right) \nu(\mathrm{d}\vartheta) \right).
\label{eq:upper_KL_0}
\end{eqnarray}
Now given a class of probability measures $\{P_{\theta}, \theta \in \Theta\}$, applying the above inequality for each $P_{\theta}$ and integrating the resulting inequalities with respect to a probability measure $w$ on $\Theta$,~\citet[Theorem 2]{haussler1997} obtained the following mutual information upper bound:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:upper_KL_1}
I(w, {\mathcal{P}}) \leq - \int_{\Theta} w(\mathrm{d} \theta) \log \left(\int_{\Xi} \exp\left(-D(P_{\theta}||Q_{\vartheta}) \right) \nu(\mathrm{d}\vartheta) \right).
\end{equation}
In the special case when $\Xi=\{1,\ldots, M\}$ and $\nu$ is the uniform probability measure on $\Xi$, we have $\bar{Q}=\left(Q_1 + \ldots + Q_M\right)/M$ and inequality \eqref{eq:upper_KL_0} then becomes
$
D(P||\bar{Q}) \leq -\log \left(\frac{1}{M} \sum_{j=1}^M \exp
\left(-D(P||Q_j) \right) \right).
$
Because $\sum_{j=1}^M \exp(-D(P\|Q_j)) \geq \exp \left(-\min_{j} D(P\|Q_j) \right)$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
D(P \| \bar{Q}) \leq \log M + \min_{1 \leq j \leq M} D(P\|Q_j).
\end{equation*}
Inequality~\eqref{eq:upper_KL_1} can be further simplified to
\begin{equation}\label{ybp}
I(w, {\mathcal{P}}) \leq \log M +
\int_{\Theta} \min_{1 \leq j \leq M} D(P_{\theta}||Q_j)
w(\mathrm{d}\theta).
\end{equation}
This inequality can be used to give an upper bound for $f$-informativity in terms of the KL covering numbers. Recall the definition of $M_{KL}(\epsilon, \Theta)$ from~\eqref{redf}. Applying~\eqref{ybp} to any fixed $\epsilon>0$ and
choosing $\{Q_1, \dots, Q_M\}$ to be an $\epsilon^2$-covering, we have
\begin{equation}\label{yb}
I(w, {\mathcal{P}})\leq
\inf_{\epsilon > 0} \left(\log M_{KL}(\epsilon, \Theta) + \epsilon^2
\right).
\end{equation}
When $w$ is the uniform prior on a finite
subset of $\Theta$, the above inequality has been proved by~\citet[Page 1571]{Yang:Barron:99}. If $M_{KL}(\epsilon, \Theta)$ is infinity for all $\epsilon$, then \eqref{yb} gives $\infty$ as the upper bound on $I(w, {\mathcal{P}})$ and thus \eqref{eq:I_bayes_KL} will lead to a trivial lower bound $0$ for $R_{\rm Bayes}$.
In such a case, one may find a subset $\tilde{\Theta} \subset \Theta$ for which $M_{KL}(\epsilon, \tilde{\Theta})$ is bounded and contains most prior mass. If $\tilde{w}$ denotes the prior $w$ restricted in $\tilde{\Theta}$, then it is easy to see that $R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq w(\tilde{\Theta}) R_{\rm Bayes}(\tilde{w}, L; \tilde{\Theta})$. Then we can use~\eqref{eq:I_bayes_KL} and~\eqref{yb} to lower bound $R_{\rm Bayes}(\tilde{w}, L; \tilde{\Theta})$ .
In the next theorem, we extend inequalities \eqref{eq:upper_KL_0} and \eqref{eq:upper_KL_1} to power divergences corresponding to $f_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha \notin [0, 1]$. We also note that in Subsection \ref{effb} of the appendix, we demonstrate the tightness of the bound~\eqref{co1} in Theorem \ref{cd} by a simple example.
\begin{theorem}\label{cd}
Fix $\alpha \notin [0, 1]$ and let $f_{\alpha} \in {\mathcal{C}}$ be as defined in Section~\ref{sec:pre}. Under the setting of inequalities~\eqref{eq:upper_KL_0} and~\eqref{eq:upper_KL_1}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{co1}
D_{f_{\alpha}}(P||\bar{Q}) \leq \left[\int_{\Xi} \left( D_{f_{\alpha}} (P||Q_{\vartheta}) +1 \right)^{1/(1-\alpha)} \nu(\mathrm{d}\vartheta) \right]^{1-\alpha} - 1.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:upper_f_power}
I_{f_\alpha}(w, \mathcal{P}) \leq \int_{\Theta} \left[\int_{\Xi} \left( D_{f_{\alpha}} (P_\theta||Q_{\vartheta}) +1 \right)^{1/(1-\alpha)} \nu(\mathrm{d}\vartheta) \right]^{1-\alpha} w(\mathrm{d}\theta) - 1.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
For $\alpha > 1$, one can deduce an upper bound analogous to~\eqref{yb} for the $f_{\alpha}$-informativity which is described in the next corollary. Recall the notion of the covering numbers $M_{\alpha}(\epsilon, \Theta)$ from Section \ref{sec:pre}.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:chi_dist_upper}
For every $\alpha > 1$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:chi_dist_upper}
I_{f_\alpha}(w, \mathcal{P}) \leq \inf_{\epsilon> 0} (1 + \epsilon^2) M_{\alpha}(\epsilon, \Theta)^{\alpha - 1} - 1.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
In particular, when $D_{f_{\alpha}}$ is the chi-square divergence, Corollary~\ref{cor:chi_dist_upper} implies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:chi_dist_upper_1}
I_{\chi^2}(w, \mathcal{P}) \leq \inf_{\epsilon> 0} (1 + \epsilon^2) M_{\chi^2}(\epsilon, \Theta) - 1.
\end{equation}
Note that Corollary~\ref{cor:chi_dist_upper} gives trivial bound when $M_{\alpha}(\epsilon, \Theta)$ equals $\infty$ for all $\epsilon > 0$. This can be handled in a way similar to that outlined in the discussion after \eqref{yb}.
We now turn to applications of the Bayes risk lower bounds in Corollary \ref{cor:bwl} and the informativity upper bounds in this section. We present a toy example here and postpone more complicated examples (e.g., generalized linear model, spiked covariance model, Gaussian model with general prior and loss) to Section \ref{sec:Bayes_Example} of the appendix.
\begin{example}[Gaussian model with uniform priors on large balls]\label{tutu}
Fix $d \geq 1$. Suppose $\Theta = {\mathcal{A}} \subseteq {\mathbb R}^d$ and let $L(\theta, a) := \|\theta - a\|_2^2$. For each $\theta \in {\mathbb R}^d$, let $P_{\theta}$ denote the Gaussian distribution with mean $\theta$ and covariance matrix $\sigma^2 I_{d\times d}$ ($\sigma^2 > 0$ is a constant). Let $w$ be the uniform distribution on the closed ball of radius $\Gamma$ centered at the origin. Let $\Gamma \geq \sigma \sqrt{d}$. We will show below how to obtain the tight Bayes risk lower bound using Corollary \ref{cor:bwl} along with the $f$-informativity upper bound in Corollary~\ref{cor:chi_dist_upper}.
We can assume that $\Theta$ (and ${\mathcal{A}}$) is the closed ball of radius $\Gamma$ centered at the origin as $w$ puts zero probability outside this ball. We use the inequality~\eqref{eq:I_bayes_chi} induced by the chi-squared divergence. To establish the lower bound, we need to upper bound $\sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w(B_t(a, L))$ and the chi-squared informativity. The former can be easily controlled because $\sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w(B_t(a, L)) \leq \left(\sqrt{t}/\Gamma \right)^d.$ For the latter, we use \eqref{eq:chi_dist_upper_1}, which requires an upper bound on $M_{\chi^2}(\epsilon, \Theta)$. Note that $\chi^2(P_{\theta} \| P_{\theta'}) = \exp \left(\|\theta-\theta'\|_2/\sigma^2 \right) - 1$ for $\theta, \theta' \in \Theta$. As a consequence, $\chi^2(P_{\theta} \| P_{\theta'}) \leq \epsilon^2$ if and only if $\|\theta - \theta\|_2 \leq \epsilon' := \sigma\sqrt{\log (1 + \epsilon^2)}$. Therefore, by a standard volumetric argument, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
M_{\chi^2}(\epsilon, \Theta) \leq \left(\frac{\Gamma+\epsilon'/2}{\epsilon'/2}\right)^d \leq \left(\frac{3\Gamma}{\epsilon'}\right)^d = \left( \frac{3 \Gamma }{ \sigma \sqrt{\log(1+\epsilon^2)}}\right)^d
\end{eqnarray*}
provided $\epsilon' \leq \Gamma$. In particular, if we take $\epsilon := \sqrt{e^d - 1}$, then $\epsilon' = \sigma \sqrt{d} \leq \Gamma$, we will obtain $M_{\chi^2}(\epsilon, \Theta) \leq (3 \Gamma/(\sigma \sqrt{d}))^d$. Inequality~\eqref{eq:chi_dist_upper_1} then gives
$
I_{\chi^2}(w, {\mathcal{P}}) \leq \left( \frac{3 e \Gamma }{ \sigma \sqrt{d}}\right)^d-1.
$
Let $I_f^{\rm up}$ be the right hand side. If we choose $t = c d \sigma^2$ for a sufficiently small constant $c > 0$, then we have $ \sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w(B_t(a, L)) < \frac{1}{4} (1 + I_f^{\rm up})^{-1}$. Inequality~\eqref{eq:I_bayes_chi} then gives
\begin{equation}\label{kolo}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq c d \sigma^2.
\end{equation}
This lower bound is tight due to the trivial upper bound $R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \leq d \min(\sigma^2, \Gamma^2)$ since $R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta)$ is smaller than the risk of the constant estimator 0 as well as the trivial estimator of the observation itself.
This example allows us to compare the bound given by Theorem \ref{bwl} for different $f \in {\mathcal{C}}$. We argue below that using KL divergence and applying \eqref{eq:I_bayes_KL} along with inequality~\eqref{yb} for controlling the mutual information will not yield a tight lower bound for this example.
In other words, the same strategy that works for $f(x) = x^2 - 1$ does not work for $f(x) = x \log x$. To see this, notice that $D(P_{\theta}\|P_{\theta'}) = \|\theta - \theta'\|^2/\sigma^2$ for $\theta, \theta' \in \Theta$. As a result, $D(P_{\theta} \| P_{\theta'}) \leq \epsilon^2$ if and only if $\|\theta - \theta'\| \leq \sqrt{2} \epsilon \sigma$. The same volumetric argument again gives
$
M_{KL}(\epsilon, \Theta) \leq \left(\frac{3 \Gamma}{\sqrt{2} \epsilon \sigma} \right)^d
$ provided $\sqrt{2} \epsilon \sigma \leq \Gamma$.
The bound~\eqref{yb} implies that the mutual information $I(w, {\mathcal{P}})$ is bounded by
\begin{equation*}
I(w, {\mathcal{P}}) \leq \inf_{0 < \epsilon \leq \Gamma/(\sqrt{2} \epsilon \sigma)} \left(d \log \left(\frac{3 \Gamma}{\sqrt{2} \epsilon \sigma} \right) + \epsilon^2 \right) = d \log \left(\frac{3 \Gamma}{\sigma \sqrt{d}} \right) + \frac{d}{2}.
\end{equation*}
Let $I_f^{\rm up}$ be the right hand side above. The maximum $t > 0$ for which $(\sqrt{t}/\Gamma)^d < \frac{1}{4} \exp \left(-2I_f^{\rm up} \right)$ is on the order of $d^2 \sigma^4/\Gamma^2$. This means that inequality~\eqref{eq:I_bayes_KL} implies a weaker lower bound $\Omega(d^2 \sigma^4/\Gamma^2)$, which is suboptimal when $d \sigma^2$ is small or when $\Gamma$ is large. This is in contrast with the optimal bound~\eqref{kolo}.
\end{example}
In the above example, a direct application of Theorem~\ref{bwl} with $f(x) = x \log x$ does not produce a tight lower bound. This is mainly because, when the prior is over a large parameter space (e.g., a ball of a constant radius), the upper bound of mutual information over the entire parameter space $\Theta$ in \eqref{yb} could be too loose.
This can be corrected by partitioning the parameter space $\Theta$ into small hypercubes, and applying our bounds for the prior restricted to each hypercube separately so that the mutual information inside the partition can be appropriately upper bounded using \eqref{yb}. This is another illustration of the idea described in Remark \ref{rem:Bayes_decomp}. We first describe this method in a more general setting in the following corollary and then apply it to the setting of Example \ref{tutu}. We use the following notation. For measurable subsets $S$ of a Euclidean space, $\text{Vol}(S)$ denotes the volume (Lebesgue measure) of $S$.
\begin{corollary}\label{nd}
Let $\Theta=\mathcal{A} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^d$. Suppose that the prior $w$ has a Lebesgue density $f_w$ that is positive over $\Theta$. For each $\theta \in \Theta$ and $\delta>0$, let
\begin{equation*}
r_{\delta}(\theta) := \sup \left\{ \frac{f_w(\theta_1)}{f_w(\theta_2)} : \theta_i \in \Theta \text{ and } \|\theta_i - \theta\|_2 \leq \sqrt{d} \delta \text{ for } i = 1, 2 \right\}.
\end{equation*}
Suppose also the existence of $A > 0$ such that $D(P_{\theta_1} \| P_{\theta_2}) \leq A \|\theta_1 - \theta_2\|_2^2$ for all $\theta_1, \theta_2 \in\Theta$ and the existence of $V > 0$ (which may depend on $d$) and $p > 0$ such that $\sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} \mathrm{Vol} (B_t(a, L)) \leq V t^{d/p}$ for every $t > 0$. Then
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq \frac{1}{2} \sup_{0 < \delta \leq A^{-1/2}} \left[e^{-2p} \delta^p (8V)^{-p/d} \int_{\Theta} \left(\frac{1}{r_{\delta}(\theta)}\right)^{p/d} w(\mathrm{d}\theta) \right].
\label{eq:R_bayes_fano}
\end{equation}
\label{cor:KL_bayes_lower}
\end{corollary}
We demonstrate below that this corollary yields the correct rate in Example~\ref{tutu}. More examples are given in Section \ref{sec:Bayes_Example} of the appendix.
\begin{example}[Gaussian model with uniform priors on large balls (continued)] \label{tutug}
Consider the same setting as in Example~\ref{tutu}. Because $D(P_{\theta}\|P_{\theta'}) = \|\theta - \theta'\|_2^2/(2 \sigma^2)$, we can take $A = (2 \sigma^2)^{-1}$ in Corollary~\ref{nd}. Moreover, because $L(\theta, a) = \|\theta - a\|_2^2$, it is easy to see that $\sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} \mathrm{Vol}(B_t(a, L)) \leq t^{d/2} \mathrm{Vol} (B)$ which means that we can take $p = 2$ and $V = \mathrm{Vol}(B)$ in Corollary~\ref{nd} where $B$ is the unit ball in ${\mathbb R}^d$. Finally, because $w$ is the uniform prior, we have $r_{\delta}(\theta) = 1$ for all $\theta \in \Theta$. Corollary~\ref{nd} therefore gives
\begin{equation*}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq \frac{1}{2} \sup_{0 < \delta \leq \sqrt{2} \sigma} \left(e^{-4} 8^{-2/d} \delta^2 \mathrm{Vol}(B)^{-2/d} \right).
\end{equation*}
This matches the tight lower bound~\eqref{kolo} by noting that $\mathrm{Vol}(B)^{1/d} \asymp d^{-1/2}$.
\end{example}
\section{Admissibility of Least Squares Estimators under Convex Constraint} \label{sec:admis}
In this section, we shall use the results developed in this paper (specifically inequality \eqref{eq:I_bayes_chi} induced by chi-squared divergence in Corollary \ref{cor:bwl} and Theorem \ref{cd}) to yield a simpler proof of an important admissibility result due to \citet{Sourav14LS}. Let us briefly review the problem here.
Consider the problem of estimating a vector $\theta \in {\mathbb R}^n$ in squared Euclidean loss $L(\theta, a)=\|\theta-a\|_2^2$ from a single observation $X \sim N(\theta, I_n)$ under the constraint that $\theta \in \Theta \subseteq {\mathbb R}^n$. In our setting, we take $\Theta = {\mathcal{A}}$, $P_{\theta} := N(\theta, I_n)$ and ${\mathcal{P}} := \{P_{\theta} : \theta \in \Theta\}$. For different choices of $\Theta$, one gets special cases including (a) Isotonic regression where $\Theta := \{\theta \in R^n : \theta_1 \leq \dots \le \theta_n\}$, (b) convex regression where $\Theta := \{\theta \in {\mathbb R}^n : 2 \theta_i \leq \theta_{i-1} + \theta_{i+1}\}$ and (c) constrained Lasso where $\Theta := \{X \beta : \beta \in \mathbb{R}^p, |\beta_1| + \dots + |\beta_p| \leq L\}$. Most shape constrained regression problems can also be viewed as special cases of this problem~\citep{meyer2000degrees}.
The most commonly used estimator in this setting is the Least Squares Estimator (LSE) defined as $\widehat{\theta}(X) := \mathop{\rm argmin}_{t \in \Theta} \|X - t\|_2^2$. As mentioned in the introduction, \citet{Sourav14LS} proved an optimality property for the LSE which holds for every $n \geq 1$ and every closed convex $\Theta \subseteq {\mathbb R}^n$. Before describing his result, let us first remark that $\widehat{\theta}(X)$ is neither minimax (even up to a universal multiplicative constant) nor admissible for all closed convex $\Theta$. A counterexample for minimaxity is $\Theta := \{\theta : \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \theta_i^2 + n^{-1/2} \theta_n^2 \leq 1\}$ as noted by \citet{zhang2013nearly}; a more elaborate counterexample is given in \citet{Sourav14LS}. A counterexample for admissibility is $\Theta = {\mathbb R}^n$ where the James-Stein estimator dominates $\widehat{\theta}(X) = X$; see \citet{james1961estimation}. Chatterjee's theorem is described next. Recall the definition of $C$-admissability from \eqref{cad}.
\begin{theorem}\citep{Sourav14LS}\label{jee}
There exists a universal constant $0 < C \leq 1$ (independent of $n$ and $\Theta$) such that for every $n \geq 1$ and closed convex subset $\Theta \subseteq {\mathbb R}^n$, the least squares estimator $\widehat{\theta}(X)$ is $C$-admissible.
\end{theorem}
The high-level idea of the proof of this theorem was sketched in the introduction. Basically, $C$-admissibility is implied by $C$-Bayes (see the definition in \eqref{eq:C_Bayes}) for every prior $w$ (which is allowed to depend on $n$ and $\Theta$); and to prove that $\widehat{\theta}(X)$ is $C$-Bayes with respect to $w$, we only need to:
\begin{enumerate}
\item bound $\int_{\Theta} {\mathbb E}_{\theta} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta\|_2^2w(\mathrm{d}\theta)$ from above,
\item bound $R_{\rm Bayes}(w)$ from below
\end{enumerate}
and make sure that the two bounds differ only by the multiplicative factor $C$. Bayes risk lower bounds established in this paper (such as \eqref{eq:I_bayes_chi} in Corollary \ref{cor:bwl}) are directly applicable for carrying out the second step above.
In the following, we shall simplify and shorten \citeauthor{Sourav14LS}'s proof by replacing his complicated bare hands approach for the second step with an argument involving Corollary \ref{cor:bwl}. Our proof of Theorem \ref{jee} provides the explicit lower bound $10^{-8}$ for the constant $C$. On the other hand, the constant obtained from the proof in \cite{Sourav14LS} is smaller than $10^{-12}$ (though this is not explicitly stated in \cite{Sourav14LS}). We do not believe however that $10^{-8}$ is close to being an optimal value for $C$; finding the optimal constant probably requires other techniques and we leave it to future work.
We describe our proof of Theorem \ref{jee} in Subsection \ref{pjee}. Prior to that, we recall some relevant results from \cite{Sourav14LS} in Subsection \ref{prim}. These results are useful mainly for handling the first step above, i.e., bounding $\int_{\Theta} {\mathbb E}_{\theta} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta\|_2^2w(\mathrm{d}\theta)$ from above.
\subsection{Preliminary results from \cite{Sourav14LS}} \label{prim}
We shall use the following results from \cite{Sourav14LS}:
\textbf{1)} The quantity $\|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta\|_2$ is concentrated around a deterministic quantity $t_{\theta}$ which is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{mde}
t_{\theta} := \mathop{\rm argmax}_{t \geq 0} \left(m_{\theta}(t) - \frac{t^2}{2} \right), \qquad m_{\theta}(t) := {\mathbb E}_{\theta} \sup_{\alpha \in \Theta: \|\alpha - \theta\|_2 \leq t} \left<X - \theta, \alpha - \theta \right>.
\end{equation}
The existence and uniqueness of $t_{\theta}$ and the precise form of the concentration of $\|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta\|_2$ around $t_{\theta}$ can be found in \citet[Theorem 1.1]{Sourav14LS}. For our purposes, the following consequence of the concentration is adequate, which can be easily proved from \citet[Theorem 1.1]{Sourav14LS}:
\begin{equation}\label{1co}
{\mathbb E}_{\theta} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta\|_2^2 \leq 150 \max \left(1, t_{\theta}^2 \right).
\end{equation}
\textbf{2)} The risk function $\theta \mapsto {\mathbb E}_{\theta} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) \theta\|^2_2$ is smooth in the following sense:
\begin{equation}\label{smor}
{\mathbb E}_{\theta_1} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta_1\|_2^2 \leq 2 {\mathbb E}_{\theta_2} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta_2\|_2^2 + 8 \|\theta_1 - \theta_2\|_2^2
\end{equation}
for all $\theta_1, \theta_2 \in \Theta$. This is a simple consequence of the triangle inequality. Further, the quantity $t_{\theta}$ is smooth in $\theta$ in the following sense: if $\theta_1, \theta_2 \in \Theta$ are such that $\|\theta_1 - \theta_2\|_2 \leq t_{\theta_1}/24$, then
\begin{equation}\label{smoo}
\frac{11 t_{\theta_1}}{24} \leq t_{\theta_2} \leq \frac{50 t_{\theta_1}}{24}.
\end{equation}
This is proved in \citet[Lemma 4.8]{Sourav14LS}.
\textbf{3)} Recall the definition of $m_{\theta}(t)$ in \eqref{mde}. For each fixed $\theta$, the map $t \mapsto m_{\theta}(t)$ is non-decreasing and concave. Further, for all $t \geq 0$ and $\theta \in \Theta$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{inc}
m_{\theta}(t) \leq m_{\theta}(t_{\theta}) + t_{\theta}(t -
t_{\theta}).
\end{equation}
This inequality follows almost directly from the definition \eqref{mde} of $m_{\theta}(t)$. A proof of this inequality can be found in \citet[inequality (12)]{Sourav14LS}.
The proof of Theorem \ref{jee} is given next. Due to space constraints, we provide a sketch of the proof here and the full proof is given in Section \ref{sec:supp_admis} the appendix.
\subsection{Proof Sketch of Theorem \ref{jee}}\label{pjee}
As mentioned earlier, the main step is the construction of an appropriate $w$ on $\Theta$. The idea here is to fix a specific $\theta^* \in \Theta$ and to choose $w$ to be a specific prior that is supported on the set
\begin{equation}\label{uri}
U(\theta^*): = \Theta \cap \{\theta \in {\mathbb R}^n : \|\theta - \theta^*\|_2 \leq \rho t_{\theta^*}\}
\end{equation}
for a small enough constant $\rho$, where $t_{\theta^*}$ is defined in \eqref{mde}. Because of inequalities \eqref{1co}, \eqref{smor} and \eqref{smoo}, it can then be shown that
\begin{equation}\label{alla}
\int_{\Theta} {\mathbb E}_{\theta} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta\|_2^2 w(d\theta) \leq C t_{\theta^*}^2
\end{equation}
for some universal constant $C$ (provided $\rho$ is chosen to be sufficiently small). To complete the proof, we would only need to show the Bayes risk lower bound:
\begin{equation}\label{tosh}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w) \geq c t^2_{\theta^*}
\end{equation}
for some universal positive constant $c$. We shall prove this for every closed convex set $\Theta$ provided $\theta^*$ and $w$ are properly chosen.
It makes sense here to work with two separate cases: the case when $\inf_{\theta \in \Theta} t_{\theta} $ is strictly smaller than some constant (we will take this constant to be 85 for technical reasons) and the case when $\inf_{\theta \in \Theta} t_{\theta}$ is larger than $85$. The first case is the easier case. Here we will take $\theta^* \in \Theta$ to be such that $t_{\theta^*} \leq 85$. The required bound \eqref{tosh} will then be a parametric lower bound which we will prove by the simple Le Cam's two point lower bound ($w$ will be taken to be a uniform prior on $\{\theta^*, \theta_1\}$ for some suitably chosen $\theta_1 \in \Theta$). Please refer to Section \ref{sec:supp_admis} of the appendix for more details. We would like to remark that our proof of this easy case has been already much simpler than the original proof in \cite{Sourav14LS}.
Here we will provide the argument in the harder case when $\inf_{\theta \in \Theta} t_{\theta} \geq 85$ (in this case, the LSE $\widehat{\theta}(X)$ may not attain the parametric rate anywhere on $\Theta$). Suppose $\inf_{\theta \in \Theta} t_{\theta} \geq b := 85$ and let $\rho := 0.03$. We shall first specify the choices for $\theta^* \in \Theta$ and the prior $w$ supported on the set $U(\theta^*)$ in \eqref{uri}. Let $\theta^*$ be chosen so that
\begin{equation}\label{cho}
m_{\theta^*}(\rho t_{\theta^*}) \geq \sup_{\theta \in \Theta} m_{\theta}(\rho t_{\theta}) - 0.01
\end{equation}
where $m_{\theta}(\cdot)$ is defined in \eqref{mde}. Let $\Psi : {\mathbb R}^n \mapsto \Theta$ be any measurable mapping such that $\Psi(z)$ is a maximizer of $\left< z, \theta - \theta^* \right>$ as $\theta$ varies in $U(\theta^*)$. As in \cite{Sourav14LS}, the prior $w$ is set to be the distribution of $\Psi(Z)$ for a standard Gaussian vector $Z$ in ${\mathbb R}^n$. Because of inequalities \eqref{1co} and \eqref{smor},
\begin{equation}\label{les}
{\mathbb E}_{\theta} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta\|_2^2 \leq 2 {\mathbb E}_{\theta^*} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta^*\|_2^2 + 8 \|\theta - \theta^*\|^2_2 \leq \left( 300 + 8 \rho^2 \right) t^2_{\theta^*}
\end{equation}
for all $\theta \in U(\theta^*)$. This implies \eqref{alla} with $C = 300 + 8 \rho^2$. To complete the proof, it remains therefore to prove the Bayes risk lower bound \eqref{tosh}. This is the main part of the proof. We will use inequality \eqref{eq:I_bayes_chi} in Corollary \ref{cor:bwl} induced by chi-squared divergence.
Note that the prior $w$ is concentrated on the convex set $U(\theta^*)$, we can replace the supremum over $a \in \Theta$ in \eqref{eq:I_bayes_chi} by the supremum over $a \in U(\theta^*)$, which gives the lower bound
\begin{equation}\label{wf}
\frac{1}{2} \sup \left\{t > 0 : \sup_{a \in U(\theta^*)} w \{\theta \in \Theta: \|\theta - a\|_2^2 \leq t\} < \frac{1}{4(1 + I_f^{\rm up})} \right\},
\end{equation}
where $I_f^{\rm up}$ is any upper bound on the chi-squared informativity $I_{\chi^2}(w, \mathcal{P})$.
To obtain $I_f^{\rm up}$, we use the bound given by inequality \eqref{eq:upper_f_power} in Theorem \ref{cd} with $\alpha = 2$, $\Xi := \{0\}$ and $Q_0 := P_{\theta^*}$. This gives
\begin{equation*}
I_{\chi^2}(w, \mathcal{P}) \leq \int_{\Theta} \chi^2(P_{\theta} \| P_{\theta^*}) dw(\theta) \leq \sup_{\theta \in U(\theta^*)} \chi^2(P_{\theta} \| P_{\theta^*}) \leq \exp \left(\rho^2 t^2_{\theta^*} \right) - 1.
\end{equation*}
The last inequality above follows from the expression $\chi^2(P_{\theta} \| P_{\theta^*}) = \exp(\|\theta - \theta^*\|_2^2)-1$ and the fact that $\|\theta - \theta^*\|_2 \leq \rho t_{\theta^*}$ for all $\theta \in U(\theta^*)$. We can therefore take $1 + I_f^{\rm up}$ to be $\exp(\rho^2 t^2_{\theta^*})$ in \eqref{wf} which gives the lower bound
\begin{equation}\label{neal}
\frac{1}{2} \sup \left\{t > 0 : \sup_{a \in U(\theta^*)} w \{\theta \in \Theta: \|\theta - a\|_2^2 \leq t\} < \frac{1}{4} \exp(- \rho^2 t^2_{\theta^*}) \right\}.
\end{equation}
for $R_{\rm Bayes}(w)$. The main step now is to argue that the inequality
\begin{equation}\label{sta}
\sup_{a \in U(\theta^*)} w \{\theta \in \Theta: \|\theta - a\|_2^2 \leq t\} < \frac{1}{4} \exp(- \rho^2 t^2_{\theta^*})
\end{equation}
holds for $t := 0.01 \rho^2 t^2_{\theta^*}$. This will then imply \eqref{tosh} and complete the proof. The argument for \eqref{sta} is similar to that in the proof of \citet[Theorem 1.4]{Sourav14LS} but the constants involved are different. Please refer to the full proof in Section \ref{sec:supp_admis} of appendix for the details.
Inequalities \eqref{sta} and \eqref{neal} together imply that
\begin{equation}\label{sa1}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w) \geq \frac{0.01 \rho^2}{2} t^2_{\theta^*}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, for the LSE $\widehat{\theta}(X)$, inequality \eqref{les} gives
\begin{equation}\label{sa2}
\int {\mathbb E}_{\theta} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta \|_2^2 dw(\theta) \leq (300 + 8 \rho^2) t^2_{\theta^*}.
\end{equation}
Putting together \eqref{sa1} and \eqref{sa2}, we obtain
\[
\frac{0.01 \rho^2}{600 + 16 \rho^2} \int_{\Theta} {\mathbb E}_{\theta} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta\|_2^2 dw(\theta) \leq R_{\rm Bayes}(w).
\]
The constant above is at least $10^{-8}$ which proves that $\widehat{\theta}(X)$ is $C$-Bayes for some $C \geq 10^{-8}$. This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{jee}.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors are very grateful to the anonymous referees and the associate editor for their detailed
and constructive comments. The authors would like to thank Michael I. Jordan and Sivaraman Balakrishnan for helpful discussions.
\section{Appendix}
\subsection{Proofs and Additional Results for for Section \ref{sec:Bayes_01} on Bayes Risk Lower Bound for Zero-one Loss}
\subsubsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:lower_property}}
Recall the expression \eqref{eq:phi} of $\phi_f(a, b)$. We first fix
$b$ and show that $g(a): a \mapsto \phi_f(a,b)$ is a
non-increasing for $a \in [0, b]$. There is nothing to prove if $b =
0$ so let us assume that $b > 0$. We will consider the cases $0 < b <
1$ and $b = 1$ separately. For $0 < b < 1$, note that for every $a \in (0, b]$, we
have,
\begin{equation*}
g_L'(a) = f_L' \left(\frac{a}{b} \right) - f_R' \left(\frac{1 -
a}{1 -b} \right),
\end{equation*}
where $g_L'$ and $f_L'$ represent left derivatives and $f_R'$
represents right derivative (note that $f_L'$ and $f_R'$ exist because
of the convexity of $f$). Because $\frac{a}{b} \leq \frac{1-a}{1-b}$ for
every $0 \leq a \leq b$ and $f$ is convex, we see that
$$ g_L'(a) \leq f_R' \left(\frac{a}{b} \right) -f_R' \left(\frac{1 -
a}{1 - b} \right) \leq 0$$ for every $a \in (0, b]$ which
implies that $g(a)$ is non-increasing on $[0, b]$.
When $b = 1$, we have $g_{L}'(a) = f_L'(a) - f'(\infty)$ which is
always $\leq 0$ because $f$ is convex (note that $f'(\infty) = \lim_{x
\uparrow \infty} f(x)/x = \lim_{x \uparrow \infty} (f(x) - f(1))/(x -
1)$).
The convexity and continuity of $g$ follow from the convexity of
$f$ and the expression for $\phi_f$.
Next, we fix $a$ and show that $h(b): b \mapsto \phi_f(a,b)$ is
non-decreasing for $b \in [a, 1]$. For every $b \in [a, 1)$, we have,
\begin{equation}
h_R'(b) = f\left( \frac{a}{b} \right) - \frac{a}{b} f'_L\left(\frac{a}{b} \right)-f\left(\frac{1-a}{1-b} \right) + \frac{1-a}{1-b} f'_R\left(\frac{1-a}{1-b} \right),
\label{eq:h_R}
\end{equation}
where $h_R'$ represents the right derivative of $h$. By the convexity of $f$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:h_R_1}
f\left( \frac{a}{b} \right) -f\left(\frac{1-a}{1-b} \right) \geq f_R' \left(\frac{1-a}{1-b} \right) \left(\frac{a}{b} - \frac{1-a}{1-b} \right).
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{eq:h_R} with \eqref{eq:h_R_1}, we obtain that,
\begin{equation*}
h_R'(b) \geq \frac{a}{b} \left(f_R' \left(\frac{1-a}{1-b} \right)- f'_L\left(\frac{a}{b} \right) \right) \geq \frac{a}{b} \left(f_L' \left(\frac{1-a}{1-b} \right)- f'_L\left(\frac{a}{b} \right) \right) \geq 0,
\end{equation*}
where the last inequality is because that $\frac{a}{b} \leq \frac{1-a}{1-b}$ for every $0 \leq a \leq b$ and $f$ is convex. The non-negativity of $h_R'(b)$ implies that $h(b)$ is non-decreasing on $[a, 1]$.
\subsubsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem.dpi}}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem.dpi}]
Let $\P$ denote the joint distribution of $\theta$ and $X$ under the prior $w$ i.e.,
$\theta \sim w$ and $X|\theta \sim P_{\theta}$. For any decision rule ${\mathfrak{d}}$, $R^{{\mathfrak{d}}}$ in \eqref{eq:def_R_Q} can be written as $R^{{\mathfrak{d}}} = {\mathbb E}_{\P} L(\theta,{\mathfrak{d}}(X))$. Let ${\mathbb Q}$ denote the joint distribution of $\theta$ and $X$ under which they are independently distributed according to $\theta \sim w$ and $X \sim Q$ respectively. The quantity $R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}}$ in \eqref{eq:def_R_Q} can then be written as $R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}}={\mathbb E}_{\mathbb Q} L\left(\theta, {\mathfrak{d}}(X)\right)$.
Because the loss function is zero-one valued, the function $\Gamma
(\theta, x) := L(\theta, {\mathfrak{d}}(x))$ maps $\Theta \times {\mathcal{X}}$
into $\{0, 1\}$. Our strategy is to fix $f \in {\mathcal{C}}$ and apply the data processing inequality~\eqref{dpi} to the probability measures $\P, {\mathbb Q}$ and the mapping $\Gamma$. This gives
\begin{equation}\label{dp}
D_f(\P||{\mathbb Q}) \geq D_f(\P\Gamma^{-1}||{\mathbb Q} \Gamma^{-1}),
\end{equation}
where $\P\Gamma^{-1}$ and ${\mathbb Q} \Gamma^{-1}$ are induced measures on the space $\{0,1\}$ of $\Gamma$. In other words, since $L$ is zero-one valued, both $\P\Gamma^{-1}$ and ${\mathbb Q} \Gamma^{-1}$ are two-point distributions on $\{0,1\}$ with
\begin{equation*}
\P \Gamma^{-1} \{1\} = \int \Gamma d\P = {\mathbb E}_{\P} L(\theta,
{\mathfrak{d}}(X)) = R^{{\mathfrak{d}}}, \qquad {\mathbb Q}\Gamma^{-1}\{1\}= \int \Gamma d{\mathbb Q}= R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}}.
\end{equation*}
By the definition of the function $\phi_f(\cdot, \cdot)$, it follows that $D_f(\P\Gamma^{-1}||{\mathbb Q} \Gamma^{-1}) = \phi_f (R^{{\mathfrak{d}}}, R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}})$. It is also easy to see $D_f(\P||{\mathbb Q}) = \int_{\Theta} D_f(P_{\theta}||Q) w(\mathrm{d}\theta)$. Combining this equation with inequality~\eqref{dp} establishes inequality~\eqref{main.eq1}.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{man}}
\label{sec:proof_man}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{man}]
We write $R$ as a shorthand notation of $R_{\rm Bayes}(w)$. By the definition \eqref{eq:def_f_info} of $I_f(w, {\mathcal{P}})$, it suffices to prove that
\begin{equation}\label{jia}
\int D_f(P_{\theta} \| Q) w(d\theta) \geq \phi_f(R, R_0)
\end{equation}
for every probability measure $Q$.
Notice that $R \leq R_0$. If $R = R_0$, then the right hand side of \eqref{man.eq} is zero and hence the inequality immediately holds. Assume that $R < R_0$. Let $\epsilon > 0$ be small enough so that $R + \epsilon < R_0$. Let ${\mathfrak{d}}$ denote any decision rule for which $R \leq R^{{\mathfrak{d}}} < R+\epsilon$ and note that such a rule exists since $R=\inf_{{\mathfrak{d}}} R^{{\mathfrak{d}}}$. It is easy to see that
\begin{equation*}
R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}} = \int_{{\mathcal{X}}} \int_{\Theta} L(\theta, {\mathfrak{d}}(x))
w(\mathrm{d}\theta) Q(dx) \geq \int_{{\mathcal{X}}}\left( \inf_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} \int_{\Theta }L(\theta, a)
w(\mathrm{d}\theta) \right) Q(dx) = R_0.
\end{equation*}
We thus have $R \leq R^{{\mathfrak{d}}} < R + \epsilon < R_0 \leq R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}}$. By Lemma \ref{lem.dpi}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\Theta} D_f(P_{\theta} \| Q) w(\mathrm{d}\theta) \geq \phi_f(R^{{\mathfrak{d}}},
R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}}).
\end{equation*}
Because $x \mapsto \phi_f(x, R_{Q}^{{\mathfrak{d}}})$ is non-increasing on $x \in
[0, R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}}]$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\phi_f(R^{{\mathfrak{d}}}, R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}}) \geq \phi_f(R + \epsilon, R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}}).
\end{equation*}
Because $x \mapsto \phi_f(R + \epsilon, x)$ is non-decreasing
on $x \in [R + \epsilon, 1]$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\phi_f(R + \epsilon, R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}}) \geq \phi_f(R + \epsilon, R_0).
\end{equation*}
Combining the above three inequalities, we have
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\Theta} D_f(P_{\theta} \| Q) w(d\theta) \geq \phi_f(R^{{\mathfrak{d}}},
R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}}) \geq \phi_f(R + \epsilon, R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}}) \geq \phi_f(R + \epsilon, R_0).
\end{equation*}
The proof of \eqref{jia} completes by letting $\epsilon \downarrow 0$ and using the continuity of $\phi_f(\cdot, R_0)$ (continuity was noted in Lemma \ref{lem:lower_property}). This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{man}.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Proof of Corollary \ref{cor:Fano}}
\label{sec:proof_fano}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{cor:Fano}]
We simply apply \eqref{expb} to $f(x) = x \log x$ and $r = R_0/(1 + R_0)$, it can then be checked that
\[
\phi_f(r, R_0)= - \log (1+R_0) - \frac{1}{1+R_0} \log(1-R_0), \quad \phi_f'(r-, R_0)= \log (1-R_0),
\]
Inequality \eqref{expb} then gives
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:Fano1}
R \geq 1 + \frac{I(w, {\mathcal{P}}) + \log (1 + R_0)}{\log (1 - R_0)}
\end{equation*}
which proves \eqref{gf}.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{A variant of Fano's inequality from \cite{BraunPokutta}}
\label{sec:supp_Fano}
One of the main results in \cite{BraunPokutta} (Proposition 2.2)
establishes the following variant of Fano's inequality. Consider the
setting of Lemma \ref{lem.dpi}. In particular, recall the quantities
$R^{{\mathfrak{d}}}$ and $R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}}$ from \eqref{eq:def_R_Q} and also the sets
$B(a), a \in {\mathcal{A}}$ from \eqref{ba}. \cite[Proposition
2.2]{BraunPokutta} proved the following: for any decision rule ${\mathfrak{d}}$,
\begin{equation}\label{bp}
R^{{\mathfrak{d}}} \geq \frac{-I(w, \mathcal{P}) - H(R^{{\mathfrak{d}}}) - \log w_{\max}}{\log \left[ (1 - w_{\min})/w_{\max} \right]},
\end{equation}
where $H(x) := -x \log x - (1-x) \log(1-x)$, $w_{\min} := \inf_{a \in
{\mathcal{A}}} w(B(a))$ and $w_{\max} := \sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w(B(a))$.
Below we provide a proof of this inequality using Lemma
\ref{lem.dpi}. The proof given in \cite{BraunPokutta} is quite
different proof. Using \eqref{main.eq1} from Lemma \ref{lem.dpi} with
$f(x)= x \log x$, we have for any decision rule
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\Theta} D_f(P_{\theta} \| Q) w(d\theta) \geq R^{{\mathfrak{d}}} \log
\frac{R^{{\mathfrak{d}}}}{R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}}} + (1 - R^{{\mathfrak{d}}}) \log \frac{1 - R^{{\mathfrak{d}}}}{1
- R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}}}.
\end{equation*}
We can rewrite this as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Braun}
\int_{\Theta} D_f(P_{\theta} \| Q) w(d\theta) \geq -H(R^{{\mathfrak{d}}}) -
R^{{\mathfrak{d}}} \log R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}} - (1 - R^{{\mathfrak{d}}}) \log(1 - R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}})
\end{equation}
where $H(x) := -x \log x - (1-x) \log(1-x)$. Since $L$ in Lemma
\ref{lem.dpi} is zero-one valued.
\begin{equation}
R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}} =1- {\mathbb E}_{Q} w(B({\mathfrak{d}}(X)))
\label{eq:R_Q}
\end{equation}
where ${\mathbb E}_Q$ denotes expectation taken under $X \sim Q$ and and
$B({\mathfrak{d}}(X))$ is defined in \eqref{ba}.
As a result, we have
\begin{equation}\label{qb}
1- \max_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w(B(a)) \leq R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}} \leq 1- \min_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w(B(a)).
\end{equation}
Using the bounds in~\eqref{qb} on the right hand side of \eqref{eq:Braun}, we deduce
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\Theta} D_f(P_{\theta} \| Q) w(d\theta) \geq -H(R^{{\mathfrak{d}}}) - R^{{\mathfrak{d}}} \log \left(1 - w_{\min} \right) - (1 - R^{{\mathfrak{d}}}) \log w_{\max}.
\end{equation*}
where $w_{\min} := \inf_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w(B(a))$ and $w_{\max} := \sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w(B(a))$ for notational simplicity.
Taking the infimum on the left hand side above over all probability measures $Q$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
I(w, \mathcal{P}) \geq -H(R^{{\mathfrak{d}}}) - R^{{\mathfrak{d}}} \log \left(1 - w_{\min} \right) - (1 - R^{{\mathfrak{d}}}) \log \left( w_{\max} \right).
\end{equation*}
Provided $w_{\min} + w_{\max} < 1$, one can rewrite the above
inequality as \eqref{bp}. This completes the proof of \eqref{bp}.
\subsubsection{Proof of Corollary \ref{cor:lb_01_f}}\label{colr}
\label{sec:cor_lb_01_f}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Proof of inequality \eqref{eq:chi}}: Applying
Theorem \ref{man} with $f(x) = x^2 - 1$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
I_{\chi^2}(w, {\mathcal{P}}) \geq \frac{(R_0-R)^2}{R_0(1-R_0)}
\end{equation*}
Because $R \leq R_0$, we can invert the above to obtain
\eqref{eq:chi}.
\item \textbf{Proof of inequality \eqref{eq:total}}:
Theorem~\ref{man} with $f(x) = |x - 1|/2$ gives
\begin{equation*}
I_{TV}(w, {\mathcal{P}}) \geq \frac{R_0}{2} \left|\frac{R}{R_0} -1 \right| + \frac{1-R_0}{2} \left|\frac{1-R}{1-R_0} -1 \right| =R_0-R,
\end{equation*}
where the last equality uses the fact that $R \leq R_0$. Inverting
the above inequality, we obtain \eqref{eq:total}.
\item \textbf{Proof of inequality \eqref{eq:hellinger_3}}:
Theorem \ref{man} with $f(x) = f_{1/2}(x) = 1 - \sqrt{x}$ gives
\begin{equation}\label{enim}
I_{f_{1/2}}(w, {\mathcal{P}}) \geq 1 - \sqrt{R R_0} - \sqrt{(1 - R)(1 -
R_0)}.
\end{equation}
Assume that $P_{\theta}$ has density $p_{\theta}$ with respect to a
common dominating measure $\mu$. We shall show below that
\begin{equation}\label{exha}
I_{f_{1/2}}(w, {\mathcal{P}}) = 1 - \sqrt{\int_{{\mathcal{X}}} u^2 d\mu} \qt{where
$u := \int_{\Theta} \sqrt{p_{\theta}} w(d\theta)$. }
\end{equation}
To see this, fix a probability measure $Q$ that has a density $q$
with respect to $\mu$. We can then write
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\Theta} D_{f_{1/2}} (P_{\theta} \| Q) w(d\theta) = 1 -
\int_{{\mathcal{X}}} \sqrt{q} \left( \int_{\Theta} \sqrt{p_{\theta}}
w(d\theta) \right) d\mu = 1 - \int_{{\mathcal{X}}} \sqrt{q u^2} d\mu
\end{equation*}
It follows then from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality that
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\Theta} D_{f_{1/2}}(P_{\theta}||Q) w(\mathrm{d}\theta)=1-\int_{{\mathcal{X}}} \sqrt{q u^2}\;\mathrm{d}\mu \geq 1- \sqrt{\int_{{\mathcal{X}}} u^2 \; \mathrm{d} \mu},
\end{equation*}
with equality holding when $q$ is proportional to $u^2$. This proves
\eqref{exha}. We now see that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:hellinger_2}
\int_{{\mathcal{X}}} u^2 \; \mathrm{d} \mu & =\int_{\Theta} \int_{\Theta} \int_{{\mathcal{X}}} \sqrt{p_{\theta}} \sqrt{p_{\theta'}} \; \mathrm{d}\mu~ w(\mathrm{d} \theta) w(\mathrm{d} \theta') = 1- \frac{1}{2} h^2
\end{align}
where $h^2$ is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:h_square}
h^2=\int_{\Theta} \int_{\Theta} H^2(P_{\theta}\| P_{\theta'}) w(\mathrm{d} \theta)w(\mathrm{d} \theta').
\end{equation}
This, together with
\eqref{enim} and \eqref{exha}, gives the inequality
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hellinger_1}
\sqrt{R R_0} + \sqrt{(1 - R) (1 - R_0)} \geq \sqrt{1 - \frac{h^2}{2}}
\end{equation}
Now under the assumption $h^2 \leq 2 R_0$, the right hand side of the
inequality \eqref{eq:hellinger_1} lies between $\sqrt{1-R_0}$ and
$1$. On the other hand, it can be checked that, as a function in $R$,
the left hand side of \eqref{eq:hellinger_1} is strictly increasing
from $\sqrt{1-R_0}$ (at $R=0$) to 1 at ($R=R_0$). Therefore, from
\eqref{eq:hellinger_1}, we know that $R \geq \widehat{R}$ where
$\widehat{R} \in [0, R_0]$ is the solution to the equation
obtained by replacing the inequality \eqref{eq:hellinger_1} with an
equality. One can solve this equation and obtain two solutions. One of
two solutions can be discarded by the fact that $R \leq R_0$.
The other solution is given by:
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{R} = R_0-(2R_0-1) \frac{h^2}{2} - \sqrt{R_0(1-R_0)} \sqrt{h^2(2-h^2)}
\end{equation*}
and thus we have $R \geq \widehat{R}$ which proves inequality
\eqref{eq:hellinger_3}.
We note that the lower bound on $R$ in \eqref{eq:hellinger_3} only
holds under the condition $h^2 \leq 2 R_0$. When $h^2 > 2 R_0$,
inequality \eqref{eq:hellinger_3} holds for every $R \in [0, R_{Q^*}]$
and thus cannot provide a non-trivial lower bound on $R$. As an
example, when $\Theta = {\mathcal{A}} = \{1, \dots, N\}$, $L(\theta, a) =
\mathbbm{I}\{\theta \neq a\}$ and $w$ is the uniform prior on
$\Theta$, it is easy to see that $R_0 = 1 - (1/N)$ and
\begin{equation}
h^2= \frac{1}{N^2} \sum_{\theta \neq \theta'} H^2(P_{\theta}\|
P_{\theta'}) \leq 2 \frac{N(N-1)}{N^2} =2 R_{Q^*}.
\end{equation}
Inequality~\eqref{eq:hellinger_3} therefore is equivalent to
\begin{equation*}
R \geq 1- \frac{1}{N} -\frac{N-2}{N} \frac{h^2}{2}-
\frac{\sqrt{N-1}}{N} \sqrt{h^2(2-h^2)}.
\end{equation*}
This recovers the result in Example \RNum{2}.6 in \cite{Aditya:fdiv}.
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Derivations of Le Cam's inequality (two hypotheses) and Assouad's lemma and other results from Corollary \ref{cor:lb_01_f}}
\label{sec:supp_LeCam}
To demonstrate the application of Corollary \ref{cor:lb_01_f}, we apply it to derive the two hypotheses version of Le Cam's inequality (with total variation distance) and Assouad's lemma (see Theorem 2.12 in \citep{Tsybakov:nonpara}).
The simplest version of the Le Cam's inequality, the so-called two-point argument, is an easy corollary of~\eqref{eq:total}. Indeed, applying~\eqref{eq:total} with $\Theta = {\mathcal{A}} = \{\theta_0, \theta_1\}$, $L(\theta, a) = \mathbbm{I}\{\theta \neq a\}$ and $w\{0\} = w\{1\} = 1/2$ (and note that $R_0=1/2$), we obtain that for any distribution $Q$ on $\mathcal{X}$,
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{2} \left(\|P_{\theta_0} - Q\|_{TV} + \|P_{\theta_1} - Q\|_{TV} \right) \geq I_{TV}(w, \mathcal{P}) \geq 1/2 - R
\end{equation*}
Taking $Q = (P_{\theta_0} + P_{\theta_1})/2$, we obtain Le Cam's inequality:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LeCam}
R_{\rm minimax} \geq \frac{1}{2} \left(1 - \|P_{\theta_0} - P_{\theta_1}\|_{TV} \right).
\end{equation}
The more involved Le Cam's inequality considers $\Theta = {\mathcal{A}} = \Theta_0 \cup \Theta_1$ for two disjoint subsets $\Theta_0$ and $\Theta_1$ and loss function $L(\theta, a) = \mathbbm{I} \{\theta \in \Theta_1, a \in \Theta_2\} + \mathbbm{I}\{\theta \in \Theta_2, a \in \Theta_1\}$. The inequality states that for every pair of probability measures $w_0$ and $w_1$ concentrated on $\Theta_0$ and $\Theta_1$ respectively,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LeCam_set}
R_{\rm minimax} \geq \frac{1}{2} \left(1 - \|m_0 - m_1\|_{TV} \right)
\end{equation}
where $m_{0}$ and $m_1$ are marginal densities given by $m_{\tau}(x) = \int p_{\theta}(x) w_{\tau}(\mathrm{d}\theta)$ for $\tau = 0, 1$. To prove~\eqref{eq:LeCam_set}, consider the prior $w = (w_0 + w_1)/2$. Under this prior, the problem is easily converted to the previous binary testing problem. In particular, the data generating process under the prior $w$ can be viewed as first sampling $\tau \sim \mathrm{Uniform}\;\{0,1\}$ and then $X \sim m_{\tau}$. The decision $a \in \mathcal{A}$ can be converted into the binary decision $\hat{\tau}=\mathbbm{I}(a \in \Theta_1)$. The loss function is $L(\tau, \hat{\tau}) = \mathbbm{I}(\tau \neq \hat{\tau}) $. The Bayes risk under the prior $w$ can be re-written as,
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) = \frac{1}{2} \inf_{\hat{\tau}} \sum_{\tau=0,1} \int_{\mathcal{X}} \mathbbm{I}(\tau \neq \hat{\tau}(x)) m_{\tau}(x) \mu(\mathrm{d} x),
\label{eq:LeCam_set_1}
\end{equation}
which has the same form as the Bayes risk in the earlier binary testing problem. Applying the same argument as for proving \eqref{eq:LeCam}, we obtain the lower bound on the Bayes risk in \eqref{eq:LeCam_set_1}, $R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq \frac{1}{2} \left(1 - \|m_0 - m_1\|_{TV} \right)$, which further implies \eqref{eq:LeCam_set}.
Another classical minimax inequality involving the total variation distance is Assouad's inequality~\citep{Assouad:83} which states that if $\Theta = \mathcal{A} = \{0,1\}^d$ and the loss function $L$ is defined by the Hamming distance, i.e., $L(\theta, a) = \sum_{i=1}^d \mathbbm{I}(\theta_i \neq a_i)$, then
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{\rm minimax} \geq \frac{d}{2} \min_{L(\theta, \theta')=1} \left(1-\|P_{\theta} - P_{\theta'}\|_{TV} \right).
\label{eq:assouad}
\end{eqnarray}
This inequality is also a consequence of~\eqref{eq:total}: let $w$ be the uniform probability measure on $\Theta$ and $L_1(\theta, a)= \mathbbm{I}(\theta_1 \neq a_1)$. Under $w$, the marginal distribution of the first coordinate is $w_1\{0\} = w_1\{1\} = 1/2$. Let $m_\tau(x) :=\sum_{\theta: \theta_1=\tau} p_{\theta}(x)/2^{d-1}$ for $\tau \in \{0,1\}$ be the corresponding marginal density of $X$ and let $Q(x)= \frac{1}{2} \left( m_0(x)+m_1(x) \right)$. Applying the same argument as for proving \eqref{eq:LeCam}, we obtain that the minimax risk for the zero-one valued loss function $L_1(\theta, a)$ is bounded below by $\frac{1}{2} \left( 1- \|m_0 - m_1\|_{TV} \right) \geq \frac{1}{2} \min_{L(\theta, \theta')=1} \left(1-\|P_{\theta} - P_{\theta'}\|_{TV} \right)$. Repeating this argument for $L_i(\theta, a) := \mathbbm{I}\{\theta_i \neq a_i\}$ for $i = 2, \dots, d$ and adding up the resulting bounds, we obtain~\eqref{eq:assouad}.
By using Le Cam's inequality (see, e.g., Lemma 2.3 in \citep{Tsybakov:nonpara}) which states that:
\begin{equation*}
\|P_{\theta} - P_{\theta'}\|_{TV} \leq \sqrt{H^2(P_{\theta} \| P_{\theta'}) \left(1 - \frac{1}{4} H^2(P_{\theta} \| P_{\theta'}) \right)},
\end{equation*}
the inequality in \eqref{eq:assouad} further implies the Hellinger distance version of Assouad's inequality in the book \citet[Theorem 2.12]{Tsybakov:nonpara}, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hell_assouad}
R_{\rm minimax} \geq \frac{d}{2} \min_{L(\theta, \theta') = 1} \left\{1 - \sqrt{H^2(P_{\theta} \| P_{\theta'}) \left(1 - \frac{1}{4} H^2(P_{\theta} \| P_{\theta'}) \right)} \right\} .
\end{equation}
Finally, we also note that Corollary \ref{cor:Fano} (generalized Fano's inequality) and Corollary \ref{cor:lb_01_f} can also lead to Theorem 2.15 (slightly weaker version) in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara} which involves two fuzzy hypotheses. Here, we only show the KL divergence version. The cases for other divergences are similar and quite straightforward. In particular, let $\mathbb{P}_{\theta_0}$ and $\mathbb{P}_{\theta_1}$ be two fuzzy hypotheses. the key step of Theorem 2.15 in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara} is to show that if $D(\mathbb{P}_{\theta_1} || \mathbb{P}_{\theta_0}) \leq \alpha$ for some $\alpha>0$, then
\[
\inf_{{\mathfrak{d}}} \frac{1}{2} \left( \mathbb{P}_{\theta_0}({\mathfrak{d}}=1) + \mathbb{P}_{\theta_1} ({\mathfrak{d}}=0) \right) \geq c(\alpha)>0,
\]
where ${\mathfrak{d}}$ is the decision rule maps from $\mathcal{X}$ to $\Theta={\mathcal{A}}=\{0,1\}$ and $c(\alpha)$ is some positive constant. Considering the uniform prior $w$ over $\Theta=\{0,1\}$ and using Corollary \ref{cor:Fano} (note that $R_0=1/2$ and $I(w, \mathcal{P}) \leq D(\mathbb{P}_{\theta_1} || \mathbb{P}_{\theta_0}) \leq \alpha$), we have the Bayes risk lower bound
\[
\inf_{{\mathfrak{d}}} \frac{1}{2} \left( \mathbb{P}_{\theta_0}({\mathfrak{d}}=1) + \mathbb{P}_{\theta_1} ({\mathfrak{d}}=0) \right) \geq \frac{\log(4/3)-\alpha/2}{\log(2)},
\]
which is a positive constant for any $\alpha < 2 \log(4/3)$. This result is spiritually similar to that of \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara}.
\subsubsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:Birge}}
\label{sec:supp_Birge}
We will provide a proof of Proposition \ref{prop:Birge} based on Lemma
\ref{lem.dpi}. For this, it is enought to prove that
$\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i:i \neq j} D_f(P_{\theta_i}||P_{\theta_j}) \geq
\psi_{N, f}(R_{\rm minimax})$ for every $j \in \{0, \dots,
N\}$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $j = 0$. We
apply~\eqref{main.eq1} with the uniform distribution on $\Theta
\setminus \{\theta_0\} = \{\theta_1, \dots, \theta_N\}$ as $w$, $Q =
P_{\theta_0}$ and the minimax rule for the problem as ${\mathfrak{d}}$. Because
${\mathfrak{d}}$ is the minimax rule, $R^{{\mathfrak{d}}} \leq R_{\rm minimax}$. Also
\begin{equation*}
R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N {\mathbb E}_{\theta_0} L(\theta_i, {\mathfrak{d}}(X)) = \frac{1}{N}{\mathbb E}_{\theta_0} \sum_{i=1}^N \mathbbm{I} \{\theta_i \neq {\mathfrak{d}}(X)\}.
\end{equation*}
It is easy to verify that $\sum_{i=1}^N \mathbbm{I} \{\theta_i \neq {\mathfrak{d}}(X)\} = N -\mathbbm{I} \{\theta_0 \neq {\mathfrak{d}}(X)\}$. We thus have $R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}} = 1 - {\mathbb E}_{\theta_0} L(\theta_0, {\mathfrak{d}}(X))/N$. Because ${\mathfrak{d}}$ is minimax, ${\mathbb E}_{\theta_0} L(\theta_0, {\mathfrak{d}}(X)) \leq R_{\rm minimax}$ and thus
\begin{equation}\label{dan}
R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}} \geq 1 - R_{\rm minimax}/N.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, we have $R_{\rm minimax} \leq N/(N+1)$. To see
this, note that the minimax risk is upper bounded by the maximum risk
of a random decision rule, which chooses among the $N+1$ hypotheses
uniformly at random. For this random decision rule, its risk is
$\frac{N}{N+1}$ no matter what the true hypothesis is. Thus,
$\frac{N}{N+1}$ is an upper bound on the minimax risk. We thus have,
from~\eqref{dan}, that $R_Q^{{\mathfrak{d}}} \geq 1 -R_{\rm minimax}/N \geq
R_{\rm minimax}$. We can thus apply~\eqref{eq:ext_main.eq_1} to
obtain
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N D_f(P_{\theta_i}||P_{\theta_0}) \geq
\phi_f(R_{\rm minimax}, 1 - R_{\rm minimax}/N).
\end{equation*}
The right hand side above equals $\psi_{N, f}(R_{\rm minimax})$,
completing the proof Proposition \ref{prop:Birge}.
\subsubsection{Reproduce Theorem 2.4. in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara}}
\label{sec:likelihood}
In this subsection, we apply Proposition \ref{prop:Birge} to specific
choices of $f$ and derive many lower bounds in
\cite{Tsybakov:nonpara}. In particular, we derive Theorem 2.4 and its
corollaries (Proposition 2.3, Theorem 2.5, Theorem 2.6) in
\cite{Tsybakov:nonpara}.
Let us start with the derivation of Theorem 2.4 in
\cite{Tsybakov:nonpara}. First note that by the standard
reduction of minimax risk lower bound to the multiple hypothesis
testing problem (Eq. (2.9) in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara}), Theorem 2.4 in
\cite{Tsybakov:nonpara} is equivalent to the following statement.
Suppose the parameter space $\Theta=\{\theta_0, \ldots, \theta_N\}$
with $N\geq 2$ and consider the indicator loss function
$L(\theta,a)=\mathbb{I}(\theta \neq a)$, if there exists $s \geq 1$
and $\alpha<1$ such that (assuming that $P_{\theta_0} \ll
P_{\theta_j}$)
\begin{equation}\label{eq:like_assump}
\frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N P_{\theta_j} \left( \frac{\mathrm{d} P_{\theta_0}}{\mathrm{d} P_{\theta_j}} \geq \frac{1}{s} \right) \geq 1-\alpha,
\end{equation}
then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Thm24_Tsy}
R_{\rm minimax} \geq \frac{N}{s+N} (1-\alpha).
\end{equation}
Here, we note that we let $s=1/\tau$ where the $\tau$ is defined in Theorem 2.4 in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara} for notational simplicity. We prove Theorem 2.4 in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara} under a slightly different condition (assuming that $P_{\theta_0} \ll P_{\theta_j}$ and $P_{\theta_j} \ll P_{\theta_0}$),
\begin{equation}\label{eq:like_assump_2}
\frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N
P_{\theta_j} \left\{\frac{\mathrm{d} P_{\theta_0}}{\mathrm{d} P_{\theta_j}} \geq \frac{1}{s} \right\} + \frac{s}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N
P_{\theta_0} \left\{ \frac{\mathrm{d} P_{\theta_j}}{\mathrm{d} P_{\theta_0}} > s\right\} \geq 1-\alpha,
\end{equation}
for some $s \geq 1-\alpha$. On one hand, \eqref{eq:like_assump_2} is weaker than \eqref{eq:like_assump} since there is an extra positive term $\frac{s}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N
P_{\theta_0} \left\{ \frac{\mathrm{d} P_{\theta_j}}{\mathrm{d} P_{\theta_0}} > s\right\}$ on the left hand side of \eqref{eq:like_assump_2}. On the other hand, the condition in \eqref{eq:like_assump_2} requires $s \geq 1$.
Nevertheless, in all applications of Theorem 2.4 in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara} (e.g., Proposition 2.3, Theorem 2.5, Theorem 2.6), they always have $s>1$ (see the proof of Proposition 2.3 in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara}). Now, let us derive \eqref{eq:Thm24_Tsy} under the condition in \eqref{eq:like_assump_2}. According to Proposition \ref{prop:Birge}, for every $f$ divergence, we have
\begin{equation}\label{gush}
\psi_{N,f}(R_{\rm minimax}) \leq \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N D_f(P_{\theta_j} \| P_{\theta_0})
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation*}
\psi_{N,f}(x) := \frac{N-x}{N} f \left(\frac{Nx}{N-x} \right) +
\frac{x}{N} f \left(\frac{N(1 - x)}{x} \right).
\end{equation*}
To deduce Theorem 2.4 in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara}, we would like to apply Proposition \ref{prop:Birge} with the $f$-divergence from the following $f$ function:
\[
f_s(x) := \min(1, s) - \min(x, s)
\]
for a fixed $s > 0$. This corresponds to the $f$-divergence:
\begin{equation*}
D_{f_s}(P\|Q) := \min(1, s) - \int \min(p, qs) \mathrm{d} \mu = \min(1, s) - P
\left\{\frac{\mathrm{d} Q}{\mathrm{d} P}
\geq \frac{1}{s} \right\} - s Q \left\{\frac{\mathrm{d} P}{\mathrm{d} Q} > s \right\}.
\end{equation*}
With this choice of divergence and the definition of $\psi_{N,f}$, inequality \eqref{gush} becomes
\begin{multline*}
\min(1, s) - \min \left(R_{\rm minimax}, s\;\frac{N-R_{\rm minimax}}{N} \right) - \min \left(1 -
R_{\rm minimax}, \frac{R_{\rm minimax} s}{N} \right) \\
\leq \min(1, s) - \frac{s}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N
P_{\theta_0} \left\{ \frac{\mathrm{d} P_{\theta_j}}{\mathrm{d} P_{\theta_0}} > s\right\}- \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N
P_{\theta_j} \left\{\frac{\mathrm{d} P_{\theta_0}}{\mathrm{d} P_{\theta_j}} \geq \frac{1}{s} \right\},
\end{multline*}
which is equivalent to
\begin{multline}\label{gut}
\min \left(R_{\rm minimax}, s\;\frac{N-R_{\rm minimax}}{N} \right) + \min \left(1 -
R_{\rm minimax}, \frac{R_{\rm minimax} s}{N} \right) \\
\geq \underbrace{\frac{s}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N
P_{\theta_0} \left\{ \frac{\mathrm{d} P_{\theta_j}}{\mathrm{d} P_{\theta_0}} > s\right\} + \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N
P_{\theta_j} \left\{\frac{\mathrm{d} P_{\theta_0}}{\mathrm{d} P_{\theta_j}} \geq \frac{1}{s} \right\}}_{T}.
\end{multline}
Let us, for convenience, denote the right hand side above by
$T$ and from \eqref{eq:like_assump_2}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:T_lower}
T \geq 1-\alpha.
\end{equation}
From the inequality \eqref{gut}, we shall now deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{ogu}
R_{\rm minimax} \geq \frac{N}{N + s} \min (1, s, T).
\end{equation}
To prove this, we may assume that $R_{\rm minimax} < N/(N+s) \min(1, s)$ for
otherwise \eqref{ogu} automatically holds. This assumption implies that $R_{\rm minimax} <
N/(N+s)$ and $R_{\rm minimax} < Ns/(N+s)$. It can now be checked that inequality
\eqref{gut} is the same as
\begin{equation*}
R_{\rm minimax} + \frac{R_{\rm minimax}\;s}{N} \geq T
\end{equation*}
which is equivalent to $R_{\rm minimax} \geq \frac{N}{N+s} T$ that proves \eqref{ogu}.
It is easy to see now that inequality \eqref{ogu} implies \eqref{eq:Thm24_Tsy}. Indeed, when $s \geq 1-\alpha$,
\eqref{ogu} and \eqref{eq:T_lower} imply that
\[
R_{\rm minimax} \geq \frac{N}{N+s} (1-\alpha),
\]
which is exactly \eqref{eq:Thm24_Tsy}.
\subsection{Proofs of Results for Section \ref{sec:Bayes_general} on Bayes Risk Lower Bound for General Loss}
\subsubsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{bwl}}
\label{sec:proof_bwl}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{bwl}]
Fix $\Theta, {\mathcal{A}}, L, w$ and $f$. Let $I := I_f(w, {\mathcal{P}})$ be a shorthand notation. Suppose $t > 0$ is such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:cond_t}
\sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w \left(B_t(a,L)\right) < 1-u_f(I).
\end{eqnarray}
We prove below that $R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq t/2$ and this would complete the proof. Let $L_{t}$ denote the zero-one valued loss function $L_{t}(\theta, a) := \mathbbm{I} \left\{L(\theta, a) \geq t \right\}$. It is obvious that $L \geq t L_{t}$ and hence the proof will be complete if we establish that $R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L_{t}; \Theta) \geq 1/2$. Let $R := R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L_{t}; \Theta)$ for a shorthand notation.
Because $L_t$ is a zero-one valued loss function, Theorem \ref{man} gives
\begin{equation}\label{sb}
I \geq \phi_f(R, R_0) \qt{where $R_0 = 1 - \sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w \left( B_t(a, L) \right)$}.
\end{equation}
By \eqref{eq:cond_t}, it then follows that $R_0 > u_f(I)$. By definition of $u_f(\cdot)$, it is clear that there exists $b^* \in [1/2, R_0)$ such that $\phi(1/2, b^*) > I$ (this in particular implies that $R_0 \geq 1/2$). Lemma \ref{lem:lower_property} implies that $b \mapsto \phi_f(1/2, b)$ is non-decreasing for $b\in[1/2, 1]$, which yields $\phi_f(1/2, b^*) \leq \phi_f(1/2, R_0)$. The above two inequalities imply $I < \phi_f(1/2, R_0)$. Combining this inequality with~\eqref{sb}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\phi_f(1/2, R_0) > I \geq \phi_f(R, R_0).
\end{equation*}
Lemma \ref{lem:lower_property} shows that $a \mapsto \phi_f(a, R_0)$ is non-increasing for $a \in [0, R_0]$. Thus, we have $R \geq 1/2$.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Proof of Corollary \ref{cor:bwl}}
\label{sec:supp_bwl}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Inequality \eqref{eq:I_bayes_KL} involving KL divergence: Suppose $f(x) = x\log x$ so that $D_f(P||Q) = D(P||Q)$ equals the KL divergence. Then the function $u_f(x)$ in~\eqref{ufi}
has the expression for all $x>0$,
\begin{equation*}
u_f(x) = \inf \left\{1/2 \leq b \leq 1: b(1-b) < e^{-2x}/4 \right\}
= \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{1 - e^{-2x}}.
\end{equation*}
The elementary inequality $\sqrt{1 - a} \leq 1 - a/2$ gives for all $x>0$,
\begin{equation*}
u_f(x) \leq 1 - \frac{1}{4} e^{-2x}.
\end{equation*}
Inequality~\eqref{eq:main_bwl} reduces to the desired inequality \eqref{eq:I_bayes_KL}:
\begin{equation*}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w,L; \Theta) \geq \frac{1}{2} \sup \left\{t > 0 : \sup_{a
\in {\mathcal{A}}} w\left(B_t(a,L)\right)< \frac{1}{4} e^{-2 I_f^{\rm up}} \right\}.
\end{equation*}
\item Inequality \eqref{eq:I_bayes_chi} involving chi-squared divergence: Suppose $f(x) = x^2 - 1$ so that $D_f(P||Q) = \chi^2(P||Q)$. Then it
is straightforward to see that
\begin{equation*}
u_f(x) = \inf \left\{1/2 \leq b \leq 1 : \frac{(1 -
2b)^2}{4b(1-b)} > x \right\} = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2}
\sqrt{\frac{x}{1+x}}.
\end{equation*}
Using the elementary inequality for all $x>0$,
\begin{equation*}
\sqrt{\frac{x}{1+x}} \leq 1 - \frac{1}{2(1+x)}.
\end{equation*}
We obtain \eqref{eq:I_bayes_chi} from Theorem~\ref{bwl}, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq \frac{1}{2} \sup \left\{t > 0 :
\sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w \left( B_t(a,L) \right) < \frac{1}{4\left(1+ I_f^{\rm up}\right)} \right\}.
\end{equation*}
\item Inequality \eqref{eq:I_bayes_TV} involving total variation distance: Suppose $f(x) = |x-1|/2$ so that $D_f(P||Q) = \|P-Q\|_{TV}$ is the total
variation distance between $P$ and $Q$. Then
\begin{equation*}
u_f(x) = \inf \left\{1/2 \leq b \leq 1 : |1 - 2b| > 2x \right\} =
\frac{1}{2} + x
\end{equation*}
which gives \eqref{eq:I_bayes_TV} as below
\begin{equation*}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq \frac{1}{2} \sup \left\{t> 0 :
\sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w \left(B_t(a,L) \right) < \frac{1}{2} - I_f^{\rm up} \right\}.
\end{equation*}
\item Inequality \eqref{eq:I_bayes_Hellinger} involving Hellinger divergence: Suppose $f(x)=1-\sqrt{x}$ so that $D_f(P||Q)=H^2(P || Q)/2$. Then,
\begin{equation*}
u_f(x)= \inf \left\{1/2 \leq b \leq 1: 1-\sqrt{b/2} -\sqrt{(1-b)/2} >x \right\}.
\end{equation*}
Since $0 \leq 1-\sqrt{b/2} -\sqrt{(1-b)/2} \leq 1-1/\sqrt{2} $ for
$1/2 \leq b \leq 1$, we have $u_f(x) =1$ when $x\geq
1-1/\sqrt{2}$. On the other hand, when $x<1-1/\sqrt{2}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
u_f(x)=\frac{1}{2} + (1-x) \sqrt{x(2-x)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, if $I_f^{\rm up} < 1-1/\sqrt{2}$, we obtain inequality
\eqref{eq:I_bayes_Hellinger}.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Proofs and Additional Results for Section
\ref{sec:upper_f_informativity} on Upper Bounds on
$f$-informativity} \label{ange}
\subsubsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{cd}}
To prove Theorem \ref{cd}, the following lemma is critical.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:concavity}
Fix $r < 1$. Let $\mu$ be a probability measure on the space $T$ and let $S := \{u: T \rightarrow {\mathbb R}_+: u \in L_{\mu}^r(T)\}$. Then the map $f : S \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ defined by $f(u) := \left( \int_{T} u(t)^r \mu(\mathrm{d}t)\right)^{1/r}$ is concave in $u$.
\end{lemma}
Note that the discrete version of Lemma \ref{lem:concavity} states that $f(u)=\left( \sum_{i=1}^M u_i^r/M\right)^{1/r}$ is a concave function of $u \in \mathbb{R}_{+}^M$ when $r<1$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:concavity}]
Let $\phi(t) \equiv t^r$ with $\phi'(t)=r t^{r-1}$ and
$\phi''(t)=r(r-1) t^{r-2}$ and $\varphi(t)=t^{1/r}$ with
$\varphi'(t)=\frac{1}{r}t^{(1-r)/r}$. Then
$$f(u)=\varphi\left(\int_{T} \phi(u(t)) \mu(\mathrm{d}t) \right).$$
To prove the concavity of $f(u)$, considering the scalar function
\begin{eqnarray}
h(s) = \varphi\left(\int_{T} \phi(u(t)+s v(t) ) \mu(\mathrm{d}t) \right),
\end{eqnarray}
for arbitrary $u, v \in L^{r}_{\mu}(T)$. We notice that concavity
of $f$ is equivalent to concavity at zero for all functions of the
form $h$, and we therefore only have to show that $h''(0) \leq
0$. Let $g(s)= \int_{T} \phi(u(t)+s v(t) ) \mu(\mathrm{d}t)$,
\begin{align*}
h'(s) = & \varphi'(g(s)) \int_T \phi'(u(t)+sv(t))v(t) \mu(\mathrm{d} t) \\
h''(s) = &\varphi''(g(s))\left( \int_T \phi'(u(t)+sv(t))v(t) \mu(\mathrm{d} t) \right)^2 \\
& + \varphi'(g(s)) \int_T \phi''(u(t)+sv(t))v^2(t) \mu(\mathrm{d} t)
\end{align*}
By plugging in the definitions of $\phi(t)$, $\varphi(t)$, $g(s)$ and setting $s=0$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
h''(0)=\frac{1-r}{f(u)}\left( \left(f(u)^{1-r} \int_T u(t)^{r-1} v(t) \mu(\mathrm{d}t) \right)^2- f(u)^{2-r} \int_T u(t)^{r-2} v^2(t) \mu(\mathrm{d}t)\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
Applying the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality $$\left(\int_T a(t)b(t)
\mu(\mathrm{d}t)\right)^2 \leq \left(\int_T a(t)^2
\mu(\mathrm{d}t)\right) \left(\int_T b(t)^2
\mu(\mathrm{d}t)\right) $$ with
$a(t)=\left(\frac{f(u)}{u(t)}\right)^{-r/2}$ and $b(t) = v(t)
\left(\frac{f(u)}{u(t)}\right)^{1-r/2}$ and noticing that $r<1$, we
have $h''(0)\leq 0$, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
In fact, since we will apply this lemma to prove Theorem \ref{cd} with $r=\frac{1}{1-\alpha}$, the condition $r<1$ in Lemma \ref{lem:concavity} translates into $\alpha \not \in [0,1]$ in Theorem \ref{cd}. We are now ready to prove Theorem~\ref{cd}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{cd}]
By the identity that $D_{f_\alpha}(P||Q)=D_{f_{1-\alpha}}(Q||P)$, we have
\begin{align*}
D_{f_{\alpha}}(P||\bar{Q}) = D_{f_{1-\alpha}}(\bar{Q}||P) &=\int_{\mathcal{X}} p \left( \int_{\Xi}\frac{q_{\vartheta}}{p} \nu(\mathrm{d}\vartheta) \mathrm{d} \lambda \right)^{1-\alpha} -1 \\
&=\int_{\mathcal{X}} p \left( \int_{\Xi}\left[\left(\frac{q_{\vartheta}}{p} \right)^{1-\alpha} \right]^{1/(1-\alpha)}\nu(\mathrm{d}\vartheta) \mathrm{d} \lambda \right)^{1-\alpha} -1
\end{align*}
Let $u(\vartheta, x) = \left(\frac{q_{\vartheta}}{p} \right)^{1-\alpha}$. Since $\frac{1}{1-\alpha}<1$ when $\alpha \not \in [0,1]$, Lemma \ref{lem:concavity} implies that
$u(\vartheta, x) \mapsto \left( \int_{\Xi} u(\vartheta, x)^{1/(1-\alpha)} \nu(\mathrm{d}\vartheta)\right)^{1-\alpha} $ is concave in $u$. Applying Jensen's inequality,
\begin{align*}
D_{f_{\alpha}}(P||\bar{Q}) & \leq \left( \int_{\Xi}\left[\int_{\mathcal{X}} p \left(\frac{q_{\vartheta}}{p} \right)^{1-\alpha} \mathrm{d} \lambda \right]^{1/(1-\alpha)}\nu(\mathrm{d}\vartheta) \right)^{1-\alpha} -1 \\
& = \left( \int_{\Xi}\left[D_{f_{1-\alpha}}(Q_{\vartheta} || P) \right]^{1/(1-\alpha)}\nu(\mathrm{d}\vartheta) \right)^{1-\alpha} -1.
\end{align*}
This completes the proof of~\eqref{co1} because $D_{f_{1-\alpha}}(Q_{\vartheta} || P)= D_{f_{\alpha}}(P || Q_{\vartheta}) $. The proof of~\eqref{eq:upper_f_power} follows by applying~\eqref{co1} for $P = P_{\theta}$ and then integrating the resulting bound with respect to $w(\mathrm{d}\theta)$.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Example demonstrating the effectiveness of Theorem~\ref{cd}}\label{effb}
In this example, we show the tightness of the upper bound in \eqref{co1} in terms of chi-squared divergence ($\alpha = 2$). In particular, let the distribution $P$ be the $n$-fold product of $N(0,1)$ and $Q_{\vartheta}$ be the $n$-fold product of $N(\vartheta,1)$ where $\vartheta \sim N(0,1)$. It is straightforward to show that the marginal distribution $\bar{Q}$ is a $n$-dimensional Gaussian distribution with mean $\mathbf{0}$ and covariance matrix $I_n+ \mathbf{1}_n \mathbf{1}_n ^T$, where $\mathbf{1}_n$ denotes the $n$-dimensional all one vector and $I_n$ the $n\times n$ identity matrix.
Since $\chi^2(P||Q_{\vartheta})=\exp(n \vartheta^2)-1$, the right hand side of \eqref{co1} equals to $\sqrt{2n+1}-1$. The term $\chi^2(P||\bar{Q})$ on the left hand side of \eqref{co1} is difficult to evaluate. However, we can lower bound $\chi^2(P||\bar{Q})$ using the following standard inequality $\exp\left( D(P||\bar{Q}) \right) -1 \leq \chi^2(P||\bar{Q})$ (see Lemma 2.7 in \citet{Tsybakov:nonpara}).
By the closed-form expression for KL divergence between two multivariate Gaussian distributions, we have $D(P||\bar{Q})=\frac{1}{2} \left( \log(n+1) - n/(n+1) \right)$ and thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
e^{-1/2} \sqrt{n+1}-1 \leq \exp\left( D(P||\bar{Q}) \right) -1 \leq \chi^2(P||\bar{Q})
\end{eqnarray*}
As we can see, the upper bound $\sqrt{2n+1}-1$ in \eqref{co1} is quite tight and $\chi^2(P||\bar{Q})$ is on the order of $\sqrt{n}$.
\subsubsection{Proof of Corollary \ref{cor:chi_dist_upper}}
Let $Q_1, \dots, Q_M$ be probability measures on ${\mathcal{X}}$ and fix $\theta \in \Theta$. Inequality~\eqref{co1} applied to $P = P_{\theta}$, $\Xi := \{1, \dots, M\}$ and the uniform probability measure on $\Xi$ as $\nu$ gives
\begin{equation*}
D_{f_{\alpha}}(P_{\theta} \| \bar{Q}) \leq M^{\alpha-1} \left[ \sum_{j=1}^M (1+D_{f_{\alpha}}(P_{\theta}\| Q_j))^{1/(1-\alpha)} \right]^{1-\alpha} - 1
\end{equation*}
We now use (note that $\alpha > 1$)
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{j=1}^M (1+D_{f_{\alpha}}(P_{\theta}\| Q_j))^{1/(1-\alpha)} \geq & \max_{1 \leq j \leq M} (1+D_{f_{\alpha}}(P_{\theta}\| Q_j))^{1/(1-\alpha)} \\
= & \left(1 + \min_{1 \leq j \leq M} D_{f_{\alpha}}(P_{\theta}\|Q_j) \right)^{1/(1-\alpha)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This gives $$D_{f_{\alpha}}(P_{\theta}\|\bar{Q}) \leq M^{\alpha - 1} \left(1 + \min_{1 \leq j \leq M} D_{f_{\alpha}}(P_{\theta}\|Q_j) \right) - 1.$$
We now fix $\epsilon > 0$ and apply the above with $\{Q_1, \dots, Q_M\}$ taken to be an $\epsilon^2$-cover of $\Theta$ under the $f_\alpha$-divergence. We then obtain
\begin{equation*}
D_{f_{\alpha}}(P_{\theta}\|\bar{Q}) \leq \inf_{\epsilon>0} (1 + \epsilon^2) M_{\alpha}(\epsilon, \Theta)^{\alpha - 1} - 1.
\end{equation*}
The proof is complete by integrating the above inequality with respect to $w(\mathrm{d}\theta)$.
\subsubsection{Proof of Corollary~\ref{nd}}\label{sec:cor_nd}
Fix $0 < \delta \leq A^{-1/2}$. Partition the entire parameter space $\Theta$ into small hypercubes each with side length $\delta$. For each such hypercube $S$ and let $\pi_S$ denote the probability measure $w$ conditioned to be in $S$ i.e., $\pi_S(C) := w(C)/w(S)$ for measurable set $C \subseteq S$.
For every decision rule ${\mathfrak{d}}(X)$, clearly
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\Theta} {\mathbb E}_{\Theta} L(\theta, {\mathfrak{d}}(X)) w(\mathrm{d}\theta) = \sum_{S} w(S) \int_S {\mathbb E}_{\theta} L(\theta, {\mathfrak{d}}(X)) d\pi_S(\theta)
\end{equation*}
where the sum above is over all hypercubes $S$ in the partition. This implies therefore that
\begin{equation*}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq \sum_{S} w(S) R_{\rm Bayes}(\pi_S, L; S).
\end{equation*}
The proof will therefore be completed if we show that
\begin{equation}\label{rsp}
R_{\rm Bayes}(\pi_S, L; S) \geq \frac{1}{2} e^{-2p} 8^{-p/d} \delta^p V^{-p/d} \int_S \left(\frac{1}{r_{\delta}(\theta)} \right)^{p/d} \pi_S(d\theta)
\end{equation}
for every fixed hypercube $S$. So let us fix $S$ and, for notational simplicity, let $\pi := \pi_S$. We will
use~\eqref{eq:I_bayes_KL} to prove a lower bound on $R_{\rm Bayes}(\pi_S, L; S)$. Note first that
\begin{multline} \label{eq:fano_mutual}
\inf_{Q} \int_S D(P_{\theta} || Q) \pi(\mathrm{d}\theta) \leq \int_S \int_S D(P_{\theta} || P_{\theta'}) \pi(\mathrm{d}\theta) \pi(\mathrm{d}\theta') \\
\leq A \max_{\theta \in S, \theta' \in S} \|\theta-\theta'\|_2^2 \leq A d \delta^2 =: I_f^{\rm up} .
\end{multline}
Also, letting $f_w^{\max}$ and $f_w^{\min}$ be the maximum and minimum values of $f_w$ in $S$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{a \in S } \pi(B_t(a, L)) \leq \frac{f_w^{\max}}{w(S)} \text{Vol}(B_t(a, L )) \leq \frac{f_w^{\max} V t^{d/p}}{f_w^{\min} \delta^d} .
\end{eqnarray*}
Let $\widetilde \theta$ be an arbitrary point in the set $S$. Since $S$ has diameter $\sqrt{d} \delta$, the set $\{\theta: \|\theta-\widetilde \theta\|_2 \leq \sqrt{d} \delta \}$
contains $S$. We obtain from the definition of $r_\delta(\theta)$
that $f_w^{max}/f_w^{min} \leq r_{\delta}(\tilde{\theta})$ so that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{a \in S } \pi(B_t(a, L)) \leq r_{\delta}(\tilde{\theta}) V \delta^{-d} t^{d/p}.
\end{equation*}
Thus, by~\eqref{eq:fano_mutual}, the choice
\begin{eqnarray*}
t= e^{-2p A \delta^2} \delta^p \left( \frac{1}{8 V r_{\delta}(\widetilde \theta)}\right)^{p/d},
\end{eqnarray*}
leads to $\sup_{a \in S} \pi(B_t(a, L)) < \frac{1}{4} e^{-2I_f^{\rm up}}$. Employing \eqref{eq:I_bayes_KL}, we deduce
\begin{equation*}
R_{\rm Bayes}(\pi, L; S) \geq \frac{1}{2} e^{-2p A \delta^2} \delta^p \left( \frac{1}{8 V r_{\delta}(\widetilde \theta)}\right)^{p/d} \geq \frac{1}{2}e^{-2p} \delta^p \left( \frac{1}{8 V r_{\delta}(\widetilde \theta)}\right)^{p/d}
\end{equation*}
where we used the fact that $\delta^2 \leq 1/A$. Because $\tilde{\theta} \in S$ is arbitrary, we can write
\begin{eqnarray*}
R_{\rm Bayes}(\pi, L; S) & \geq & \frac{1}{2} e^{-2p} \delta^p (8V)^{-p/d} \sup_{\tilde \theta\in S} \left( \frac{1}{r_{\delta}(\tilde \theta)}\right)^{p/d} \\
& \geq & \frac{1}{2} e^{-2p} \delta^p (8V)^{-p/d} \int_{S} \left(\frac{1}{r_{\delta}(\theta)}\right)^{p/d} \pi(\mathrm{d}\theta).
\end{eqnarray*}
This proves~\eqref{rsp}.
\subsection{More Examples on Bayes Risk Lower Bounds}
\label{sec:Bayes_Example}
In this subsection, we provide more examples on the applications of derived Bayes risk lower bound in Theorem \ref{bwl} and Corollary \ref{cor:bwl}. For the clarity of the presentation, in each example, we will first present the Bayes risk lower bound and then provide the proof.
\subsubsection{Generalized Linear Model}
Fix $d \geq 1$ and let $\Theta = {\mathcal{A}} = {\mathbb R}^d$ with $L(\theta, a) = \|\theta - a\|_2^p$ for a fixed $p > 0$. Also fix $n \geq 1$ and an $n \times d$ matrix $X$ whose rows are written as $x_1^T, \dots, x_n^T$. As in the last example, $\lambda_{\max}$ denotes the maximum eigenvalue of $X^T X/n$.
For $\theta \in \Theta$, let $P_{\theta}$ denote the joint distribution of independent random variables $Y_1, \dots, Y_n$ where $Y_i$ has the density
\begin{equation}\label{eq:glm_density}
\exp \left[\frac{y \beta_i - b(\beta_i)}{a(\phi)} + c(y, \phi) \right] \qt{for $y \in {\mathbb R}$}
\end{equation}
with $\beta_i = x_i^T \theta$ for $i = 1, \dots, n$. The parameter $\phi$ is taken to be a constant and the functions $a(\cdot), c(\cdot, \cdot)$ and $b(\cdot)$ are assumed to be known. We assume the existence of a constant $K > 0$ such that $b''(\beta) \leq K$ for all $\beta$ where $b''(\cdot)$ is the second derivative of $b(\cdot)$. This assumption indeed holds for many generalized linear models (e.g., binomial, Gaussian) and we will discuss the case (i.e., Poisson) where this assumption fails at the end of this example.
Let $w$ denote the Gaussian prior with mean zero and covariance matrix $\tau^2 I_d$. Using Corollary~\ref{nd}, we can prove that that
\begin{equation}\label{mee}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq C \left[ d \min \left(\frac{a(\phi)}{n K }, \tau^2 \right) \right]^{p/2}
\end{equation}
for a constant $C$ that depends only on $p$. Let us illustrate this lower bound by considering a simple case of $p=2$. We note that the term $ \frac{d a(\phi)}{n K}$ is the well-known minimax risk of generalized linear model under the squared loss. The parameter $\tau$ characterizes the strength of the prior information. In fact, since $\tau^2 I$ is the variance of the Gaussian prior distribution, a small value of $\tau$ provides strong prior information that each $\theta_j$ should be concentrated around $0$. When $\tau$ is large, i.e., with less prior information, the lower bound of the Bayes risk in~\eqref{mee} is the same as the minimax risk up to a constant factor. On the other hand, when $\tau$ is small, i.e., with strong prior information, the lower bound of the Bayes risk becomes $d \tau^2$, which is smaller than the minimax risk.
The proof of~\eqref{mee} will involve Corollary~\ref{nd} for which we need to determine $A, V$ and $r_{\delta}(\theta)$. As before, it is easy to check that $V = \mathrm{Vol}(B)$. To determine $A$, fix a pair $\theta_1, \theta_2$ and, letting $\beta_i^{(j)} = x_i^T \theta_j$ for $j = 1, 2$ and $i=1, \ldots, n$, observe that
\begin{equation*}
D(P_{\theta_1} || P_{\theta_2}) = \frac{1}{a(\phi)} \sum_{i=1}^n \left(b'(\beta^{(1)}_{i}) \left( \beta^{(1)}_{i} -\beta^{(2)}_{i} \right) -\left(b(\beta^{(1)}_{i})- b(\beta^{(2)}_{i}) \right) \right)
\end{equation*}
By the second order Taylor expansion of $b(\beta^{(2)}_{i})$ at the point $\beta^{(1)}_{i}$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
D(P_{\theta_1} || P_{\theta_2}) = \frac{1}{a(\phi)} \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{b''(\tilde{\beta}_i)}{2} ( \beta^{(1)}_{i} -\beta^{(2)}_{i})^2
\end{equation*}
where $\tilde{\beta}_i$ lies between $\min(\beta^{(1)}_{i}, \beta^{(2)}_{i})$ and $\max(\beta^{(1)}_{i}, \beta^{(2)}_{i})$. Now because of our assumption that $b''(\cdot) $ is bounded from above by $K$, we get
\begin{align*}
D(P_{\theta_1} \| P_{\theta_2}) & \leq \frac{K}{2 a(\phi)} \|\beta^{(1)} - \beta^{(2)} \|_2^2 = \frac{K}{2 a(\phi)} (\theta_1 - \theta_2)^T X^T X (\theta_1 - \theta_2) \\ & \leq \frac{n K \lambda_{\max}}{2 a(\phi)} \|\theta_1 - \theta_2\|^2.
\end{align*}
We can thus take $A = n K \lambda_{\max}/(2 a(\phi))$ in Corollary~\ref{nd}. Next we control $r_{\delta}(\theta)$. For given $\theta$ and $\delta$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
r_{\delta}(\theta)= \sup \left\{ \exp\left(-\frac{1}{2 \tau^2} \left( \|\theta_1\|_2^2 - \|\theta_2\|_2^2 \right) \right) : \|\theta_i - \theta\|_2 \leq \sqrt{d} \delta \right\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
For $\theta_1, \theta_2$ with $\|\theta_i - \theta\|_2 \leq \sqrt{d} \delta,\; i = 1, 2$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| \|\theta_1\|_2^2 - \|\theta_2\|_2^2 \right| & = & \left| \|\theta_1-\theta\|_2^2 +2 \theta^T(\theta_1-\theta) - \|\theta_2-\theta\|_2^2- 2 \theta^T(\theta_2-\theta) \right| \\
& \leq & \left| \|\theta_1-\theta\|_2^2 - \|\theta_2-\theta\|_2^2 \right| + 2\| \theta\|_2 \left(\|\theta_1-\theta\|_2+\|\theta_2-\theta\|_2 \right) \\
& \leq & d \delta^2 + 4 \sqrt{d} \delta \|\theta\|_2.
\end{eqnarray*}
As a result $r_{\delta}(\theta)^{-p/d} \geq \exp(-p\delta^2/(2 \tau^2)) \exp(-2p\delta \|\theta\|_2/(\tau^2 \sqrt{d}))$ and hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{\Theta} \left(\frac{1}{r_{\delta}(\theta)}\right)^{p/d} w(\mathrm{d}\theta) &\geq & \exp \left( -\frac{p \delta^2}{2 \tau^2} \right) \int_{\Theta} \exp\left(-\frac{2p\delta }{\tau} \frac{\|\theta\|_2}{\tau \sqrt{d}} \right) w(\mathrm{d}\theta)\\
& \geq & \exp \left( -\frac{p \delta^2}{2 \tau^2} - \frac{4 p \delta}{\tau} \right) \int_{\Theta} \mathbb{I} \left\{\|\theta\|_2 < 2 \tau \sqrt{d} \right\} w(\mathrm{d}\theta).
\end{eqnarray*}
By Chebyshev's inequality, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Gauss_con}
\int_{\Theta}\mathbb{I} \left\{\|\theta\|_2 \geq 2 \tau \sqrt{d} \right\} w(\mathrm{d}\theta) \leq \frac{1}{4 \tau^2 d} \int_{\Theta} \|\theta\|_2^2 w(\mathrm{d}\theta) = \frac{1}{4}.
\end{equation}
Consequently,
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{\Theta} \left(\frac{1}{r_{\delta}(\theta)}\right)^{p/d} w(\mathrm{d}\theta)\geq \frac{3}{4}\exp \left( -\left( \frac{p \delta^2}{2 \tau^2} +\frac{ 4p \delta}{\tau} \right)\right).
\label{eq:Bayes_log_1}
\end{eqnarray}
Corollary~\ref{nd} therefore gives
\begin{equation*}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq \frac{3}{8} e^{-2p} (8 V)^{-p/d} \delta^p \exp \left(-\frac{p\delta^2}{2 \tau^2} - \frac{4 p \delta}{\tau} \right) \qt{whenever $\delta^2 \leq 1/A$}.
\end{equation*}
We make the choice
\begin{equation*}
\delta^2 := \min \left(1/A, \tau^2 \right) = \min \left(\frac{2 a(\phi)}{n K \lambda_{\max}}, \tau^2 \right)
\end{equation*}
which implies that the exponential term in the right hand side of~\eqref{eq:Bayes_log_1} is bounded from below by $\exp(-9p/2)$. We thus have
\begin{equation*}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq \frac{3}{8} e^{-13p/2} (8 V)^{-p/d} \left[\min \left(\frac{2 a(\phi)}{n K \lambda_{\max}}, \tau^2 \right) \right]^{p/2}.
\end{equation*}
The inequality~\eqref{mee} now follows because $V^{1/d} \asymp d^{-1/2}$.
The assumption that $b''(\beta) \leq K$ which was used for the proof of~\eqref{mee} holds under some widely used densities of $Y_i$ in \eqref{eq:glm_density}. For Gaussian distribution in \eqref{eq:glm_density}, we have $b(\beta)=\frac{\beta^2}{2}$ so that $b''(\beta)=1$ for $\beta \in \mathbb{R}$. For binomial distribution, $b(\beta)= \log(1+\exp(\beta))$ and $b''(\beta)=\frac{\exp(\beta)}{(1+\exp(\beta))^2} \leq \frac{1}{4}$ for all $\beta \in \mathbb{R}$. However, for Poisson distribution, $b(\beta)=\exp(\beta)$ and thus $b''(\beta) =\exp(\beta)$ is unbounded on $\mathbb{R}$. To address this issue, we restrict the prior to the subset $\widetilde{\Theta}=\{ \theta \in \Theta: \|\theta\|_2 \leq 2 \tau \sqrt{d} \}$ and define the re-scaled prior distribution $\pi$ on $\widetilde{\Theta}$ as $\pi(S)=w(S)/w(\widetilde{\Theta})$ for any measurable set $S \subseteq \widetilde{\Theta}$. Let $B= \max_{i=1,\ldots, n} \|x_i\|_2$. For any $\beta=x_i^T \theta$ for some $i=1, \ldots, n$ and $\theta \in \widetilde{\Theta}$, we have $b''(\beta) \leq \exp(2 \tau \sqrt{d} B):=K$. We note that such a restriction of the parameter space will not affect the order of the Bayes risk lower bound. In particular, since now $b''(\beta) \leq K$ when $\theta \in \widetilde{\Theta}$, applying the same argument, we obtain the lower bound on $R_{\rm Bayes}(\pi, L; \widetilde{\Theta})$. By \eqref{eq:Gauss_con}, we have $w(\widetilde{\Theta})\geq 3/4$ and the lower bound on $R_{\rm Bayes}( w, L ; \Theta)$ can be easily established by noticing that $R_{\rm Bayes}( w, L ; \Theta) \geq w(\widetilde{\Theta})R_{\rm Bayes}( \pi, L ; \widetilde{\Theta}) \geq \frac{3}{4} R_{\rm Bayes}( \pi, L ; \widetilde{\Theta}).$
\subsubsection{Spiked covariance model}\label{sec:vee}
Fix $\Theta = {\mathcal{A}} = B$ where $B$ is the unit Euclidean closed ball of radius one and let $L(\theta, a) := \|\theta - a\|_2^p$ for a fixed $p > 0$. Also fix $n \geq d/2$. For $\theta \in \Theta$, let $P_{\theta}$ denote the joint distribution of independent and identically distributed observations $X_1, \dots, X_n$ satisfying the Gaussian distribution with zero mean and covariance matrix $\Sigma_{\theta} := I_d + \theta \theta^T$. This is the problem of estimating the principal component for a rank-one spiked covariance model. Let $w$ denote the uniform distribution on $B$. We shall prove that
\begin{equation}\label{vee}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq C \left[\min \left(\frac{1}{2}, \frac{d}{n} \right) \right]^{p/2}
\end{equation}
where $C$ only depends on $p$.
The proof is based on the application of~\eqref{eq:main_bwl} with $f(x) = x^2 - 1$, i.e., on inequality~\eqref{eq:I_bayes_chi}.
For this, we need to bound the term $\sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w(B_t(a, L))$ and the $f$-informativity corresponding to the chi-squared divergence. It is easy to see that $\sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w(B_t(a, L)) \leq t^{d/p}$.
For the $f$-informativity, we will use the bound~\eqref{eq:chi_dist_upper} with $\alpha = 2$ which requires bounding $M_{\chi^2}(\epsilon, \Theta)$. According to \cite[Theorem 4.6.1]{Aditya:PhDThesis}, for two Gaussian distributions with mean zero and covariance matrices $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$ such that $2 \Sigma_1^{-1} - \Sigma_2^{-1}$ is positive definite and $\|\Sigma_1 - \Sigma_2\|_F^2 \leq \frac{1}{2} \lambda^2_{\min}(\Sigma_2)$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi^2\left(N_d(0, \Sigma_1) || N_d(0, \Sigma_2) \right) \leq \exp\left(\frac{\|\Sigma_1 - \Sigma_2\|^2_F}{\lambda_{\min}(\Sigma_2)^2}\right) -1.
\label{eq:Gaussian_Chi_0}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\|\cdot\|_F$ denotes the Frobenius norm defined as $\|A\|_F^2 := \sum_{i, j} a_{ij}^2$ where $A = (a_{ij})$ and $\lambda_{\min}$ denotes the smallest eigenvalue
Using this result, we get that for $\theta_1, \theta_2 \in \Theta$ (note that $\lambda_{\min}(\Sigma_{\theta}) = 1$ for all $\theta$),
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi^2\left(P_{\theta_1} || P_{\theta_2} \right) \leq\exp\left(n\|\Sigma_{\theta_1} - \Sigma_{\theta_2}\|^2_F\right) -1,
\label{eq:Gaussian_Chi}
\end{eqnarray}
provided
\begin{equation}\label{acon}
2 \Sigma_{\theta_1}^{-1} - \Sigma_{\theta_2}^{-1} \text{ is positive definite and } \|\Sigma_{\theta_1} - \Sigma_{\theta_2}\|_F^2 \leq 1/2.
\end{equation}
In the sequel, whenever we employ~\eqref{eq:Gaussian_Chi}, the conditions~\eqref{acon} hold. But, for ease of presentation, instead of verifying~\eqref{acon} for every application of~\eqref{eq:Gaussian_Chi}, we will simply assume~\eqref{eq:Gaussian_Chi} and verify the necessary conditions at the end of the proof. Assuming~\eqref{eq:Gaussian_Chi}, we see that $\chi^2(P_{\theta_1}\|P_{\theta_2}) \leq \epsilon^2$ provided $\|\Sigma_{\theta_1} - \Sigma_{\theta_2}\|_F^2 \leq \log(1 + \epsilon^2)/n$. Now for $\theta_1, \theta_2 \in \Theta$
\begin{multline*}
\|\Sigma_{\theta_1} - \Sigma_{\theta_2}\|_F^2 = \|\theta_1 \theta_1^T - \theta_2 \theta_2^T\|_F^2 = \|\theta_1 \theta_1^T - \theta_1 \theta_2^T + \theta_1 \theta_2^T - \theta_2 \theta_2^T\|_F^2 \\
\leq 2 \left(\|\theta_1\|_2^2 + \|\theta_2\|_2^2 \right) \|\theta_1 - \theta_2\|_2^2 \leq 4 \|\theta_1 - \theta_2\|_2^2.
\end{multline*}
It follows therefore that the $\epsilon^2$-covering number in the chi-squared divergence can be bounded from above by the $\sqrt{\log(1 + \epsilon^2)}/(2\sqrt{n})$-covering number of $B$ under the usual Euclidean norm. Consequently
\begin{equation*}
M_{\chi^2}(\epsilon, \Theta) \leq \left(\frac{36 n}{\log (1 + \epsilon^2)}\right)^{d/2} \qt{provided \; $\log(1 + \epsilon^2) \leq 4n$}.
\end{equation*}
We now set $\epsilon$ to satisfy $\log(1+\epsilon^2)=\min \left(n/2, d\right)$ so that Corollary~\ref{cor:chi_dist_upper} gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
I_{\chi^2}(w, {\mathcal{P}}) &\leq & M_{\chi^2}(\epsilon)(1+\epsilon^2) - 1\\
& \leq & \exp \left(\min\left(\frac{n}{2}, d\right) \right) \left[36 \max\left(2, \frac{n}{d} \right) \right]^{d/2} -1 =: I_f^{\rm up}.
\end{eqnarray*}
It follows that $ \sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w(B_t(a, L)) < \frac{1}{4} (1 + I_f^{\rm up})^{-1}$ provided $t = (4(1 + I_f^{\rm up}))^{-p/d}$. Inequality~\eqref{eq:I_bayes_chi} then proves
\begin{equation*}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \geq \frac{1}{2} \left(4(1 + I_f^{\rm up}) \right)^{-p/d} \geq \frac{1}{2} (24 e)^{-p} \left[\min \left(\frac{1}{2}, \frac{d}{n} \right) \right]^{p/2}
\end{equation*}
which implies~\eqref{vee}.
It remains to justify the conditions~\eqref{acon} when we used~\eqref{eq:Gaussian_Chi}. It should be clear that for this, we only need to verify~\eqref{acon} when
\begin{equation}\label{didi}
\|\Sigma_{\theta_1} - \Sigma_{\theta_2}\|_F^2 \leq \frac{\log(1+\epsilon^2)}{n} = \min \left( \frac{1}{2}, \frac{d}{n} \right).
\end{equation}
We only need to check that $2 \Sigma_{\theta_1}^{-1} - \Sigma_{\theta_2}^{-1}$ is positive definite under the above condition. For this, observe that by Weyl's inequality,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lambda_{\min}\left(2 \Sigma_{\theta_1}^{-1} -\Sigma_{\theta_2}^{-1}\right) \geq \lambda_{\min}\left( 2 \Sigma_{\theta_1}^{-1}\right) - \lambda_{\max}\left(\Sigma_{\theta_2}^{-1}\right) = \frac{2}{1+\|\theta_1\|_2^2} - 1 \geq 0.
\end{eqnarray*}
This implies that $2 \Sigma_{\theta_1}^{-1} - \Sigma_{\theta_2}^{-1}$ is positive semi-definite
and $\|\theta_1\|_2=1$ is a necessary condition for $\lambda_{\min}\left(2 \Sigma_{\theta_1}^{-1} -\Sigma{\theta_2}^{-1}\right)=0$. Under the condition that $\|\theta_1\|_2=1$, by Sherman-Morrison formula,
\begin{eqnarray*}
2\Sigma_{\theta_2}^{-1} - \Sigma_{\theta_1}^{-1}=I_d - \theta_1 \theta_1^T+\frac{\theta_2 \theta_2^T}{1+\theta_2^T \theta_2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
It is then easy to check that $\lambda_{\min}\left(2 \Sigma_{\theta_1}^{-1} -\Sigma_{\theta_2}^{-1}\right)=0$ only if $\theta_2$ is orthogonal to $\theta_1$. However, when $\|\theta_1\|_2=1$ and $\theta_2$ is orthogonal to $\theta_1$, $\|\Sigma_{\theta_1} - \Sigma_{\theta_2}\|^2_F= \|\theta_1\|_2^2+ \|\theta_2\|_2^2 > 1$,
which contradicts \eqref{didi}. Therefore $2 \Sigma_{\theta_1}^{-1} - \Sigma_{\theta_2}^{-1}$ is positive definite and this completes the proof of~\eqref{vee}.
\subsubsection{Gaussian model with general prior and loss}
\label{sec:Gaussian}
In this example, we consider Gaussian location model with continuous
prior with a bounded Lebesgue density and general loss
functions. Here, we do not specify the form of the prior and loss. We
only present this example to illustrate applications of Theorem
\ref{bwl} and Corollary \ref{cor:bwl}. Our main bound is inequality
\eqref{hok}. This bound however might be suboptimal for specific
priors $w$ because we do not use knowledge about the specific form of
$w$. However, when the specific form of $w$ is available, the argument
can often be easily modified to improve inequality \eqref{hok}. We
provide examples of this at the end of this subsubsection.
\subsubsection{Gaussian model with squared loss}
Fix $d \geq 1$. Suppose $\Theta = {\mathcal{A}} = {\mathbb R}^d$ and let $L(\theta, a) := \|\theta - a\|_2^2$ where $\|\cdot\|_2$ is the usual Euclidean norm on ${\mathbb R}^d$. For each $\theta \in {\mathbb R}^d$, let $P_{\theta}$ denote the Gaussian distribution with mean $\theta$ and covariance matrix $\sigma^2 I_d$ ($\sigma^2 > 0$ is a constant). For every prior $w$ on ${\mathbb R}^d$ with a Lebesgue density bounded by $W > 0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{hok}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \gtrsim \frac{d \sigma^4 W^{-2/d}}{(\sigma^2 + V)^2}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:V}
V := \min_{s \in {\mathbb R}^d} \int_{\Theta} \frac{1}{d} \sum_{i=1}^d (\theta_i- s_i)^2 w(\mathrm{d} \theta).
\end{equation}
To prove~\eqref{hok}, we shall apply~\eqref{eq:main_bwl} with $f(x) = x \log x$, i.e., we apply~\eqref{eq:I_bayes_KL}. The resulting $f$-informativity (a.k.a mutual information) can be bounded in the following way. Because $I(w, {\mathcal{P}}) \leq \int D(P_{\theta}\|Q) w(\mathrm{d}\theta)$ for every $Q$. In particular, we take $Q$ to be the Gaussian distribution with mean $t$ and covariance matrix $(\sigma^2 + V) I_d$, where $t= \mathop{\rm argmin}_{s \in {\mathbb R}^d} \int_{\Theta} \frac{1}{d} \sum_{i=1}^d (\theta_i- s_i)^2 w(\mathrm{d} \theta)$, i.e., $t_i =\int_{\Theta} \theta_i w(\mathrm{d} \theta)$ is ``center" of the prior.
Then, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
I(w, {\mathcal{P}}) \leq \int_\Theta D\left( N\left( \theta, \sigma^2 I_d \right) || N\left(t, \left(\sigma^2+V\right) I_d \right) \right) w(\mathrm{d}\theta).
\end{equation*}
Using the standard formula for the KL divergence between two Gaussians, we deduce that
\begin{equation*}
I(w, {\mathcal{P}}) \leq \frac{1}{2} \int_{\Theta} \left[\frac{\sum_{i=1}^d ((\theta_i-t_i)^2 - V)}{\sigma^2 + V} + d \log \frac{\sigma^2 + V}{\sigma^2} \right] w(\mathrm{d}\theta)
\end{equation*}
which by \eqref{eq:V} implies that
\begin{equation}\label{ibi}
I(w, {\mathcal{P}}) \leq \frac{d}{2} \log \frac{\sigma^2 + V}{\sigma^2}.
\end{equation}
Let $I_f^{\rm up}$ denote the right hand side above. To apply~\eqref{eq:I_bayes_KL}, we also need an upper bound on $\sup_{a \in A} w\left(B_t(a,L)\right)$. Because of the assumption that the Lebesgue density of $w$ is bounded from above by $W$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{psu1}
\sup_{a \in A} w\left(B_t(a,L) \right) \leq W t^{d/2} \mathrm{Vol}(B)
\end{equation}
where $B$ is the Euclidean ball with unit radius. Thus the choice
\begin{equation*}
t = c W^{-2/d} \mathrm{Vol}(B)^{-2/d} \frac{\sigma^4 }{(\sigma^2 + V)^2},
\end{equation*}
for a small enough universal positive constant $c$, ensures $\sup_{a \in A} w\{B_t(a)\} < \frac{1}{4} e^{-2 I_f^{\rm up}}$ (recall that $I_f^{\rm up}$ is the right hand side of\eqref{ibi}). Consequently, inequality~\eqref{eq:I_bayes_KL} implies that $R_{\rm Bayes} \geq t/2$. The proof of~\eqref{hok} is now completed using the standard fact: $\mathrm{Vol}(B)^{1/d} \asymp d^{-1/2}$.
However, since the form of the prior $w$ is unspecified in this
example, the simple upper bound on $ \sup_{a \in A} w\left(B_t(a,L)
\right) $ in \eqref{psu1} could be loose. But this can be easily fixed
when the concrete form of the prior is available. For example, for a
spiked model with a large $W$ (see an example of mixture prior in
Remark \ref{rem:Bayes_decomp} in the main text), the lower bound in
\eqref{hok} could be sub-optimal but can be easily tightened using the
proposed chaining technique in Remark \ref{rem:Bayes_decomp} in the
main text. For another example, let $w$ be the uniform
prior on the hyper-rectangle $H = [-\epsilon,\epsilon]\times
[-1,1]^{d-1}$ for some very small $\epsilon$. Here
inequality~\eqref{psu1} is equivalent to
\[
\sup_{a \in A} w\left(B_t(a,L) \right) \leq W t^{d/2} \mathrm{Vol}(B).
\]
When $\epsilon\to 0$, we have $W\to \infty$ so that the upper bound is fairly loose. However, since $H$ is the support of $w$, we can also use the following upper bound:
\[
\sup_{a \in A} w\left(B_t(a,L) \right) \leq W t^{d/2} \mathrm{Vol}(B\cap H).
\]
When $\epsilon\to 0$, we have $W\to \infty$ but $\mathrm{Vol}(B\cap
H)\to 0$. In particular, the product limit $\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}
W\mathrm{Vol}(B\cap H)\to 0$ is finite. It converges to the maximum
value of $w\left(B_t(a,L) \right)$ where $w$ is restricted in a
$(d-1)$-dimensional subspace of ${\mathbb R}^d$. Once we replace
inequality~\eqref{psu1} by the above upper bound, the associated Bayes
risk lower bound will be tight.
\subsubsection{Gaussian model with general loss}
Consider the same setup as in the previous example but now allow the loss function to be $L(\theta, a) = \|\theta - a\|^2$ for an arbitrary norm $\|\cdot\|$ (not necessarily the Euclidean norm) on ${\mathbb R}^d$. In this case, we obtain the following Bayes risk lower bound:
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w, L; \Theta) \gtrsim \frac{\sigma^4 W^{-2/d}}{(\sigma^2 + V)^2} \frac{d^2}{({\mathbb E} \|Z\|_* )^2}.
\label{eq:Gaussian_location_norm}
\end{eqnarray}
where $Z$ is a standard Gaussian vector and $\|\cdot\|_*$ is the dual norm corresponding to $\|\cdot\|$ defined by $\|x\|_* := \sup \{\left<x, y \right> : \|y\| \leq 1\}$. The quantities $W$ and $V$ are as defined in the previous example.
The proof of~\eqref{eq:Gaussian_location_norm} is largely similar to that of~\eqref{hok}. We use~\eqref{eq:I_bayes_KL} along with~\eqref{ibi} for controlling $I(w, {\mathcal{P}})$. To control $\sup_{a \in {\mathcal{A}}} w(B_t(a, L))$, we again use the fact that the Lebesgue density of $w$ is bounded from above by $W$ to obtain
\begin{equation}\label{psu3}
\sup_{a \in A} w\left(B_t(a,L) \right) \leq W \mathrm{Vol} \left\{\theta \in {\mathbb R}^d : \|\theta\| < \sqrt{t} \right\}.
\end{equation}
To deal with the volume term above, we use Urysohn's inequality to obtain an upper bound in terms of the volume of the unit Euclidean unit ball $B$. The original reference for Urysohn's inequality is~\cite{Urysohn:24} but it has been recently used in a statistical context by~\cite{MaWu:13}. Urysohn's inequality gives
\begin{equation}\label{psu2}
\left(\frac{\mathrm{Vol} \left\{\theta \in {\mathbb R}^d : \|\theta\| < \sqrt{t} \right\}}{\mathrm{Vol}(B) } \right)^\frac{1}{d} \leq \frac{\sqrt{t}}{\sqrt{d}} {\mathbb E}\|Z\|_* \qt{with $Z \sim N(0, I_d)$}.
\end{equation}
Inequalities~\eqref{psu3} and~\eqref{psu2} together give
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{a \in A} w\left(B_t(a,L) \right) \leq W t^{d/2} \mathrm{Vol}(B) \left(\frac{{\mathbb E} \|Z\|_*}{\sqrt{d}} \right)^d.
\end{equation*}
The choice
\begin{equation*}
t = c \mathrm{Vol}(B)^{-2/d} \frac{W^{-2/d} \sigma^4}{(\sigma^2 + V)^2} \frac{d}{({\mathbb E}\|Z\|_*)^2}
\end{equation*}
for a small enough universal positive constant $c$ ensures $\sup_{a \in A} w\{B_t(a)\} < \frac{1}{4} e^{-2 I_f^{\rm up}} $ ($I_f^{\rm up}$ is the right hand side of~\eqref{ibi}). The proof of~\eqref{eq:Gaussian_location_norm} is then completed by noting that $\mathrm{Vol}(B)^{1/d} \asymp d^{-1/2}$.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{jee}}
\label{sec:supp_admis}
We provide a complete proof of Theorem \ref{jee} in this
section. Because of space constraints, only an overview of the proof
was given in the main text. The preliminary results described in
Subsection \ref{prim} will be used here.
The main step is the construction of the prior $w$ on $\Theta$. The
idea here is to fix a specific $\theta^* \in \Theta$ and to choose $w$
to be a specific prior that is supported on the set
\begin{equation}\label{uri}
U(\theta^*): = \Theta \cap \{\theta \in {\mathbb R}^n : \|\theta - \theta^*\|_2 \leq \rho t_{\theta^*}\}
\end{equation}
for a small enough constant $\rho$. Because of inequalities
\eqref{1co}, \eqref{smor} and \eqref{smoo}, it can then be shown that
\begin{equation}\label{alla}
\int_{\Theta} {\mathbb E}_{\theta} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta\|_2^2 w(d\theta) \leq C t_{\theta^*}^2
\end{equation}
for some universal constant $C$ (provided $\rho$ is chosen to be
sufficiently small). To complete the proof, we would only need to show the Bayes risk lower bound:
\begin{equation}\label{tosh}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w) \geq c t^2_{\theta^*}
\end{equation}
for some universal positive constant $c$. We shall prove this for every closed convex set $\Theta$ provided $\theta^*$ and $w$ are properly chosen.
It makes sense here to work with two separate cases: the case when
$\inf_{\theta \in \Theta} t_{\theta} $ is strictly smaller than some
constant (we will take this constant to be 85 for technical reasons)
and the case when $\inf_{\theta \in \Theta} t_{\theta}$ is larger than
$85$. The first case is the easy case. Here we will take $\theta^* \in
\Theta$ to be such that $t_{\theta^*} \leq 85$. The required bound
\eqref{tosh} will then be a parametric lower bound which we will prove
by the simple Le Cam's two point inequality ($w$ will be taken to be a
prior on $\{\theta^*, \theta_1\}$ for some suitably chosen $\theta_1
\in \Theta$). We would like to remark here that our proof of this easy
case is already simpler than the proof of this case in
\cite{Sourav14LS}. The second case (where the
LSE $\widehat{\theta}(X)$ may not attain the parametric rate anywhere
on $\Theta$) is the hard case. We will start with the proof of the
easy case first.
\textbf{Easy Case:} For the easy case $\inf_{\theta \in \Theta} t_{\theta} < b := 85$.
Choose $\theta^* \in \Theta$ such that $t_{\theta^*} \leq b$. Let $\theta_1 \in \Theta$ be any maximizer of $\|\theta^* - \theta\|_2$ as $\theta$ varies over $\{\theta \in \Theta: \|\theta - \theta^*\|_2 \leq 1\}$. Let $w$ be the uniform prior over the two-point set $\{\theta^*, \theta_1\}$. The Bayes risk with respect to $w$ can be easily bounded by below by Le Cam's inequality which gives
\begin{equation*}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w) \geq \frac{1}{4} \|\theta^* - \theta_1\|_2^2 \left(1 - \|P_{\theta^*} - P_{\theta_1}\|_{TV} \right).
\end{equation*}
Pinsker's inequality (see Lemma 2.5. in \cite{Tsybakov:nonpara}) now
implies
\begin{equation*}
2 \|P_{\theta^*} - P_{\theta_1} \|^2_{TV} \leq D(P_{\theta^*} \|
P_{\theta_1}) = \frac{1}{2} \|\theta^* - \theta_1\|_2^2 \leq
\frac{1}{2}
\end{equation*}
and hence
\begin{equation}\label{rba}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w) \geq \frac{1}{8} \|\theta^* - \theta_1\|_2^2.
\end{equation}
By the definition of $\theta_1$, we have $\|\theta_1-\theta^*\|_2 \leq 1$. We consider the following two cases by the value of $\|\theta_1-\theta^*\|_2$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\|\theta^* - \theta_1\|_2 = 1$: Here inequality \eqref{rba} gives
$R_{\rm Bayes}(w) \geq 1/8$. Further, by the assumption $t_{\theta^*}
\leq b$ and inequality \eqref{1co}, we have ${\mathbb E}_{\theta^*} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta^*\|_2^2 \leq 150 b^2$. Moreover, by inequality \eqref{smor},
we have
\begin{equation*}
{\mathbb E}_{\theta_1} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta_1\|_2^2 \leq 2 {\mathbb E}_{\theta^*} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta^*\|_2^2 + 8 \|\theta^* - \theta_1\|_2^2 \leq 300 b^2 + 8.
\end{equation*}
We thus have
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\Theta} {\mathbb E}_{\theta} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta\|_2^2 dw(\theta) \leq 225 b^2 + 4.
\end{equation*}
This inequality together with $R_{\rm Bayes}(w) \geq 1/8$ allow us to deduce:
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{1800 b^2 + 32} \int_{\Theta} {\mathbb E}_{\theta}
\|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta\|_2^2 dw(\theta) \leq R_{\rm Bayes}(w).
\end{equation*}
This means that $\widehat{\theta}(X)$ is $C$-Bayes with respect to $w$
with $C = 1/(1800b^2 + 32) \geq 10^{-8}$.
\item $\|\theta^* - \theta_1\|_2 < 1$. Then $\gamma :=
diam(K) \leq 2$ and $\|\theta^* - \theta_1\|_2 \geq
\gamma/2$. Inequality \eqref{rba} then gives $R_{\rm Bayes}(w) \geq
\gamma^2/32$. Also for every $\theta \in \Theta$, we have
${\mathbb E}_{\theta} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta\|_2^2 \leq
\gamma^2$. These two inequalities imply that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{32} \int_{\Theta} {\mathbb E}_{\theta} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) -
\theta\|_2^2 dw(\theta) \leq R_{\rm Bayes}(w)
\end{equation*}
which means that $\widehat{\theta}(X)$ is $C$-Bayes with respect to $w$ with $C = 1/32$.
\end{enumerate}
Therefore in this easy case, we have proved that $\widehat{\theta}(X)$ is $C$-Bayes for some $C \geq 10^{-8}$.
\textbf{Hard Case:} Here $\inf_{\theta \in \Theta} t_{\theta} \geq b
:= 85$ and let $\rho := 0.03$. We shall first specify the choices for
$\theta^* \in \Theta$ and the prior $w$ supported on the set
$U(\theta^*)$ in \eqref{uri}. Let $\theta^*$ be chosen so that
\begin{equation}\label{cho}
m_{\theta^*}(\rho t_{\theta^*}) \geq \sup_{\theta \in \Theta} m_{\theta}(\rho t_{\theta}) - 0.01
\end{equation}
where $m_{\theta}(\cdot)$ is defined in \eqref{mde}. Let $\Psi : {\mathbb R}^n
\mapsto \Theta$ be any measurable mapping such that $\Psi(z)$ is a
maximizer of $\left< z, \theta - \theta^* \right>$ as $\theta$ varies
in $U(\theta^*)$. As in \cite{Sourav14LS}, the prior $w$ is set to be
the distribution of $\Psi(Z)$ for a standard Gaussian vector $Z$ in
${\mathbb R}^n$. Because of inequalities \eqref{1co} and \eqref{smor},
\begin{equation}\label{les}
{\mathbb E}_{\theta} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta\|_2^2 \leq 2
{\mathbb E}_{\theta^*} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta^*\|_2^2 + 8 \|\theta -
\theta^*\|^2_2 \leq \left( 300 + 8 \rho^2 \right) t^2_{\theta^*}
\end{equation}
for all $\theta \in U(\theta^*)$. This implies \eqref{alla} with $C =
300 + 8 \rho^2$. To complete the proof, it remains therefore to prove
the Bayes risk lower bound \eqref{tosh}. This is the main part of the
proof. We will use inequality \eqref{eq:I_bayes_chi} which gives the
following lower bound on $R_{\rm Bayes}(w)$:
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{2} \sup \left\{t > 0 : \sup_{a \in \Theta} w \{\theta \in
\Theta: \|\theta - a\|_2^2 \leq t\} <
\frac{1}{4(1 + I_f^{\rm up})} \right\},
\end{equation*}
where $I_f^{\rm up}$ is any upper bound on the chi-squared informativity:
$I_{\chi^2}(w, \mathcal{P}) := \inf_{Q} \int_{\Theta}
\chi^2(P_{\theta} \| Q) dw(\theta)$. Because the prior $w$ is concentrated on the convex set $U(\theta^*)$, we can replace the supremum over $a \in \Theta$ in \eqref{wf} by the supremum over $a \in U(\theta^*)$. This gives the bound
\begin{equation}\label{wf}
\frac{1}{2} \sup \left\{t > 0 : \sup_{a \in U(\theta^*)} w \{\theta
\in \Theta: \|\theta - a\|_2^2 \leq t\} < \frac{1}{4(1 + I_f^{\rm up})}
\right\}.
\end{equation}
To obtain $I_f^{\rm up}$, we use the bound given by inequality
\eqref{eq:upper_f_power} with $\alpha = 2$,
$\Xi := \{0\}$ and $Q_0 := P_{\theta^*}$. This gives
\begin{equation*}
I_{\chi^2}(w, \mathcal{P}) \leq \int_{\Theta} \chi^2(P_{\theta} \|
P_{\theta^*}) dw(\theta) \leq \sup_{\theta \in U(\theta^*)}
\chi^2(P_{\theta} \| P_{\theta^*}) \leq \exp \left(\rho^2
t^2_{\theta^*} \right) - 1.
\end{equation*}
The last inequality above follows from the expression
$\chi^2(P_{\theta} \| P_{\theta^*}) = \exp(\|\theta -
\theta^*\|_2^2)-1$ and the fact that $\|\theta - \theta^*\|_2 \leq
\rho t_{\theta^*}$ for all $\theta \in U(\theta^*)$. We can therefore
take $1 + I_f^{\rm up}$ to be $\exp(\rho^2 t^2_{\theta^*})$ in \eqref{wf} which
gives the lower bound
\begin{equation}\label{neal}
\frac{1}{2} \sup \left\{t > 0 : \sup_{a \in U(\theta^*)} w \{\theta \in \Theta: \|\theta - a\|_2^2 \leq t\} < \frac{1}{4} \exp(- \rho^2 t^2_{\theta^*}) \right\}
\end{equation}
for $R_{\rm Bayes}(w)$.
We shall argue below that
\begin{equation}\label{sta}
\sup_{a \in U(\theta^*)} w \{\theta \in \Theta: \|\theta - a\|_2^2 \leq t\} < \frac{1}{4} \exp(- \rho^2 t^2_{\theta^*})
\end{equation}
holds for $t := 0.01 \rho^2 t^2_{\theta^*}$. This, together with
\eqref{neal}, will imply \eqref{tosh} and complete the proof. The
argument for \eqref{sta} is similar to that in \cite[Proof of Theorem
1.4]{Sourav14LS} but the constants involved are different and hence we
outline the argument below for the convenience of the reader.
Because $w$ is defined as the distribution of $\Psi(Z)$ which is a
maximizer of $\left<Z, \theta - \theta^* \right>$ over $\theta \in
U(\theta^*)$, we have
\begin{equation*}
w(A) \leq \P \left\{\sup_{\theta \in A} \left<Z, \theta - \theta^*
\right> \geq \sup_{\theta \in U(\theta^*)} \left<Z, \theta -
\theta^* \right> \right\}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore for every $a \in U(\theta^*)$, the prior probability $w \{\theta \in \Theta : \|\theta - a\|^2_2 \leq t\}$ is bounded from above by
\begin{equation*}
\P \left\{\sup_{\theta \in \Theta : \|\theta - a\|^2_2 \leq t} \left<Z, \theta - \theta^* \right> \geq \sup_{\theta \in \Theta : \|\theta - \theta^*\| \leq \rho t_{\theta^*}} \left<Z, \theta - \theta^* \right> \right\} .
\end{equation*}
The above probability can be written as $\P \{M_2 + M_3 \geq M_1\}$ where
\begin{equation*}
M_1 := \sup_{\theta \in \Theta : \|\theta - \theta^*\| \leq \rho t_{\theta^*}} \left<Z, \theta - \theta^* \right>, ~~~ M_2 := \sup_{\theta \in \Theta : \|\theta - a\|^2_2 \leq t} \left<Z, \theta - a \right>
\end{equation*}
and $M_3 := \left<Z, a - \theta^* \right>$. To control the above probability, we first argue that ${\mathbb E} M_1$ is much larger than ${\mathbb E} M_2$. To see this observe first that ${\mathbb E} M_1 = m_{\theta^*}(\rho t_{\theta^*})$ where the function $m$ is defined in \eqref{mde}. Because $\theta^*$ is chosen so that inequality \eqref{cho} is satisfied, we have ${\mathbb E} M_1 = m_{\theta^*}(\rho t_{\theta^*}) \geq m_a(\rho t_a) - 0.01$. Since $a \in U(\theta^*)$, it follows that $\|a - \theta^*\|_2 \leq \rho t_{\theta^*} \leq t_{\theta^*}/24$ (remember that $\rho = 0.03$) and consequently, inequality \eqref{smoo} implies that
\begin{equation}\label{ny}
t_a \geq \frac{11 t_{\theta^*}}{24}.
\end{equation}
The above inequality will be used repeatedly in the sequel. Because ${\mathbb E} M_1 \geq m_a(\rho t_a) - 0.01$ and $t \mapsto m_a(t)$ is non-decreasing, we obtain from \eqref{ny} that
\begin{equation*}
{\mathbb E} M_1 \geq m_a \left(\frac{11 \rho t_{\theta^*}}{24} \right) - 0.01.
\end{equation*}
On the other hand, ${\mathbb E} M_2 = m_a(\sqrt{t}) = m_a(0.1 \rho t_{\theta^*})$ because $t = 0.01 \rho^2 t^2_{\theta^*}$. We thus have
\begin{equation*}
{\mathbb E} M_1 - {\mathbb E} M_2 \geq m_a \left(\frac{11 \rho t_{\theta^*}}{24}
\right) - m_a(0.1 \rho t_{\theta^*}) - 0.01.
\end{equation*}
Now because $s \mapsto m_a(s)$ is concave and $11 \rho t_{\theta^*}/24
\leq \rho t_a \leq t_a$, we get
\begin{equation*}
m_a \left(\frac{11 \rho t_{\theta^*}}{24} \right) - m_a(0.1 \rho
t_{\theta^*}) \geq m_a(t_a) - m_a \left(t_a - \frac{11 \rho
t_{\theta^*}}{24} + 0.1 \rho t_{\theta^*} \right).
\end{equation*}
The right hand side above can be bounded from below via inequality \eqref{inc} (and \eqref{ny} as well as $\rho = 0.03$) which gives
\begin{equation*}
m_a(t_a) - m_a \left(t_a - \frac{11 \rho
t_{\theta^*}}{24} + 0.1 \rho t_{\theta^*} \right) \geq \rho t_a t_{\theta^*} \left(\frac{11}{24} - 0.1 \right) \geq \frac{2.838}{576} t^2_{\theta^*}.
\end{equation*}
Putting the above three displayed inequalities together, we obtain ${\mathbb E} M_1 - {\mathbb E} M_2 \geq 2.838 t^2_{\theta^*}/576 - 0.01$. Because $t_{\theta^*} \geq 85$, we deduce
\begin{equation}\label{vam}
{\mathbb E} M_1 - {\mathbb E} M_2 \geq \left(\frac{2.838}{576} - \frac{0.01}{85^2} \right) t^2_{\theta^*} \geq 5 \rho^2 t^2_{\theta^*}.
\end{equation}
We now bound the probability $\P \{M_2 + M_3 \geq M_1 \}$ in the following way. Because of \eqref{vam}, it follows that if the event $M_2 +
M_3 \geq M_1$ is satisfied, then at least one of the three events $M_1
- {\mathbb E} M_1 > -5\rho^2t^2_{\theta^*}/3$, $M_2 - {\mathbb E} M_2 \leq 5 \rho^2 t^2_{\theta^*}/3$ and $M_3 \leq 5 \rho^2t^2_{\theta^*}/3$ must be violated. As a result, the probability $\P \{M_2 + M_3 \geq M_1\}$ is bounded from above by
\begin{equation*}
\P \left\{M_1 - {\mathbb E} M_1 \leq - 5 \rho^2 t^2_{\theta^*}/3 \right\} + \P \left\{M_2 - {\mathbb E} M_2 > 5 \rho^2t^2_{\theta^*}/3 \right\} + \P \left\{M_3 > 5 \rho^2 t^2_{\theta^*}/3 \right\}.
\end{equation*}
Each of the probabilities above can be easily bounded by gaussian concentration. Indeed, it is easy to check that (a) $M_1$, as a function of $Z$, is Lipschitz with constant $\rho t_{\theta^*}$, (b) $M_2$, as a function of $Z$, is Lipschitz with constant $\sqrt{t} = 0.1 \rho t_{\theta^*}$ and (c) $M_3$, as a function of $Z$, is Lipschitz with constant $\|a - \theta^*\| \leq \rho t_{\theta^*}$. As a result, each of the above probabilities is bounded from above by $\exp (-25 \rho^2 t^2_{\theta^*}/18)$. Hence $\P \{M_2 + M_3 \geq M_1\}$ is bounded from above by $3 \exp (-25 \rho^2 t^2_{\theta^*}/18)$ which means that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{a \in U(\theta^*)} w \{\theta \in \Theta: \|\theta - a\|_2^2 \leq t\} \leq 3 \exp \left(-\frac{25 \rho^2 t^2_{\theta^*}}{18} \right).
\end{equation*}
Because $\rho = 0.03$ and $t_{\theta^*} \geq 85$, it is elementary to
check that the right hand side above is strictly smaller than
$\exp(-\rho^2 t^2_{\theta^*})/4$. We have therefore proved
\eqref{sta}. Because $t = 0.01 \rho^2 t_{\theta^*}^2$, inequality
\eqref{neal} implies that
\begin{equation}\label{sa1}
R_{\rm Bayes}(w) \geq \frac{0.01 \rho^2}{2} t^2_{\theta^*}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, for the LSE $\widehat{\theta}(X)$, inequality \eqref{les} gives
\begin{equation}\label{sa2}
\int {\mathbb E}_{\theta} \|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta \|_2^2 dw(\theta) \leq (300 + 8 \rho^2) t^2_{\theta^*}.
\end{equation}
Putting together \eqref{sa1} and \eqref{sa2}, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\frac{0.01 \rho^2}{600 + 16 \rho^2} \int_{\Theta} {\mathbb E}_{\theta}
\|\widehat{\theta}(X) - \theta\|_2^2 dw(\theta) \leq R_{\rm Bayes}(w).
\end{equation*}
The constant above is at least $10^{-8}$ which proves that $\widehat{\theta}(X)$ is $C$-Bayes for some $C \geq 10^{-8}$. This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{jee}.
\newpage
\bibliographystyle{abbrvnat}
|
\section*{\LARGE\mytitle}
\subsection*{Eleanor Frajka Williams, Eric L. Kunze, Jennifer A. MacKinnon}
\begin{framed}
\textit{This manuscript is based on the MSc work of EFW at the University of Washington. It was submitted to JMR in June 2006.}
\end{framed}
\vspace{.2in}
\begin{abstract}
Bispectral analysis of the nonlinear resonant interaction known as parametric subharmonic instability (PSI) for a coherence semidiurnal internal tide demonstrates the ability of the bispectrum to identify and quantify the transfer rate. Assuming that the interaction is confined to a vertical plane, energy equations transform in such a way that nonlinear terms become the third-moment spectral quantity known as the bispectrum. Bispectral transfer rates computed on PSI in an idealized, fully-nonlinear, non-hydrostatic Boussinesq model compare well to model growth rates of daughter waves. Bispectra also identify the nonlinear terms responsible for energy transfer. Using resonance conditions for an M$_2$ tide, the locus of PSI wavenumber triads is determined as a function of parent-wave frequency and wavenumbers, latitude and range of daughter-wave frequencies. The locus is used to determine the expected bispectral signal of PSI in wavenumber space. Bispectra computed using velocity profiles from the HOME experiment are relatively noisy and the signal inconclusive.
\end{abstract}
\pagestyle{fancy}
\section{Introduction}
Away from sources, the energy spectrum of ocean internal waves is well-described by the Garrett- Munk model, a red spectrum with $-2$ slope in vertical wavenumber space \citep{GM79,Sherman-Pinkel-1991,Lvov-etal-2004}. Energy is added at large scales by tides and
wind-stress. Energy is lost to turbulence at O(1 m) scales due to wave breaking. Since vertical mixing plays an important role in the ocean overturning circulation \citep{Munk-Wunsch-1998}, oceanographers have long sought to understand the mechanisms responsible for the cascade of energy from large to small scales.
One likely mechanism, parametric subharmonic instability (PSI), is a resonant wave-triad interaction characterized by transfer of energy from a parent wave to two daughter waves of half-frequency and higher wavenumber. During the 1960s--80s, studies of PSI in a randomly-phased internal wave field led to construction of analytic solutions under small-amplitude assumptions. Numerical and laboratory experiments demonstrated PSI and identified conditions under which PSI occurs \citep{Muller-etal-1986}. Field attempts to identify PSI in the Arctic Ocean appeared successful but it was later determined that the apparent signal of PSI was due kinematic contamination of an Eulerian time series \citep{Neshyba-Sobey-1975,McComas-Briscoe-1980}. Later studies
concluded that the timescales of random-wave PSI interaction are too long to be physically relevant, and the bispectral signal too small to be measured \citep{McComas-1978,McComas-Briscoe-1980,Olbers-1976}. The thread of study was dropped.
More recently, \citet{Hibiya-etal-1996} used a two-dimensional numerical model to simulate in- ternal wave interactions, and postulated a role for PSI. Further numerical studies supported this conclusion, demonstrating that rapid energy transfer from an initial spike of energy occurs only if the spike satisfies frequency requirements for a PSI parent wave \citep{Hibiya-etal-1998,Hibiya-etal-1999,Hibiya-etal-2002}. Observations of diffusivity were not inconsistent with an expected latitudinal dependence of PSI for an M semidiurnal tide \citep{Nagasawa-etal-2002}. Recent data and simulations associated with the Hawaiian Ocean Mixing Experiment (HOME) suggest that PSI of a coherent M tide may be measurable in the ocean \citep{Rainville-2004,Carter-Gregg-2006,MacKinnon-Winters-2005}.
In this paper, the bispectrum is demonstrated to be an effective tool for identifying PSI in a
coherent internal tide, as well as determining the rate of transfer via PSI from the tide. In \S2, the fundamentals of wave-triad interaction theory and the specific characteristics PSI are laid out. In
\S3, triad resonance conditions are used to determine the locus of a PSI triad in vertical wavenumber space. In \S4, definitions and statistics of bispectra and bicoherences are given. In \S5, bispectral estimation of energy transfer rates are described. In \S6, these tools are applied to a numerical simulation of a mode-1 internal tide which undergoes PSI. Bispectrally computed rates of energy transfer compare favorably with energy content changes of the subharmonic during the spinup phase of a model run. Nonlinear terms responsible for the majority of energy transfer are identified and described. Bispectra of ocean data are shown in \S7. and the behavior of bispectra in the presence of complicating factors described. In \S8, we conclude with a few remarks concerning the applicability of these techniques to the ocean or atmosphere, and present a few caveats of these techniques.
\section{Parametric Subharmonic Instability of the M$_2$ Tide}
Resonant wave-triad interactions are nonlinear interactions between three freely-propagating internal waves. The fundamental interaction as described in \citet{Gill-1982} is that of two plane waves with wavevectors $\mathbf{k'}$ and $\mathbf{k''}$, and frequencies $\omega(\mathbf{k'})$ and $\omega(\mathbf{k''})$ determined by the dispersion relation. The nonlinear terms in the equations of motion, $u\partial u/\partial x$, etc, appear as $exp\left\{i(\mathbf{k'}+\mathbf{k''})\mathbf{x}-i\left[\omega(\mathbf{k'})+\omega(\mathbf{k''})\right]t\right\}$,
which is a forced-wave response with wavevector $\mathbf{k'}+\mathbf{k''}$ and frequency $\omega(\mathbf{k'})+\omega(\mathbf{k''})$, unless
\begin{equation}
\omega(\mathbf{k'}+\mathbf{k''}) = \omega(\mathbf{k'})+\mathbf{k''})
\end{equation}
If (1) is satisfied, the interaction is resonant and the nonlinear terms contribute to a freely propagating wave. Energy may transfer freely to or from any wave in a triad interaction, though net energy transfer may result depending on external sources and sinks. Since dissipation tends to occur at higher wavenumbers, energy preferentially transfers from lower to higher wavenumbers. Energy transfer rates depend on energy levels in triad waves with more energetic waves result in higher rates.
Three classes of resonant wave-triad interactions are described in \citet{McComas-Bretherton-1977}, distinguished by wavenumber and frequency. One such triad is parametric subharmonic instability (PSI), so-called because half-frequency waves are produced. The forced pendulum is the classic example in which the restoring force gravity is modified at twice the natural frequency of the pendulum. In the case of ocean internal waves, \citet{Muller-etal-1986} claim that energy is transferred due modification of the buoyancy frequency of small-scale waves by the large scale wave ($<w\partial b/\partial z>$). \citet{McEwan-Robinson-1975} identified the mechanism for energy transfer as a rotating of isopycnals in a cylindrical tank ($<u\partial b/\partial x>$). The physical mechanism will be examined further in \S6.
For plane waves with phase $\theta = \mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{x}-\omega\cdot t$, equation (1) may be separated into the diagnostic resonance conditions,
\begin{align}
\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k'}+\mathbf{k''}&=0\\
\omega+\omega'+\omega''&=0\ .
\end{align}
Waves must also satisfy the dispersion relation for internal waves
\begin{equation}
\frac{k_1^2+k_2^2}{k_3^2} = \frac{\omega^2-f^2}{N^2-\omega^2}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{k}=(k_1,k_2,k_3)$ is the wave vector in $(x,y,z)$ directions, and the frequency of a freely-propagating internal wave is confined between the buoyancy frequency $N$ and Coriolis frequency $f$,
\begin{equation*}
f<\omega<N\ .
\end{equation*}
Since $f=2\Omega\sin\phi$ depends on latitude $\phi$, and the parent wave must have frequency of twice the daughter wave, this last condition translates into a latitudinal constraint on PSI for the M$_2$ (12.4 hr) semidiurnal tide. Where M$_2$ is the parent wave, PSI may only occur equatorward of 28.9$^\circ$ latitude (where the M$_2$ frequency is exactly twice the Coriolis frequency). See Figure 1.
Waves not satisfying resonance condition (1) are forced (non-propagating), and waves not satisfying the frequency restrictions are trapped, with an exponential rather than oscillating solution. Both of these types of interactions are confined to the generation location and will not be considered here.
\section{Wavenumber Triad Ellipses}
Assuming the parent-wave frequency and wavenumber are known, and that the strongest transfers are confined to a vertical plane ($k_2=0$ for all waves), analytical expressions for the frequencies and wavenumbers of PSI daughter waves are derived. Fundamental parameters are latitude and
$\epsilon$, a measure of how far the daughter-wave frequencies (denoted $\omega'$ and $\omega''$) deviate from half the parent-wave frequency $\omega/2$,
\begin{equation}
\epsilon \equiv \left|\frac{\omega'}{\omega}-\frac{1}{2}\right| = \left|\frac{\omega''}{\omega}-\frac{1}{2}\right|\ .
\end{equation}
Without loss of generality, we can say $\epsilon=\omega'/\omega-1/2=1/2-\omega''/\omega$. Nondimensionalizing frequencies and wavenumbers by the parent-wave frequency $\omega$ and vertical wavenumber $k_3$, the resonance conditions (2) and (3) can be solved for the ratio of the daughter- to parent-wave's vertical wavenumber,
\begin{equation}
\frac{k_3'}{k_3}=\frac{\sqrt{(1-\omega'/\omega)^2-(f/\omega)^2}\pm\sqrt{1-(f/\omega)^2}}{\sqrt{(\omega'/\omega)^2-(f/\omega)^2}\pm\sqrt{(1-\omega'/\omega)^2-(f/\omega)^2}}\ .
\end{equation}
Substituting in $\epsilon$ for $\omega'$, we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{k_3'}{k_3}=\frac{\sqrt{(1-\epsilon)^2-(f/\omega)^2}\pm\sqrt{1-(f/\omega)^2}}{\sqrt{(1/2+\epsilon)^2-(f/\omega)^2}\pm\sqrt{(1/2-\epsilon)^2-(f/\omega)^2}}\ .
\end{equation}
Two sign choices result from the roots. Solutions are plotted in Figure 2.
Assuming the daughter waves have exactly half the parent-wave frequency ($\epsilon=0$), that is, they are exactly subharmonic, then minus sign choice in (7) yields an infinite daughter-wave vertical wavenumber which is aphysical. The solution of (7) for the plus sign choice of PSI of the M$_2$ internal tide is shown in Figure 3 as a function of latitude.
Energy transfer via resonant triads works for any triad satisfying the resonance conditions.
The PSI class of triads appears to be particularly efficient, but is not limited to energy transfer to exactly half the parent-wave frequency. Slight deviations from exactly half frequency create large variations in the expected daughter-wave vertical wavenumbers. For small but non-zero $\epsilon$, the locus of points which are solutions to (7) is given by the ellipse
\begin{equation}
K_1^2+K_1K_2+K_2^2 = \left(\frac{k_3'}{k_3}\right)^2 + \frac{k_3'}{k_3}+1\ ,
\end{equation}
where $K_1$ and $K_2$ are vertical wavenumbers in a triad of either parent or daughter waves, nondimensionalized by the parent wave. The third wave of the triad is $K_3=-K_1-K_2$. Due to nondimensionalization, one of the three of $K_1$, $K_2$ and $K_3$ is 1. The ratio $k_3'/k_3$ and the size of the wavenumber ellipse increase as $\epsilon$ decreases (Figure 4), representing a transfer of energy to higher wavenumbers.
\section{Statistical Techniques}
In this section, we review the definitions, use and interpretation of the bispectrum and bicoherence. The bispectrum is the third-order moment equivalent of the power spectrum. Just as power spectra decompose variance in a signal into individual frequency or wavenumber bands, bispectra express second-order interactions between frequency or wavenumber components by decomposing skew- ness into spectral bands.
\subsection{Bispectrum}
For a continuous real time-series of a zero-mean perturbation quantity, e.g., horizontal perturbation velocity, $u(t)$, the Fourier coefficients are
\begin{equation}
U(\omega)=\frac{1}{M}\sum^T_{t=0}u(t)e^{-i\omega t}\ ,
\end{equation}
where time $t=m\delta t$ with $1\leq m\leq M$ and $\delta t=T/M$ the sampling resolution. Frequency is given by $\omega=j\delta\omega$ where $-M/2\leq j\leq M/2$, the lowest resolved frequency is $\delta\omega=2\pi/T$ and the highest resolved (Nyquist) frequency is $\omega_{max}=2\pi/\delta t$. The power spectrum of $u$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}
S_{uu}(\omega)\,d\omega = U(\omega)U(-\omega)\ ,
\end{equation*}
which is the decomposition of second-moment variance into frequency bands,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\omega=-\omega_{max}}^{\omega_{max}} S_{uu}(\omega)\,d\omega = \frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^Mu(t)^2=var(u)\ .
\end{equation}
This definition of the spectrum is equivalent to $S_{uu}(\omega)\,d\omega=U(\omega)U^*(\omega)$ for a real time-series with $(\cdot)^*$ the complex conjugate, but more clearly reveals the relationship between resonance conditions
and the bispectrum. The third central moment of a time-series is skewness,
\begin{equation}
skew(u)\equiv\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=-0}^Mu(t)^3=\sum_{\omega'=-\omega_{max}}^{\omega_{max}} \sum_{\omega''=-\omega_{max}}^{\omega_{max}} U(\omega')U(\omega'')U(-\omega'-\omega'')
\end{equation}
which leads to the definition of the auto-bispectrum, or bispectrum of a signal with itself,
\begin{equation}
BiS_{uuu}(\omega',\omega'')\,d\omega'\,d\omega'' \equiv U(\omega')U(\omega'')U(-\omega'-\omega'')\ .
\end{equation}
By construction, a nonzero bispectrum at the frequency pair $(\omega',\omega'')$ identifies an energetic wave triad $(\omega',\omega'',\omega)$ which satisfies frequency resonance where the third member of the triad $\omega=-\omega'-\omega''$. However, the bispectrum does not constrain triads to satisfy the dispersion relation. For PSI, the expected frequency bispectral signal is large at frequency pairs $BiS(\omega/2,\omega/2)$ or $BiS(\omega/2,-\omega)$
where the third member of the triad identified by the bispectrum is $\omega=-(\omega/2+\omega/2)$ or $\omega/2=-(\omega/2-\omega)$, respectively.
In practice, the bispectrum is estimated by averaging over many realizations,
\begin{equation}
\widehat{BiS}_{uuu}(\omega',\omega'')\,d\omega'\,d\omega'' = E\left[U(\omega')U(\omega'')U(-\omega'-\omega'')\right]
\end{equation}
where $E[\cdot]$ is the expectation. Using polar form, the bispectrum
\begin{equation}
\widehat{BiS}_{uuu}(\omega',\omega'')\,d\omega'\,d\omega'' = E\left[|U(\omega')||U(\omega'')||U(-\omega'-\omega'')|e^{i(\theta(\omega')+\theta(\omega'')+\theta(-\omega'-\omega''))}\right]
\end{equation}
is clearly a function of both the power of individual triad waves and phase-locking between triad waves. This means that, if the power in individual waves satisfying only (3) is large and the number of realizations few, then the bispectrum averaged over these realizations may be nonzero even though the degree of phase-locking is low. The result is a false signature wave-triad interaction. The dependence of the bispectrum on the power in the spectrum motivates the construction of the bicoherence.
\subsection{Bicoherence and Significance}
The bicoherence is the normalized magnitude of the bispectrum, showing only the degree of phase- locking between $\omega$ components. The bicoherence
\begin{equation}
\hat{b}^2_{uuu}(\omega',\omega'')\,d\omega'\,d\omega'' \equiv \frac{\left| \widehat{BiS}_{uuu}(\omega',\omega'')\,d\omega'\,d\omega''\right|^2}{E\left[\left|U(\omega')U(\omega'')\right|^2\right]E\left[\left|U(-\omega'-\omega'')\right|^2\right]}\ ,
\end{equation}
is bound between 0 and 1. The bicoherence of one realization (no averaging) is identically 1; the bicoherence of an infinite number of realizations with random phase is identically 0. If a single wave-triad interaction dominates the power spectrum at each of the constituent triad frequencies, then the bicoherence at that triad will be significant.
\citet{Elgar-Guza-1988} calculated significance levels for zero bicoherence using Monte Carlo methods and find that, in agreement with theoretical levels \citep{Haubrich-1965}, data are 99\% significant with a bicoherence above $\sqrt{9.2/ndof}$ where $ndof$ is the number of degrees of freedom, twice the number of independent realizations. Other levels are $95\%=\sqrt{6/ndof}$, $90\%=\sqrt{4.6/ndof}$ and $80\%=\sqrt{3.2/ndof}$. In the ocean, an energetic background continuum of randomly-phased, non-interacting internal waves with only a finite number of available realizations tends to lower the bicoherence.
\subsection{Multidimensional Bispectra}
For multiple independent variables $(x,y,z,t)$, wavenumber-frequency Fourier coefficients are defined
\begin{equation*}
U(\mathbf{k},\omega)=\frac{1}{M}\frac{1}{\mathbf{P}}\sum_{t=0}^T\sum_{x=0}^\mathbf{L}u(\mathbf{k},t)e^{i2\pi(\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{x}-\omega t)}\ ,
\end{equation*}
where space vector $\mathbf{x}=(x,y,z)=p\,\delta x$ with $1\leq p\leq P$, $\delta x=\mathbf{L}/P$ the sampling resolution. (To simplify notation, the number of samples in $x$-, $y$- and $z$- dimensions has been assumed the same, but the definition is easily modified if not.) The four-dimensional power spectrum is
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{S}_{uu}(\mathbf{k},\omega)\,d\mathbf{k}\,d\omega = E\left[U(\mathbf{k},\omega)U(-\mathbf{k},-\omega)\right]\ ,
\end{equation*}
and the eight-dimensional bispectrum is,
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{BiS}_{uuu}(\mathbf{k'},\omega',\mathbf{k''},\omega'')\,d\mathbf{k'}\,d\omega'\,d\mathbf{k''}\,d\omega'' = E\left[U(\mathbf{k'},\omega')U(\mathbf{k''},\omega'')U(-\mathbf{k'}-\mathbf{k''},-\omega'-\omega'')\right]
\end{equation*}
Lower-dimensional bispectra can be computed as integrals of higher-dimensional bispectra over the omitted dimensions, for example,
\begin{equation}
{BiS}_{uuu}(k_3',\omega',k_3'',\omega'')\,dk_3'\,d\omega'\,dk_3''\,d\omega'' = \sum_{k_1'}\sum_{k_1''}\sum_{k_2'}\sum_{k_2''}{BiS}_{uuu}(\mathbf{k'},\omega',\mathbf{k''},\omega'')\,d\mathbf{k'}\,d\omega'\,d\mathbf{k''}\,d\omega''
\end{equation}
and likewise,
\begin{equation*}
{BiS}_{uuu}(\omega',\omega'')\,d\omega'\,d\omega'' = \sum_{k_3'}\sum_{k_3''}{BiS}_{uuu}(k_3',\omega',k_3'',\omega'')\,dk_3'\,d\omega'\,dk_3''\,d\omega''\ .
\end{equation*}
To produce a two-dimensional frequency bispectrum, the bispectral peak at a given triad of wavevectors and frequencies in the eight-dimensional bispectrum is averaged over all wavevectors. This averaging obscures the signal of parametric subharmonic instability for a single energetic triad in the absence of multi-dimensional data. Bicoherence, the normalized bispectrum, also gives better (higher) estimates for phase-locking in multiple dimensions because it is not averaged over non-PSI triads in the omitted dimension. (Unlike the bispectrum, the two-dimensional bicoherence is not the integral of the four-dimensional bicoherence over the omitted dimension since the integral of the four-dimensional bicoherence is an integral over a quantity with absolute values, $\sum|a|\neq\left|\sum a\right|$.)
\subsection{Cross-bispectrum}
The cross-bispectrum between two different oceanic variables is defined
\begin{equation}
\widehat{BiS}_{uvw}(\omega',\omega'')\,d\omega'\,d\omega'' \equiv E\left[U(\omega')V(\omega'')W(-\omega'-\omega'')\right]
\end{equation}
where the order of $U$, $V$ and $W$ is nontrivial. Cross-bispectra are necessary to quantify energy transfer rates, described next in \S5.
\section{Transfer of Energy}
As shown in the previous section, the bispectrum identifies wave triads by construction, showing phase-locking between energetic triads of waves which satisfy the resonance conditions. Given enough dimensions of data, it can be used to quantify the rate of nonlinear transfer of energy via a wave-triad interaction. This is demonstrated, following the unpublished manuscript of \citet{McComas-1978}. Starting with the inviscid equations of motion,
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial\mathbf{u}}{\partial t}+\mathbf{u}\cdot\nabla\mathbf{u}-f\times \mathbf{u}+\nabla\cdot p=0\\
\frac{\partial b}{\partial t}+\mathbf{u}\cdot\nabla{b} =-N^2w\ ,
\end{align}
then assuming we have a triad interaction so that $u_{tot}=u(t)+e^{-i\omega t}+u'(t)e^{-i\omega't}+u''(t)e^{-i\omega''t}$, where
$u$, $u'$ and $u''$ are the velocity amplitudes associated with three waves with frequencies $\omega$, $\omega'$ and $\omega''$.
Separating each of the wave amplitudes into $u(t)=u_0+u_1(t)$ where $\partial u_0/\partial t$ is small, then the linear equations are
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial \mathbf{u_{lin}}}{\partial t}-2\Omega\times\mathbf{u_{lin}}+\nabla\cdot p=0\ ,\\
\frac{\partial b_{lin}}{\partial t} = -N^2\omega_{lin}\ ,
\end{align*}
where $u_{lin}=u_0e^{-i\omega t}+u'_0e^{-i\omega't}+u_0''e^{-i\omega''t}$, and nonlinear amplitude growth equations,
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial \mathbf{u_{nl}}}{\partial t} + \mathbf{u_{nl}}\cdot\nabla\mathbf{u_{nl}} = 0\ ,\\
\frac{\partial b_{nl}}{\partial t} + \mathbf{u_{nl}}\cdot\nabla b_{nl}=0\ ,
\end{align}
where $u_{nl}=u_1(t)e^{-i\omega t}+u_1'(t)e^{-i\omega't}+u_1''(t)e^{-i\omega''t}$. Expanding the nonlinear, real $u$-momentum equation and dotting by $u_{nl}^*$, the complex conjugate of $u_{nl}$, gives 117 terms in the $u$-momentum equation, including
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial u_1^2}{\partial t} + u_1u_1'\frac{\partial u_1''}{\partial x}e^{i(\omega-\omega'-\omega'')t}+\ldots\ .
\end{equation}
If $\omega=\omega'+\omega''$, that is, if the three waves satisfy the frequency resonance condition, then those terms with frequencies summing to 0 contribute to growth (or decay) of the wave amplitudes. The others do not result in energy transfer, when averaged over a wave period. This equation (22), and multiplying (21) by vertical displacement $\zeta_{nl}^*=-b_{nl}^*/N^2$, form the kinetic and potential energy equations. Fourier-transforming into frequency and wavenumber space, the energy evolution equations become
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{2}&\frac{\partial U(\mathbf{k},\omega)U(-\mathbf{k},-\omega)}{\partial t}\\\notag
&=-i\sum_{\omega'}\sum_{\omega''}\sum_{\mathbf{k'}}\sum_{\mathbf{k''}}\left\{k_j'U(\mathbf{k'},\omega')U_j(\mathbf{k''},\omega'')U(\mathbf{k},\omega)+k_j''U_j(\mathbf{k'},\omega)U(\mathbf{k''},\omega'')U(\mathbf{k},\omega)\right\}\\\notag
&\qquad\delta(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k'}+\mathbf{k''})\,\delta(\omega+\omega'+\omega'')\ ,\\
\frac{1}{2}&\frac{\partial V(\mathbf{k},\omega)V(-\mathbf{k},-\omega)}{\partial t}\\\notag
&=-i\sum_{\omega'}\sum_{\omega''}\sum_{\mathbf{k'}}\sum_{\mathbf{k''}}\left\{k_j'V(\mathbf{k'},\omega')U_j(\mathbf{k''},\omega'')V(\mathbf{k},\omega)+k_j''U_j(\mathbf{k'},\omega)V(\mathbf{k''},\omega'')V(\mathbf{k},\omega)\right\}\\\notag
&\qquad\delta(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k'}+\mathbf{k''})\,\delta(\omega+\omega'+\omega'')\ ,\\
\frac{1}{2N^2}&\frac{\partial B(\mathbf{k},\omega)B(-\mathbf{k},-\omega)}{\partial t}\\\notag
&=-i\sum_{\omega'}\sum_{\omega''}\sum_{\mathbf{k'}}\sum_{\mathbf{k''}}\left\{k_j'B(\mathbf{k'},\omega')U_j(\mathbf{k''},\omega'')B(\mathbf{k},\omega)+k_j''U_j(\mathbf{k'},\omega)B(\mathbf{k''},\omega'')B(\mathbf{k},\omega)\right\}\\\notag
&\qquad\delta(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k'}+\mathbf{k''})\,\delta(\omega+\omega'+\omega'')\ ,
\end{align}
showing growth of a wave at $(\mathbf{k},\omega)$ via nonlinear terms. We have neglected the $W^2$ equation assuming that $W^2\ll U^2$. The delta functions ensure that only frequencies (wavenumbers) $\omega'$ and $\omega''$ ($k'$ and $k''$) which sum to the frequency (wavenumber) on the LHS, $\omega=\omega'-\omega''$ ($k=-k'-k''$) are included. Rewritten in terms of the energy spectrum and multi-dimensional cross-bispectra, the rate of energy transfer is
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial E(\mathbf{k},\omega)\,d\mathbf{k}\,d\omega}{\partial t} = -i\sum_{\omega'}&\sum_{\omega''}\sum_{\mathbf{k'}}\sum_{\mathbf{k''}}\sum_j\\\notag
&\left[k_j'\left\{BiS_{u_iu_ju_i}(\mathbf{k'},\omega',\mathbf{k''},\omega'')+BiS_{bu_jb}(\mathbf{k'},\omega,\mathbf{k''},\omega'')\right\}\right.+\\\notag
&\ \left.k_j''\left\{BiS_{u_ju_iu_i}(\mathbf{k'},\omega',\mathbf{k''},\omega'')+BiS_{u_jb_ib_i}(\mathbf{k'},\omega',\mathbf{k''},\omega'')
\right\}\right]\\\notag
&\ \delta(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k'}+\mathbf{k''})\delta(\omega+\omega'+\omega'')\,d\mathbf{k'}\,d\mathbf{k''}\,d\omega'\,d\omega''\ ,
\end{align}
which we will call the ``transfer bispectrum''. The real part contributes to energy transfer and the imaginary part to changes phase on long timescales, causing the three waves to move in- and out- of-phase with each other as the interaction proceeds. The rate of energy transfer into a particular frequency or wavenumber band is thus proportional to both the magnitude of all three waves, and their degree of phase-locking, with additional dependence on the wavenumbers of the waves. All other things being equal, a transfer of energy to higher wavenumbers will proceed more rapidly than to lower wavenumbers.
The alternative method of calculating energy transfer via nonlinear wave-wave interactions would be to bandpass signals in time (space) then take the appropriate derivatives and multiply series together, as in \citet{MacKinnon-Winters-2005}, $v_{subharmonic}\times v_{subharmonic}\times \partial V_{M_2}/\partial y$. The bispectrum computes the same quantity, assuming plane waves, $ik_2=\partial/\partial y$ and at least two dimensions of data, e.g. $z$ and $t$, in order to infer the remaining wavenumbers $k_1'$, $k_1''$, $k_2'$ and $k_2''$ from the dispersion relation.
\section{Bispectra of Model Output}
A fully-nonlinear, three-dimensional, pseudo-spectral non-hydrostatic model \citep{Winters-etal-2004} was used to simulate PSI. The model has periodic side boundaries, sponge layers at the top and bottom of a 4-km deep, uniformly stratified ocean ($N=2\times 10^{-3}$ rad s$^{-1}$). Forced by a mode-1, M$_2$-frequency internal tide at 21$^\circ$ latitude with a small amount of noise, higher-wavenumber near half-M$_2$ frequency waves develop. The eastward velocity profile time-series (Figure 5) clearly shows higher-wavenumber waves forming near the surface and bottom where mode-1 wave $u$- velocities are largest.
\subsection{Spectral Estimation}
Frequency spectra were calculated in half-overlapping 5-day blocks. Vertical wavenumber spectra are more challenging to compute. In a variable stratification ocean, since perturbation quantities scale with stratification, the nonlinear terms in the energy equation and the energy transfer rates themselves depend strongly on stratification. Nevertheless, we will follow the standard procedure of computing stretched depth coordinates for the profiles, to transform the data onto an equivalent constant-stratification ocean. The data are then normalized appropriately by the buoyancy frequency profile. The first mode is then a half-sine or cosine, so slight modifications to standard Fourier spectra must be made. The alternative is to create a set of normal modes for a given mean stratification profile. But since normal modes are really standing-mode solutions, there is no phase information associated with these modes and vertical wavenumber bispectra cannot be calculated.
Since the model has constant stratification, mode fits of this data are simply Fourier spectra
with the inclusion of the first modes. Figure 6 shows model two-dimensional power spectrum in frequency and vertical wavenumber. Energy is apparent at mode-1 and the M$_2$ tidal frequency (the forcing in the model) as well as near mode-10 and half-M$_2$ frequency. Since there is no forcing at mode-10 nor at half-M$_2$ frequency, one may conclude that the energy is transferred via nonlinear processes. In a model, the amount of energy transferred to this secondary wave may be calculated by determining how much energy is gained by that wave, while adjusting for loss due to dissipation. The real ocean is more complicated, with multiple forcings at different scales, and energy propagating or being advected into or out of the region. In the absence of detailed knowledge of sources and sinks, spectra do not quantify energy transfer through the spectrum. Bispectra do.
\subsection{Results: Frequency Bispectra}
Since PSI is characterized by a frequency relationship between parent and daughter waves, the surest way to identify it is through the frequency bispectrum, shown for the model data $u$-perturbation velocity in Figure 7. Axes are normalized by the M$_2$ frequency so that the signature of PSI is a peak at $(1/2,1/2)$ representing the triad satisfying the frequency resonance condition $\omega=-(0.5\omega_{M_2}+0.5\omega_{M_2})$. The peak at $(1, -1/2)$ is also PSI, corresponding to the same triad in a different order and called a difference interaction, since the resonance condition is $0.5\omega_{M_2}=-(\omega-0.5\omega_{M_2})$. Remaining peaks are due to symmetries in the bispectrum (Neshyba and Sobey, 1975). The independent region in the bispectrum and bicoherence is bound by $|\omega''|\leq\omega'$.
Because it is a spectrally very clean, data never become significantly decorrelated, and so only
represent one independent realization. Though PSI is the most likely cause of energy transfer to half-frequency, significance tests do not apply. The bicoherence only serves to indicate a high- degree of phase-locking at the triad waves, relative to other wave triads.
\subsection{Results: Wavenumber Bispectra}
The cascade of energy to turbulence is primarily concerned with vertical scales. Energy at smaller vertical scales dissipates much more quickly than energy at large vertical scales. Therefore, though the frequency bispectrum may easily identify PSI, the vertical wavenumber bispectrum is more relevant for our understanding the energy cascade and perhaps maintenance of the GM internal wave spectrum.
Ellipse (8) can be used to determine if a wavenumber bispectral signal is due to PSI. Vertical
wavenumber bispectrum and bicoherence of $u$-perturbation velocity data are shown in Figures 8a and b. Axes are normalized by the parent-wave vertical wavenumber. Thus, the peak at $(1,9)$ corresponds to a triad at modenumbers $(1,9,-10)$. Peaks lie on ellipse (8) corresponding to an $\epsilon=0.02$ and $k_2'=-k_2''=0$. The gap between peaks in daughter-wave frequencies independently verifies an (Figure 6). This is however, the limit of $\epsilon$ resolution for a 25-day time series, $\delta\epsilon\approx 0.021$. Since the bicoherence also shows a high degree of phase-locking at these triads, we conclude that PSI is occurring.
Though these 6 peaks are solutions to an ellipse, there are other triads which are also solutions, including $(4,-5,1)$ which is not large in the bispectrum. One possible explanation for this is that, because the transfer of energy depends on wavenumber (26), triads with higher daughter wavenumbers have higher transfer rates for the same magnitude parent and daughter waves. One might also expect more energy in triads with higher wavenumbers still, except that energy is dissipated more rapidly at higher wavenumbers.
Though the energy source in the model is narrowband, peaks are diffuse in wavenumber space.
This may be due to induced diffusion, another wave-triad interaction identified by \citet{McComas-Bretherton-1977}, which dominates energy transfer at higher wavenumbers spreading or ``diffusing'' energy into nearby wavenumbers. Using the ray-tracing to calculate wavenumber evolution \citep{Gill-1982}, this effect can be quantified as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\delta k_3'}{k_3'} = \frac{k_1'}{k_3'\omega'}\frac{\partial u}{\partial z}\ ,
\end{equation}
which is about $0.04$--$0.07$ spread in nondimensional wavenumber space around the ellipse for the model data. This is negligible.
\subsection{Multi-dimensional Bispectra}
One slice of the four-dimensional bispectrum of model data, $BiS_{uuu}(k_3',\omega',k_3'',\omega'')$ for $\omega'=0.5\omega_{M_2}$ and $\omega''=-\omega_{M_2}$ is shown in Figure 9. The horizontal axis is the vertical wavenumber corresponding to $\omega''$ and the vertical axis the vertical wavenumber corresponding to $\omega'$. Thus, the peaks at $(\pm10,\pm1)$ and $(\pm11,\mp1)$ correspond to the frequency triads, in order,
\begin{align*}
0.5\omega_{M_2}-\omega_{M_2}+0.5\omega_{M_2}&=0\\
10+1-11&=0\\
11-1-10&=0\\
-11+1+10&=0\\
-10-1+11&=0\ .
\end{align*}
The four-dimensional bicoherence shows high phase-locking at these triads as well as at sums of the daughter wavenumbers. However, since these triads are not accompanied by corresponding peaks in the bispectrum, this phase-locking is not accompanied by peaks in the bispectrum, so though energy may be transferred, the magnitude is small and peaks represent triads of negligible physical importance.
\subsection{Results: Transfer of Energy}
To confirm that the transfer bispectrum accurately computes the energy transfer rate in the model, we compare energy in the daughter waves during the spinup phase of the model with the time integral of the energy transfer bispectrum into the daughter waves. Subharmonic energy and energy buildup were integrated over the $x$-domain to smooth the signal.
Wavenumber coefficients of the transfer bispectrum are computed assuming $k_2=0$ as
\begin{equation}
\hat{k}_1' = \sqrt{\frac{k_3'^2(\omega'^2-f^2)}{N^2-\omega'^2}}\ .
\end{equation}
Given $x$-information from the model, $BiS_{uu_xu}(\omega',\omega'')$ is compared to $\sum_{k_3'}\sum_{k_3''}i\hat{k}_1''BiS_{uuu}(k_3',\omega',k_3'',\omega'')$
with good agreement, confirming (28). Integrated transfer bispectra summing over all nonlinear terms (blue) and subharmonic energy (red) during the spinup phase are shown in Figure 10. Subharmonic energy is calculated as
\begin{equation*}
E(0.5\omega_{M_2})=U(0.5\omega_{M_2})U(-0.5\omega_{M_2})+V(0.5\omega_{M_2})V(-0.5\omega_{M_2})+1/N^2\,B(0.5\omega_{M_2})B(-0.5\omega_{M_2})\ .
\end{equation*}
The blue curve is the time integral of energy transfer into the subharmonic by PSI, given by the right-hand side of (26) with $\omega'=0.5\omega_{M_2}$ and $\omega''=-\omega_{M_2}$. Bispectra are estimated over blocks in time, in order to determine frequencies, which represents a running average of energy transferred by PSI. Disagreement between the curves is due to dissipation of energy in the subharmonic frequency not accounted for in the transfer bispectrum. Slopes and magnitudes of the two estimates of energy transfer show good agreement.
We also use the transfer bispectrum to determine the nonlinear term responsible for the majority of energy transfer to the subharmonic. Previous work by \citet{McEwan-Robinson-1975}, \citet{Hibiya-etal-2002} and \citet{Carter-Gregg-2006} claim that buoyancy modulation is responsible for energy transfer via PSI. However, upon computing the transfer bispectrum for 18 of the nonlinear terms (neglecting terms with $w^2$), we find that $u\partial u/\partial x$ dominates energy transfer. In the model, $u^2\gg v^2,w^2,b^2/N^2$.
The nonlinear terms in the energy equations are like periodic sources on the right-hand side of the equation. They do not change the dispersion relation of the waves, which is associated with the linear solution. Kinematically, the source terms for a daughter wave are just the product between the parent and the other daughter wave with
\begin{equation}
e^{-i\omega_{M_2}t}e^{-0.5i\omega_{M_2}t}=e^{-0.5i\omega_{M_2}t}\ .
\end{equation}
Near the turning latitude of 28.9$^\circ$, energy in the near-inertial daughter waves will be more concentrated in kinetic energy, suggesting that the $u\partial u/\partial x$ will dominate if the $u$-velocity is aligned with the parent-wave velocity. This may change closer to the equator or in areas of strong stratification, where parent- and daughter-wave energy may have more potential relative to kinetic energy. However, a latitudinal dependence is not observed in ratios of high-wavenumber available potential energy to horizontal kinetic energy computed from LADCP/CTD data \citep{Kunze-etal-2005}.
\subsection{Rates of Energy transfer}
The rate of energy transfer via PSI is controlled by a number of factors. The energy evolution equations and the transfer bispectrum show that energy transfer increases with increasing amplitude, wavenumbers, and degree-of-phase-locking. The amplitude of triad waves depends on both the source and the sink. For the M$_2$ parent wave, the source is conversion from the surface to internal tide and sinks are net energy transfer to daughter waves via PSI and transfer to other smaller scale internal waves. For daughter waves, the source is energy transfer from the parent wave and the sink is transfer to smaller scale internal waves. These transfers to smaller scale internal waves may be parameterized by the Gregg-Henyey dissipation parameterization which is based on wave/wave interaction theory.
Energy levels in the parent wave are governed by the balance between sources and sinks,
\begin{align}
\frac{dE_{M_2}}{dt} &= F-PSI_{M_2\rightarrow 0.5M_2}-\epsilon_{GH}(k_3)=0\\\notag
&=F-Re\left\{k_1'UU'U''+\ldots\right\}-\epsilon_0\frac{N^2}{N_0^2}\frac{\left<U_z^2\right>^2}{\left<U_{z,GM}^2\right>^2}f(R_\omega)\\\notag
&=F-Re\left\{k_1'UU'U''+\ldots\right\}-\alpha k_3^4U^4f(R_\omega)\ .\notag
\end{align}
where now the $\epsilon_{GH}$ represents dissipation rather than the parameter described in (5).
If the parent wave is mode-1, there will be little loss to dissipation so the third term may be neglected, leaving the balance,
\begin{equation}
\frac{dE_{M_2}}{dt} = F-Re\left\{k_1'UU'U''+\ldots\right\}\ .
\end{equation}
The parent-wave amplitude is $U$, $V$, \ldots, and depends on source energy, parent- and daughter-wave wavenumbers, and daughter-wave amplitudes. Daughter-wave amplitudes are governed by the balance between PSI and dissipation,
\begin{align}
\frac{dE_{0.5M_2}}{dt} &= PSI_{M_2\rightarrow 0.5M_2}-\epsilon_{GH}(k_3')=0\\\notag
&=Re\left\{k_1UU'U''+\ldots\right\}-\epsilon_0\frac{N^2}{N_0^2}\frac{N^2}{N_0^2}\frac{\left<U_z'^2\right>^2}{\left<U_{z,GM}^2\right>^2}f(R_\omega')\\\notag
&=F-Re\left\{k_1UU'U''+\ldots\right\}-\alpha k_3'^4U'^4f(R_\omega')\ .\notag
\end{align}
The shear-to-strain ratio,
\begin{equation*}
R_{\omega'}=\frac{\left<U_z'^2\right>}{N^2\left<\zeta_z'^2\right>}\ ,
\end{equation*}
which depends on frequency $\omega$.
If the parent-wave frequency and wavenumber are known, source strength known, background GM levels for stratification and shear assumed, and if daughter waves have the same amplitude ($O(U')=O(U'')$) and wavenumber ($k_j'=k_j''$), then (31) and (32) may be solved for daughter wavenumber and amplitude. This would give some indication of what equilibrium energy levels would be for a given PSI interaction.
\section{Bispectra of Ocean Data}
The Hawaiian Ridge, a steep ridge lying nearly perpendicular to the barotropic M$_2$ tide in the Pacific, is a site of intense internal tide generation. As a part of the Hawaiian Ocean Mixing Experiment (HOME; \citet{Rudnick-etal-2003}), full-depth profiles of horizontal velocity, temperature, salinity and pressure were collected during 2000 and 2002 \citep{Lee-etal-2005} using the Absolute Velocity Profiler (AVP; \citet{Sanford-etal-1985}). These profiles are analyzed with wavenumber bispectra to look for PSI with the M$_2$ tide.
Data are transformed into a coordinate system aligned with large-scale local bathymetry, so
that cross-ridge is 37.4$^\circ$E of N and along-ridge is 37.4$^\circ$N of W. Vertical resolution was about 10~m.
Perturbation velocities were calculated by removing the barotropic velocity and time mean as well as a residual depth-average to insure the perturbation velocities satisfy baroclinicity,
\begin{equation}
u'(z,t)=u(z,t)-\left<u(z,t)\right>_t-\frac{1}{H}\int_{-H}^0\left[u(z,t)-\left<u(z,t)\right>_t\right]\,dz\ .
\end{equation}
where here the prime denotes a perturbation velocity.
Data were WKBJ-normalized, transforming to a constant-$N$ ocean (Althaus et al., 2003). Stratifi- cation is an unresolved problem for computing energy transfer rates of PSI (See Appendix A).
Bispectra and bicoherences were computed with an ensemble average over AVP drops within a 5-km radius. The results are very noisy. Bispectra for two stations (A and B, Figure 11) sampled within days of each other during the spring phase of the spring-neap cycle are shown in Figure 12. Bottom depths are 4700 (green) and 4400 m (red). Even with these similarities, the modal content and bispectra at the two stations are very different. The bispectrum at station A (Figure 12a) is red, with some larger values near vertical wavenumber pair $(0.006,0.006)$ (about mode-5) rad m$^{-1}$. Bicoherences at the same wavenumbers are elevated. The bispectrum at station B has peaks at higher wavenumbers, (0.002,0.014) rad m$^{-1}$ (mode-1 and mode-10). Again, bicoherences are elevated at these same peaks. The bicoherence levels for station A are high ($\approx 0.7$). Assuming our six profiles represent six independent realizations, this would correspond to a significance level of 90\%, similar to values found by \citet{Carter-Gregg-2006}. However, it may not be reasonable to assume that six profiles sampled within 36 hours each constitute an independent realization. Additionally, absence of frequency information and limited availability of data, combined with variability between bispectra at two nearby stations preclude unambiguously identifying these signals as PSI.
Variability in the signal may have several causes. Near the generation site, where AVP was
dropped, the M$_2$ internal tide forms beams of energy comprised of many modes radiating from the ridge. Even if the ratio of daughter-wave to parent-wave wavenumber is constant, the actual daughter-wave wavenumbers will be spread over multiple wavenumbers. If the ridge were a true two-dimensional knife-edge, modal content in the M$_2$ would be the same at the two sites sampled. Their bispectra, though peaks might be spread in wavenumber space, would have peaks at the same values for the two stations. However, complex local topography has a strong effect on direction of energy-flux, beam position, and modal composition.
The distance between the sampling location and generation site also affects characteristics of
PSI. Near the site of internal wave generation, many modes of M$_2$ energy exist. Higher modes dissipate near the ridge, a process which may be aided by PSI \citep{Carter-Gregg-2006}. A few hundred kilometers from the ridge, only the mode-1 internal tide continues to propagate. If it is unstable to PSI, the frequency and wavenumber bispectra may be used to determine rates of energy transfer. The model simulates the latter case.
Temporal variability is a lesser concern, since the M$_2$ barotropic tidal signal is relatively stationary and the ridge undergoes changes on a much slower timescale than the waves. But phase of the spring-neap cycle when data are collected greatly affects the strength of the semidiurnal tide, and thus the strength of the PSI interaction. Another concern is addressed in \citet{MacKinnon-Winters-2005}, that PSI dominates near the so-called `turning latitude' where $0.5\omega_{M_2}=2f$ or 28.9$^\circ$, but is much weaker at lower latitudes (AVP data were from 21.6$^\circ$N).
An ideal dataset would have both frequency and wavenumber information, as from a profiling
mooring, fast CTD or ADCP of velocity and density, in a region of strong M$_2$ tide with constant mode number below 28.9$^\circ$ latitude. With a flat bottom and weak background, the bispectrum may provide realistic estimates of energy transfer through the vertical wavenumber spectrum via parametric subharmonic instability.
\section{Conclusions}
The motivation for this work is to better-understand the role of wave-triad interactions in the cascade to turbulence. To this end, we explored applications of the bispectrum and bicoherence for identifying wave-triads and quantifying the energy transferred through the internal wave spectrum. Emphasis was given to tailoring the tools for PSI of a coherent internal tide and demonstrating the quantification of energy transfer.
Identification of PSI of a coherent internal tide has a couple steps. In frequency space, the signature of PSI is a triad of three waves, two with half the frequency of the third. The bispectrum of a model run with a mode-1, M$_2$ internal forcing at 21$^\circ$N latitude in Figure 7. In wavenumber space, it is helpful to begin by determining the expected wavenumber signature of PSI in the bispectrum. For a given latitude and departure of daughter waves from exactly subharmonic PSI, ellipse (8) is the locus of wavenumbers satisfying the resonance conditions for PSI, plotted in Figure 4 as a function of departure from exactly subharmonic. The wavenumber bispectrum of the same model run (Figure 8) has peaks at the predicted ellipse, verifying that the peaks are PSI, and in both bispectrum and bicoherence, confirming that the triad is energetic and phase-locked. Phase-locking is a requirement for energy transfer.
The transfer bispectrum (26) estimates the energy evolution using bispectra. Energy transfer
rates are computed for a spinup period of a model run and compared to energy buildup in the subharmonic wave (Figure 10). The slope and amplitude agree well, confirming the bispectrum?s ability to estimate energy transfer rates. Computing energy transfer rates via PSI is the best way to determine whether the interaction is physically relevant. Energy transfer rates depend on a combination of high energy levels and phase-locking, and one may be compensated for by the other. That is to say, even when bicoherence values indicate a lower-degree of phase-locking triad waves, if the triad is energetic enough, energy may still transferred. If multiple dimensions of data are not available, there are two ways to identify PSI. In frequency space, peaks in bispectrum and bicoherence at half-frequency triads confirm the existence of PSI. In wavenumber space, peaks at in the bispectrum bicoherence at wavenumber solutions to ellipse 8 for an independently determined $\epsilon$
indicate PSI is occurring.
The transfer bispectrum also identifies which nonlinear terms are primarily responsible for energy transfer. In the case of the model, we find that the $u\partial u/\partial x$ term dominates transfer. The importance of this term is contrary to previous suggestions of the buoyancy terms $w\partial b/\partial z$ or $u\partial b/\partial x$.
An attempt is made to use the wavenumber bispectrum to identity PSI in ocean profiles of horizontal velocity, but the signal was inconclusive (Figure 12). The effects on bispectra and on PSI of tidal beams, broadband M$_2$ energy in mode-space, complex topography, temporal variability and latitudinal dependence of the interaction were discussed. In regions, such as near the Hawaiian Ridge, analysis or multi-dimensional data, which are less likely to be contaminated by the aforementioned issues, may be the only way to reliably identify PSI triads.
Several open questions follow from this work. Though triad ellipses are constructed in terms of $\epsilon$, a small parameter indicating how far daughter-wave frequencies are from exactly subharmonic, what sets $\epsilon$? If it is set by external forces and could be computed without frequency information, then the triad ellipses could be used to make the wavenumber bispectra nearly as useful as frequency bispectra for identifying PSI. Energy transfer by the bispectrum depends on wavenumber, amplitude and degree of phase-locking of triad waves. The steady-state rates of energy transfer set levels of energy dissipation in the ocean internal wave spectrum. What then is the rate-limiting step in the cascade of energy through PSI: the energy source, PSI or loss of energy from daughter waves via other wave-triad interactions? Future studies involving varying levels or wavenumbers of the source wave may shed light on these questions.
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $(\varepsilon_{t})_{t>0}$ be a sequence of independent real random vectors of $p$-dimension and let $X_T= \sum_{t=s+1}^{s+T}\varepsilon_t\varepsilon^T_{t-s}/T$ be the lag-$s$ ($s$ is a fixed positive integer) auto-covariance matrix of $\varepsilon_t$.
The motivation of the above set up is due to the study of dynamic factor model, see \cite{LY012}. Set
\begin{align}
x_t=\Lambda f_t+\varepsilon_t+\mu~,
\end{align}
where $x_t$ is a $p$-dimensional sequence observed at time $t$, $\{f_t\}$ a sequence of $m$-dimensional ``latent factor'' ($m\ll p$) uncorrelated with the error process $\{\varepsilon_t\}$ and $\mu \in \mathbb{R}^p$ is the general mean. Therefore, the lag-$s$ auto-covariance matrix of the time series $x_t$ can be considered as a finite rank (rank $m$) perturbation of the lag-$s$ auto-covariance matrix of $\varepsilon_t$. Therefore, the first step is to study the base component, which is the lag-$s$ auto-covariance matrix of the error term.
Besides, we are considering the random matrix framework, where the dimension $p$ and the sample size $T$ both tend to infinity with their ratio converging to a constant: $\lim p/T \rightarrow y>0$.
One of the main problems in random matrix theory is to investigate the convergence of the sequence of {\em empirical spectral distribution} $\{F^{A_n}\}$ for a given sequence of symmetric or Hermitian random matrices $\{A_n\}$, where
\begin{align*}
F^{A_n}(x):=\frac 1p \sum_{j=1}^p\delta_{l_j}~,
\end{align*}
$l_j$ are the eigenvalues of $A_n$.
The limit distribution $F$, which is usually nonrandom, is called the {\em limiting spectral distribution} (LSD) of the sequence $\{A_n\}$. The study of spectral analysis of large dimensional random matrices dates back to the Wigner's famous semicircular law (\cite{wigner}) for Wigner matrix, which is further extended in various aspects: Mar\v{c}enko-Pastur (M-P) law (\cite{MP}) for large dimensional sample covariance matrix; and circular law for complex random matrix (\cite{girko}).
Another aspect is the bound on extreme eigenvalues. The literature dates back to \cite{geman}, who proved the almost sure convergence of the largest eigenvalue of a sample covariance matrix under however some moment restrictions, which is later improved by \cite{yin}. For Wigner matrix, \cite{baiyin} found the sufficient and necessary condition for the almost sure convergence of its largest eigenvalue. \cite{vu} presented an upper bound for the spectral norm of symmetric random matrices with independent entries and \cite{peche} derived the lower bound. \cite{Vershynin} studied the sharp upper bound of the spectral norm of products of random and deterministic matrices, which behave similarly to random matrices with independent entries, etc.
Notice that lag-$0$ auto-covariance matrix of $\varepsilon_t$ reduces to the standard sample covariance matrix $\frac 1T \sum_{t=1}^{T}\varepsilon_t\varepsilon^T_{t}$ and its property in large-dimension has been well developed in the literature. In contrast, very few is known for the lag-$s$ auto-covariance matrix $X_T$. Recent related work include \cite{liu}, \cite{li} and \cite{jin} for the LSD of the symmetrized auto-covariance matrix and \cite{wang} for its exact separation, which also ensures the convergence of its largest eigenvalue.
Since $X_T$ is not symmetric, its singular values are the square roots of the $p$ nonnegative eigenvalues of
\begin{align}\label{at}
A_T:=X_TX_T^T~.
\end{align}
Therefore, the main purpose of this paper is on the limiting behaviors of the eigenvalues of $A_T$.
First, we derive exact moment formula for its LSD. Next, this moment sequence is shown to satisfy the Carleman condition so that it determines uniquely the LSD. Then using power expansion, the Stieltjes transform of the LSD
\[
s(z):=\int \frac{1}{x-z}dF(x)
\]
can be found to
satisfy the following equation:
\begin{align*}
y^2z^2s^3(z)+y^2zs^2(z)-yzs^2(z)-zs(z)-1=0~.
\end{align*}
This result is derived in \cite{li} using a totally different Stieltjes transform method.
Second, we show the convergence of the largest eigenvalue of $A_T$ to the right end point of the support of $F$ almost surely (trivially, this implies the convergence of the largest singular value of $X_T$).
Both these two results are derived using moment method. A distinctive feature here is that the matrix $A_T$ can be considered as the product of four matrices involving $\varepsilon_t$, new methodology is needed with respect to the existing literature on random matrix theory. In particular, we provide in Section \ref{de} some recursion formula related to the number of random walks, which further leads to our moment result, and the method may be of independent interest.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Preliminary introduction on the related graph theory is provided in Section \ref{graph}. Section \ref{lsd} derives the exact moment formula for the limiting spectral distribution of $A_T$, which further leads to the expression of its corresponding Stieltjes transform. Section \ref{largest} gives details of the convergence of the largest eigenvalue of $A_T$. In Section \ref{de}, we provide some techniques related to random walks for deriving some recursion formula, which further leads to the limiting moments in Section \ref{lsd}.
\section{Some graph theory}\label{graph}
In order to calculate the moments of the LSD, we need some information from graph theory.
For a pair of vectors of indexes $i=(i_1,\cdots,i_{2k})$ $(1\leq i_l \leq T, ~l\leq 2k)$ and $j=(j_1,\cdots,j_{2k})$ $(1\leq j_l \leq p, ~l\leq 2k)$, construct a graph $Q(i,j)$ in the following way. Draw two parallel lines, referred to as the I-line and J-line. Plot $i_1,\cdots,i_{2k}$ on the I-line and $j_1,\cdots,j_{2k}$ on the J-line, called the I-vertices and J-vertices, respectively. Draw $k$ down edges from $i_{2u-1}$ to $j_{2u-1}$, $k$ down edges from $i_{2u}+s$ to $j_{2u}$, $k$ up edges from $j_{2u-1}$ to $i_{2u}$, $k$ up edges from $j_{2u}$ to $i_{2u+1}+s$ (all these up and down edges are called vertical edges) and $k$ horizontal edges from $i_{2u}$ to $i_{2u}+s$, $k$ horizontal edges from $i_{2u-1}+s$ to $i_{2u-1}$ (with the convention that $i_{2k+1}=i_1$), where all the $u$'s are in the region: $1\leq u\leq k$. An example of a $Q$ graph with $k=3$ is shown in Figure \ref{sixq}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=13cm]{sixq.eps}
\caption{\small An example of a $Q$ graph with $k=3$.}\label{sixq}
\end{figure}
\begin{definition}
The subgraph of all I-vertices is called the \textbf{roof} of $Q$ and is denoted by $H(Q)$ (see also Figure \ref{sixq} for illustration of $H(Q)$).
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
The M-\textbf{minor or pillar} of $Q$ is defined as the \textbf{minor} of $Q$ by contracting all horizontal edges, which means that all horizontal edges are removed from Q and all I-vertices connected through horizontal edges are glued together. We denote the M-\textbf{minor or pillar} of $Q$ by $M(Q)$ (see Figure \ref{sixm}).
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=11cm]{sixm.eps}
\caption{\small The M-minor or pillar $M(Q)$ that corresponds to the graph $Q$ in Figure \ref{sixq}.}\label{sixm}
\end{figure}
\begin{definition}
For a given $M(Q)$, glue all coincident vertical edges; namely, we regard all vertical edges with a common I-vertex and J-vertex as one edge. Then we get an undirectional connected graph. We call the resulting graph the \textbf{base} of the graph Q, and denote it by B(Q) (see Figure \ref{sixb}).
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=11cm]{sixb.eps}
\caption{\small The base $B(Q)$ that corresponds to the graph $Q$ in Figure \ref{sixq}.}\label{sixb}
\end{figure}
\begin{definition}
For a vertical edge $e$ of $B(Q)$, the number of up (down) vertical edges of $Q$ coincident with $e$ is called the \textbf{up (down) multiplicity} of $e$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
The \textbf{degree} of a vertex $i_l$ is the number of edges incident to this vertex.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\label{inn}
An up (down) \textbf {innovation} is an up (down) vertical edge which leads to a vertex that has not been visited before.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
Two graphs are said to be \textbf{isomorphic} if one becomes the other by a suitable permutation on $(1,\cdots, T)$ and a suitable permutation on $(1,\cdots, p)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
Define a \textbf{characteristic sequence} as $(d_1~u_1~\cdots~d_{2k}~u_{2k})$, where $\{u_1,\cdots,u_{2k}\}$ and $\{d_1,\cdots,d_{2k}\}$ are associated with the $2k$ up edges and $2k$ down edges of a pillar $M(Q)$ according to the following rule:
\begin{align*}
u_l=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
1,& \text{the $l$-th up edge is an up innovation}~,\\
0,& \text{otherwise}~,
\end{array}\right.
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
d_l=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
0,& \text{the $l$-th down edge is an down innovation}~,\\
-1,& \text{otherwise}~.
\end{array}\right.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
An example of the characteristic sequence associated with the pillar in Figure \ref{sixm} is given in the following Figure \ref{cha} with
\begin{align*}
&\{u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4,u_5,u_6\}=\{\text{1,~1,~0,~0,~0,~0}\}~,\\
&\{d_1,d_2,d_3,d_4,d_5,d_6\}=\{\text{0,~0,~0,~-1,~-1,~0}\}~;
\end{align*}
that is, the corresponding characteristic sequence is (0~1~0~1~0~0~-1~0~-1~0~0~0). Conversely, it can be verified that any characteristic sequence $(d_1~u_1~\cdots~ d_{2k}~u_{2k})$ uniquely defines a pillar $M(Q)$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cha.eps}
\caption{\small Characteristic sequence associated with the pillar $M(Q)$ in Figure \ref{sixm}.}\label{cha}
\end{figure}
\section{LSD of $A_T$ using moment method}\label{lsd}
The problem of showing the convergence of the ESD of $A_T$ reduces to showing that the sequence of its moments $m_k(A_T):=\tr A_T^k/p$, $k\geq 1$, tends to a limit $(m_k)_k$, and this limit determines properly a probability distribution. For example, the later property is guaranteed if the moment sequence $(m_k)_k$ satisfies the Carleman condition:
\begin{align}\label{cal}
\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}m_{2k}^{-1/2k}=\infty~.
\end{align}
The following theorem gives the exact formula for the limiting moments $(m_k)_k$.
\begin{theorem}\label{th1}
Suppose the following conditions hold:
\noindent(a). $(\varepsilon_{t})_t$ is a sequence of independent $p$-dimensional real valued random vectors with independent entries $\varepsilon_{it}$, $i=1,\cdots, p$ satisfying
\[
\E (\varepsilon_{ij})=0,~\E (\varepsilon_{ij}^2)=1~
\]
and for any $\eta>0$,
\[
\frac{1}{\eta^4 pT}\sum_{i,j}\E \left(|\varepsilon_{ij}|^4I_{(|\varepsilon_{ij}|\geq \eta T^{1/4})}\right)\longrightarrow 0~\quad \text{as}~ p, T \rightarrow \infty;
\]
\noindent (b). $p$ and $T$ tend to infinity proportionally, that is,
\[
p \rightarrow \infty, ~T \rightarrow \infty,~ y_T:=p/T \rightarrow y \in (0,\infty)~.
\]
\noindent Then, with probability one, the empirical spectral distribution $F^{A_T}$ of the matrix $A_T$ in \eqref{at} tends to a limiting distribution $F$ whose $k$-th moment is given by:
\[
m_k=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\frac 1k \begin{pmatrix}
2k \\
i \\
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
k \\
i+1 \\
\end{pmatrix}y^{2k-1-i}~.
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Using the expression of the limiting moment above, we are able to derive that the Stieltjes transform of
$F$:
\[
s(z):=\int \frac{1}{x-z}dF(x)
\]
satisfies the following equation:
\begin{align}\label{se}
y^2z^2s^3(z)+y^2zs^2(z)-yzs^2(z)-zs(z)-1=0~,
\end{align}
which coincides with an earlier result in \cite{li} found by using the Stieltjes transform method.
Indeed, by the series expansion of the function $\frac{1}{1-x}$, the Stieltjes transform of a LSD can be expanded using its moments:
\begin{align*}
s(z)&=\int \frac{1}{x-z}dF(x)=-\frac 1z-\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{z^{i+1}}\cdot m_i\\
&=-\frac 1z-\frac 1z\cdot\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\frac{m_i}{z^{i}}~.
\end{align*}
Let $h(z)$ be the moment generating function of $m_i$:
\[
h(z)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} m_iz^i~,
\]
then the part $\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}m_i/z^{i}$ equals to $h(1/z)-1$. Therefore, we have the relationship between the Stieltjes transform $s(z)$ and the moment generating function $h(z)$:
\begin{align}\label{sh}
s(z)=-\frac 1zh\left(\frac 1z\right)~.
\end{align}
In the proof of Theorem \ref{th1}, we will see that $h$ satisfies
the equation:
\begin{align*}
xy^2h^3(x)+x(y-y^2)h^2(x)-h(x)+1=0~,
\end{align*}
which is detailed in Appendix, see \eqref{rh}.
Let $x=1/z$ in it and combine with \eqref{sh} leads to \eqref{se}.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}(of Theorem \ref{th1})
After truncation and centralization, see Appendix A in \cite{li}, we may assume in all the following that
\begin{align*}
|\varepsilon_{ij}|\leq \delta p^{1/4}:=M, ~\E(\varepsilon_{ij})=0, ~\var(\varepsilon_{ij})=1~.
\end{align*}
With a little bit calculation, we have
\begin{align*}
m_k(A_T)&= \frac 1p\sum_{{\bf i}=1}^T\sum_{{\bf j}=1}^p\frac{1}{T^{2k}}[\varepsilon_{j_1\,i_1}\varepsilon_{j_1\,i_2}\varepsilon_{j_2\,s+i_2}\varepsilon_{j_2\,s+i_3}\varepsilon_{j_3\,i_3}\varepsilon_{j_3\,i_4}\varepsilon_{j_4\,s+i_4}\varepsilon_{j_4\,s+i_5}\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\cdots \varepsilon_{j_{2k-1}\,i_{2k-1}}\varepsilon_{j_{2k-1}\,i_{2k}}\varepsilon_{j_{2k}\,s+i_{2k}}\varepsilon_{j_{2k}\,s+i_1}]\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{pT^{2k}}\sum_{\bf i,j}E_{Q({\bf i,j})}~,
\end{align*}
where the summation runs over all $Q(i,j)$-graph of length $4k$ as defined in Section \ref{graph}, the indices in ${\bf i}=(i_1, \cdots, i_{2k})$ run over $1,2,\cdots,T$ and the indices in ${\bf j}=(j_1, \cdots, j_{2k})$ run over $1,2,\cdots,p$. See the following Figure \ref{exp} for an illustration.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=13cm]{expection.eps}
\caption{\small The $Q(i,j)$-graph that corresponds to \eqref{etrak}.}\label{exp}
\end{figure}
Now suppose the pillar of the $Q$-graph in Figure \ref{exp} has $t$ noncoincident $I$-vertices and $s$ noncoincident $J$-vertices, which results in $s$ down innovation and $t-1$ up innovation (we make the convention that the first down edge is always a down innovation and the last up edge is not an innovation).
Then in the corresponding characteristic sequence $(d_1~u_1~\cdots~ d_{2k}~u_{2k})$, the number of ``1'' (``1'' only appears in the even position as it corresponds to the up edge) is $t-1$, the number of ``-1'' (``-1'' only appears in the odd position) is $2k-s$ and the sequence starts and ends with ``0''.
We classify the $Q$-graphs in Figure \ref{exp} into three categories:
Category 1 (denoted by $Q_1$) contains all the $Q$-graphs that in its pillar $M(Q)$, each down edge must coincide with one and only one up edge and its base $B(Q)$ is a tree of $2k$ edges. In this category, $t+s-1=2k$ and thus $s$ is suppressed for simplicity.
Category 2 (denoted by $Q_2$) contains all the $Q$-graphs that have at least one single vertical edge.
Category 3 (denoted by $Q_3$) contains all other $Q$-graphs.
The almost sure convergence of the ESD of $A_T$ will result from the following two assertions:
\begin{align}
\E (m_k(A_T))&=\frac 1p\sum_{{\bf i}=1}^T\sum_{{\bf j}=1}^p\frac{1}{T^{2k}}\E[\varepsilon_{j_1\,i_1}\varepsilon_{j_1\,i_2}\varepsilon_{j_2\,s+i_2}\varepsilon_{j_2\,s+i_3}\varepsilon_{j_3\,i_3}\varepsilon_{j_3\,i_4}\varepsilon_{j_4\,s+i_4}\varepsilon_{j_4\,s+i_5}\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\cdots \varepsilon_{j_{2k-1}\,i_{2k-1}}\varepsilon_{j_{2k-1}\,i_{2k}}\varepsilon_{j_{2k}\,s+i_{2k}}\varepsilon_{j_{2k}\,s+i_1}]\label{etrak}\\
&=\frac{1}{pT^{2k}}\sum_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}\E\left(E_{Q({\bf i},{\bf j})}\right)\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\frac 1k \begin{pmatrix}
2k \\
i \\
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
k \\
i+1 \\
\end{pmatrix}y_T^{2k-1-i}+o(1)~,\label{e}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{va}
&\quad~\var (m_k(A_T))\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{p^2T^{4k}}\sum_{{\bf i_1},{\bf j_1},{\bf i_2},{\bf j_2}}\left[\E\left(E_{Q_1({\bf i_1},{\bf j_1})}E_{Q_2({\bf i_2},{\bf j_2})}\right)-\E\left(E_{Q_1({\bf i_1},{\bf j_1})}\right)\E\left(E_{Q_2({\bf i_2},{\bf j_2})}\right)\right]\nonumber\\
&=O(p^{-2})~.
\end{align}
\noindent {\bf The proof of \eqref{e}.}
Since $\E \varepsilon_{ij}=0$, the only non-vanishing terms in \eqref{etrak} are those for which each edge in the $Q$-graph occurs at least twice. So the contribution of Category 2 is zero.
Next, we only consider those $Q$-graphs that fall in Category 1 and 3.
Denote $b_l$ the degree associated to the $I$-vertex $i_l$ $(1\leq l\leq t)$ in its corresponding $M$-pillar, then we have $b_1+\cdots+b_t=4k$, which is the total number of edges. On the other hand, since we glue the $I$-vertex $i_l$ and $i_l+s$ in the definition of $M$-pillar, each degree $b_l$ should be no less than $4$; otherwise, there will be some single vertical edges in the $Q$-graph, which results in Category 2. Therefore, we have
\begin{align*}
4k=b_1+\cdots+b_t\geq 4t~,
\end{align*}
which is $t\leq k$.
\medskip
\noindent\underline{Category 1:}
In Category 1, since in the $Q$-graph, each down edge must coincide with one and only one up edge, the total number of non-coincident edges is $2k$. Besides, due to the restriction that the base $B(Q)$ is a tree, we have $s+t-1=2k$ (according to the definition of a tree that $\#\{\text{edges}\}=\#\{\text{vertices}\}-1$), and this means that the summation over the elements in the corresponding characteristic sequence is zero (it is because we have the number of ``1'' equals $t-1$ and the number of ``-1'' equals $2k-s$).
The characteristic sequence of a $M$-pillar whose corresponding $Q$-graph lies in Category 1 has the following features (see Remark \ref{re1} and \ref{re2}):
\begin{enumerate}[{(1)}]
\item The total length of the characteristic sequence is $4k$;
\item The sequence starts with a zero and ends with a zero (the first down edge is a down innovation and the last up edge is not an innovation);
\item The number ``1'' appears only in the even position in the sequence and the number ``-1'' only in the odd position (down edges are in the odd position while up edges are in the even);
\item The total number of ``1'' in the characteristic sequence is $t-1$ ($t-1$ up innovation), which equals the total number of ``-1'';
\item The sequences are made with the following subsequence structure:
\begin{align}\label{sub}
& 1\underbrace{00}_{\text{two}}-1\nonumber\\
&1\underbrace{000000}_{\text{six}}-1\nonumber\\
&1\underbrace{0000000000}_{\text{ten}}-1\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad\cdots\nonumber\\
&1\underbrace{0000\cdots 00000}_{4k-6}-1~.
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
Denote $f_{t-1}(k)$ as the number of $Q$-graphs whose $M$-pillar satisfies the above condition (1)-(5) (here, we have two index: $t-1$, which is the number of up innovations and $k$, which is a quarter of the total length of the sequence), then we have the contribution of Category 1 to \eqref{etrak}:
\begin{align}\label{m1}
&\quad~\frac{1}{pT^{2k}}\cdot\sum_{t=1}^kT(T-1)\cdots (T-t+1)p(p-1)\cdots (p-s+1)f_{t-1}(k)\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{t=1}^k y_T^{2k-t}f_{t-1}(k)+O(\frac 1p)~.
\end{align}
\noindent\underline{Category 3:} Category 3 consists two situations, see the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{bai}]\label{lemmabai}
Denote the coincident multiplicities of the $l$-th noncoincident vertical edge by $a_l$, $l=1,2,\cdots, m$, where $m$ is the number of noncoincident vertical edges.
If $Q \in Q_3$, then (a) either there is a $a_l\geq 3$ with $t+s-1\leq m <2k$ or (b) all $a_l=2$ with $t+s-1<m=2k$.
\end{lemma}
First, we see the contribution of (a). By the moment assumption that the moment $\E |\varepsilon_{ij}|^a$ is bounded by $M^{a-2}$ for $a\geq 2$ and $a_1+\cdots +a_m=4k$, we conclude that the expectation
\begin{align*}
\E[\varepsilon_{j_1\,i_1}\varepsilon_{j_1\,i_2}\varepsilon_{j_2\,s+i_2}\varepsilon_{j_2\,s+i_3}\varepsilon_{j_3\,i_3}\varepsilon_{j_3\,i_4}\varepsilon_{j_4\,s+i_4}\varepsilon_{j_4\,s+i_5}\cdots \varepsilon_{j_{2k}\,s+i_{2k}}\varepsilon_{j_{2k}\,s+i_1}]
\end{align*}
in \eqref{etrak} has magnitude at most $M^{4k-2m}$. Then we have \eqref{etrak} bounded by
\begin{align}\label{b1}
&\quad \frac{1}{pT^{2k}}\cdot\sum_{t=1}^kT^tp^sM^{4k-2m}\#\{\text{isomorphism class in}~ Q_3\}\nonumber\\
&=O\left(\sum_{t=1}^kp^{t+s-k-m/2-1}\cdot \delta^{4k-2m}\right)~,
\end{align}
where the equality is due to the fact that $p$ and $T$ are in the same order and also for fixed $k$, the part $\#\{\text{isomorphism class in}~ Q_3\}$ is of order $O(1)$. Then
\begin{align}\label{q1}
\sum_{t=1}^kp^{t+s-k-m/2-1}\leq \sum_{t=1}^kp^{m-k-m/2}\leq \sum_{t=1}^kp^{\frac{2k-1}{2}-k}=O(p^{-1/2})~,
\end{align}
which is due to the assumption that $t+s-1\leq m <2k$, so the contribution of \eqref{b1} is $o(p^{-1/2})$.
Next, we consider the contribution of (b). Since all $a_l=2$, we have the part of expectation equals 1. Therefore, \eqref{etrak} is bounded by
\begin{align}\label{q2}
\frac{1}{pT^{2k}}\cdot\sum_{t=1}^kT^tp^s\#\{\text{isomorphism class in}~ Q_3\}=O\left(\sum_{t=1}^kp^{t+s-2k-1}\right)=O(1/p)~,
\end{align}
where the equation is due to the fact that $t+s\leq 2k$.
Therefore, combine \eqref{m1}, \eqref{q1} and \eqref{q2}, we finally have
\begin{align}\label{tr}
\E (m_k(A_T))=\sum_{t=1}^k y_T^{2k-t}f_{t-1}(k)+o(1)~.
\end{align}
To end the proof of \eqref{e}, we need to determine the value of $f_{t-1}(k)$. This involves complex combinatorics and analytic arguments and the details of the derivation is given in Section \ref{de}. Finally, using
\eqref{fmkfor} derived in Remark \ref{fff} that
\begin{align*}
f_m(k)=\frac 1k\begin{pmatrix}
2k \\
m \\
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
k \\
m+1 \\
\end{pmatrix}~,
\end{align*}
we have
\[\E (m_k(A_T))=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\frac 1k \begin{pmatrix}
2k \\
i \\
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
k \\
i+1 \\
\end{pmatrix}y_T^{2k-1-i}+o(1)~,
\]
which is \eqref{e}.
\bigskip
\noindent {\bf The proof of \eqref{va}.}
Recall
\begin{align*}
&\quad~\var (m_k(A_T))\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{p^2T^{4k}}\sum_{\bf{i_1},\bf{j_1},\bf{i_2},\bf{j_2}}\left[\E\left(E_{Q_1(\bf{i_1},\bf{j_1})}E_{Q_2(\bf{i_2},\bf{j_2})}\right)-\E\left(E_{Q_1(\bf{i_1},\bf{j_1})}\right)\E\left(E_{Q_2(\bf{i_2},\bf{j_2})}\right)\right]~.
\end{align*}
If $Q_1$ has no edges coincident with edges of $Q_2$, then
\[
\E\left(E_{Q_1(\bf{i_1},\bf{j_1})}E_{Q_2(\bf{i_2},\bf{j_2})}\right)-\E\left(E_{Q_1(\bf{i_1},\bf{j_1})}\right)\E\left(E_{Q_2(\bf{i_2},\bf{j_2})}\right)=0
\]
by independence between $E_{Q_1}$ and $E_{Q_2}$. If $Q=Q_1\bigcup Q_2$ has an overall single edge, then
\[
\E\left(E_{Q_1(\bf{i_1},\bf{j_1})}E_{Q_2(\bf{i_2},\bf{j_2})}\right)=\E\left(E_{Q_1(\bf{i_1},\bf{j_1})}\right)\E\left(E_{Q_2(\bf{i_2},\bf{j_2})}\right)=0~,
\]
so the contribution to
$\var (m_k(A_T))$ is also zero.
Now, suppose $Q=Q_1\bigcup Q_2$ contains no single edges, then there is at least one edge in $Q$ with multiplicity greater than or equal to 4, so the number of non-coincident I-vertices in $Q$ is at least $t_1+t_2-1$ and J-vertices is $s_1+s_2-1$. Since $t_1+s_1-1\leq2k$ and $t_2+s_2-1\leq2k$, we have
\begin{align*}
&\quad~\var (m_k(A_T))\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{p^2T^{4k}}\sum_{\bf{i_1},\bf{j_1},\bf{i_2},\bf{j_2}}\left[\E\left(E_{Q_1(\bf{i_1},\bf{j_1})}E_{Q_2(\bf{i_2},\bf{j_2})}\right)-\E\left(E_{Q_1(\bf{i_1},\bf{j_1})}\right)\E\left(E_{Q_2(\bf{i_2},\bf{j_2})}\right)\right]\\
&=O\left(\frac{1}{p^2T^{4k}}T^{t_1+t_2-1}p^{s_1+s_2-1}\right)\\
&=O(p^{-2})~,
\end{align*}
which is \eqref{va}.
\bigskip
\noindent {\bf Carleman condition.}
In \cite{li}, the density function that corresponds to the Stieltjes transform $s(z)$ in \eqref{se} has been derived and it has compact support $[a,b]$, where
\begin{align}
&a=\frac 18\left(-1+20y+8y^2-(1+8y)^{3/2}\right)\cdot\mathbbm{1}_{\{y\geq 1\}}~,\nonumber\\
&b=\frac 18\left(-1+20y+8y^2+(1+8y)^{3/2}\right)~.\label{b}
\end{align}
Therefore, we have
\begin{align}\label{mkb}
m_k=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\frac 1k \begin{pmatrix}
2k \\
i \\
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
k \\
i+1 \\
\end{pmatrix}y^{2k-1-i}\leq b^k~.
\end{align}
From this, it is easy to see that the Carleman condition \eqref{cal} is satisfied.
\noindent The proof of Theorem \ref{th1} is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
For the verification of Carleman condition, it would be enough to use the Stirling's formula in $m_k$ to derive a less sharp bound $m_k\leq A^k$ for some $A\geq b$. Since the sharp bound \eqref{mkb} will also be used in Section \ref{largest}, its early introduction is thus preferred.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{re1}
The explanation of (5) in \eqref{sub} is that in the original $Q$-graph, each vertical edge is repeated exactly twice, and then we glue the $I$-vertex $i_l$ and $i_l+s$ in its pillar $M(Q)$, therefore, the degree of each $I$-vertex is multiple of four, which implies that the length of each subsequence in \eqref{sub} is multiple of four.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{re2}
Note that in a characteristic sequence, subsequences in \eqref{sub} cannot intersect each other; for example, if we arrange two subsequences 1~0~0~-1 and 1~0~0~0~0~0~0~-1 in the characteristic sequence of length $4k=16$, then the following two structures are allowed:
\begin{align*}
\begin{array}{ll}
\text{0~\re{1}~0~0~0~0~0~0~\re{-1}~\bl{1}~0~0~\bl{-1}~0~0~0} & \text{(two subsequences are parallel)}~,\\
\text{0~\re{1}~0~\bl{1}~0~0~\bl{-1}~0~\re{-1}~0~0~0~0~0~0~0} & \text{(one is completely contained in another)}~;
\end{array}
\end{align*}
while
\begin{align*}
\begin{array}{ll}
\text{0~\re{1}~0~0~0~0~0~\bl{1}~\re{-1}~0~\bl{-1}~0~0~0~0~0} & \text{(two subsequences intersect each other)}
\end{array}
\end{align*}
is not.
\end{remark}
\section{Convergence of the largest eigenvalue of $A_T$}\label{largest}
Recall that due to \eqref{mkb} in the previous section, we have the following:
\begin{align*}
\E (m_k(A_T))&=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\frac 1k \begin{pmatrix}
2k \\
i \\
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
k \\
i+1 \\
\end{pmatrix}y_T^{2k-1-i}+o(1)\\
&\leq b(y_T)^k+o(1)
\end{align*}
for bounded $k$, where $b(y_T)$ is the value of $b$ in \eqref{b} while substituting $y_T$ for $y$. The main point in this section is to improve this estimation in order to allow a {\em growing} $k$ such that:
\begin{align}\label{ae}
\E (m_k(A_T))&=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\frac 1k \begin{pmatrix}
2k \\
i \\
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
k \\
i+1 \\
\end{pmatrix}y_T^{2k-1-i}\cdot(1+o_k(1))~,
\end{align}
where this $o_k(1)$ now (depending on $k$) tends to zero when $k\rightarrow \infty$.
For a moment, suppose we have already got \eqref{ae}, then we are able to control the largest eigenvalue of $A_T$, see the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{cb}
Under the same conditions as in Theorem \ref{th1}, the largest eigenvalue of $A_T$ converges to the right endpoint $b$ defined in \eqref{b} almost surely.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}(of Theorem \ref{cb})
First we show that almost surely,
\begin{align}\label{ll1}
\liminf l_1 \ge b~.
\end{align}
Indeed on the set $\{\liminf l_1<b\}$, we have $\liminf l_1<b-\delta$ for some $\delta=\delta(\omega)>0$.
Let $g:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{+}$ be a continuous and positive function supported on $[b-\delta,b]$, with $\int g(x)dF(x)=1$, where $F$ is the LSD of $F^{A_T}$. Then
\begin{align}
\liminf \int g(x)dF^{A_T}(x) \le 0~.
\end{align}
For such $\omega$, $F^{A_T}$ will not converge weakly to $F$. Since this convergence occurs almost surely by Theorem \ref{th1}, the Claim \eqref{ll1} is proved.
Next, we claim that for any $\delta>0$,
\begin{align}\label{ll2}
\sum_{p=1}^\infty P(l_1>b+\delta)<\infty~.
\end{align}
Write
\[
l_1-b=(l_1-b)^{+}-(l_1-b)^{-}~,
\]
with its positive and negative parts. Claim \eqref{ll2} implies that almost surely, $(l_1-b)^{+} \to 0$. Therefore, a.s.
\[
\limsup (l_1-b) \le \limsup (l_1-b)^{+}=0~.
\]
Combine with \eqref{ll1}, we have a.s. $\lim (l_1-b)=0$.
\noindent It remains to prove Claim \eqref{ll2}.
Since we have
\begin{align}\label{l}
&\quad ~P(l_1>b+\delta)\leq P(\tr A_T^k\geq (b+\delta)^k)\leq\frac{\E \tr A_T^k}{(b+\delta)^k}
=\frac{p\cdot\E(m_k(A_T))}{(b+\delta)^k}~,
\end{align}
and by \eqref{ae},
\begin{align*}
p\cdot\E (m_k(A_T))&=p\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\frac 1k \begin{pmatrix}
2k \\
i \\
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
k \\
i+1 \\
\end{pmatrix}y_T^{2k-1-i}\cdot(1+o_k(1))\\
&\leq \left(p^{1/k}b(y_T)\right)^k\cdot(1+o_k(1))\xrightarrow{p\rightarrow \infty} b^k~,
\end{align*}
where the last convergence is due to the choice of $k$ that $k=(\log p)^{1.01}$ (see Theorem \ref{largek}), so the term $p^{1/k}\rightarrow 1$ when $p \rightarrow \infty$.
Once we fixed this $\delta>0$ in \eqref{l}, then the right hand side tends to $\left(\frac{b}{b+\delta}\right)^k$, which is summable.
\noindent The proof of Theorem \ref{cb} is complete.
\end{proof}
The remaining of the section is devoted to deriving \eqref{ae} used in the proof above.
\begin{theorem}\label{largek}
Let the conditions in Theorem \ref{th1} hold, and $k$ is an integer of size $k=(\log p)^{1.01}$ (say). Then we have
\begin{align*}
\E (m_k(A_T))&=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\frac 1k \begin{pmatrix}
2k \\
i \\
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
k \\
i+1 \\
\end{pmatrix}y_T^{2k-1-i}\cdot(1+o_k(1))~.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}(of Theorem \ref{largek})
When $k \rightarrow \infty$, the term $\#\{\text{isomorphism class}\}$ in \eqref{b1} is no more a constant order. Then the main task is to show that the contribution of Category 3 to the $k$-th moment of $A_T$ when $k\rightarrow \infty$ can still be negligible compared with Category 1.
Since in Category 3, we have $t+s-1<2k$. Using the previous notion of the characteristic sequence, we have $\#\{1\}=t-1$ and $\#\{-1\}=2k-s$, and this is equivalent to the fact that $\#\{1\}<\#\{-1\}$.
First, we consider the case that $t=1$, which is to say $\#\{1\}=0$ and $\#\{-1\}=2k-s$. The way we choose $2k-s$ positions from the total $2k$ (the total number of length is $4k$, only the odd ones are allowed for ``-1'') is
$$\begin{pmatrix}
2k \\
2k-s \\
\end{pmatrix}.
$$
Then since we have $s$ noncoincident $J$-vertices on the $J$-line, the noncoincident vertical edges is at most $2s$ (since we have each edge repeated at least twice). Therefore, the expectation
\begin{align*}
\E[\varepsilon_{j_1\,i_1}\varepsilon_{j_1\,i_2}\varepsilon_{j_2\,s+i_2}\varepsilon_{j_2\,s+i_3}\varepsilon_{j_3\,i_3}\varepsilon_{j_3\,i_4}\varepsilon_{j_4\,s+i_4}\varepsilon_{j_4\,s+i_5}\cdots \varepsilon_{j_{2k}\,s+i_{2k}}\varepsilon_{j_{2k}\,s+i_1}]
\end{align*}
is bounded by $M^{4k-2s}$.
Therefore, we have the contribution to \eqref{etrak}:
\begin{align}\label{11}
&\quad \quad\frac{1}{pT^{2k}}\sum_{s=1}^{2k-1}Tp^sM^{4k-2s}\begin{pmatrix}
2k \\
2k-s \\
\end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\sqrt p}{\delta^2}\right)^{2k}p^{k-1}T^{1-2k}\delta^{4k}\sum_{s=1}^{2k-1}\left(\frac{\sqrt p}{\delta^2}\right)^{s-2k}\begin{pmatrix}
2k \\
s \\
\end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\sqrt p}{\delta^2}\right)^{2k}p^{k-1}T^{1-2k}\delta^{4k}\sum_{i=1}^{2k-1}\left(\frac{\delta^2}{\sqrt p}\right)^{i}\begin{pmatrix}
2k \\
i \\
\end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
&\leq\left(\frac{\sqrt p}{\delta^2}\right)^{2k}p^{k-1}T^{1-2k}\delta^{4k}\sum_{i=1}^{2k-1}\left(\frac{2k\delta^2}{\sqrt p}\right)^{i}\nonumber\\
&=O\left(\left(\frac{\sqrt p}{\delta^2}\right)^{2k}p^{k-1}T^{1-2k}\delta^{4k}\frac{2k\delta^2}{\sqrt p}\right)\nonumber\\
&=O\left(\frac{2k\delta^2}{\sqrt p}y^{2k-1}\right)~,
\end{align}
which is due to the fact that $k=(\log p)^{1.01}$.
Then consider the case that $t>1$. Since $\#\{1\}=t-1<\#\{-1\}=2k-s$, we can first construct a characteristic sequence that satisfies (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) in \eqref{sub}. Therefore, we have the degree of each $I$-vertex at least four and each edge in the $Q$-graph repeated exactly twice, which ensures that the $Q$-graph will not fall in Category 2. And the possible ways for constructing such a characteristic sequence is $f_{t-1}(k)$ by definition.
Since in the characteristic sequence, $2(t-1)$ positions have been taken to place the ``1'' and ``-1'', there leaves $4k-2(t-1)-2/2$ (the sequence starts and ends with a zero, so we should exclude the two positions at the beginning and at the end, and also ``-1'' appears in the odd positions, so we should divide it by two) positions to place the remaining ``-1'', whose number is $2k-t-s+1$, so the choice is bounded by
$$
\begin{pmatrix}
2k-t \\
2k-t-s+1 \\
\end{pmatrix}.
$$
Let $m$ be the number of noncoincident vertical edges, which is no less than $t+s-1$, see Lemma \ref{lemmabai}, then the expectation \begin{align*}
\E[\varepsilon_{j_1\,i_1}\varepsilon_{j_1\,i_2}\varepsilon_{j_2\,s+i_2}\varepsilon_{j_2\,s+i_3}\varepsilon_{j_3\,i_3}\varepsilon_{j_3\,i_4}\varepsilon_{j_4\,s+i_4}\varepsilon_{j_4\,s+i_5}\cdots \varepsilon_{j_{2k}\,s+i_{2k}}\varepsilon_{j_{2k}\,s+i_1}]
\end{align*}
is bounded by $M^{4k-2m}\leq M^{4k-2(t+s-1)}$. Finally, the contribution to \eqref{etrak} is bounded by:
\begin{align}\label{22}
&\quad \quad\frac{1}{pT^{2k}}\sum_{s}\sum_{t}M^{4k-2(t+s-1)}f_{t-1}(k)T^tp^s\begin{pmatrix}
2k-t \\
s-1 \\
\end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{pT^{2k}}\sum_{t=1}^kM^{4k-2t+2}f_{t-1}(k)T^t\sum_{s=1}^{2k-t}\left(\frac{p}{M^2}\right)^s\begin{pmatrix}
2k-t \\
s-1 \\
\end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{pT^{2k}}\sum_{t=1}^kM^{4k-2t+2}f_{t-1}(k)T^t\left(\frac{p}{M^2}\right)^{2k-t}\sum_{s=1}^{2k-t}\left(\frac{p}{M^2}\right)^{s-2k+t}\begin{pmatrix}
2k-t \\
s-1 \\
\end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{pT^{2k}}\sum_{t=1}^kM^{4k-2t+2}f_{t-1}(k)T^t\left(\frac{p}{M^2}\right)^{2k-t}\sum_{l=0}^{2k-t-1}\left(\frac{M^2}{p}\right)^{l}\begin{pmatrix}
2k-t \\
l+1 \\
\end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
&\leq\frac{1}{pT^{2k}}\sum_{t=1}^kM^{4k-2t+2}f_{t-1}(k)T^t\left(\frac{p}{M^2}\right)^{2k-t}\sum_{l=0}^{2k-t-1}\left(\frac{M^2}{p}\right)^{l}(2k-t)^{l+1}\nonumber\\
&=O\left(\frac{k}{pT^{2k}}\sum_{t=1}^kM^{4k-2t+2}f_{t-1}(k)T^t\left(\frac{p}{M^2}\right)^{2k-t}\right)\nonumber\\
&=O\left(\frac{k\delta^2}{\sqrt p}\sum_{t=0}^{k-1}\frac 1k \begin{pmatrix}
2k \\
t \\
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
k \\
t+1 \\
\end{pmatrix}y_T^{2k-t-1}~.
\right)
\end{align}
Combine \eqref{11}, \eqref{22} with the fact that $k=(\log p)^{1.01}$ leads to the fact that the contribution of $Q_3$ to \eqref{etrak} is
\begin{align*}
\sum_{t=0}^{k-1}\frac 1k \begin{pmatrix}
2k \\
t \\
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
k \\
t+1 \\
\end{pmatrix}y_T^{2k-t-1}\cdot o_k(1)~.
\end{align*}
The proof of Theorem \ref{largek} is complete.
\end{proof}
\section{Derivation of some master recursion formula}\label{de}
In this section, we derive some recursions that further leads to the results in Theorem \ref{th1}.
First recall the definition of $f_m(k)$, which is the number of $M$-pillars whose characteristic sequence satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}[{(1)}]
\item The total length of the characteristic sequence is $4k$;
\item The sequence starts with a zero and ends with a zero;
\item The number ``1'' appears only in the even position in the sequence and the number ``-1'' only in the odd position;
\item The total number of ``1'' in the characteristic sequence is $m$;
\item The sequences are made with the following subsequence structure:
\begin{align*}
& 1\underbrace{00}_{\text{two}}-1\nonumber\\
&1\underbrace{000000}_{\text{six}}-1\nonumber\\
&1\underbrace{0000000000}_{\text{ten}}-1\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad\cdots\nonumber\\
&1\underbrace{0000\cdots 00000}_{4k-6}-1~.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
Also, we define another $M$-pillar, whose characteristic sequence also satisfies the above condition $(1)(3)(4)(5)$, but with $(2)$ replaced by the following $(2)^{*}$:
\begin{center}
$(2)^{*}$ The sequence starts with a zero and ends with three zeros.
\end{center}
\noindent We denote $g_m(k)$ as the number of such $M$-pillar satisfying $(1)(2)^{*}(3)(4)(5)$.
\subsection{Master recursions related to $f_m(k)$ and $g_m(k)$}
In this subsection, we derive two master recursions related to $f_m(k)$ and $g_m(k)$.
Once a characteristic sequence with length $2k$ is given, we denote $S_n$ ($1\leq n\leq2k$) as the partial sums of its first $n$ elements. We plot the points $(n,S_n)$, then connect $(n,S_n)$ and $(n+1,S_{n+1})$ with a straight line segment. For example, the random walk that corresponds to the characteristic sequence (0~1~0~1~0~0~-1~0~-1~0~0~0) is in the following Figure \ref{ran}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{random.eps}
\caption{\small The random walk that corresponds to the characteristic sequence (0~1~0~1~0~0~-1~0~-1~0~0~0).}\label{ran}
\end{figure}
\begin{definition}
We say that there is a \textbf{return to the origin} at time $n$, if $S_n=0$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
A random walk is said to have a \textbf{first return to the origin} at time $n$, if $n>0$, and $S_{m}\neq 0$ for all $m<n$.
\end{definition}
\noindent In Figure \ref{ran}, the first return occurs at time $n=9$.
\smallskip
\subsubsection{Master recursion $1$}
First, we start with $f_m(k)$. Suppose the first return occurs at time $i$ and $\max_{0\leq n\leq i} S_n=s$, which means that in the corresponding characteristic sequence, the number of ``1'' is $s$. For the reason that the length of the subsequence structures list in (5) are all multiplicity of four and condition (2), all the possibilities of $i$ are $i=5,7, \cdots, 4k-3, 4k-1$, we divide it into two cases:
\begin{align*}
\begin{array}{lll}
\text{Case ~1}: & i_1=4j-3 & 2 \leq j\leq k~,\\
\text{Case ~2}: & i_2=4j-1 & 2 \leq j\leq k~.
\end{array}
\end{align*}
We partition the random walk into two parts according to the first return, see Figure \ref{twoparts}.
\noindent Case 1:
First, we consider the second part, which is of length $4k-i_1=4k-4j+3$, with the number of ``1'' being $m-s$ in its corresponding characteristic sequence. But this time, the sequence may not start with a ``0'' (once it returns to the origin, it can depart immediately, and in this case, the sequence starts with a ``1''). Therefore, we add a zero in the front artificially, leading to a total length of $4k-4j+4$, which starts and ends with a zero. So the way of constructing such a sequence is $f_{m-s}(k-j+1)$. Then consider the first part, which has a total length of $i_1$. Suppose the first departure from the origin is at time $n-1$, where $n=2,~6,~\cdots, ~i_1-7,~i_1-3$ (also, it means that the first arrival at 1 is at the time $n$), then if we move the axes to the point $(n,1)$ (see the blue axes in Figure \ref{twoparts}, the original axes are in black) and consider the random walk above the new x-axe (see the red parts in Figure \ref{twoparts}), which has the length $i_1-n-1$. Further, this random walk starts and ends with a zero, and if we add two more zeros in its end, it will lead to a random walk with a total length of $i_1-n+1=4j-n-2$, starts with a zero and ends with three zeros, with the number of ``1'' being $s-1$. Therefore, the number of such random walk is $g_{s-1}(\frac{4j-n-2}{4})$ according to the definition.
So we have got the total contribution of Case 1 is:
\begin{align}\label{c11}
\Sum{s=1, \cdots, m}{j=2, \cdots, k}\left(\sum_{n=2}^{4j-6}g_{s-1}\left(\frac{4j-n-2}{4}\right)\right)\cdot f_{m-s}(k-j+1)~.
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{twoparts.eps}
\caption{\small Illustration of $f_m(k)$.}\label{twoparts}
\end{figure}
\noindent Case 2:
We follow the same route as in Case 1. After the first return, the remaining length is $4k-i_2=4k-4j+1$, then we add a zero in front and two zeros in the end, which leads to a random walk of total length $4k-4j+4$, starts with a zero and ends with three zeros. And the number of ``1'' is $m-s$. By definition, the way of constructing such a random walk is $g_{m-s}(k-j+1)$. Then for the first part, also suppose the first departure from the origin is at time $n-1$ $(n=4,~8,~\cdots, ~i_2-7,~i_2-3)$ and consider the part of the random walk that is above the new x-axes (with the new origin located at $(n,1)$), which is of total length $i_2-n-1$. Then we add two more zeros in the end, results in a random walk of total length $i_2-n+1=4j-n$, starts with a zero and ends with three zeros, and the number of ``1'' is $s-1$. The way of constructing such a random walk is $g_{s-1}(\frac{4j-n}{4})$. And combine these two parts, the contribution of Case 2 is:
\begin{align}\label{c21}
\Sum{s=1, \cdots, m}{j=2, \cdots, k}\left(\sum_{n=4}^{4j-4}g_{s-1}\left(\frac{4j-n}{4}\right)\right)\cdot g_{m-s}(k-j+1)~.
\end{align}
\noindent Overall, combine \eqref{c11} and \eqref{c21} leads to the following recursion:
\begin{align}\label{fm}
f_{m}(k)&=\Sum{s=1, \cdots, m}{j=2, \cdots, k}\left(\sum_{n=2}^{4j-6}g_{s-1}\left(\frac{4j-n-2}{4}\right)\right)\cdot f_{m-s}(k-j+1)\nonumber\\
&\quad~+\Sum{s=1, \cdots, m}{j=2, \cdots, k}\left(\sum_{n=4}^{4j-4}g_{s-1}\left(\frac{4j-n}{4}\right)\right)\cdot g_{m-s}(k-j+1)\nonumber\\
&=\Sum{s=1, \cdots, m}{j=2, \cdots, k}\left(\sum_{n=4}^{4j-4}g_{s-1}\left(\frac{4j-n}{4}\right)\right)\cdot \left[f_{m-s}(k-j+1)+g_{m-s}(k-j+1)\right]~.
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Master recursion $2$}
Then we start with $g_m(k)$.
Also suppose the first return time is $i$, where $i=5,7,\cdots,4k-5,4k-3$ (in the definition of $g_m(k)$, the characteristic sequence ends with three zeros, so the maximum value of $i$ is $4k-3$ here). We divide these $i$ into two parts:
\begin{align*}
\begin{array}{lll}
\text{Case ~1}: & i_1=4j-5 & 3 \leq j\leq k ~,\\
\text{Case ~2}: & i_2=4j-3 & 2 \leq j\leq k~.
\end{array}
\end{align*}
As before, we suppose the number of ``1'' is $s$ in the first part.
\smallskip
\noindent Case 1:
First for the second part, which ends with three zeros but may not start with a zero. Since the total length is $4k-i_1=4k-4j+5$, if we add a zero in its beginning and remove the last two zeros, then it will result in a random walk whose characteristic sequence starts and ends with a zero, whose length is $4k-4j+5+1-2=4k-4j+4$, with the number of ``1'' being $m-s$. The total number of constructing such a random walk is $f_{m-s}(k-j+1)$. Then for the first part, suppose the first departure from the origin is at time $n-1$, where $n=4,8,\cdots, i_1-7, i_1-3$. We do the same thing as before, add the new axes whose origin is located at $(n,1)$. Then we consider the part above this new x-axe, see also the red part in Figure \ref{gmktwoparts}, whose length is $i_1-n-1$. We add two more zeros in the end, it actually becomes the random walk with a total length of $i_1-n+1=4j-n-4$, starts with a zero and ends with three zeros, with the number of ``1'' being $s-1$. The way of constructing such a random walk is $g_{s-1}\left(\frac{4j-n-4}{4}\right)$. Combine all this, the contribution of Case 1 is
\begin{align}\label{c12}
\Sum{s=1, \cdots, m}{j=3, \cdots, k}\left(\sum_{n=4}^{4j-8}g_{s-1}\left(\frac{4j-n-4}{4}\right)\right)\cdot f_{m-s}(k-j+1)~.
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{gmktwoparts.eps}
\caption{\small Illustration of $g_m(k)$.}\label{gmktwoparts}
\end{figure}
\noindent Case 2:
For the second part, we add a zero in the front, which leads to a random walk of total length $4k-i_2+1=4k-4j+4$, starts with a zero and ends with three zeros, with the number of ``1'' being $m-s$, so the way of constructing such a random walk is $g_{m-s}(k-j+1)$.
Then for the first part, we also consider the part that above the new x-axe. Since $n=2,6,\cdots, i_2-7,i_2-3$ this time, we add two more zeros in the end and this leads to a random walk with total length of $i_2-n+1=4j-3-n+1$, starts with a zero and ends with three zeros, with the number of ``1'' being $s-1$, and the total way of constructing such a random walk is $g_{s-1}\left(\frac{4j-2-n}{4}\right)$.
Combine these two parts, the contribution of Case 2 is
\begin{align}\label{c22}
\Sum{s=1, \cdots, m}{j=2, \cdots, k}\left(\sum_{n=2}^{4j-6}g_{s-1}\left(\frac{4j-n-2}{4}\right)\right)\cdot g_{m-s}(k-j+1)~.
\end{align}
Combine \eqref{c12} and \eqref{c22} leads to the recursion that
\begingroup
\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{eqnarray}\label{gm}
g_m(k)&=&\Sum{s=1, \cdots, m}{j=3, \cdots, k}\left(\sum_{n=4}^{4j-8}g_{s-1}\left(\frac{4j-n-4}{4}\right)\right)\cdot f_{m-s}(k-j+1)\nonumber\\
&&\quad+\Sum{s=1, \cdots, m}{j=2, \cdots, k}\left(\sum_{n=2}^{4j-6}g_{s-1}\left(\frac{4j-n-2}{4}\right)\right)\cdot g_{m-s}(k-j+1)\nonumber\\
&=&\Sum{s=1, \cdots, m}{j=3, \cdots, k}\left(\sum_{n=6}^{4j-6}g_{s-1}\left(\frac{4j-n-2}{4}\right)\right)\cdot (f_{m-s}(k-j+1)+g_{m-s}(k-j+1))\nonumber\\
&&\quad+\Sum{s=1,\cdots,m}{j=2,\cdots,k}g_{s-1}(j-1)g_{m-s}(k-j+1)\nonumber\\
&=&\Sum{s=1, \cdots, m}{j=3, \cdots, k}\left(\sum_{n=8}^{4j-4}g_{s-1}\left(\frac{4j-n}{4}\right)\right)\cdot (f_{m-s}(k-j+1)+g_{m-s}(k-j+1))\nonumber\\
&&\quad+\Sum{s=1,\cdots,m}{j=2,\cdots,k}g_{s-1}(j-1)g_{m-s}(k-j+1)~.
\end{eqnarray}
\endgroup
As a result, \eqref{fm} and \eqref{gm} lead to the two recursions that related to $f_m(k)$ and $g_m(k)$:
\begin{align}\label{fg1}
&\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
f_{m}(k)-g_{m}(k)=\displaystyle\Sum{s=1,\cdots, m}{j=2, \cdots, k} g_{s-1}(j-1)f_{m-s}(k-j+1)\\[10mm]
g_{m}(k)=\displaystyle\Sum{s=1, \cdots, m}{j=3, \cdots, k}\left(\sum_{l=2}^{j-1}g_{s-1}(j-l)\right)\cdot \left(f_{m-s}(k-j+1)+g_{m-s}(k-j+1)\right)\\[3mm]
\end{array}
\right.\nonumber\\
&\quad \quad\quad\quad\quad+\displaystyle\Sum{s=1,\cdots,m}{j=2,\cdots,k}g_{s-1}(j-1)g_{m-s}(k-j+1)
\end{align}
\subsection{Recursions related to $F_k(z)$ and $G_k(z)$}
Define $F_k(z)=\sum_{m=0}^kf_{m}(k)z^m$ and $G_k(z)=\sum_{m=0}^kg_{m}(k)z^m$.
Recall the definition of $f_m(k)$ and $g_{m}(k)$, where $m\leq k-1$, so we make the convention that $f_k(k)=g_k(k)=0$ and $f_0(k)=g_0(k)=1$. In this subsection, the main purpose is to derive the following two recursions that related to $F_k(z)$ and $G_k(z)$:
\begin{align}\label{fkgk}
&\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
F_k(z)-G_k(z)=z\displaystyle\sum_{j=2}^kG_{j-1}(z)\cdot F_{k-j+1}(z)\\[5mm]
G_k(z)=1+z\displaystyle\sum_{j=3}^k\sum_{l=2}^{j-1}G_{j-l}(z)\left(F_{k-j+1}(z)+G_{k-j+1}(z)\right)
\end{array}
\right.\nonumber\\
&\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad +z\displaystyle\sum_{j=2}^kG_{j-1}(z)G_{k-j+1}(z)~.
\end{align}
By multiplying $z^m$ on both sides in the first recursion in \eqref{fg1},
and then summing from $m=1$ to $k$,
the left side equals to:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{m=1}^kf_{m}(k)z^m-\sum_{m=1}^kg_{m}(k)z^m&=\sum_{m=0}^kf_{m}(k)z^m-\sum_{m=0}^kg_{m}(k)z^m\\
&=F_k(z)-G_k(z)~,
\end{align*}
and the right side equals to
\begin{align}\label{1}
z\sum_{m=1}^k\Sum{s=1,\cdots, m}{j=2, \cdots, k} g_{s-1}(j-1)z^{s-1}\cdot f_{m-s}(k-j+1)z^{m-s}~.
\end{align}
Now consider
\begin{align*}
G_{j-1}(z)\cdot F_{k-j+1}(z)&=\sum_{m=0}^{j-1}g_{m}(j-1)z^m\cdot \sum_{n=0}^{k-j+1}f_{n}(k-j+1)z^n\\
&:=\sum_{s=0}^ka_s\cdot z^s~,
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align}\label{as}
&s=m+n~,\nonumber\\
&a_s=\sum_{m+n=s}g_{m}(j-1)f_{n}(k-j+1)~.
\end{align}
Then \eqref{1} equals to
\begin{align*}
z\sum_{j=2}^k\sum_{m=1}^ka_{m-1}\cdot z^{m-1}&=z\sum_{j=2}^k\sum_{m=0}^{k-1}a_{m}\cdot z^{m}=z\sum_{j=2}^k\sum_{m=0}^{k}a_{m}\cdot z^{m}\\
&=z\sum_{j=2}^kG_{j-1}(z)\cdot F_{k-j+1}(z)~,
\end{align*}
where the second equality is due to the fact that $a_k=0$ (since in \eqref{as}, we have $m\leq j-2$ and $n \leq k-j$ by definition, then $s=m+n \leq k-2$, so the term $a_{k-1}=a_k=0$).
Therefore, we have got
\begin{align*}
F_k(z)-G_k(z)=z\sum_{j=2}^kG_{j-1}(z)\cdot F_{k-j+1}(z)~,
\end{align*}
which is the first recursion in \eqref{fkgk}.
Next, from the second recursion in \eqref{fg1}, we have:
\begin{align}\label{gmk}
g_{m}(k)&=\underbrace{\Sum{s=1, \cdots, m}{j=3, \cdots, k}\left(\sum_{l=2}^{j-1}g_{s-1}(j-l)\right)\cdot \left(f_{m-s}(k-j+1)+g_{m-s}(k-j+1)\right)}_{(\rom{1})}\nonumber\\
&+\underbrace{\Sum{s=1,\cdots,m}{j=2,\cdots,k}g_{s-1}(j-1)g_{m-s}(k-j+1)}_{(\rom{2})}~.
\end{align}
\noindent Consider
\begin{align}
G_{j-l}(z)F_{k-j+1}(z)&=\sum_{u=0}^{j-l}g_{u}(j-l)z^u\cdot \sum_{v=0}^{k-j+1}f_{v}(k-j+1)z^v\nonumber\\
&:=\sum_{n=0}^{k+1-l}b_nz^n~,
\end{align}
where $n=u+v$, $b_n=\sum_{u+v=n}g_{u}(j-l)f_{v}(k-j+1)$, also, we have $u\leq j-l-1$ and $v\leq k-j$, which leads to $n=u+v\leq k-l-1$, so the terms that correspond to $n=k-l+1,~k-l$ equal zero.
For the same reason,
\begin{align}
G_{j-l}(z)G_{k-j+1}(z)&=\sum_{u=0}^{j-l}g_{u}(j-l)z^u\cdot \sum_{v=0}^{k-j+1}g_{v}(k-j+1)z^v\nonumber\\
&:=\sum_{n=0}^{k+1-l}c_nz^n~,
\end{align}
where $n=u+v$, $c_n=\sum_{u+v=n}g_{u}(j-l)g_{v}(k-j+1)$ and the terms that correspond to $n=k-l+1,~k-l$ equal zero.
And
\begin{align}
G_{j-1}(z)G_{k-j+1}(z)&=\sum_{u=0}^{j-l}g_{u}(j-l)z^u\cdot \sum_{v=0}^{k-j+1}g_{v}(k-j+1)z^v\nonumber\\
&:=\sum_{n=0}^{k}d_nz^n~,
\end{align}
where $n=u+v$, $d_n=\sum_{u+v=n}g_{u}(j-1)g_{v}(k-j+1)$ and the terms that correspond to $n=k,~k-1$ equal zero since $u\leq j-2$ and $v\leq k-j$ lead to $n=u+v \leq k-2$.
We multiply $z^m$ on both sides of \eqref{gmk} and sum from $m=1$ to $k$, then the left side equals to
\begin{align}\label{left}
G_k(z)-1~.
\end{align}
Now consider the part $(\rom1)$:
\begin{align}\label{r1}
\sum_{m=1}^k(\rom1)\cdot z^m&=\sum_{m=1}^k\sum_{j=3}^k\sum_{l=2}^{j-1}(b_{m-1}+c_{m-1})\cdot z^m\nonumber\\
&=z\sum_{j=3}^k\sum_{l=2}^{j-1}\left[\sum_{n=0}^{k-1}b_nz^n+\sum_{n=0}^{k-1}c_nz^n\right]\nonumber\\
&=z\sum_{j=3}^k\sum_{l=2}^{j-1}\left[\sum_{n=0}^{k-l-1}b_nz^n+\sum_{n=0}^{k-l-1}c_nz^n\right]\nonumber\\
&=z\sum_{j=3}^k\sum_{l=2}^{j-1}\left[\sum_{n=0}^{k-l+1}b_nz^n+\sum_{n=0}^{k-l+1}c_nz^n\right]\nonumber\\
&=z\sum_{j=3}^k\sum_{l=2}^{j-1}\left[G_{j-l}(z)F_{k-j+1}(z)+G_{j-l}(z)G_{k-j+1}(z)\right]~.
\end{align}
And for the part $(\rom2)$,
\begin{align}\label{r2}
\sum_{m=1}^k(\rom2)\cdot z^m&=\sum_{m=1}^k\sum_{j=2}^kd_{m-1}\cdot z^m=z\sum_{j=2}^k\sum_{m=0}^{k-1}d_{m}\cdot z^{m}\nonumber\\
&=z\sum_{j=2}^k\sum_{m=0}^{k}d_{m}\cdot z^{m}=z\sum_{j=2}^kG_{j-1}(z)G_{k-j+1}(z).
\end{align}
Combining \eqref{gmk}, \eqref{left}, \eqref{r1} and \eqref{r2}, we have got
\begin{align*}
G_k(z)&=1+z\sum_{j=3}^k\sum_{l=2}^{j-1}\left[G_{j-l}(z)F_{k-j+1}(z)+G_{j-l}(z)G_{k-j+1}(z)\right]\nonumber\\
&\quad +z\sum_{j=2}^kG_{j-1}(z)G_{k-j+1}(z)~,
\end{align*}
which is the second recursion in \eqref{fkgk}.
\subsection{Equations related to $F(z,x)$ and $G(z,x)$}
Define $F(z,x)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}F_k(z)x^k$, $G(z,x)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}G_k(z)x^k$ and the term that corresponding to $k=0$ equals $0$. In this section, we derive the following equations:
\begin{align}\label{FG}
&\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
F(z,x)-G(z,x)=zF(z,x)G(z,x)~,\\[2mm]
G(z,x)=\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}x^k+z\displaystyle\sum_{k=2}^{\infty}F(z,x)G(z,x)x^{k-1}+z\displaystyle\sum_{k=2}^{\infty}G(z,x)G(z,x)x^{k-1}
\end{array}
\right.\nonumber\\
&\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad +zG(z,x)G(z,x)~,
\end{align}
which will lead to the solutions of $F(z,x)$ and $G(z,x)$ as functions of $z$ and $x$.
Since the first recursion in \eqref{fkgk}:
\begin{align*}
F_k(z)-G_k(z)=z\sum_{j=2}^kG_{j-1}(z)\cdot F_{k-j+1}(z)~,
\end{align*}
we multiply $x^k$ on both sides and do summation from $k=1$ to $\infty$, then the left side is exactly $F(z,x)-G(z,x)$.
The right side is
\begin{align*}
z\sum_{k=2}^{\infty}\sum_{j=2}^kG_{j-1}(z)F_{k-j+1}(z)x^k=zF(z,x)G(z,x)~,
\end{align*}
which leads to the first equation in \eqref{FG}:
\begin{align*}
F(z,x)-G(z,x)=zF(z,x)G(z,x)~.
\end{align*}
Then we denote the second recursion in \eqref{fkgk} as follows:
\begin{align}
G_k(z)&=1+\underbrace{z\sum_{j=3}^k\sum_{l=2}^{j-1}G_{j-l}(z)F_{k-j+1}(z)}_{(\rom1)}+\underbrace{z\sum_{j=3}^k\sum_{l=2}^{j-1}G_{j-l}(z)G_{k-j+1}(z)}_{(\rom2)}\nonumber\\
&\quad+\underbrace{z\sum_{j=2}^kG_{j-1}(z)G_{k-j+1}(z)}_{(\rom3)}~.
\end{align}
We multiply $x^k$ on both sides and then do summation from $k=1$ to $\infty$, the left side equals $G(z,x)$.
The part $(\rom1)$:
\begin{align}\label{p1}
\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}(\rom1)\cdot x^k&=z\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{j=3}^k\sum_{l=2}^{j-1}G_{j-l}(z)F_{k-j+1}(z)x^k\nonumber\\
&=z\sum_{k=3}^{\infty}\sum_{l=2}^{k-1}\left(\sum_{j=l+1}^{k}G_{j-l}(z)x^{j-l}\cdot F_{k-j+1}(z)x^{k-j+1}\right)\cdot x^{l-1}\nonumber\\
&=z\sum_{l=2}^{\infty}\left(\sum_{k=l+1}^{\infty}\sum_{j=l+1}^{k}G_{j-l}(z)x^{j-l}\cdot F_{k-j+1}(z)x^{k-j+1}\right)\cdot x^{l-1}\nonumber\\
&=z\sum_{l=2}^{\infty}F(z,x)G(z,x) x^{l-1}~,
\end{align}
and for the same reason, the contribution of part $(\rom2)$ equals
\begin{align}\label{p2}
z\sum_{l=2}^{\infty}G(z,x)G(z,x) x^{l-1}~.
\end{align}
Lastly for the part $(\rom3)$:
\begin{align}\label{p3}
z\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{j=2}^kG_{j-1}(z)G_{k-j+1}(z)x^k&=z\sum_{k=2}^{\infty}\sum_{j=2}^kG_{j-1}(z)x^{j-1}\cdot G_{k-j+1}(z)x^{k-j+1}\nonumber\\
&=zG(z,x)G(z,x).
\end{align}
Finally, combining \eqref{p1}, \eqref{p2} and \eqref{p3} leads to:
\begin{align*}
G(z,x)&=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}x^k+z\sum_{k=2}^{\infty}F(z,x)G(z,x)x^{k-1}+z\sum_{k=2}^{\infty}G(z,x)G(z,x)x^{k-1}\nonumber\\
&\quad +zG(z,x)G(z,x)~,
\end{align*}
which is the second equation in \eqref{FG}.
\subsection{Exact formula for $m_k$}
First, since $F(z,x)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}F_k(z)x^k$, we have
\begin{align}\label{FK}
F_k(z)=\frac{1}{k!}\cdot \left.\frac{\partial F(z,x)}{\partial x^k}\right|_{x=0}~.
\end{align}
In the following, we will use the shorthands $F=F(z,x)$, $G=G(z,x)$ and $F_k=F_k(z)$. In \eqref{FG}, we can first express $G$ in function of $F$ using the first equation and then derive from the second equation that
\begin{align*}
F=\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}x^l\cdot (1+z^2F^2+2zF+zF^2+z^2F^3+zF^2)~.
\end{align*}
Taking $k$-th derivative on both sides with respect to $x$ and combining with \eqref{FK}, we have:
\begin{align}\label{fffk}
F_k&=1+2z\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}F_{j}+(z^2+2z)\sum_{l=2}^{k-1}\Sum{a+b=l}{a,b\geq 1}F_aF_b+z^2\sum_{l=3}^{k-1}\Sum{a+b+c=l}{a,b,c\geq 1}F_aF_bF_c~.
\end{align}
Due to the definition of $m_k$ that $m_k
=y^{2k-1}F_{k}\left(\frac {1}{y}\right)$, substituting $1/y$ for $z$ in \eqref{fffk} and multiplying both sides by $y^{2k-1}$, we get the recursion for $m_k$:
\begin{align}\label{mk1}
m_k&=y^{2k-1}+\frac 2y \sum_{j=1}^{k-1}m_j\cdot y^{2k-2j}+(\frac{1}{y^2}+\frac 2y)\sum_{l=2}^{k-1}\Sum{a+b=l}{a,b\geq 1}m_am_b\cdot y^{2k-2l+1}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{y^2}\sum_{l=3}^{k-1}\Sum{a+b+c=l}{a,b,c\geq 1}m_am_bm_c\cdot y^{2k-2l+2}~.
\end{align}
Then we substitute $k-1$ for $k$ in \eqref{mk1} and multiply both sides by $y^2$, which is the following equation:
\begin{align}\label{mk2}
y^2\cdot m_{k-1}&=y^{2k-1}+\frac 2y \sum_{j=1}^{k-2}m_j\cdot y^{2k-2j}+(\frac{1}{y^2}+\frac 2y)\sum_{l=2}^{k-2}\Sum{a+b=l}{a,b\geq 1}m_am_b\cdot y^{2k-2l+1}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{y^2}\sum_{l=3}^{k-2}\Sum{a+b+c=l}{a,b,c\geq 1}m_am_bm_c\cdot y^{2k-2l+2}~.
\end{align}
\noindent By combining \eqref{mk1} and \eqref{mk2}, we have:
\begin{align}\label{mk3}
m_k&=(2y+y^2)m_{k-1}+(y+2y^2)\cdot\Sum{a+b=k-1}{a,b\geq 1}m_am_b+y^2\cdot\Sum{a+b+c=k-1}{a,b,c\geq 1}m_am_bm_c~.
\end{align}
By the definition of $m_k$ that $m_0=1$, we have
\begin{align}\label{mk4}
&\Sum{a+b+c=k-1}{a,b,c\geq 1}m_am_bm_c=\Sum{a+b+c=k-1}{a,b,c\geq 0}m_am_bm_c-3\Sum{a+b=k-1}{a,b\geq 1}m_am_b-3m_{k-1}~,\nonumber\\
&\Sum{a+b=k-1}{a,b\geq 1}m_am_b=\Sum{a+b=k-1}{a,b\geq 0}m_am_b-2m_{k-1}~.
\end{align}
Bringing these two equations in \eqref{mk4} into \eqref{mk3}, we get:
\begin{align}\label{rm}
y^2 \Sum{a+b+c=k-1}{a,b,c\geq 0}m_am_bm_c+(y-y^2)\Sum{a+b=k-1}{a,b\geq 0}m_am_b=m_k~.
\end{align}
Let $h(x)$ be the moment generating function: $h(x)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}m_k x^k$,
the we multiply $x^k$ on both sides of \eqref{rm} and do summation from $k=1$ to $\infty$ and combine with the fact that
\begin{align}\label{hx}
h(x)=1+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}m_k x^k~,
\end{align} we have the following equality:
\begin{align}\label{rh}
xy^2h^3(x)+x(y-y^2)h^2(x)-h(x)+1=0~.
\end{align}
Based on the theory of B\"{u}rmann-Lagrange series, see Page 145 of \cite{polya}, and let $z=h(x)-1$ and $\varphi=y^2(z+1)^3+(y-y^2)(z+1)^2$, we may invert \eqref{rh} to obtain that
\begin{align*}
z=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \left.\frac{w^n}{n!}\left[\frac{d^{n-1}\left[y^n(z+1)^{2n}(yz+1)^n\right]}{dz^{n-1}}\right]\right|_{z=0}~,
\end{align*}
where $w=z/\varphi=x$.
Then based on the Leibniz's rule in differential calculus,
we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{d^{n-1}\left[(z+1)^{2n}(yz+1)^n\right]}{dz^{n-1}}= \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\begin{pmatrix}
n-1 \\
i \\
\end{pmatrix}
\left[\frac{d^i\left[(z+1)^{2n}\right]}{dz^i}\cdot \frac{d^{n-1-i}\left[(yz+1)^n\right]}{dz^{n-1-i}}\right]~,
\end{align*}
which leads to the fact that
\begin{align*}
h(x)=1+z=1+\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left[\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\frac 1n \begin{pmatrix}
2n \\
i \\
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
n \\
i+1 \\
\end{pmatrix}y^{2n-1-i}
\right]\cdot x^n~,
\end{align*}
and this is equivalent to
\begin{align}\label{mk}
m_k=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\frac 1k \begin{pmatrix}
2k \\
i \\
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
k \\
i+1 \\
\end{pmatrix}y^{2k-1-i}~.
\end{align}
\begin{remark}\label{fff}
Since
\begin{align*}
m_k=y^{2k-1}F_k\left(\frac 1y\right)=y^{2k-1}\sum_{m=0}^kf_m(k)\frac{1}{y^m}=\sum_{m=0}^{k-1}f_m(k)y^{2k-1-m}~,
\end{align*}
\eqref{mk} reduces to the fact that
\begin{align}\label{fmkfor}
f_m(k)=\frac 1k\begin{pmatrix}
2k \\
m \\
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
k \\
m+1 \\
\end{pmatrix}~.
\end{align}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The recursion \eqref{rm} has a remarkable nature. Notice that the recursion
\[
c_k=\Sum{a+b=k-1}{a,b\geq 0}c_ac_b
\]
and
\[
d_k=\Sum{a+b+c=k-1}{a,b,c\geq 0} d_ad_bd_c
\]
define the (standard) Catalan numbers and the generalized Catalan numbers of order three, respectively (see \cite{hp}). The moment sequence $(m_k)$ of the LSD of this paper can be thought as a complex combination of these two families of Catalan numbers.
\end{remark}
|
\section{Introduction}
There are various approaches to solve parabolic problems on evolving surfaces. A starting point of the finite element approximation to (elliptic) surface partial differential equations is the paper of \cite{Dziuk88}, later this theory was extended to general parabolic equations on stationary surfaces by \cite{DziukElliott_SFEM}. They introduced the \emph{evolving surface finite element method} (ESFEM) to discretize parabolic partial differential equations on moving surfaces, c.f.\ \cite{DziukElliott_ESFEM}. They also gave optimal order error estimates in the $L^2$-norm, see \cite{DziukElliott_L2}. There is a survey type article by \cite{DziukElliott_acta}, which also serves as a rich source of details and references.
\medskip
Dziuk and Elliott also studied fully discrete methods, see e.g.\ \cite{DziukElliott_fulldiscr}. The numerical analysis of convergence of full discretizations with high order time integrators was first studied by \cite{DziukLubichMansour_rksurf}. They proved optimal order convergence for the case of algebraically stable implicit Runge--Kutta methods, and \cite{LubichMansourVenkataraman_bdsurf} proved optimal convergence for
backward differentiation formulae (BDF).
The ESFEM approach and convergence results were later extended to wave equations on evolving surfaces by \cite{LubichMansour_wave} and \cite{Mansour_GRK}. A unified presentation of ESFEM for parabolic problems and wave equations is given in \cite{diss_Mansour}.
\bigskip
As it was pointed out by Dziuk and Elliott, \textit{''A drawback of our method is the possibility of de\-ge\-ne\-rating grids. The prescribed velocity may lead to the effect, that the triangulation $\Ga_h(t)$ is distorted''}\footnote{quoted from Gerhard Dziuk and Charles M.\ Elliott from \cite{DziukElliott_ESFEM} Section 7.2}. To resolve this problem \cite{ElliottStyles_ALEnumerics} proposed an \emph{arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian} (ALE) ESFEM approach, which in contrast to the (pure Lagrangian) ESFEM method, allows the nodes of the triangulation to move with a velocity which may not be equal to the surface (or material) velocity. They presented numerous examples where smaller errors can be achieved using a \emph{good} mesh.
Recently \cite{ElliottVenkataraman_ALEdiscrete} proved optimal order error bounds for the ALE ESFEM space discrete problems, and error bounds for the fully discrete schemes for the first and second-order backward differentation formulae. They also give numerous numerical experiments.
Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian FEM for moving domains were investigated by \cite{formaggia_nobile_alefem}. They also suggest some possible ways to define the new mesh if the movement of the boundary is given. \cite{nochetto_error,nochetto_stability} proved a-priori error estimates and time stability in a dis\co\ Galerkin setting.
\bigskip
This paper extends the convergence results of \cite{DziukLubichMansour_rksurf} for the Runge--Kutta discretizations, and the results of \cite{LubichMansourVenkataraman_bdsurf} the backward differentiation formulae, to the ALE framework and hence proves convergence of the fully discrete method suggested by \cite{ElliottStyles_ALEnumerics}.
We prove unconditional stability and convergence of these higher--order time discretizations, and also their optimal order convergence as a full discretization for evolving surface linear parabolic PDEs when coupled with the arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian evolving surface finite element method as a space discretization. First, this is proved for stiffly accurate algebraically stable implicit Runge--Kutta methods (having the Radau IIA methods in mind). Second, for the $k$-step backward differentiation formulae up to order five. Because of the lack of A-stability of the BDF methods of order greather than two, our proof requires a different techique than \cite{ElliottVenkataraman_ALEdiscrete}. Our results for BDF 1 and BDF 2 are matching theirs.
In the presentation we focus on the main differences compared to the previous results, and put less emphasis on those parts where minor modifications of the cited proofs are sufficient.
Our results are also true for the case of moving domains, however we will mostly stick to the evolving surface terminology.
\medskip
This paper is organised as follows.
In Section \ref{section_ALE_intro} we formulate the considered evolving surface parabolic problem, and describe the concept of arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian methods together with other basic notions. The ALE weak formulation of the problem is also given.
In Section \ref{section_ALE FEM} we define the mesh approximating our moving surface and derive the semidiscrete version of the ALE weak form, which is equivalent to a system of ODEs. We also derive the ODE system resulting from a moving domain problem, which has the same properties. Then we recall some properties of the evolving matrices, and some estimates of bilinear forms. We also prove the analogous estimate for the new term appearing in the ALE formulation.
In Section \ref{sec:error-estim-impl} we prove stability of high order Runge--Kutta (R--K) methods applied to the ALE ESFEM semidiscrete problem, while Section \ref{section_BDF} is devoted to the corresponding results for the BDF methods.
Section \ref{section_errorbounds} contains the main results of this paper: the fully discrete methods, ALE ESFEM together with R--K or BDF method, have an unconditional and optimal order convergence both in space and time.
Finally, in Section \ref{section_numerics} we present numerical experiments, to illustrate our theoretical results.
\section{The arbitrary Langrangian Eulerian approach for evolving surface PDEs}
\label{section_ALE_intro}
In the following we consider an evolving closed hypersurface $\Ga\t$, $0 \leq t \leq T$, which moves with a given smooth velocity $v$. Let $\mat u = \pa_{t} u + v \cdot \nbg u$
denote the material derivative of the function $u$, where $\nbg$ is the tangential gradient
given by $\nbg u = \nb u -\nb u \cdot \nu \nu$, with unit normal $\nu$. We denote by $\laplace_\Ga = \nbg\cdot\nbg$ the Laplace--Beltrami operator. \par
We consider the following linear problem derived by \cite{DziukElliott_ESFEM}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq_ES-PDE-strong-form}
\begin{cases}
\phantom{.}\mat u(x,t) + u(x,t) \nb_{\Gat} \cdot v(x,t) - \laplace_{\Gat}
u(x,t) = f(x,t) & \textrm{ on } \Ga\t ,\\
\phantom{\mat u(x,t) + u(x,t) \nb_{\Gat} \cdot v(x,t) - \laplace_{\Gat}
x}u(x,0) = u_0(x) & \textrm{ on } \Ga(0).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Basic and detailed references on evolving surface PDEs are \cite{DziukElliott_ESFEM,DziukElliott_acta,DziukElliott_L2} and \cite{diss_Mansour}.
For simplicity reasons we set in all chapters $f=0$, since the extension of our results to the inhomogeneous case are straightforward.
An important tool is the Green's formula (on closed surfaces), which takes the form
\begin{equation*}
\int_\Ga \nbg z \cdot \nbg \phi = -\int_\Ga (\laplace_{\Ga} z) \phi
\end{equation*}
Finally, $\GT$ denotes the space--time surface, i.e.\ $\GT:= \cup_{t\in[0,T]}
\Ga\t\times\{t\}$. We assume that $\GT\subset \R^{d+2}$ is a smooth
hypersurface (with boundary $\dell \GT = \big(\Ga(0) \times \{0\}\big) \cup \big(\Ga(T) \times \{T\}\big)$).
\bigskip
The weak formulation of this problem reads as
\begin{definition}[weak solution, \cite{DziukElliott_ESFEM} Definition 4.1]\label{def_ES-PDE-weak}
A function $u\in H^1(\GT)$ is called a \emph{weak solution} of
\eqref{eq_ES-PDE-strong-form}, if for almost every $t\in[0,T]$
\begin{equation}\label{eq_ES-PDE-weak-form}
\diff \int_{\Gat}\!\!\!\! u \vphi + \int_{\Gat}\!\!\!\! \nb_{\Gat} u \cdot \nb_{\Gat} \vphi = \int_{\Gat}\!\!\!\! u\mat \vphi
\end{equation}
holds for every $\vphi \in H^1(\GT)$ and $u(.,0)=u_0$.
\end{definition}
For suitable $f$ and $u_{0}$ existence and uniqueness results, for the strong and the weak problem,
were obtained by \cite{DziukElliott_ESFEM}.
\subsection{The ALE map and ALE velocity and the corresponding weak form}
We assume that for each $t \in [0,T]$, $T>0$, $\Gamma^{m}\t\subset \R^{m+1}$
is an closed surface. We call a subset $\Gamma^{m}\subset \R^{m+1}$ a
\emph{closed surface}, if $\Gamma$ is an oriented compact submanifold of
codimension $1$ without boundary. We assume that there exists a smooth map
$\nu\colon \GT \to \R^{m+1}$ such that for each $t$ the restriction
\[
\nu_{t}\colon \Gamma(t)\to \R^{m+1},\quad \nu_{t}(x) := \nu( x,t)
\]
is the smooth normal field on $\Gamma(t)$.
\bigskip Now we shortly recall the surface description by diffeomorphic
parametrization, also used by \cite{DziukElliott_ESFEM}, and by
\cite{nochetto_stability}. An other important representation of the surface is
based on a signed distance function. For this we refer to
\cite{DziukElliott_ESFEM} (it is also described later in Section
\ref{subsection_lift}).
We assume that there exists a smooth map $ \Phi\colon \Gamma(0)\times [0,T] \to
\R^{m+1} $ which we call a \emph{dynamical system} or \emph{diffeomorphic
parametrization} satisfying that
\[
\Phi_{t} \colon \Gamma(0) \to \Gamma\t, \qquad \Phi_{t}(y) := \Phi(y,t)
\]
is a diffeomorphism for every $t\in[0,T]$. $(\Phi_{t})$ is called the \emph{flow} of
$\Phi$. We observe:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $F\colon U\subset \R^{m}\to \Gamma(0)$ is a smooth parametrization of
$\Gamma(0)$ then $F_{t}:= \Phi_{t}\circ F$ is a smooth parametrization of $\Gamma(t)$,
hence the name diffeomorphic parametrization.
\item If we interpret $\Gamma(0)\times [0,T] \subset \R^{m+2}$ as a
hypersurface, then $\Phi$ gives rise to a (submanifold) diffeomorphism
\[
\widetilde{\Phi}\colon \Gamma(0) \times [0,T] \to \mathcal{G}_{T},\quad
\widetilde{\Phi}(y,t) := \bigl(\Phi_{t}(y),t\bigr).
\]
\end{itemize}
\noindent The dynamical system $\Phi$ defines a (special) vector field $v$ and (special) time
derivative $\dellmat$ as follows: consider the differential equation (for $\Phi$)
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_surface-velocity}
\pa_t \Phi(\, .\, ,t) = v\bigl(\Phi(\, .\, ,t),t\bigr), \qquad \Phi(\, .\,
,0)=\textrm{Id}.
\end{equation}
\noindent The unique vector field $v$ is called the \emph{velocity of the
surface evolution}, or the \emph{material velocity}. We assume, that the
material velocity is the same velocity as in
problem~\eqref{eq_ES-PDE-strong-form}. It has the normal component $v\normal$.
\par
The time derivative $\dellmat$ is defined as follows (see e.g.\ \cite{DziukElliott_ESFEM} Section
2.2 or \cite{nochetto_stability} Section 1): for smooth $f
\colon \mathcal{G}_T \to \R$ and $x\in \Gamma\t$, such that $y\in \Gamma(0)$ for
which $\Phi_{t}(y)=x$, the \emph{material derivative} is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq_surface-derivative}
\disp \mat f (x,t) := \left.\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\right\rvert_{(y,t)}
f\circ \widetilde{\Phi}.
\end{equation}
\noindent Suppose that $f$ has a smooth extension $\bar{f}$ in an open neighborhood of
$\Gamma\t$, (\cite{DziukElliott_acta} has shown how to use the oriented distance
function to construct such extensions), then by the chain rule they obtained the
following identity for the material derivative:
\[
\disp \mat f (x,t) = \left.\frac{\dell \bar{f}}{\dell t}\right\rvert_{(x,t)} +
v(x,t) \cdot \nabla \bar{f} (x,t),
\]
which is clearly independent of the extension by \eqref{eq_surface-derivative}.
\begin{remark}
An evolving surface $\Gamma(t)$ generally posses many different dynamical
systems. Consider for example the (constant) evolving surface
$\Gamma(t)=\Gamma(0)=S^{m}\subset \R^{m+1}$ with the two (different) dynamical
system $\Phi(x,t)=x$ and $\Psi(x,t)=\alpha(t)x$, where $\alpha\colon [0,T]\to
O(m+1)$ is a smooth curve in the orthogonal matrices.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
Let $\ale \neq \Phi$ be any other dynamical system for $\Gamma(t)$. It is
called an \emph{arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian map} (ALE map). The
associated velocity will be denoted by $w$, which we refer as the \emph{ALE velocity} and finally $\dellale$ denotes the ALE material derivative.
\end{definition}
One can show that for all $t\in [0,T]$ and
$x\in \Gamma(t)$
\begin{equation}\label{eq_v-w_tangent}
v(x,t) - w(x,t) \quad \text{is a tangential vector.}
\end{equation}
\bigskip
The formula for the differentiation of a parameter-dependent surface integral played a decisive role in the analysis of evolving surface problems. In the following lemma we will state its ALE version, together with the connection between the material derivative and ALE material derivative.
\begin{lemma}
Let $\Ga\t$ be an evolving surface and $f$ be a function defined in $\mathcal{G}_T$, such that all the following quantities exist.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item (Leibniz formula \cite{DziukElliott_ESFEM}/ Reynolds transport identity
\cite{nochetto_stability}) There holds
\begin{align}
\label{eq_leibniz}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\int_{\Gamma\t}f = \int_{\Gamma\t}
\dellale f + f \ \nabla_{\Gamma\t}\cdot w.
\end{align}
\item There also holds
\begin{align}
\label{eq_mat-vs-ALE-mat}
\dellale f &= \dellmat f + (w-v)\cdot \nablamat f.
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
At first we prove (b): consider an extension $\bar{f}$ of $f$. Use the chain rule for $\dellale f$ and $\dellmat f$ and note the identity (c.f.\ \eqref{eq_v-w_tangent})
\[
(w(.,t)-v(.,t))\cdot \nabla \bar{f}(.,t) = (w(.,t)-v(.,t))\cdot \nabla_{\Gamma} f(.,t).
\]
To prove (a) use the original Leibniz formula from \cite{DziukElliott_ESFEM}:
\begin{align*}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\int_{\Gamma}f = \int_{\Gamma}
\dellmat f + f \ \nabla_{\Gamma}\cdot v.
\end{align*}
Now use (b) and Greens identity for surfaces to complete the proof.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
Now we have everything at our hands to derive the ALE version of the weak form of the evolving surface PDE \eqref{eq_ES-PDE-strong-form}.
\begin{lemma}[ALE weak solution]\label{lemma_ALE-ES-PDE-weak}
The arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian weak solution for an evolv\-ing surface partial differential equation is a function $u\in H^1(\GT)$, if for almost every $t\in[0,T]$
\begin{equation*}
\diff \int_{\Gat}\!\!\!\! u \vphi + \int_{\Gat}\!\!\!\! \nb_{\Gat} u \cdot \nb_{\Gat} \vphi
+ \int_{\Gat}\!\!\!\! u (w-v) \cdot \nb_{\Gat} \vphi = \int_{\Gat}\!\!\!\! u\amat \vphi
\end{equation*}
holds for every $\vphi \in H^1(\GT)$ and $u(\, .\, ,0)=u_0$. If $u$ solves
equation~\eqref{eq_ES-PDE-weak-form} then $u$ is an ALE weak solution.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We start by substituting the material derivative by the ALE material
derivative in \eqref{eq_ES-PDE-weak-form}, using the relation
\eqref{eq_mat-vs-ALE-mat}, connecting the different material derivatives
(c.f.\ \eqref{eq_v-w_tangent}), i.e.\ by putting
\begin{equation*}
\mat \vphi = \amat \vphi + (v-w) \cdot \nbg \vphi
\end{equation*}
into the weak form, and rearranging the terms, we get the desired formulation.
\end{proof}
\section{The ALE finite element discretization}
\label{section_ALE FEM}
This section is devoted to the spatial semidiscretization of the parabolic moving surface PDE with the ALE version of the evolving surface finite element method, the ESFEM was developed by \cite{DziukElliott_ESFEM}. In the original case the nodes were moving only with the material velocity along the surface, which could lead to degenerated meshes.
One can maintain the good properties of the initial mesh by having additional tangential velocity
The ALE ESFEM discretization will lead to a system of ordinary differential equations (ODEs) with time dependent matrices. We will prove basic properties of those matrices, which will be one of our main tools to prove stability of time discretizations and convergence of full discretizations. We will also recall the lifting \op\ and its properties introduced by \cite{DziukElliott_ESFEM}, which enables us to compare functions from the discrete and \co\ surface.
\subsection{ALE finite elements for evolving surfaces}
\label{subsection_ALE-ESFEM}
First, the initial surface $\Gamma(0)$ is approximated by a triangulated one denoted
by $\Ga_h(0)$, which is given as
\begin{equation*}
\Ga_h(0) := \bigcup_{E(0)\in \Th(0)} E(0).
\end{equation*}
Let $a_i(0)$, ($i=1,\ldots, N$), denote the initial nodes lying on the initial
\co\ surface. Now the nodes are evolved with respect to the ALE map $\ale$,
i.e.\ $a_{i}(t):= \ale\bigl(a_{i}(0),t\bigr)$. Obviously they remain on the
\co\ surface $\Gat$ for all $t$. Therefore the smooth surface $\Gat$ is
approximated by the triangulated one denoted by $\Ga_h(t)$, which is given as
\begin{equation*}
\Ga_h(t) := \bigcup_{E(t)\in \Th(t)} E(t).
\end{equation*}
We always assume that the (evolving) simplices $E(t)$ are forming an admissible
triangulation (c.f.\ \cite{DziukElliott_ESFEM}) $\Th(t)$ with $h$ denoting the maximum
diameter.
\medskip
The discrete tangential gradient on the discrete surface $\Ga_h\t$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
\nb_{\Ga_h\t} f := \nb f - \nb f \cdot \nu_h \nu_h = \prh (\nb f),
\end{equation*}
understood in a piecewise sense, with $\nu_h$ denoting the normal to $\Ga_h(t)$
and $\prh := I - \nu_{h} \nu_{h}^{T} $.
\bigskip
For every $t\in[0,T]$ we define the finite element subspace
\begin{equation*}
S_h\t := \big\{ \phi_h \in C(\Ga_h\t) \, \, \big| \, \, \phi_h|_E \textrm{ is linear, for all } E\in \Th\t \big\}.
\end{equation*}
\noindent The moving basis functions $\chi_j$ are defined as $\chi_j(a_i\t,t) = \delta_{ij}$ for all $i,j = 1, 2, \dotsc, N$, and hence
\begin{equation*}
S_h\t = \spn\big\{ \chi_1( \, . \,,t), \chi_2( \, . \,,t), \dotsc, \chi_N( \, . \,,t) \big\}.
\end{equation*}
\noindent We continue with the definition of the interpolated velocities on the discrete surface $\Ga_h\t$:
\begin{equation*}
V_h( \, . \,,t) = \sum_{j=1}^N v(a_j\t,t) \chi_j( \, . \,,t), \qquad \quad
\Wh( \, . \,,t) = \sum_{j=1}^N w(a_j\t,t) \chi_j( \, . \,,t)
\end{equation*}
are the discrete velocity, and the discrete ALE velocity, \resp. The discrete material derivative, and its ALE version is given by
\begin{equation*}
\mat_h \phi_h = \pa_t \phi_h + V_h \cdot \nb \phi_h, \qquad \quad
\amath \phi_h = \pa_t \phi_h + \Wh \cdot \nb \phi_h.
\end{equation*}
\bigskip
In this setting the key \textit{transport property} derived by \cite{DziukElliott_ESFEM} Proposition 5.4, is the following
\begin{equation}\label{eq_ES-transport-prop}
\amath \chi_k = 0 \qquad \textrm{for} \quad k=1,2,\dotsc,N.
\end{equation}
\bigskip
The spatially discrete ALE problem for evolving surfaces is formulated in
\begin{problem_b}[Semidiscretization in space]\label{problem_ESFEM-semidiscrete}
Find $U_h\in S_h\t$ \st\
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\diff && \!\!\int_{\Ga_h\t}\!\! U_h \phi_h
+ \int_{\Ga_h\t}\!\! \nabla_{\Gamma_h\t} U_h \cdot \nabla_{\Gamma_h\t}\phi_h \\
+ && \!\!\int_{\Ga_h\t}\!\! U_h (\Wh-V_h)\cdot \nabla_{\Gamma_h\t}\phi_h =
\int_{\Ga_h\t}\!\! U_h \amath \phi_h, \qquad (\forall \phi_h \in S_h\t),
\end{eqnarray*}}
with the initial condition $U_h( \, . \,,0)=U_h^0\in S_h(0)$ is a sufficient approximation to $u_0$.
\end{problem_b}
The ODE form of the above problem can be derived by setting
\begin{equation*}
U_h( \, . \,,t) = \sum_{j=1}^N \alpha_j\t \chi_j( \, . \,,t)
\end{equation*}
and $\phi_h=\chi_j$ and using the transport property for evolving surfaces \eqref{eq_ES-transport-prop}.
\begin{proposition}[ODE system for evolving surfaces]\label{prop_ODE-system-ES}
The spatially semidiscrete problem is equivalent to the ODE system for $\alpha\t=(\alpha_j\t)\in\R^N$
\begin{equation}\label{eq_ES-ODE}
\disp
\begin{cases}
\disp\diff \big(M\t \alpha\t\big) + A\t \alpha\t + \B\t \alpha\t = 0 \\
\disp\phantom{\diff \big(M\t \alpha\t\big) + A\t \alpha\t + \B\t }\alpha(0) = \alpha_0
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $M\t$ and $A\t$ are the evolving mass and stiffness matrices defined as
\begin{equation*}
M(t)_{kj} = \int_{\Ga_h\t}\!\!\!\! \chi_j \chi_k, \qquad A(t)_{kj} = \int_{\Ga_h\t}\!\!\!\! \nb_{\Ga_h\t}\chi_j \cdot \nb_{\Ga_h\t } \chi_k,
\end{equation*}
and the evolving matrix $\B\t$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq_new-term-W}
\B(t)_{kj} = \int_{\Ga_h\t}\!\!\!\! \chi_j (\Wh-V_h)\cdot \nb_{\Ga_h\t } \chi_k.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
The proof of this proposition is analogous to the corresponding one by \cite{DziukLubichMansour_rksurf}.
\begin{remark}
In the original ESFEM setting there was no direct involvement of velocities, but in the ALE formulations there is. We remark here that since the normal components of the ALE and material velocity are equal, during computations one can work only with the difference of the two velocities, i.e.\ the additional tangential component of the ALE velocity. We only keep the above formulation to leave the presentation plain and simple.
\end{remark}
\subsection{ALE finite elements for moving domains}
\label{subsection_ALE-MDFEM}
However our main interest is evolving surface PDEs, our results are also valid for moving domain partial differential equations. We will see that the corresponding ODE system of ALE finite element semidiscretization of such problems are coinciding with the ODE problem for evolving surface PDEs, \eqref{eq_ES-ODE}. Therefore we shortly describe how to derive this system.
\bigskip
Let us consider the following parabolic partial differential equation over the rectangular moving domain $\Om(t)$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq_MD-PDE-strong}
\begin{cases}
\phantom{.}\mat u(x,t) + u(x,t) \nb \cdot v(x,t) - \laplace u(x,t) = f \phantom{u_0} \quad \textrm{ in } \Om\t,\\
\phantom{\mat u(x,t) + u(x,t) \nb \cdot v(x,t) - \laplace x}u( \, . \,,t) = u_0 \phantom{f} \quad \textrm{ in } \Om(0),
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions for all $t\in[0,T]$.
\bigskip
The moving domain FEM is defined just as usual, but the nodes are moving with the given ALE velocity: $\Th\t$ is an admissible triangulation of the moving domain $\Om\t$, with moving nodes $a_i\t$ for $t\in[0,T]$. Therefore we have for every $t\in[0,T]$ the finite element subspace $S_h\t$ consisting of piecewise linear functions, and
\begin{equation*}
S_h\t = \spn\big\{ \chi_1( \, . \,,t), \chi_2( \, . \,,t), \dotsc, \chi_N( \, . \,,t) \big\},
\end{equation*}
where $\chi_j(a_i\t,t) = \delta_{ij}$, and vanishing at the boundary.
For domains the tangential gradient reduces to the usual gradient. The interpolated velocities of the discrete moving domain $\Om_h\t$, and hence the discrete material derivatives, are defined again by using the finite element interpolants. The \textit{transport property} is also remaining the same in the moving domain finite element setting.
\bigskip
The spatially discrete ALE problem for moving domains is formulated in:
\begin{problem_b}[Semidiscretization in space]\label{problem_MDFEM-semidiscrete}
Find $U_h( \, . \,,t)\in S_h\t$ \st\
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq_MD ALE-spat-discrete}
\diff \int_{\Om_h\t} U_h \phi_h + \int_{\Om_h\t} \nb U_h \cdot \nb \phi_h
+ \int_{\Om_h\t} U_h (\Wh-V_h)\cdot \nb \phi_h &=& \int_{\Om_h\t} U_h \amath\phi_h, \\
& & \qquad (\forall \phi_h\in S_h\t)\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with the initial condition $U_h( \, . \,,0)=U_h^0\in S_h(0)$ is a sufficient approximation to $u_0$, by the definition of the basis functions $U_h( \, . \,,t)$ satisfies the homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition.
\end{problem_b}
The ODE form of the above problem can be derived analogously, and yields:
\begin{proposition}[ODE system for moving domains]\label{prop_ODE-system-MD}
The spatially semidiscrete problem \eqref{eq_MD ALE-spat-discrete} is equivalent to the ODE system for $\alpha\t=(\alpha_j\t)\in\R^N$
\begin{equation}\label{eq_MD-ODE}
\disp
\begin{cases}
\disp\diff \big(M\t \alpha\t\big) + A\t \alpha\t + \B\t \alpha\t = 0 \\
\disp\phantom{\diff \big(M\t \alpha\t\big) + A\t \alpha\t + \B\t }\alpha(0) = \alpha_0
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $M\t$ and $A\t$ are the evolving mass and stiffness matrices defined as
\begin{equation*}
M(t)_{kj} = \int_{\Om_h\t}\!\!\!\! \chi_j \chi_k, \qquad A(t)_{kj} = \int_{\Om_h\t}\!\!\!\! \nb \chi_j \cdot \nb \chi_k,
\end{equation*}
and the evolving matrix $\B\t$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
\B(t)_{kj} = \int_{\Om_h\t}\!\!\!\! \chi_j (\Wh-V_h)\cdot \nb \chi_k.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
\bigskip
\begin{remark}\label{remark_coincidence_of_ODEs}
A very important point is, that formally the ODE problems for evolving surface and moving domain problems, \eqref{eq_ES-ODE} and \eqref{eq_MD-ODE}, are coincident. Furthermore, the crucial properties of the matrices are also the same for both cases. In the rest of the paper we will use the terminology of the evolving surface PDEs, but clearly our results hold for moving domain problems as well.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Properties of the evolving matrices}
Clearly the evolving stiffness matrix is symmetric, positive semi-definite and the mass matrix is symmetric, positive definite. Through the paper we will work with the norm and semi-norm introduced by \cite{DziukLubichMansour_rksurf}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq_normdefs}
|z\t|_{M\t} = \|Z_h\|_{L^2(\Ga_h\t)} \qquad \textrm{and} \qquad |z\t|_{A\t} = \|\nbgh Z_h\|_{L^2(\Ga_h\t)},
\end{equation}
for arbitrary $z\t\in \R^N$, where $Z_h( \, . \,,t)=\sum_{j=1}^N z_j\t \chi_j( \, . \,,t)$.
\bigskip
A very important lemma in our analysis is the following:
\begin{lemma}[\cite{DziukLubichMansour_rksurf} Lemma 4.1 and \cite{LubichMansourVenkataraman_bdsurf} Lemma 2.2]
There are constants $\mu, \kappa$ (independent of $h$) \st
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_mtxlemma-M} z^T \big( M(s) - M\t\big) y &\leq& (e^{\mu(s-t)}-1) |z|_{M\t}|y|_{M\t} \\
\label{eq_mtxlemma-Minv} z^T \big( M\inv(s) - M\inv\t\big) y &\leq& (e^{\mu(s-t)}-1) |z|_{M\inv\t}|y|_{M\inv\t} \\
\label{eq_mtxlemma-A} z^T \big( A(s) - A\t\big) y &\leq& (e^{\kappa(s-t)}-1) |z|_{A\t}|y|_{A\t}
\end{eqnarray}}
for all $y,z\in \R^N$ and $s,t \in [0,T]$.
\end{lemma}
We will use this lemma with $s$ close to $t$, and then $(e^{\mu(s-t)}-1)\leq 2 \mu (s-t)$ holds. In particular for $y=z$ we have
\begin{align}
\label{eq:11} \normt{z}{M(s)}^{2} \leq (1+2\mu (t-s)) \normt{z}{M(t)}^{2}, \\
\label{eq:11b} \normt{z}{A(s)}^{2} \leq (1+2\kappa(t-s)) \normt{z}{A(t)}^{2}.
\end{align}
\bigskip
The following technical lemma will play a crucial role in this paper.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-B_estimate}
Let $y,z\in \R^N$ and $t \in [0,T]$ be arbitrary, then
\begin{equation}
\big| \la \B\t z | y\ra \big| \leq c_{\ale} |z|_{M\t} |y|_{A\t},
\end{equation}
where the constant $c_{\ale}>0$ is depending only on the differences of the velocities, and independent of $h$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Using the definition of $\B$ (see \eqref{eq_new-term-W}) we can write
\begin{equation*}
\big| \la \B\t z | y\ra \big| = \Big|\int_{\Ga_h} Z_h (\Wh-V_h)\cdot \nbgh Y_h \Big| \leq \|\Wh-V_h\|_{L^{\infty}(\Ga_h\t)} \int_{\Ga_h} |Z_h| \ |\nbgh Y_h|,
\end{equation*}
then by applying the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality and using the equivalence of norms over the discrete and \co\ surface (c.f.\ \cite{DziukElliott_ESFEM}, Lemma 5.2), we obtain the stated result.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Lifting process}
\label{subsection_lift}
In the following we introduce the so called \emph{lift operator} which was introduced by \cite{Dziuk88} and further investigated by \cite{DziukElliott_ESFEM,DziukElliott_L2}. The lift
operator can be interpreted as a geometric projection: it projects a finite
element function $\varphi_{h}\colon \Ga_{h}\t \to \R$ on the discrete surface
$\Gamma_{h}(t)$ onto a function $\varphi_{h}^{l}\colon \Ga\t \to \R$ on the
smooth surface $\Ga\t$, therefore it is crucial for our error estimates.
\bigskip We assume that there exists an open bounded set $U(t)\subset \R^{m+1}$
such that $\dell U(t) = \Ga\t$. The \emph{oriented distance function} $d$ is
defined as
\[
\R^{m+1}\times [0,T]\to \R,\quad d(x,t) :=
\begin{cases}
\dist\bigl(x, \Gamma(t)\bigr) & x \in \R^{m+1} \setminus U(t), \\
- \dist\bigl(x, \Gamma(t)\bigr) & x \in U(t).
\end{cases}
\]
For $\mu >0 $ we define $\mathcal{N}(t)_{\mu} := \bigl\{ x\in
\R^{m+1} \mid \dist\bigl(x,\Gamma(t)\bigr) < \mu \bigr\}$. Clearly
$\mathcal{N}(t)_{\mu}$ is an open neighborhood of $\Gamma(t)$. \cite{GilbargTrudinger} in Lemma~14.16 have shown the following important regularity result about $d$.
\begin{lemma}
Let $U(t) \subset \R^{m+1} $ be bounded and $\Gamma(t)\in C^{k} $ for $k\geq 2$. Then
there exists a positive constant $\mu$ depending on $U$ such that
$d\in C^{k}\bigl(\mathcal{N}(t)_{\mu}\bigr)$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent \cite{GilbargTrudinger} also mentioned that $\mu^{-1}$ bounds
the principal curvatures of $\Gamma(t)$.
\medskip For each $x\in \Gamma(t)_{\mu}$ there exists a unique $p=
p(x,t)\in \Gamma(t)$ such that $\lvert x - p \rvert =
\dist\bigl(x,\Gamma(t)\bigr)$, then $x$ and $p$ are related by the important equation:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:21}
x = p + \nu(p,t) d(x,t).
\end{align}
We assume that $\Ga_{h}\t \subset \mathcal{N}\t$. The \textit{lift operator}
$\mathcal{L}$ maps a \co\ function $\eta_h \colon \Ga_h\to\R$ onto a function
$\mathcal{L}(\eta_{h})\colon \Ga\to \R$ as follows: for every $x\in
\Ga_{h}\t$ exists via equation~\eqref{eq:21} an unique $p=p(x,t)$. We set
pointwise
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{L}(\eta_h)(p,t):= \eta_{h}^{l}(p,t) := \eta_h(x,t).
\end{equation*}
It is clear that $\mathcal{L}(\eta_{h})$ is \co\ and that if $\eta_{h}$ has weak
derivatives then $\mathcal{L}(\eta_{h})$ also has weak derivatives.
\medskip We now recall some notions using the lifting process from \cite{Dziuk88,DziukElliott_ESFEM} and \cite{diss_Mansour} using the notations of the last reference. We have the lifted finite element space
\begin{equation*}
S_h^l\t := \big\{ \vphi_h = \phi_h^l \, | \, \phi_h\in S_h\t \big\},
\end{equation*}
by $\delta_h$ we denote the quotient between the \co\ and discrete surface
measures, $\d A$ and $\d A_h$, defined as $\delta_h \d A_h = \d A$. Further, we recall that
\begin{equation*}
\pr := \big(\delta_{ij} - \nu_{i}\nu_{j}\big)_{i,j=1}^N \quad \textrm{and} \quad \prh := \big(\delta_{ij} - \nu_{h,i}\nu_{h,j}\big)_{i,j=1}^N
\end{equation*}
are the projections onto the tangent spaces of $\Ga$ and $\Ga_h$. Finally $\wein$ ($\wein_{ij} = \pa_{x_j}\nu_i$) is the (extended) Weingarten map. For these quantities we recall some results from \cite{DziukElliott_ESFEM,DziukElliott_L2}.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{DziukElliott_ESFEM} Lemma 5.1 and \cite{DziukElliott_L2} Lemma 5.4]\label{lemma_geometric-est}
Assume that $\Ga_h\t$ and $\Ga\t$ is from the above setting, then we have the estimates
\begin{equation*}
\|d\|_{L^\infty(\Ga_h)} \leq c h^2, \qquad \|\nu_j\|_{L^\infty(\Ga_h)} \leq c h, \qquad \|1-\delta_h\|_{L^\infty(\Ga_h)} \leq c h^2, \qquad \|(\amath)^{(\ell)} d \|_{L^\infty(\Ga_h)} \leq c h,
\end{equation*}
where $(\amath)^{(\ell)}$ denotes the $\ell$-th discrete ALE material derivative.
\end{lemma}
The second estimate can be found in the proof of the cited lemmata.
\subsection{Bilinear forms and their properties}
We use the time dependent bilinear forms defined by \cite{DziukElliott_L2}: for $z,\vphi \in H^1(\Ga)$, and their discrete analogs for $Z_h, \phi_h \in S_h$:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}[c]
a(z,\vphi) &= \int_{\Ga\t} \nbg z \cdot \nbg \vphi, \\
m(z,\vphi) &= \int_{\Ga\t} z \vphi, \\
g(w;z,\vphi) &= \int_{\Ga\t} (\nbg \cdot w) z\vphi,\\
b(w;z,\vphi) &= \int_{\Ga\t} \Btensor(w) \nbg z \cdot \nbg \vphi,
\end{aligned}
\qquad \qquad
\begin{aligned}[c]
a_h(Z_h,\phi_h) &= \sum_{E\in \Th} \int_E \nbgh Z_h \cdot \nbgh \phi_h, \\
m_h(Z_h,\phi_h) &= \int_{\Ga_h\t} Z_h \phi_h\\
g_h(\Wh;Z_h,\phi_h) &= \int_{\Ga_h\t} (\nbgh \cdot \Wh) Z_h \phi_h,\\
b_h(\Wh;Z_h,\phi_h) &= \sum_{E\in \Th} \int_E \Btensor_h(\Wh) \nbgh Z_h \cdot \nbgh \phi_h,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where the discrete tangential gradients are understood in a piecewise sense, and
with the matrices
\begin{alignat*}{3}
\Btensor(w)_{ij} &= \delta_{ij} (\nbg \cdot w) - \big( (\nbg)_i w_j + (\nbg)_j w_i \big), \qquad && (i,j=1,2,\dotsc,m),\\
\Btensor_h(\Wh)_{ij} &= \delta_{ij} (\nbg \cdot \Wh) - \big( (\nbgh)_i (\Wh)_j + (\nbgh)_j (\Wh)_i \big), \qquad && (i,j=1,2,\dotsc,m).
\end{alignat*}
We will also use the transport lemma:
\begin{lemma}[\cite{DziukElliott_L2} Lemma 4.2]\label{lemma_transport-prop}
For $z_h, \ \vphi_h, \ \amath z_h, \ \amath \vphi_h \in S_h^l\t \subset H^1(\Ga)$ we have:
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\diff m(z_h,\vphi_h) &=& m(\amath z_h,\vphi_h) + m(z_h,\amath \vphi_h) + g(w_h;z_h,\vphi_h), \\
\diff a(z_h,\vphi_h) &=& a(\amath z_h,\vphi_h) + a(z_h,\amath \vphi_h) + b(w_h;z_h,\vphi_h).
\end{eqnarray*}}
\end{lemma}
Versions of this lemma with continuous non-ALE material derivatives, or discrete bilinear forms are also true, see e.g.\ \cite[Lemma 6.4]{diss_Mansour}.
\bigskip
We will need the following estimates between the \co\ and discrete bilinear forms.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{DziukElliott_L2} Lemma 5.5]\label{lemma_estimation-of-forms}
For arbitrary $Z_h,\phi_h\in S_h\t$, with corresponding lifts $z_h,\vphi_h \in S_h^l\t$ we have the bound
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\disp \big| m(z_h,\vphi_h) - m_h(Z_h,\phi_h) \big| &\leq& c h^2 \|z_h\|_{L^2(\Ga\t)} \|\vphi_h\|_{L^2(\Ga\t)}, \\
\disp \big| a(z_h,\vphi_h) - a_h(Z_h,\phi_h) \big| &\leq& c h^2 \|\nbg z_h\|_{L^2(\Ga\t)} \|\nbg \vphi_h\|_{L^2(\Ga\t)}.
\end{eqnarray*}}
\end{lemma}
Apart from the above crucial estimates of lifts and bilinear forms, we need an analogous estimate for the new term, represented by the matrix $\B\t$ (which is the result of the ALE approach).
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_estiamtion-of-new-form}
For arbitrary $Z_h,\phi_h\in S_h\t$, with corresponding lifts $z_h,\vphi_h \in S_h^l\t$ we have the bound
\begin{equation*}
\disp \big| m(z_h,(w_h-v_h)\cdot \nbg \vphi_h) - m_h(Z_h,(\Wh-V_h)\cdot \nbg \phi_h) \big|
\leq c h^2 \|z_h\|_{L^2(\Ga\t)} \|\nbg\vphi_h\|_{L^2(\Ga\t)},
\end{equation*}
where the constant $c$ is only depending on the difference of the velocities, and the surface.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We begin by recalling the connection between the discrete and \co\ tangential gradients (first derived by \cite{Dziuk88}):
\begin{equation*}
\nbgh \phi_h = \prh(I-d\wein) \nbg \vphi_h.
\end{equation*}
Using this, we can start estimating as follows
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
& & \Big| m(z_h,(w_h-v_h)\cdot \nbg \vphi_h) - m_h(Z_h,(\Wh-V_h)\cdot \nbgh \phi_h) \Big| \\
&=& \Big| \int_\Ga z_h (w_h-v_h)\cdot \nbg \vphi_h \d A - \int_{\Ga_h} Z_h(\Wh-V_h)\cdot \nbgh \phi_h \d A_h \Big| \\
&=& \Big| \int_\Ga z_h (w_h-v_h)\cdot\big(I - \frac{1}{\delta_h} \prh(I-d\wein)\big) \nbg \vphi_h) \d A \Big| \\
&\leq& \int_\Ga |z_h| |(w_h-v_h)| \ \Big( \frac{1}{\delta_h}|\delta_h I - \prh| + \big|d (\frac{1}{\delta_h} \prh \ \wein)\big| \Big) |\nbg \vphi_h| \d A \\
&\leq& \int_\Ga |z_h| |(w_h-v_h)| \ \Big( \frac{1}{\delta_h}|\delta_h - 1| + \frac{1}{\delta_h}|\nu_{h}\nu_{h}^T| + \big|d (\frac{1}{\delta_h} \prh \ \wein)\big| \Big) |\nbg \vphi_h| \d A \\
&\leq& c h^2 \|z_h\|_{L^2(\Ga\t)} \|\nbg\vphi_h\|_{L^2(\Ga\t)}.
\end{eqnarray*}}
For the final estimate we have used that $(\prh)_{ij} = \delta_{ij} - \nu_{h,i}\nu_{h,j}$, further that $\nu_{h,j}=\pa_{x_j} d$ can be estimated by $c h$, and $1-\delta_h$ and $d$ can be estimated by $c h^2$, see Lemma \ref{lemma_geometric-est}, while the other terms are bounded, together with the fact that the norms on the discrete and \co\ surfaces are equivalent (see e.g.\ Lemma 5.2 by \cite{DziukElliott_ESFEM}).
\end{proof}
\section{Error estimates for implicit Runge--Kutta methods}
\label{sec:error-estim-impl}
We consider an $s$-stage implicit Runge--Kutta method (R--K) for the time discretization of the ODE system \eqref{eq_MD-ODE}, coming from the ALE ESFEM space discretization of the parabolic evolving surface PDE.
In the following we extend the stability result for R--K methods of \cite{DziukLubichMansour_rksurf}, Lemma 7.1, to the case of ALE evolving surface finite element method.
Apart form the properties of the ALE ESFEM the proof is based on the energy estimation techniques of \cite{LubichOstermann_RK} (Theorem 1.1).
\bigskip
For the convenience of the reader we recall the method: for simplicity, but not necessarily, we assume equidistant time steps $t_{n}:= n\tau$, with step size $\tau$. The $s$-stage implicit Runge--Kutta method reads
\begin{subequations}
\begin{alignat}{3}
\label{eq_rk-a}
M_{ni} \alpha_{ni} &= M_{n} \alpha_{n} + \sum_{j=1}^{s} a_{ij}
\dot{\alpha}_{nj}, \qquad &&\text{for} \quad i=1,2,\dotsc,s, \\
\label{eq_rk-b}
M_{n+1} \alpha_{n+1} &= M_{n} \alpha_{n} + \sum_{i=1}^{s} b_{i}
\dot{\alpha}_{ni},&&
\intertext{where the internal stages satisfy}
\nonumber
0 &= \dot{\alpha}_{ni} + \B_{ni} \alpha_{ni} + A_{ni} \alpha_{ni} \qquad &&\text{for} \quad i=1,2,\dotsc,s,
\end{alignat}
\end{subequations}
\noindent with $A_{ni}:= A(t_{n}+c_{i}\tau)$, $\B_{ni}:= \B(t_{n}+c_{i}\tau)$,
$M_{ni}:=M(t_{n}+c_{i}\tau)$ and $M_{n+1}:=M(t_{n+1})$. \par
For the R--K method we make the following assumptions:
\begin{assumption}\label{assump_RK-method-assumptions}~
\begin{itemize}
\item The method has stage order $q\geq 1$ and classical order $p\geq q+1$.
\item The coefficient matrix $(a_{ij})$ is invertible; the inverse will be
denoted by upper indices $(a^{ij})$.
\item The method is \emph{algebraically stable}, i.e.\ $b_{j}>0$ for $j=1,2,\dotsc,s$ and the following matrix is
positive semi-definite:
\begin{align}
\label{eq_algebraic-stable}
\big(b_{i}a_{ij} - b_{j}a_{ji} -b_{i}b_{j}\big)_{i,j=1}^{s}.
\end{align}
\item The method is \emph{stiffly accurate}, i.e.\ for $j=1,2,\dotsc,s$ it holds
\begin{align}
\label{eq_stiffly_accurate}
b_{j}=a_{sj}, \qquad \text{and} \qquad c_{s}=1.
\end{align}
\end{itemize}
\end{assumption}
\bigskip
Instead of \eqref{eq_ES-ODE}, let us consider the following perturbed version of equation:
\begin{align}
\label{eq_rk_pertubated}
\begin{cases}
\disp\diff \big(M\t \widetilde{\alpha} \t \big) + A\t \widetilde{\alpha}\t +
\B\t \widetilde{\alpha} \t = M\t r\t, \\
\disp\phantom{\diff \big(M\t \widetilde{\alpha}\t\big) + A\t
\widetilde{\alpha}\t + \B\t }\widetilde{\alpha}(0) = \widetilde{\alpha}_0.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
The substitution of the true solution $\tilde{\alpha}\t$ of the perturbed problem into the R--K method, yields the defects $\Delta_{ni}$ and $\delta_{ni}$, by setting $e_n = \alpha_n - \tilde{\alpha}(t_n)$, $E_{ni} = \alpha_{ni} - \tilde{\alpha}(t_n+c_i\tau)$ and $\dot{E}_{ni} = \dot{\alpha}_{ni} - \dot{\tilde{\alpha}}(t_n+c_i\tau)$, then by subtraction the following \emph{error equations} hold:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{eq_error-eq-a}
M_{ni}E_{ni} &= M_{n}e_{n} + \tau\sum_{j=1}^{s} a_{ij} \dot{E}_{nj} -
\Delta_{ni}, \qquad \text{for} \quad i=1,2,\dotsc,s, \\
\label{eq_error-eq-b}
M_{n+1} e_{n+1} &= M_{n} e_{n} + \tau \sum_{i=1}^{s} b_{i} \dot{E}_{ni} -
\delta_{n+1},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\noindent where the internal stages satisfy:
\begin{align}
\label{eq_error-eq-interStages}
\dot{E}_{ni} + A_{ni} E_{ni} + \B_{ni} E_{ni} = - M_{ni} r_{ni}, \qquad \text{for} \quad i=1,2,\dotsc,s,
\end{align}
\noindent with $r_{ni} := r(t_{n} + c_{i}\tau)$.
\bigskip
Now we state and prove one of the key lemmata of this paper, which provide unconditional stability for the above class of Runge--Kutta methods.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem_rk-stability}
For an $s$-stage implicit Runge--Kutta method satisfying Assumption \ref{assump_RK-method-assumptions}, there exists a \linebreak $\tau_0 >0$, depending only on the constants $\mu$ and $\kappa$, \st\ for $\tau\leq\tau_0$ and $t_n=n \tau\leq T$, that the error $e_n$ is bounded by
\begin{align*}
\normt{e_{n}}{M_{n}}^{2} + \tau \sum_{k=1}^{n} \normt{e_{k}}{A_{k}} &\leq C
\Bigl\{ \normt{e_{0}}{M_{0}} + \tau \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \sum_{i=1}^{s}
\Normstar{M_{k}r_{k}}{t_{ki}}^{2} + \tau \sum_{k=1}^{n}
\normt{\nicefrac{\delta_k}{\tau}}{M_{k}}^{2 } \\
& \hphantom{\leq C \Bigl\{ \lvert e_{0}\rvert_{M_{0}} .}+ \tau \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}
\sum_{i=1}^{s} \Bigl( \normt{M_{ki}^{-1}\Delta_{ki}}{M_{ki}}^{2} +
\normt{M_{ki}^{-1}\Delta_{ki}}{A_{ki}}^{2}\Bigr) \Bigr\},
\end{align*}
where $\|w\|_{\ast, j}^2=w^T(A\t+M\t)\inv w$. The constant $C$ is independent of $h, \ \tau$ and $n$, but depends on $\mu, \ \kappa, \ T$ and on the norm of the difference of the velocities.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(a) We modify the proof of \cite{DziukLubichMansour_rksurf}, Lemma~7.1 or \cite{diss_Mansour}, Lemma~3.1, and we note that our presentation is closer to the second reference. In these works the following inequality has been shown, which also holds for the ALE setting:
\begin{align}
\nonumber
\normt{e_{n+1}}{ M_{n+1}}^{2} & \leq (1+2\mu \tau) \normt{e_{n}}{M_{n}}^{2}
+ 2 \tau \sum_{i=1}^{s} b_{i}
\braket{\dot{E}_{ni}| M_{n+1}^{-1} | M_{ni}E_{ni} + \Delta_{ni}} \\
\label{eq:7}
& + \tau \normt{E_{n+1}}{M_{n+1}}^{2} + (1+3\tau) \tau
\normbig{\nicefrac{\delta_{n+1}}{\tau}}{M_{n+1}^{-1}}^{2}.
\end{align}
We want to estimate the second term on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:7}.
Obviously the equation
\begin{align}
\nonumber
\braket{\dot{E}_{ni} | M_{n+1}^{-1}| M_{ni}E_{ni} + \Delta_{ni}} & =
\braket{\dot{E}_{ni} | M_{ni}^{-1}|M_{ni}E_{ni}+ \Delta_{ni}} \\
\label{eq:15}
& + \braket{\dot{E}_{ni} | M_{n+1}^{-1} - M_{ni}^{-1}|
M_{ni}E_{ni} + \Delta_{ni}}
\end{align}
holds. The second term on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:15} can be
estimated like (c.f.\ \cite{diss_Mansour}):
\begin{align}
\label{eq:16}
\braket{\dot{E}_{ni} | M_{n+1}^{-1} - M_{ni}^{-1}|M_{ni} E_{ni} +
\Delta_{ni}} & \leq C\Bigl\{ \normt{e_{n}}{M_{n}}^{2} + \sum_{j=1}^{s}
\normt{E_{nj}}{M_{nj}}^{2} + \normt{\Delta_{nj}}{M_{nj}^{-1}}^{2} \Bigr\}.
\end{align}
(b) We have to modify the estimation of the first term on the right-hand side of
\eqref{eq:15}. Using the definition of internal stages~\eqref{eq_error-eq-interStages}, we have
\begin{align}
\nonumber \braket{\dot{E}_{ni} | M_{ni}^{-1}|M_{ni}E_{ni}+ \Delta_{ni} } =
&- \normt{E_{ni}}{A_{ni}}^{2} - \braket{M_{ni} r_{ni}|E_{ni} +
M_{ni}^{-1}\Delta_{ni}} \\
\label{eq:17}
&- \braket{E_{ni} | A_{ni}| M_{ni}^{-1} \Delta_{ni}} -
\braket{\B_{ni}E_{ni}| E_{ni} + M^{-1}_{ni}\Delta_{ni}}.
\end{align}
The last term can be estimated by Lemma \ref{lemma-B_estimate} as
\begin{align}
\nonumber
\lvert \braket{\B_{ni}E_{ni}|E_{ni}+M_{ni}^{-1}\Delta_{ni}}\rvert & \leq
\lvert \braket{\B_{ni}E_{ni}|E_{ni}}\rvert + \lvert \braket{\B_{ni}E_{ni}|M_{ni}^{-1}\Delta_{ni}}\rvert\\
\nonumber
& \leq C\normt{E_{ni}}{M_{ni}} \normt{E_{ni}}{A_{ni}} +
C\normt{E_{ni}}{M_{ni}} \normt{M^{-1}_{ni}\Delta_{ni}}{A_{ni}}\\
\label{eq:18}
& \leq C\normt{E_{ni}}{M_{ni}}^{2} +
\frac{1}{4}\normt{E_{ni}}{A_{ni}}^{2} + C\normt{E_{ni}}{M_{ni}}^{2} +
C \normt{M_{ni}^{-1}\Delta_{ni}}{A_{ni}}^{2}.
\end{align}
While the other terms can be estimated by the following inequality (shown by \cite{diss_Mansour}):
\begin{align}
\nonumber
- \normt{E_{ni}}{A_{ni}}^{2} &+ \lvert \braket{M_{ni} r_{ni}|E_{ni}
+ M_{ni}^{-1}\Delta_{ni}}\rvert + \lvert \braket{E_{ni} | A_{ni}|
M_{ni}^{-1}
\Delta_{ni}} \rvert \\
\label{eq:19}
&\leq -\frac{1}{2} \normt{E_{ni}}{A_{ni}}^{2} +
\frac{1}{4}\normt{E_{ni}}{M_{ni}}^{2} + C \bigl(\normt{M_{ni}^{-1}
\Delta_{ni}}{M_{ni}}^{2} + \normt{M_{ni}^{-1}
\Delta_{ni}}{A_{ni}}^{2}\bigr).
\end{align}
We continue to estimate the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:17} with
\eqref{eq:18}, \eqref{eq:19} and arrive to
\begin{align}
\label{eq:20}
\braket{\dot{E}_{ni} | M_{n+1}^{-1}| M_{ni}E_{ni} + \Delta_{ni}} \leq
-\frac{1}{4} \normt{E_{ni}}{A_{ni}}^{2} + C \bigl(\normt{E_{ni}}{M_{ni}}^{2}
+\normt{M_{ni}^{-1} \Delta_{ni}}{M_{ni}}^{2} + \normt{M_{ni}^{-1}
\Delta_{ni}}{A_{ni}}^{2}\bigr).
\end{align}
(c) Now we return to the main inequality \eqref{eq:7}, consider
equation~\eqref{eq:17} and plug in the inequalities \eqref{eq:16} and
\eqref{eq:20} to get
\begin{align}
\nonumber
\normt{e_{n+1}}{M_{n+1}}^{2} -\normt{e_{n}}{M_{n}}^{2} + \frac{1}{4}
\tau \sum_{i=1}^{s} b_{i} \normt{E_{ni}}{A_{ni}}^{2} & \leq C \tau\Bigl\{
\normt{e_{n}}{M_{n}}^{2} + \sum_{j=1}^{s} \normt{E_{nj}}{M_{nj}}^{2} +
\Normstar{M_{nj}r_{nj}}{nj} \\
\label{eq:1}
& \phantom{\leq} + \sum_{j=1}^{s}\bigl(\normt{M_{nj}^{-1}
\Delta_{nj}}{M_{nj}}^{2} + \normt{M_{nj}^{-1}
\Delta_{nj}}{A_{nj}}^{2}\bigr) +
\normbig{\nicefrac{\delta_{n+1}}{\tau}}{M_{n+1}^{-1}}\Bigr\}.
\end{align}
(d) Next we estimate $\normt{E_{nj}}{M_{nj}}^{2}$, in \cite{diss_Mansour} one can find the estimate:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:6}
\normt{E_{ni}}{M_{ni}}^{2} \leq C \Bigl( \normt{e_{n}}{M_{n}}^{2} + \tau \sum_{j=1}^{s} a_{ij}
\braket{\dot{E}_{nj} | E_{ni}} + \normt{M_{ni}^{-1}\Delta_{ni}}{M_{ni}}^{2} \Bigr).
\end{align}
We have to estimate $\braket{\dot{E}_{nj}| E_{ni}}$, with
equation~\eqref{eq_error-eq-interStages} we get
\begin{align}
\label{eq:24}
\braket{\dot{E}_{nj}|E_{ni}} = - \braket{E_{nj} | A_{nj} | E_{ni}} -
\braket{M_{nj} r_{nj} | E_{ni}} - \braket{\B_{nj}E_{nj} | E_{ni}}.
\end{align}
The following inequalities can be shown easily using Young's-inequality ($\varepsilon$ will be chosen
later) and Cauchy--Schwarz inequality:
\begin{align*}
-\braket{E_{nj} | A_{nj} | E_{ni}} &\leq C(\kappa) \bigl(
\normt{E_{nj}}{A_{nj}}^{2} +
\normt{E_{ni}}{A_{ni}}^{2}\bigr),\\
- \braket{\B_{nj}E_{nj}| E_{ni}} &\leq \varepsilon \normt{E_{nj}}{M_{nj}}^{2}
+ \frac{1}{4\varepsilon} C(\kappa)
\normt{E_{ni}}{A_{ni}}^{2} \\
- \braket{M_{nj}r_{nj} | E_{ni}} & \leq C(\mu,\kappa) \Bigl(
\frac{1}{4\varepsilon} \Normstar{M_{nj}r_{nj}}{nj}^{2} + \varepsilon \bigl(
\normt{E_{ni}}{M_{ni}}^{2} + \normt{E_{ni}}{A_{ni}}^{2}\bigr)\Bigr).
\end{align*}
Using the above three inequalities to estimate \eqref{eq:24}, we get
\begin{align}
\label{eq:25}
\braket{\dot{E}_{nj} | E_{ni}} \leq C(\mu,\kappa) \Bigl( \varepsilon
\normt{E_{ni}}{M_{ni}}^{2} + C(\varepsilon)
\normt{E_{ni}}{A_{ni}}^{2} + \normt{E_{nj}}{A_{nj}}^{2} +
C(\varepsilon) \Normstar{M_{nj}r_{nj}}{nj}^{2}\Bigr).
\end{align}
Using this for a sufficiently small $\varepsilon$ (independent of $\tau$) we can proceed by estimating \eqref{eq:6} further as
\begin{align*}
\normt{E_{ni}}{M_{ni}}^{2} \leq C \Bigl( \normt{e_{n}}{M_{n}}^{2} + \tau
\sum_{j=1}^{s} a_{ij} \bigl( \normt{E_{nj}}{A_{nj}}^{2} +
\Normstar{M_{nj}r_{nj}}{nj}^{2}\bigr) +
\normt{M_{ni}^{-1}\Delta_{ni}}{M_{ni}}^{2} \Bigr).
\end{align*}
(e) Now for a sufficiently small $\tau$ we can use the above inequality to estimate
\eqref{eq:1} to
\begin{align*}
\normt{e_{n+1}}{M_{n+1}}^{2} & - \normt{e_{n}}{M_{n}}^{2} + \frac{1}{8}
\tau \sum_{i=1}^{s} b_{i} \normt{E_{ni}}{A_{ni}}^{2} \leq C\tau \Bigl\{
\normt{e_{n}}{M_{n}}^{2} + \sum_{i=1}^{s}\Normstar{M_{ni}r_{ni}}{ni}^{2} \\
& + \sum_{i=1}^{s} \bigl( \normt{M_{ni}^{-1} \Delta_{ni}}{M_{ni}}^{2} +
\normt{M_{ni}^{-1}\Delta_{ni}}{A_{ni}}^{2}\bigr) +
\normbig{\nicefrac{\delta_{n+1}}{\tau}}{M_{n+1}^{-1}}\Bigr\}.
\end{align*}
Summing up over $n$ and applying a discrete Gronwall inequality yields the
desired result.
\end{proof}
\section{Error estimates for Backward Difference Formulas}
\label{section_BDF}
We apply a backward difference formula (BDF) as a temporal discretization to the ODE system \eqref{eq_ES-ODE}, coming from the ALE ESFEM space discretization of the parabolic evolving surface PDE.
In the following we extend the stability result for BDF methods of \cite{LubichMansourVenkataraman_bdsurf}, Lemma 4.1 to the case of ALE evolving surface finite element method. Apart from the properties of the ALE ESFEM the proof is based on the G--stability theory of \cite{Dahlquist} and the multiplier technique of \cite{NevanlinnaOdeh}. We will prove that the fully discrete method is unconditionally stable for the $k$-step BDF methods for $k\leq5$.
\bigskip
We recall the $k$-step BDF method for \eqref{eq_ES-ODE} with step size $\tau>0$:
\begin{equation}\label{def_BDF}
\disp \frac{1}{\tau} \sum_{j=0}^k \delta_j M(t_{n-j})\alpha_{n-j} + A(t_n)\alpha_n + \B(t_n)\alpha_n = 0, \qquad (n \geq k),
\end{equation}
where the coefficients of the method are given by $\delta(\zeta)=\sum_{j=1}^k \delta_j \zeta^j=\sum_{\ell=1}^k \frac{1}{\ell}(1-\zeta)^\ell$, while the starting values are $\alpha_0, \alpha_1, \dotsc, \alpha_{k-1}$. The method is known to be $0$-stable for $k\leq6$ and have order $k$ (for more details, see \cite[Chapter V.]{HairerWannerII}).
\bigskip
Instead of \eqref{eq_ES-ODE} let us consider again the perturbed problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq_perturbed_ODE_BDF}
\disp
\begin{cases}
\disp \diff \big(M\t \tilde{\alpha}\t\big) + A\t \tilde{\alpha}\t + \B\t \tilde{\alpha}\t = M\t r\t \\
\disp \phantom{\diff \big(M\t \alpha\t\big) + A\t \alpha\t + \B\t }\tilde{\alpha}(0) = \tilde{\alpha}_0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
By substituting the true solution $\tilde{\alpha}\t$ of the perturbed problem into the BDF method \eqref{def_BDF}, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\disp \frac{1}{\tau} \sum_{j=0}^k \delta_j M(t_{n-j})\tilde{\alpha}_{n-j} + A(t_n)\tilde{\alpha}_n + \B(t_n)\tilde{\alpha}_n = -d_n, \qquad (n \geq k).
\end{equation*}
By introducing the error $e_n = \alpha_n - \tilde{\alpha}(t_n)$, multiplying by $\tau$, and by subtraction we have the error equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq_BDF-error-eq}
\disp \sum_{j=0}^k \delta_j M_{n-j} e_{n-j} + \tau A_n e_n + \tau \B_n e_n = \tau d_n, \qquad (n \geq k).
\end{equation}
\bigskip
We recall two important preliminary results.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{Dahlquist}]
Let $\delta(\zeta)$ and $\mu(\zeta)$ be polynomials of degree at most $k$ (at least one of them of exact degree $k$) that have no common divisor. Let $\la \,.\, | \,.\, \ra$ be an inner product on $\R^N$ with associated norm $\| \,.\, \|$. If
\begin{equation*}
\textnormal{Re} \frac{\delta(\zeta)}{\mu(\zeta)} > 0, \qquad \textrm{for} \quad |\zeta|<1,
\end{equation*}
then there exists a symmetric positive definite matrix $G = (g_{ij}) \in \R^{k\times k}$ and real $\gamma_0,\dotsc,\gamma_k$ such that for all $v_0,\dotsc,v_k\in\R^N$
\begin{equation*}
\Big\la \sum_{i=0}^k \delta_i v_{k-i} \Big| \sum_{i=0}^k \mu_i v_{k-i} \Big\ra = \sum_{i,j=1}^k g_{ij} \la v_i \,|\, v_j \ra - \sum_{i,j=1}^k g_{ij} \la v_{i-1} \,|\, v_{j-1} \ra + \Big\| \sum_{i=0}^k \gamma_i v_i \Big\|^2
\end{equation*}
holds.
\end{lemma}
Together with this result, the case $\mu(\zeta)=1-\eta\zeta$ will play an important role:
\begin{lemma}[\cite{NevanlinnaOdeh}]
If $k\leq5$, then there exists $0\leq\eta<1$ \st\ for $\delta(\zeta)=\sum_{\ell=1}^k \frac{1}{\ell}(1-\zeta)^\ell$,
\begin{equation*}
\textnormal{Re} \frac{\delta(\zeta)}{1-\eta\zeta} > 0, \qquad \textrm{for} \quad |\zeta|<1.
\end{equation*}
The smallest possible values of $\eta$ is found to be $\eta=0, \ 0, \ 0.0836, \ 0.2878, \ 0.8160$ for $k=1,2,\dotsc,5$, \resp.
\end{lemma}
\bigskip
We now state and prove the analogous stability result for the BDF methods. Again the stability is unconditional.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_BDF-stability}
For a $k$-step BDF method with $k\leq5$ there exists a $\tau_0 >0$, depending only on the constants $\mu$ and $\kappa$, \st\ for $\tau\leq\tau_0$ and $t_n=n \tau\leq T$, that the error $e_n$ is bounded by
\begin{equation*}
\disp |e_n|_{M_n}^2 + \tau \sum_{j=k}^n |e_j|_{A_j}^2 \leq C \tau \sum_{j=k}^n \|d_j\|_{\ast, j}^2 + C \max_{0\leq i \leq k-1} |e_i|_{M_i}^2
\end{equation*}
where $\|w\|_{\ast, j}^2=w^T(A\t+M\t)\inv w$. The constant $C$ is independent of $h, \ \tau$ and $n$, but depends on $\mu, \ \kappa, \ T$ and on the norm of the difference of the velocities.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Our proof follows the one of \cite{LubichMansourVenkataraman_bdsurf} Lemma 4.1.
\medskip
(a) The starting point of the proof is the following reformulation of the error equation \eqref{eq_BDF-error-eq}
\begin{equation*}
\disp M_{n} \sum_{j=0}^k \delta_j e_{n-j} + \tau A_n e_n + \tau \B_n e_n = \tau d_n + \sum_{j=1}^k \delta_j \big(M_n-M_{n-j}\big) e_{n-j}
\end{equation*}
and using a modified energy estimate. We multiply both sides with $e_n - \eta e_{n-1}$, for $n\geq k+1$, which gives us:
\begin{equation*}
I_n + II_n = III_n + IV_n - V_n,
\end{equation*}
where
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\disp I_n &=& \Big\la \sum_{j=0}^k \delta_j e_{n-j} \big| M_n \big| e_n - \eta e_{n-1} \Big\ra, \\
\disp II_n &=& \tau \big\la e_n | A_n | e_n - \eta e_{n-1} \big\ra, \\
\disp III_n &=& \tau \la d_n | e_n - \eta e_{n-1} \ra, \\
\disp IV_n &=& \sum_{j=1}^k \la e_{n-j} | M_n-M_{n-j} | e_n - \eta e_{n-1} \ra, \\
\disp V_n &=& \tau \la e_n | \B_n | e_n - \eta e_{n-1} \ra .
\end{eqnarray*}}
\bigskip
(b) The estimations of $I_n, \ II_n, \ III_n$ and $IV_n$ are the same as in the proof in \cite{LubichMansourVenkataraman_bdsurf}. We note that during the estimation of $III_n$ we used Young's inequality with sufficiently small ($\tau$ independent) $\eps$.
\bigskip
The new term $V_n$ is estimated using Lemma \ref{lemma-B_estimate} and Young's inequality (with sufficiently small $\eps$, independent of $\tau$):
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\disp |V_n| &\leq& C \tau |e_n|_{M_n} \big( |e_n|_{A_n} +\eta|e_{n-1}|_{A_{n-1}}\big) \\
\disp &=& C \tau |e_n|_{M_n} |e_n|_{A_n} + C\eta \tau |e_n|_{M_n} |e_{n-1}|_{A_{n-1}} \\
\disp &\leq& \tau C \frac{1}{\eps} |e_n|_{M_n}^2 + \eps \tau |e_n|_{A_n}^2 + \tau C \frac{1}{\eps} |e_n|_{M_n}^2 + \eps \eta^2\tau \disp |e_{n-1}|_{A_{n-1}}^2.
\end{eqnarray*}}
\bigskip
(c) Combining all estimates, choosing a sufficiently small $\eps$ (independently of $\tau$), and summing up gives, for $\tau\leq\tau_0$ and for $k\geq n+1$:
\begin{equation*}
|E_n|_{G,n}^2 + (1-\eta)\frac{\tau}{8}\sum_{j=k+1}^n |e_j|_{A_j}^2 \leq C \tau \sum_{j=k}^{n-1} |E_j|_{G,j}^2 + C \tau \sum_{j=k+1}^n \|d_j\|_{\ast,j}^2 + C \eta^2 \tau |e_k|_{A_k}^2,
\end{equation*}
where $E_n=(e_n,\dotsc,e_{n-k+1})$, and the $|E_n|_{G,n}^2 := \sum_{i,j=1}^k g_{ij}\la e_{n-k+1} | M_n | e_{n-k+j}\ra$.
This is the same inequality as in \cite{LubichMansourVenkataraman_bdsurf}, hence we can also proceed with the discrete Gronwall inequality.
\bigskip
(d) To achieve the stated result we have to estimate the extra term $C \ \big(|e_k|_{M_k}^2 + \tau |e_k|_{A_k}^2\big)$. For that we take the inner product of the error equation for $n=k$ with $e_k$ to obtain
\begin{equation*}
\delta_0|e_k|_{M_k}^2 + \tau |e_k|_{A_k}^2 = \tau \la d_k \,|\, e_k\ra - \sum_{j=0}^k \delta_j \la M_{k-j} e_{k-j} \,|\, e_k\ra + \tau |\la e_k \,|\, B_k \,|\, e_k\ra|.
\end{equation*}
Then the use of Lemma \ref{lemma-B_estimate} and Young's inequality (again with sufficiently small $\eps$) and \eqref{eq_mtxlemma-M}, yields
\begin{equation*}
|e_k|_{M_k}^2 + \tau |e_k|_{A_k}^2 \leq C \tau \|d_k\|_{\ast,k}^2 + C \max_{0\leq i \leq k-1} |e_i|_{M_i}^2.
\end{equation*}
The insertion of this completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Error bounds for the fully discrete solutions}\label{section_errorbounds}
We start by connecting the stability results of the previous two sections with the \co\ solution of the parabolic problem, by investigating the behaviour of the difference of the discrete numerical solution and an arbitrary projection of the true solution $u$ to the evolving surface finite element space $S_h\t$.
Then, by choosing a specific projection, we will show the optimal rate of convergence of this difference, which -- together with the stability results -- leads us to our main results. We will prove that the full discretizations, ALE evolving surface finite element method coupled with Runge--Kutta or BDF methods of the parabolic problem \eqref{eq_ES-PDE-strong-form} (and hence \eqref{eq_MD-PDE-strong} also), have an optimal order and unconditional convergence both in space and time.
\subsection{The semidiscrete residual}
We follow \cite{LubichMansourVenkataraman_bdsurf} Section 5 by setting
\begin{equation*}
\disp P_h:H^1(\Gat) \to S_h\t\subset H^1(\Ga_h\t)
\end{equation*}
an arbitrary projection of the exact solution to the finite dimensional space $S_h\t$. Later we will choose $P_h$ to be a Ritz projection.
\bigskip
We define the finite element residual $R_h(.,t) = \sum_{j=1}^N r_j\t \chi_j(.,t)\in S_h\t$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq_residual}
\int_{\Ga_h} R_h \phi_h = \diff \int_{\Ga_h} P_h u \phi_h + \int_{\Ga_h} \nbgh(P_h u)\cdot \nbgh \phi_h + \int_{\Ga_h} (P_h u) (\Wh-V_h)\cdot \nbgh \phi_h - \int_{\Ga_h} (P_h u) \amath \phi_h,
\end{equation}
where $\phi_h\in S_h\t$, and the projection of the true solution $u$ is given as
\begin{equation*}
P_h u(.,t) = \sum_{j=1}^N \tilde{\alpha}_j\t \chi_j(.,t).
\end{equation*}
The above problem is equivalent to the ODE system with the vector $r\t=(r_j\t)\in\R^N$:
\begin{equation*}
\diff \big(M\t \tilde{\alpha}\t\big) + A\t \tilde{\alpha}\t + \B\t \tilde{\alpha}\t = M\t r\t,
\end{equation*}
which is the perturbed ODE system \eqref{eq_rk_pertubated} and \eqref{eq_perturbed_ODE_BDF}.
\subsection{Error bounds for the time integrations}
The direct application of the stability lemmas for Runge--Kutta methods and BDF methods (Lemma \ref{lem_rk-stability} and Lemma \ref{lemma_BDF-stability}, \resp) gives optimal order error estimates between the projection $P_hu(.,t_n)$ and the fully discrete solution $U_h^n$ (ALE ESFEM combined with a temporal discretization), i.e.
\begin{equation*}
U_h^n := \sum_{j=1}^N \alpha_j^n\chi_j(.,t),
\end{equation*}
where the vectors $\alpha^n$ are generated, either by an $s$-stage implicit Runge--Kutta method, or by a BDF method of order $k$.
\subsubsection{Implicit Runge--Kutta methods}
Now we can prove the analogous error estimation result from \cite{DziukLubichMansour_rksurf} Theorem~8.1 (\cite{diss_Mansour} Theorem~5.1).
\begin{theorem}\label{thm_R-K-errors}
Consider the arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian evolving surface finite element method as space discretization of the parabolic problem \eqref{eq_ES-PDE-strong-form} with time discretization by an $s$--stage implicit Runge--Kutta method satisfying Assumption \ref{assump_RK-method-assumptions}. Assume that $P_h u$ has \co\ discrete ALE material derivatives up to order $q+2$. Then there exists $\tau_0>0$, independent of $h$, \st\ for $\tau \leq \tau_0$, for the error $E_h^n=U_h^n-P_h u(.,t_n)$ the following estimate holds for $t_n=n\tau \leq T$:
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\disp \|E_h^n\|_{L^2(\Ga_h(t_n))} &+& \Big( \tau \sum_{j=1}^n \|\nb_{\Ga_h(t_j)} E_h^j \|_{L^2(\Ga_h(t_j))}^2 \Big)^{\frac{1}{2}} \\
\disp \leq C \tilde{\beta}_{h,q} \tau^{q+1} &+& C \Big( \tau \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \sum_{i=1}^s \|R_h(.,t_k+c_i\tau) \|_{H^{-1}(\Ga_h(t_k+c_i\tau))}^2 \Big)^{\frac{1}{2}} + C \|E_h^0\|_{L^2(\Ga_h(t_0))},
\end{eqnarray*}}
where the constant $C$ is independent of $h$, but depends on $T$, and
\begin{equation*}
\disp \tilde{\beta}_{h,q}^2 = \int_0^T \sum_{\ell=1}^{q+2} \| (\amath)^{(\ell)} (P_h u)(.,t) \|_{L^2(\Ga_h\t)} + \sum_{\ell=1}^{q+1} \| \nb_{\Ga_h\t} (\amath)^{(\ell)} (P_h u)(.,t) \|_{L^2(\Ga_h\t)} \d t.
\end{equation*}
The $H^{-1}$ norm of $R_h$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\disp \|R_h(.,t) \|_{H^{-1}(\Ga_h\t)} := \sup_{0\neq\phi_h\in S_h\t} \frac{\la R_h(.,t),\phi_h\ra_{L^2(\Ga_h\t)}}{\|\phi_h\|_{H^{1}(\Ga_h\t)}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\bigskip
The version with the classical order $p$ from \cite{DziukLubichMansour_rksurf} Theorem 8.2 (or \cite[Theorem 5.2]{diss_Mansour}) also holds in the ALE case, if the stronger regularity conditions are satisfied:
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Bigg| M\t\inv \frac{\d^{k_j-1}}{\d t^{k_j-1}}\Big( A\t M\t\inv \Big) \dotsm \frac{\d^{k_1-1}}{\d t^{k_1-1}}\Big( A\t M\t\inv \Big) \frac{\d^{\tilde{k}-1}}{\d t^{\tilde{k}-1}}\Big( M\t\tilde{\alpha}\t \Big)\Bigg|_{M\t} &\leq& \gamma, \\
\Bigg| M\t\inv \frac{\d^{k_j-1}}{\d t^{k_j-1}}\Big( A\t M\t\inv \Big) \dotsm \frac{\d^{k_1-1}}{\d t^{k_1-1}}\Big( A\t M\t\inv \Big) \frac{\d^{\tilde{k}-1}}{\d t^{\tilde{k}-1}}\Big( M\t\tilde{\alpha}\t \Big)\Bigg|_{A\t} &\leq& \gamma,
\end{eqnarray*}}
for all $k_j\geq1$ and $\tilde{k}\geq q+1$ with $k_1+\dotsb+k_j+\tilde{k}\leq p+1$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm_R-K-errors_order-p}
Consider the arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian evolving surface finite element method as space discretization of the parabolic problem \eqref{eq_ES-PDE-strong-form}, with time discretization by an $s$-stage implicit Runge--Kutta method satisfying Assumption \ref{assump_RK-method-assumptions} with $p>q+1$. Assuming the above regularity conditions. There exists $\tau_0>0$ independent of $h$, \st\ for $\tau \leq \tau_0$, for the error $E_h^n=U_h^n-P_h u(.,t_n)$ the following estimate holds for $t_n=n\tau \leq T$:
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\disp \|E_h^n\|_{L^2(\Ga_h(t_n))} &+& \Big( \tau \sum_{j=1}^n \|\nb_{\Ga_h(t_j)} E_h^j \|_{L^2(\Ga_h(t_j))}^2 \Big)^{\frac{1}{2}} \\
\disp \leq C_0 \tau^{p} &+& C \Big( \tau \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \sum_{i=1}^s \|R_h(.,t_k+c_i\tau) \|_{H^{-1}(\Ga_h(t_k+c_i\tau))}^2 \Big)^{\frac{1}{2}} + C \|E_h^0\|_{L^2(\Ga_h(t_0))},
\end{eqnarray*}}
where the constant $C_0$ is independent of $h$, but depends on $T$ and $\gamma$.
\end{theorem}
The proof of these theorems are using Lemma \ref{lem_rk-stability}. Otherwise they are the same as the ones in \cite{DziukLubichMansour_rksurf} (or in \cite{diss_Mansour}), but one has to work with the discrete ALE material derivatives.
\subsubsection{Backward differentiation formulae}
We prove the analogous result of \cite{LubichMansourVenkataraman_bdsurf} Theorem~5.1 (\cite{diss_Mansour} Theorem~5.3).
\begin{theorem}\label{thm_BDF-errors}
Consider the arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian evolving surface finite element method as space discretization of the parabolic problem \eqref{eq_ES-PDE-strong-form} with time discretization by a $k$-step backward difference formula of order $k\leq5$. Assume that $P_h u$ has \co\ discrete ALE material derivatives up to order $k+1$. Then there exists $\tau_0>0$, independent of $h$, \st\ for $\tau \leq \tau_0$, for the error $E_h^n=U_h^n-P_h u(.,t_n)$ the following estimate holds for $t_n=n\tau \leq T$:
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\disp \|E_h^n\|_{L^2(\Ga_h(t_n))} &+& \Big( \tau \sum_{j=1}^n \|\nb_{\Ga_h(t_j)} E_h^j \|_{L^2(\Ga_h(t_j))}^2 \Big)^{\frac{1}{2}} \\
\disp \leq C \tilde{\beta}_{h,k} \tau^{k} &+& \Big( \tau \sum_{j=1}^n \|R_h(.,t_j) \|_{H^{-1}(\Ga_h(t_j))}^2 \Big)^{\frac{1}{2}} + C \max_{0\leq i \leq k-1} \|E_h^i\|_{L^2(\Ga_h(t_i))},
\end{eqnarray*}}
where the constant $C$ is independent of $h$, but depends on $T$, and
\begin{equation*}
\disp \tilde{\beta}_{h,k}^2 = \int_0^T \sum_{\ell=1}^{k+1} \| (\amath)^{(\ell)} (P_h u)(.,t) \|_{L^2(\Ga_h(t))} \d t.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
The proof of this theorem is using Lemma \ref{lemma_BDF-stability} otherwise it is same as the one in \cite{LubichMansourVenkataraman_bdsurf} (or in \cite{diss_Mansour}), but one has to work with the discrete ALE material derivatives.
\subsection{Bound of the semidiscrete residual and the Ritz map}
We use nearly the same Ritz map introduced by \cite{LubichMansour_wave} Definition 8.1, but for the parabolic case a pointwise version suffices:
\begin{definition}
For a given $z\in H^1(\Gat)$ there is a unique $\Pt z\in S_h\t$ \st\ for all $\phi_h\in S_h\t$, with the corresponding lift $\vphi_h=\phi_h^l$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{def_eq_Ritz}
\disp a_h^{\ast}(\Pt z,\phi_h) = a^\ast(z,\vphi_h) + m(z , (v_h-v)\cdot \nbg \vphi_h),
\end{equation}
where $a^{\ast}:=a+m$ and $a_h^{\ast}:=a_h+m_h$, to make the forms $a$ and $a_h$ positive definite. Then $\P z \in S_h^l\t$ is defined as the lift of $\Pt z$, i.e.\ $\P z = (\Pt z)^l$.
\end{definition}
Together with the definition of the Ritz map, we will also use the error estimates for the Ritz projection and for its material derivatives, see \cite[Theorem 8.2]{LubichMansour_wave} (one have to work with $z$ instead of $\mat z$) or \cite[Theorem 7.2 and 7.3]{diss_Mansour}. Basically the original proof suffices for the error estimates for the ALE case as well. Except, one has to revise the following estimate.
\begin{lemma}
The error between the material velocity $v$ and the discrete lifted material velocity $v_h$ on the smooth surface can be estimated as
\begin{equation*}
\| (\amath)^{(\ell)} (v-v_h) \|_{L^\infty(\Ga)} + h \| \nbg (\amath)^{(\ell)} (v-v_h) \|_{L^\infty(\Ga)} \leq c h^2,
\end{equation*}
for $\ell\geq0$, where $(\amath)^{(\ell)}$ denotes the $\ell$-th discrete ALE material derivative
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The key trick of the proof is expressing $w_h$ by following a material point, see
\cite{diss_Mansour} equation (6.6), and that the normal component of $v$ and $w$ is equal. We also use the fact that (using the geometric estimates, Lemma \ref{lemma_geometric-est}) it is easy to prove the same estimate for the ALE velocity $w_h$.
\bigskip
(a) For $\ell=0$: the velocity $v_h$ can be expressed as
\begin{equation*}
v_h + w_h^{\ale} = w_h =(\pr-d\wein)\Wh - (\pa_t d) \nu - d \pa_t\nu,
\end{equation*}
where $-(\pa_td)\nu$ is just the normal component of $v$, denoted by $v\normal$. The superscript $\ale$ denotes the purely tangential ALE component, i.e.\ $w^{\ale}=w-v$. Further by $I_h$ we denote the finite element interpolation operator (which has its usual estimations). Then by expressing $v_h$ from above and using \eqref{eq_v-w_tangent} (i.e.\ $v\normal=w\normal$), we have
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray}
v-v_h &=& v - v\normal - \pr W_h + w_h^{\ale} + d(\wein W_n+\pa_t\nu) \nonumber \\
&=& (w-w\normal - \pr \Wh) + (w_h^{\ale}-w^{\ale}) + d(\wein\Wh+\pa_t\nu) \nonumber \\
&=& \pr (w - I_h w) + (I_h w^{\ale}-w^{\ale}) + d(\wein\Wh+\pa_t\nu) \label{eq_v_diff_express}.
\end{eqnarray}}
Then we can estimate as
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
|v-v_h| &\leq& |\pr (w - I_h w)| + |I_h w^{\ale}-w^{\ale}| + |d(\wein\Wh+\pa_t\nu)| \leq ch^2.
\end{eqnarray*}}
Here the first two parts were estimated by interpolation estimates (for piecewise linear interpolants), while the last part was estimated using the geometric estimates of Lemma \ref{lemma_geometric-est}.
We use the fact that $\nbg d=0$ and \eqref{eq_v_diff_express}, then estimate as
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\nbg(v-v_h)| \leq c|w - I_h w| + c|\nbg(w - I_h w)| + |\nbg(I_h w^{\ale}-w^{\ale})| + ch^2 \leq c h.
\end{eqnarray*}}
\bigskip
(b) For $\ell=1$, we have $\amath \chi_j^l=0$ (transport property). Again Lemma \ref{lemma_geometric-est} implies
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\amath(v-v_h)| &\leq& |(\amath \pr) (w - I_h w)| + |\pr (\amath w - I_h \amath w)| + |I_h \amath w^{\ale} - \amath w^{\ale}| \\
&+& |(\amath d)(\wein\Wh+\pa_t\nu)| + |d \amath (\wein\Wh+\pa_t\nu)| \leq c h^2.
\end{eqnarray*}}
For the gradient part we have $\nbg \amath d=0$, and we obtain
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\nbg\amath(v-v_h)| &\leq& c|w - I_h w| + c|\nbg(w - I_h w)| + c|\amath(w - I_h w)| \\
&+& c|\nbg(\amath w - I_h \amath w)| + |\nbg(I_h \amath w^{\ale}-\amath w^{\ale})|+ ch^2 \leq c h.
\end{eqnarray*}}
(c) For $\ell>1$ the proof is analogous.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
We now replace the projection $P_h$ in the definition of $R_h$ \eqref{eq_residual}, with the Ritz map $\Pt$, and show its optimal, second order convergence.
\begin{theorem}(Bound of the semidiscrete residual)\label{thm_res-bound}
Let $u$, the solution of the parabolic problem, be sufficiently smooth. Then there exists a constant $C>0$ and $h_0>0$, \st\ for all $h\leq h_0$ and $t\in[0,T]$, the finite element residual $R_h$ of the Ritz map is bounded by
\begin{equation*}
\|R_h\|_{H\inv(\Ga_h\t)} \leq C h^2.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(a) We start by applying the discrete ALE transport property to the residual equation \eqref{eq_residual} for $P_h=\Pt$:
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
m_h(R_h,\phi_h) &=& \diff m_h(\Pt u,\phi_h) + a_h(\Pt u,\phi_h) - m_h(\Pt u,\amath\phi_h) + m_h(\Pt u,(\Wh-V_h)\cdot\nbgh\phi_h) \\
&=& m_h(\amath\Pt u,\phi_h) + a_h(\Pt u,\phi_h) + g_h(\Wh;\Pt u,\phi_h) + m_h(\Pt u,(\Wh-V_h)\cdot\nbgh\phi_h).
\end{eqnarray*}}
\medskip
(b) We continue by the transport property with discrete ALE material derivatives from Lemma \ref{lemma_transport-prop}, but for the ALE weak form (from Lemma \ref{lemma_ALE-ES-PDE-weak}), with $\vphi:=\vphi_h=(\phi_h)^l$:
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
0 &=& \diff m(u,\vphi_h) + a(u,\vphi_h) - m(u,\amat\vphi_h) + m(u,(w-v)\cdot\nbg\vphi_h) \\
&=& m(\amath u,\vphi_h) + a(u,\vphi_h) + g(w_h;u,\vphi_h) + m(u,(w-v)\cdot\nbg\vphi_h) -
m(u,\amat\vphi_h-\amath\vphi_h).
\end{eqnarray*}}
For the last term we have
\begin{equation*}
\amat\vphi_h-\amath\vphi_h = (w-w_h) \cdot \nbg \vphi_h,
\end{equation*}
hence the last two terms can be collected as $\disp m(u,(w_h-v)\cdot\nbgh\phi_h)$.
\medskip
(c) Subtraction of the two equations yields
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
m_h(R_h,\phi_h) &=& m_h(\amath\Pt u,\phi_h) - m(\amath u,\vphi_h) \\
&+& g_h(\Wh;\Pt u,\phi_h) - g(w_h;u,\vphi_h) \\
&+& a^\ast_h(\Pt u,\phi_h) - a^\ast(u,\vphi_h) \\
&-& \big(m_h(\Pt u,\phi_h) - m(u,\vphi_h)\big) \\
&+& m_h(\Pt u,(\Wh-V_h)\cdot\nbgh\phi_h) - m(u,(w_h-v)\cdot\nbg\vphi_h).
\end{eqnarray*}}
By using the definition of the Ritz map, and then collecting the terms as
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
& & m(u,(v_h-v)\cdot\nbg\vphi_h) + \\
&+& m_h(\Pt u,(\Wh-V_h)\cdot\nbgh\phi_h) - m(u,(w_h-v)\cdot\nbg\vphi_h) = \\
&=& m_h(\Pt u,(\Wh-V_h)\cdot\nbgh\phi_h) - m(u,(w_h-v_h)\cdot\nbg\vphi_h),
\end{eqnarray*}}
we finally obtain the following expression for the residual:
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
m_h(R_h,\phi_h) &=& m_h(\amath\Pt u,\phi_h) - m(\amath u,\vphi_h) \\
&+& g_h(\Wh;\Pt u,\phi_h) - g(w_h;u,\vphi_h) \\
&-& \big(m_h(\Pt u,\phi_h) - m(u,\vphi_h)\big) \\
&+& m_h(\Pt u,(\Wh-V_h)\cdot\nbgh\phi_h) - m(u,(w_h-v_h)\cdot\nbg\vphi_h).
\end{eqnarray*}}
\medskip
(d) We estimate these pairs separately. By applying Lemma \ref{lemma_estiamtion-of-new-form} and the error estimate for the Ritz map c.f.\ \cite{diss_Mansour} Theorem 7.2 and 7.3, there follows
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
m_h(\Pt u,(\Wh-V_h)\cdot\nbgh\phi_h) &-& m(\P u,(w_h-v_h)\cdot\nbg\vphi_h) \\
&+& m(\P u-u,(w_h-v_h)\cdot\nbg\vphi_h) \leq C h^2\|\vphi_h\|_{H^1(\Ga)}.
\end{eqnarray*}}
Finally, the other pairs can be estimated by the same arguments (in fact they can be bounded by $C h^2\|\vphi_h\|_{L^2(\Ga\t)}$).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Error of the full ALE discretizations}
We compare the lifted fully discrete numerical solution $u_h^n:=(U_h^n)^l$ with the exact solution $u(.,t_n)$ of the evolving surface PDE \eqref{eq_ES-PDE-strong-form} (or the moving domain PDE \eqref{eq_MD-PDE-strong}), where $U_h^n = \sum_{j=1}^N \alpha_j^n\chi_j(.,t)$, where the vectors $\alpha^n$ are generated by the Runge--Kutta or BDF method.
\bigskip
Now we state and prove the main results of this paper.
\begin{theorem}[ALE ESFEM and R--K]
Consider the arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian evolving surface finite element method as space discretization of the parabolic problem \eqref{eq_ES-PDE-strong-form} with time discretization by an $s$--stage implicit Runge--Kutta method satisfying Assumption \ref{assump_RK-method-assumptions}. Let $u$ be a sufficiently smooth solution of the problem and assume that the initial value is approximated as
\begin{equation*}
\disp \|u_h^0 - (\P u)(.,0)\|_{L^2(\Ga(0))} \leq C_0 h^2.
\end{equation*}
Then there exists $h_0>0$ and $\tau_0>0$, \st\ for $h\leq h_0$ and $\tau \leq \tau_0$, the following error estimate holds for $t_n=n\tau \leq T$:
\begin{equation*}
\disp \|u_h^n - u(.,t_n)\|_{L^2(\Ga(t_n))} + h\Big( \tau \sum_{j=1}^n \|\nb_{\Ga(t_j)} u_h^j - \nb_{\Ga(t_j)} u(.,t_j)\|_{L^2(\Ga(t_j))}^2 \Big)^{\frac{1}{2}} \leq C \big( \tau^{q+1} + h^2 \big).
\end{equation*}
The constant $C$ is independent of $h, \ \tau$ and $n$.
\medskip
Assuming that we have more regularity: conditions of Theorem \ref{thm_R-K-errors_order-p} are additionally satisfied, then we have $p$ instead of $q+1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}[ALE ESFEM and BDF]
Consider the arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian evolving surface finite element method as space discretization of the parabolic problem \eqref{eq_ES-PDE-strong-form} with time discretization by a $k$-step backward difference formula of order $k\leq5$. Let $u$ be a sufficiently smooth solution of the problem and assume that the starting values are satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\disp \max_{0 \leq i \leq k-1} \| u_h^i - (\P u)(.,t_i) \|_{L^2(\Ga(0))} \leq C_0 h^2.
\end{equation*}
Then there exists $h_0>0$ and $\tau_0>0$, \st\ for $h\leq h_0$ and $\tau \leq \tau_0$, the following error estimate holds for $t_n=n\tau \leq T$:
\begin{equation*}
\disp \|u_h^n - u(.,t_n)\|_{L^2(\Ga(t_n))} + h\Big( \tau \sum_{j=1}^n \|\nb_{\Ga(t_j)} u_h^j - \nb_{\Ga(t_j)} u(.,t_j)\|_{L^2(\Ga(t_j))}^2 \Big)^{\frac{1}{2}} \leq C \big( \tau^{k} + h^2 \big).
\end{equation*}
The constant $C$ is independent of $h, \ \tau$ and $n$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The global error is decomposed into two parts
\begin{equation*}
\disp u_h^n - u(.,t_n) = \Big(u_h^n - (\P u)(.,t_n)\Big) + \Big((\P u)(.,t_n) - u(.,t_n)\Big),
\end{equation*}
and the terms are estimated by previous results.
\bigskip
The first term is estimated by our results for Runge--Kutta or BDF methods: Theorem \ref{thm_R-K-errors} or \ref{thm_BDF-errors}, \resp, together with the residual bound Theorem \ref{thm_res-bound}, and by Theorem 7.2 and 7.3 from \cite{diss_Mansour} (or Theorem 8.2 of \cite{LubichMansour_wave}).
\bigskip
The second part is estimated again by the error estimates for the Ritz projection \cite{diss_Mansour} (or \cite{LubichMansour_wave} Theorem 8.2).
\end{proof}
\section{Numerical experiments}
\label{section_numerics}
We present numerical experiments for an evolving surface parabolic problem discretized by the original and the ALE evolving surface finite elements coupled with various time discretizations. The fully discrete methods were implemented in Matlab, while the initial triangulations were generated using DistMesh (\cite{distmesh}).
\medskip
The ESFEM and the ALE ESFEM case were integrated by identical codes, except the involvement of the nonsymmetric $B$ matrix and the evolution of the surface. The ODE system giving the normal movement (see \eqref{eq_normal-movement-ODE} below) was solved by the exact same time discretization method as the PDE problem (with the same step size), while the ALE map is given in \eqref{eq_ALE-map}.
\bigskip
To illustrate our theoretical results we choose a problem which was intensively investigated in the literature before, see \cite{BarreiraElliottMadzvamuse_patternformation}. Specially for ALE approach see \cite{ElliottStyles_ALEnumerics}, \cite{ElliottVenkataraman_ALEdiscrete}. We consider the evolving surface parabolic PDE \eqref{eq_ES-PDE-strong-form} over the closed surface $\Ga\t$ given by the zero level set of the distance function
\begin{equation*}
d(x,t) := x_1^2 + x_2^2 + A\t^2 G\Big( \frac{x_3^2}{L\t^2} \Big)-A\t^2, \quad \textrm{i.e.,} \quad \Ga\t:=\{x\in \R^3 \ \big| \ d(x,t)=0\}.
\end{equation*}
Here the functions $G$, $L$ and $A$ are given as
{\setlength\arraycolsep{.13889em}
\begin{eqnarray*}
G(s)&=&200s\big( s - \frac{199}{200}\big),\\
L(t)&=&1 + 0.2\sin(4\pi \ t),\\
A(t)&=&0.1 + 0.05\sin(2\pi \ t).
\end{eqnarray*}}
The velocity $v$ is the normal velocity of the surface defined by the differential equation (formulated for the nodes):
\begin{equation}\label{eq_normal-movement-ODE}
\diff a_j = V_j \nu_j, \qquad V_j=\frac{-\pa_t d(a_j,t)}{|\nb d(a_j,t)|}, \quad \nu_j=\frac{\nb d(a_j,t)}{|\nb d(a_j,t)|}.
\end{equation}
The righthand-side $f$ is chosen as to have the function $u(x,t)=e^{-6t}x_1x_2$ to be the true solution.
Finally we give the applied ALE movement (from \cite{ElliottStyles_ALEnumerics} and \cite{ElliottVenkataraman_ALEdiscrete}):
\begin{equation}\label{eq_ALE-map}
(a_i\t)_1= (a_0\t)_1 \frac{A\t}{A(0)}, \quad (a_i\t)_2= (a_0\t)_2 \frac{A\t}{A(0)}, \quad (a_i\t)_3= (a_0\t)_3 \frac{L\t}{L(0)},
\end{equation}
hence $d(a_i \t ,t)=0$ for every $t\in[0,T]$, for $i=1,2,\dotsc,N$.
\bigskip
In the following we compare the ALE and non-ALE methods with three spatial refinements, and integrate the evolving surface PDE with various time discretizations, with a fixed time step $\tau$, until $T=0.6$. There we compute the error vector $e\in\R^N$, representing $e_h(x,t) := u_h(x,T)-u(x,T)$ ($T = n \tau$). We also compute the following norm and seminorm of it
\begin{equation*}
|e_h|_M = \big(e^T M(T) e\big)^{\frac{1}{2}}, \qquad |e_h|_A = \big(e^T A(T) e\big)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation*}
which by \eqref{eq_normdefs} correspond to the $L^2$ norms of $e_h$ and $\nbgh e_h$, respectively.
The following plots show the above error norms (left $M$-norm, right $A$-norm) plotted against the time step size $\tau$ (on logarithmic scale), different error curves are representing different spatial discretizations.
l
\bigskip
In the first experiment we used the implicit Euler method as a time discretization. Figure \ref{fig: ESFEM_IE} and \ref{fig: ALE_ESFEM_IE} show the errors obtained by the backward Euler method. The convergence in time can be seen (note the reference line), while for sufficiently small $\tau$ the spatial error is dominating, in agreement with the theoretical results.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{ESFEM_IE}\\
\caption{Errors of the ESFEM and the implicit Euler method}\label{fig: ESFEM_IE}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{ALE-ESFEM_IE}\\
\caption{Errors of the ALE ESFEM and the implicit Euler method}\label{fig: ALE_ESFEM_IE}
\end{figure}
The figures show that the erros in the ALE ESFEM are significantly smaller than for the non-ALE.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
The authors would like to thank Prof. Christian Lubich for the invaluable discussions on the topic, and for his encouragement and help during the preparation of this paper.
\pagebreak
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
|
\section{Introduction}
Optimal Power Flow (OPF) was first introduced in the 1960s \cite{Carpentier} and much effort has been devoted to its solution, which {has} resulted in a rich literature. Roughly speaking, we can categorize the previous work into three categories.
The first {category} of algorithms find local optimal solutions or stationary points using optimization procedures such as interior point methods (e.g. MATPOWER \cite{Matpower}). {The shortcoming of these local methods is that if a solution is obtained, there is no guarantee for global optimality or even any evidence of how good this solution is.} {For instance, in \cite{Bukhsh}, there are several examples which have multiple local optima and it has been shown that local solvers tend to converge to the solution which is closest to the initial guess.}
The second {category} of algorithms attempt to obtain global optimal solutions of OPF by solving convex relaxations. For instance, one popular approach is to use {semidefinite programming (SDP)} relaxations of the original OPF problem. Since SDPs are polynomially solvable, this method suggests that OPF can be solved efficiently provided that the relaxation is exact, i.e., the SDP relaxation finds the global optimal solution for the OPF problem. {A recent, comprehensive survey can be found in \cite{low2014convexi, low2014convexii}.}
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] One of the early works that popularizes {this} approach is \cite{Lavaei12}.
{It is shown that the SDP relaxation is tight for a resistive network with no reactive loads where demand over-satisfaction is allowed, as long as the dual variables are positive.}
{It was conjectured that under normal operating conditions the SDP relaxation is tight.}
\item[-] {However, \cite{Lesieutre} gives a very simple counterexample (a 3-bus cycle) with nonzero optimality gap.}
\item[-] {In \cite{sojoudi2012physics}, it is proven that SDP relaxation is exact if load over-satisfaction is allowed and a sufficient number of virtual phase shifters are present.}
\item[-] An attempt to solve OPF using SDP relaxation is made in \cite{Zhang12} for radial networks. In this work, it is proven that under operational constraints on voltage magnitudes, line losses, and line flows, the SDP relaxation is tight {if there are no lower bounds on real and reactive power generation at any bus}. {Similar results are also obtained in \cite{bose2011optimal, bose2012quadratically} without line limit constraints.}
\item[-] In \cite{Lavaei14}, it is proven that if voltage magnitudes are fixed, then the convex relaxations are tight under practical angle restrictions {for radial networks} {in the presence of {only} real power lower bounds.} This result extends to the case with variable voltage magnitudes under reasonable assumptions.
\end{itemize}
As we observe above, the exactness of the SDP relaxation can only be guaranteed for special classes of OPF instances, {often when we disregard some generation lower bounds}. {Unfortunately,} if the SDP relaxation is not tight, the physical meaning of its solution is not easy to recover. {In this case, an alternative approach would be to use an hierarchy for SDPs \cite{lasserre} as suggested in \cite{josz}. However, this approach may not be practical as the size of the SDPs grows larger with the order of the relaxation.}
{The third category of algorithms attempt to remove the pitfalls of the previous two approaches by endeavoring to obtain globally optimal solutions. One such algorithm based on branch-and-bound method is proposed in \cite{Phan} for the solution of OPF.} Lagrangian relaxation is used to find lower bounds while a local solver (IPOPT) is utilized to obtain upper bounds. {Global solution techniques are in their infancy today and much work needs to be done to make them practically efficient.}
In this paper, we focus on {the OPF problem on }radial networks {in the presence of}
generation lower bounds {on both real and reactive power.} {The goal of this paper is two fold: To highlight the inexactness of standard convex relaxations for these instances and to make algorithmic progress in solving such instances globally.}
We make two comments here in relation to the class of OPF problems we consider and our assumptions. First, although most power flow networks are not radial, they are {usually} quite sparse and analyzing radial networks can {therefore} be beneficial for their own right, especially in the case of distribution networks \cite{Lavaei14}.
{Second, typically power systems have ramping constraints, so that the power generation in the next time period cannot deviate from the current one too much. Hence, it is important to make a study of the effects of lower bounds.}
In practice, SDPs may become prohibitively expensive as the size of the network grows larger. One can turn to {second order conic programming (SOCP)} relaxations, which are in general weaker than their SDP counterparts. However, in \cite{Sojoudi}, it has been proven that both types of relaxations give the same lower bound for the OPF problem over radial networks even if they are inexact. {Therefore any result stated for SOCPs in this paper holds for SDP relaxations and vice-versa.}
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In the next section, we review the rectangular formulation of the OPF problem and a reformulation that leads to the SOCP relaxation. In Section \ref{section:twobus}, we {begin working on our first goal by providing} a complete characterization of the approximation performance of SOCP relaxation for a two-bus system. In Section \ref{section:examples}, we further study the feasible regions of two small systems. Then, in Section \ref{section:library}, {we begin working on our second goal by providing} a library of radial network instances generated from MATPOWER test cases
for which SOCP relaxation is inexact.
In Section \ref{section:valid}, we propose valid inequalities for the SOCP relaxation, which significantly improves the computational performance of a global solver. {Concluding remarks} are {made} in Section \ref{section:conc}.
\section{Optimal Power Flow}
Consider a typical power network, where $\mathcal{B}$, $\mathcal{G}$ and $\mathcal{L}$ denote respectively the set of buses, generators and transmission lines.
The nodal admittance matrix $Y \in \mathbb{C}^{|\mathcal{B}| \times |\mathcal{B}|}$ has component $Y_{ij}=G_{ij} + \mathrm{i}B_{ij}$ for each line $(i,j)$ and $G_{ii}=g_{ii}-\sum_{j\ne i} G_{ij}, B_{ii}=b_{ii}-\sum_{j\ne i} B_{ij}$, where $g_{ii}$ (resp. $b_{ii}$) is the shunt conductance (resp. susceptance) at bus $i$.
Let $p_i^g, q_i^g$ (resp. $p_i^d, q_i^d$) be the real and reactive power output of the generator (resp. load) at bus $i$. The complex voltage $V_i$ at bus $i$ can be expressed either in the rectangular form as $V_i = e_i+\mathrm{i} f_i$ or in the polar form as $V_i = |V_i|(\cos\theta_i+\mathrm{i}\sin\theta_i)$, where the voltage magnitude $|V_i|^2=e_i^2 + f_i^2$.
The OPF problem in the rectangular form is given as
\begin{subequations} \label{rect form}
\begin{align}
\min &\ \sum_{i \in \mathcal{G}} C_i(p_i^g) \label{objR} \\
\mathrm{s.t.} \ & p_i^g-p_i^d =\sum_{j \in \delta(i)}[ G_{ij}(e_ie_j+f_if_j)-B_{ij}(e_if_j-e_jf_i)] \notag\\
& \hspace{61mm}\quad i \in \mathcal{B} \label{activeAtBus}\\
& q_i^g-q_i^d = \sum_{j \in \delta(i)}[ -B_{ij}(e_ie_j+f_if_j)-G_{ij}(e_if_j-e_jf_i)] \nonumber \\
& \hspace{65.5mm} i \in \mathcal{B} \label{reactiveAtBus}\\
& (V_i^{\text{min}})^2 \le e_i^2+f_i^2 \le (V_i^{\text{max}})^2 \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad \; i \in \mathcal{B} \label{voltageAtBus} \\
& p_i^{\text{min}} \le p_i^g \le p_i^{\text{max}} \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad \; \; { i \in \mathcal{B}} \label{activeAtGenerator} \\
& q_i^{\text{min}} \le q_i^g \le q_i^{\text{max}} \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad \ \; {i \in \mathcal{B}} \label{reactiveAtGenerator}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Here $C_i(p_i^g)$ in \eqref{objR} represents the production cost of generator $i$, which typically is either a linear or a convex quadratic nondecreasing function of $p_i^g$. Constraints \eqref{activeAtBus}-\eqref{reactiveAtBus} enforce flow conservation at each bus $i$, where $\delta(i)$ is the set of buses adjacent to $i$ and including $i$. Constraint \eqref{voltageAtBus} limits the upper and lower bounds on the bus voltage magnitudes. Usually $V_i^{\text{min}}$ and $V_i^{\text{max}}$ are close to the unit voltage. Constraints \eqref{activeAtGenerator}-\eqref{reactiveAtGenerator} are the upper and lower bounds on generator $i$'s real and reactive power, respectively. {Here, we have $ p_i^{\text{min}} = p_i^{\text{max}}=q_i^{\text{min}} = q_i^{\text{max}}=0$ for bus $i$ where there is no generator, i.e. $i \in \mathcal{B} \setminus \mathcal{G}$.}
One can equivalently formulate the above OPF problem in polar coordinates. Sometimes, the rectangular formulation is preferred since the Hessian matrix of the constraints is constant and this is an advantage for the interior point methods. On the other hand, when the voltage magnitude is fixed at some buses, the polar formulation may become more advantageous \cite{Sun}.
We can observe that all the nonlinearities in \eqref{rect form} are of the following three types:
\begin{align*}
(1)\; e_i^2+f_i^2\quad (2)\; e_ie_j+f_if_j\quad (3)\; e_if_j-e_jf_i,
\end{align*}
which are equal to $|V_i|^2$, $|V_i||V_j|\cos(\theta_i - \theta_j)$, and $|V_i||V_j|\sin(\theta_i - \theta_j)$ in the polar form, respectively. Let us define new variables $c_{ii}$, $c_{ij}$, and $s_{ij}$ for each of these three quantities. Since the cosine function is even and the sine function is odd, we also have $c_{ij}=c_{ji}$ and $s_{ij}=-s_{ji}$. On each line $(i,j)$, these quantities are linked through the fundamental trigonometric identity $\cos^2(\theta_i-\theta_j)+\sin^2(\theta_i-\theta_j)=1$, which translates into
\begin{align*}
(e_ie_j+f_if_j)^2 + (e_if_j-e_jf_i)^2 &= (e_i^2+f_i^2)(e_j^2+f_j^2)
\end{align*}
in the rectangular form. In the space of our new variables, this relation is expressed in the following quadratic equation $c_{ij}^2+s_{ij}^2 = c_{ii}c_{jj}$,
which describes the surface of a rotated second-order cone in four dimensions.
Now, we are ready to reformulate OPF using this idea:
\begin{subequations} \label{SOCP}
\begin{align}
\min &\ \sum_{i \in \mathcal{G}} C_i(p_i^g) \label{obj} \\
\mathrm{s.t.} \ &\hspace{0.5em} p_i^g-p_i^d =
\sum_{j \in \delta(i)}[ G_{ij}c_{ij} -B_{ij}s_{ij}] \hspace{14mm} i \in \mathcal{B} \label{activeAtBusR} \\
& q_i^g-q_i^d =
\sum_{j \in \delta(i)}[ -B_{ij}c_{ij} -G_{ij}s_{ij}] \hspace{14mm} i \in \mathcal{B} \label{reactiveAtBusR} \\
& (V_i^{\text{min}})^2 \le c_{ii} \le (V_i^{\text{max}})^2 \hspace{2.8cm} i\in \mathcal{B} \label{voltageAtBusR} \\
& p_i^{\text{min}} \le p_i^g \le p_i^{\text{max}} \hspace{3.9cm} {i \in \mathcal{B}} \label{activeAtGeneratorR} \\
& q_i^{\text{min}} \le q_i^g \le q_i^{\text{max}} \hspace{3.9cm} { i \in \mathcal{B}} \label{reactiveAtGeneratorR} \\
& c_{ij}=c_{ji} \hspace{4.5cm} (i,j) \in \mathcal{L} \label{cosine}\\
& s_{ij}=-s_{ji}\hspace{4.2cm} (i,j) \in \mathcal{L} \label{sine}\\
& c_{ij}^2+s_{ij}^2 = c_{ii}c_{jj}. \hspace{3.2cm} (i,j) \in \mathcal{L} \label{coupling}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
This reformulation \eqref{SOCP} is exact for any radial network, because the following equations on voltage angles
\begin{align}
{\sin(\theta_i - \theta_j) = \frac{s_{ij}}{\sqrt{c_{ii}c_{jj}}}, \hspace{1cm} (i,j) \in \mathcal{L} \label{thetasine}}\\
{\cos(\theta_i - \theta_j) = \frac{c_{ij}}{\sqrt{c_{ii}c_{jj}}}, \hspace{1cm} (i,j) \in \mathcal{L} \label{thetacosine}}
\end{align}
have a unique solution as long as the underlying network is radial, where $s_{ij}, c_{ij}$ are obtained from solving \eqref{SOCP}. {An alternative proof can be seen in \cite{Gan}.} For meshed networks, however, the reformulation (\ref{SOCP}) is exact only if we include \eqref{thetasine}-\eqref{thetacosine} in the constraints.
This idea is first proposed to solve the load flow problem for radial and meshed networks \cite{Exposito99, Jabr06,Jabr07}. Then, it is adapted to OPF in \cite{Jabr08}.
Except the coupling constraints (\ref{coupling}), all other constraints in \eqref{SOCP} are now linear. Hence, all the nonconvexity of the OPF problem \eqref{rect form} in a radial network is captured by \eqref{coupling}, and the feasible region is the intersection of a polytope defined by (\ref{activeAtBusR})-(\ref{sine}) with the boundaries of rotated second-order cones defined by (\ref{coupling}).
It is straightforward to obtain a second-order cone programming (SOCP) relaxation of \eqref{SOCP} by relaxing constraint (\ref{coupling}) as follows:
\begin{equation}
c_{ij}^2+s_{ij}^2 \le c_{ii}c_{jj} \quad (i,j) \in \mathcal{L}, \label{couplingSOCP}
\end{equation}
which can be written more explicitly as a SOCP constraint:
\begin{equation}
c_{ij}^2+s_{ij}^2 + \left(\frac{c_{ii }-c_{jj}}{2} \right)^2 \le \left(\frac{c_{ii }+ c_{jj}}{2} \right)^2 \quad (i,j) \in \mathcal{L}.\label{SOCPconstr}
\end{equation}
The SOCP relaxation is defined as \eqref{obj}-\eqref{sine} and \eqref{SOCPconstr}.
It is proven that in radial networks the SOCP relaxation is equivalent to the SDP relaxation \cite{Sojoudi}. In this paper, we focus on SOCP relaxation due to its superior computational performance.
\section{Analytical Study of a Two-Bus System}\label{section:twobus}
In this section, we study the two-bus system with one generator and one load. This is arguably the simplest power system, but also one of the most fundamental models in power system analysis. Surprisingly, for this simple system, the SOCP relaxation with generation lower bounds can have all three possible outcomes in terms of optimality gap, namely (1) SOCP obtains exact solution (i.e. optimality gap is zero); (2) SOCP is feasible, yet OPF is infeasible (optimality gap is infinite); (3) SOCP has a finite optimality gap, and we give an analytical expression of this gap. We identify parameter ranges in closed form for each of these outcomes. We also study the feasible region projected in the space of squared bus voltage magnitudes to gain geometric intuition.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\caption{
Projection of feasible region of 2-bus, 1-generator examples onto $(c _{11}, c_{22})$ space for five cases. Horizontal axis is $c _{11}$ and vertical axis is $c _{22}$. Solid black curve is {(\ref{feasCurve}) containing the} feasible region of OPF with dashed lines being two asymptotes shown in Fig. 1a. Green and red lines are bounds on $c _{11}$ and $c _{22}$, resp. Magenta line is the effective lower bound on $c _{11} - c _{22}$. Blue region is the feasible region of SOCP relaxation. All figures are in p.u.
} \label{Cases}
\subfigure[Case 1: SOCP relaxation is exact.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.356\columnwidth]{Case1_.eps}
}
\subfigure[Case 2: SOCP relaxation is feasible, OPF is infeasible.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.356\columnwidth]{Case2_high.eps}
}
\subfigure[Case 3: SOCP relaxation is exact.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.356\columnwidth]{Case3_high.eps}
}
\subfigure[Case 4: SOCP relaxation is feasible, OPF is infeasible.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.356\columnwidth]{Case4_high.eps}
}
\subfigure[Case 5: SOCP relaxation is inexact.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.356\columnwidth]{Case5_high.eps}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Let us assume that bus 1 is a generator bus and bus 2 is a load bus. Further assume that $g_{ii}=b_{ii}=0$ and $G:= G_{12}<0$ and $B:= B_{12}>0$ (the analysis for $B<0$ is similar). Also assume the production cost $C_1(p_1^g)$ is linear in $p_1^g$.
\subsection{Feasible Region Projected to $(c_{11},c_{22})$ space}
The linear equality system (\ref{activeAtBusR})-(\ref{reactiveAtBusR}) can be written as
\begin{align}
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & & \ \ G & & -G & \ \ B \\
& 1 & -B & &\ \ B & \ \ G \\
& & & \ \ G & -G& -B \\
& & & -B &\ \ B& -G
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
p_1^g \\
q_1^g \\
c_{11} \\
c_{22} \\
c_{12} \\
s_{12}
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 \\
0 \\
p_2^d \\
q_2^d
\end{bmatrix}.\label{eq:linsys}
\end{align}
Let us define
\begin{equation}
\alpha := \frac{B p_2^d + G q_2^d}{B^2+G^2}\;\;
\text{ and }\;\;
\beta := \frac{G p_2^d - B q_2^d}{B^2+G^2},
\end{equation}
which are constant for fixed $B,G$ and load. Solving the linear system \eqref{eq:linsys}, we can express $(p_1^g, q_1^g, c_{12}, s_{12})$ in terms of $(c_{11}, c_{22})$ as follows
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
s_{12} &= -\alpha \label{eq:s12}\\
c_{12} &= c_{22} - \beta \label{eq:c12}\\
p_1^g &= -G(c_{11} - c_{22}) - G\beta + B \alpha \label{eq:p1g}\\
q_1^g &= B(c_{11} - c_{22}) + B\beta + G \alpha. \label{eq:q1g}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
We {now} reformulate constraint (\ref{coupling}) {using (\ref{eq:s12}) and (\ref{eq:c12})} as
\begin{equation} \label{feasCurve}
(c_{22} - \beta)^2 + \alpha^2 = c_{11} c_{22} \Rightarrow c_{11} = c_{22} - 2\beta + \frac{\alpha^2+\beta^2}{c_{22}},
\end{equation}
which defines a hyperbola for $(c_{11}, c_{22})$ with two asymptotes: $c_{11} - c_{22}= - 2\beta$ and $c_{22} = 0$.
Observe that this hyperbola together with the constraints on $c_{11}$ and $c_{22}$ implied from \eqref{voltageAtBusR}-\eqref{reactiveAtGeneratorR} define the feasible region of the OPF problem projected to the $(c_{11}, c_{22})$ space. In particular, \eqref{voltageAtBusR} impose a box constraint on $c_{11}$ and $c_{22}$, whereas \eqref{activeAtGeneratorR}-\eqref{reactiveAtGeneratorR} imply upper and lower bounds on the difference $c_{11}-c_{22}$, which defines a region parallel to the first asymptote $c_{11}-c_{22}=-2\beta$. {Figure 1a depicts the entire feasible regions of OPF in black curve and of SOCP relaxation in the blue region. Figures 1b-1e zoom in particular parts. }
Furthermore, since the objective function $C_1(p_1^g)$ is assumed to be linear in $p_1^g$ and by \eqref{eq:p1g}, we can see that the level set of the objective function in $(c_{11}, c_{22})$ is also parallel to the first asymptote, and decreases toward the upper left corner as pointed by the arrow in Figure 1. Therefore, only the lower bounds on $p_1^g$ and $q_1^g$ can affect the optimal solution of \eqref{SOCP}. For this reason, we find the \textit{effective} lower bound for the difference $c_{11}-c_{22}$ as
\begin{equation}
\Delta = \max\left\{ \frac{ p_1^{\text{min}} + G\beta - B \alpha}{-G}, \frac{q_1^{\text{min}} - B\beta - G \alpha }{B}\right\},\label{eq:Delta}
\end{equation}
which is given by the lower bounds of \eqref{activeAtGeneratorR}-\eqref{reactiveAtGeneratorR}, and is plotted as magenta lines in Figure 1. Also note that as $p_1^{\min}$ and $q_1^{\min}$ increase, the line $c_{11}-c_{22}\geq \Delta$ moves toward the lower right corner in Figure 1.
\subsection{Complete Characterization of Approximation Outcomes}
At this point, we are ready to explore the optimal solutions of the OPF \eqref{SOCP} and its SOCP relaxation and classify all five possible cases of the configurations of their feasible regions and the associated approximation outcomes.
\begin{itemize}
\item First of all, let us assume that $\Delta$ defined in \eqref{eq:Delta} is small enough. In this case, as depicted in Figure \ref{Cases}a, the optimal solution of both the OPF and the SOCP is unique and given by
\begin{align}
\hspace{0mm}(c_{11}^O, c_{22}^O) = \begin{cases}
\bigl(\overline c_{22} - 2\beta + \frac{\alpha^2+\beta^2}{ \overline c_{22}}, \overline c_{22}\bigr) \quad \text{ if (a) holds} \\
\bigl(\overline c_{11}, \frac{2\beta + \overline c_{11} + \sqrt{(2\beta + \overline c_{11})^2 - 4(\alpha^2+\beta^2)}}{2}\bigr)\text{ o.w.}
\end{cases}\label{eq:cO}
\end{align}
where condition (a) is $(\overline c_{22} - \beta)^2 + \alpha^2 \le \overline c_{11} \overline c_{22}$ and $\overline c_{ii}:=(V_i^{\max})^2$.
Hence, the SOCP relaxation is exact. This result is in accordance with the results in \cite{Zhang12}.
\item Consider the case where $\Delta$ is large enough. In particular, $c_{11}^O - c_{22}^O < \Delta$.
Define the intersection of $c_{11} - c_{22} = \Delta$ with the binding upper bound of either $c_{11}$ or $c_{22}$ as
\begin{equation}
(c_{11}^R, c_{22}^R) = \begin{cases} ( \overline c_{22} + \Delta, \overline c_{22} ) \text{ if } \overline c_{11} -\overline c_{22} \ge \Delta \\
(\overline c_{11}, \overline c_{11} - \Delta) \text{ o.w. }
\end{cases
\end{equation}
Note that this point is OPF infeasible despite being SOCP optimal. Next, define the intersection of the hyperbola (\ref{feasCurve}) and $c_{11} - c_{22} = \Delta$ as
\begin{equation}
(c_{11}^E, c_{22}^E) = \left( \frac{\alpha^2+\beta^2}{2\beta+ \Delta } + \Delta, \frac{\alpha^2+\beta^2}{2\beta+ \Delta }\right).\label{eq:cE}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\caption{Projection of feasible region of 2-bus, 2-generator example onto $(p_1^g,p_2^g)$ space. Horizontal axis is $p_1^g$ and vertical axis is $p_2^g$.
Black curve is an ellipse with counterclockwise orientation that {contains} the feasible region of OPF problem whereas blue region is its SOCP relaxation. Green lines are the lower bound on $p_1^g$ and $p_2^g$ while red lines are the lower bound on $q_1^g$ and $q_2^g$. Dashed lines represent angle bounds corresponding to $30^{\circ}$. Assuming linear functions, the arrow shows the cost vector. Blue and orange dots are respectively the optimal solutions of SOCP relaxation and OPF, whenever the latter exists.} \label{FeasReg2 all}
\subfigure[SOCP is exact.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.465\columnwidth]{redundant.pdf}
}
\subfigure[SOCP is feasible while OPF is infeasible.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.465\columnwidth]{infeasible.pdf}
}
\subfigure[SOCP is inexact due to reactive and active lower bounds.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.465\columnwidth]{reactiveActive.pdf}
}
\subfigure[SOCP is inexact due to angle and {reactive} lower bounds.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.465\columnwidth]{reactiveAngle.pdf}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
If $c_{22}^E < \underline c_{22}$, where $\underline c_{ii}:=(V_i^{\min})^2$, then SOCP is feasible while OPF is infeasible. An example of this case can be seen from Figure \ref{Cases}b, which shows the zoomed in part of the hyperbola.
\item If $c_{11}^O - c_{22}^O < \Delta$, $c_{22}^E \ge \underline c_{22}$, and $c_{11}^E\geq \underline c_{11}$,
then the SOCP relaxation is exact as in Figure \ref{Cases}c. In fact, any point in the convex combination of $c^R$ and $c^E$ is SOCP optimal. Such a point can always be {corrected} by reducing $c_{11}$, $c_{22}$ and $c_{12}$ components by the same amount until we reach $c^E$, which is the OPF optimal solution.
\item If $c_{11}^O - c_{22}^O < \Delta$, $c_{22}^E \ge \underline c_{22}$, and $c_{11}^E < \underline c_{11}$, define the intersection of $c_{11} - c_{22} = \Delta$ with the bounding lower bound of either $c_{11}$ or $c_{22}$:
\begin{equation}
\hspace{0mm}(c_{11}^L, c_{22}^L) = \begin{cases} ( \underline c_{22} + \Delta, \underline c_{22} ) \text{ if } \underline c_{11} -\underline c_{22} \le \Delta \\
(\underline c_{11}, \underline c_{11} -\Delta) \text{ o.w. }
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Observe that any point in the convex combination of $c^L$ and $c^R$ is SOCP optimal. However, there is no feasible OPF solution with the same objective function value.
Lastly, let us define the lower intersection of the hyperbola (\ref{feasCurve}) and the $c_{11}$ lower bound as $(c_{11}^I, c_{22}^I)$, where $c_{11}^I=\underline c_{11}$, and $c_{22}^I$ as
\begin{equation}
c_{22}^I = \frac{2\beta + \underline c_{11} - \sqrt{(2\beta + \underline c_{11})^2 - 4(\alpha^2+\beta^2)}}{2}\label{eq:cI}
\end{equation}
We have two final cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $c_{22}^I < \underline c_{22}$, any point in the convex combination of $c^L$ and $c^R$ is SOCP optimal. However, OPF is infeasible. An example of this case can be seen in Figure \ref{Cases}d.
\item If $c_{22}^I \ge \underline c_{22}$, any point in the convex combination of $c^L$ and $c^R$ is SOCP optimal. However, OPF has a unique optimal solution at $c^I $ as can be seen in Figure \ref{Cases}e. Hence, relaxation is inexact. Assuming a linear cost function with coefficient $1$, optimality gap can be calculated as $-G(c_{22}^L-c_{22}^I)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
The above analysis proves the following theorem.
\begin{thm}
In a two-bus one-generator system {with linear objective}, the SOCP/SDP relaxation of the AC OPF problem has the following possible outcomes:
\begin{enumerate}
\item SOCP relaxation is exact: If $c_{11}^O - c_{22}^O \ge \Delta$ or if $c_{11}^O - c_{22}^O < \Delta$, $c_{22}^E \ge \underline c_{22}$, $c_{11}^E \ge \underline c_{11}$.
\item SOCP relaxation is inexact with finite optimality gap: If $c_{11}^O - c_{22}^O < \Delta$, $c_{22}^E \ge \underline c_{22}$, $c_{11}^E < \underline c_{11}$, $c_{22}^I \ge \underline c_{22}$. The optimality gap is $-G(c_{22}^L-c_{22}^I)$.
\item {SOCP relaxation is feasible and OPF is infeasible}: If $c_{11}^O - c_{22}^O < \Delta$, $c_{22}^E < \underline c_{22}$ or if $c_{11}^O - c_{22}^O < \Delta$, $c_{22}^E \ge \underline c_{22}$, $c_{11}^E < \underline c_{11}$, $c_{22}^I < \underline c_{22}$.
\end{enumerate}
Here, $c^O, c^E, c^R, c^L, c^I$ are defined in \eqref{eq:cO}-\eqref{eq:cI}, respectively.
\end{thm}
\section{Examples of Inexact SOCP Relaxations} \label{section:examples}
We have obtained a complete characterization for a 2-bus network with a single generator, and shown that the SOCP relaxation is exact only under certain conditions. In this section,
we present further counterexamples of radial networks with two and three buses. Most of the network parameters are selected from IEEE test instances. Transmission line capacity is assumed to be large. For all the buses, $V_i^\text{min}=0.9$ and $V_i^\text{max}=1.1$. Production costs are taken as linear functions. OPF problem with alternative formulation (\ref{SOCP}) is solved to global optimality with BARON \cite{BARON}. SOCP relaxations are solved using interior point solver MOSEK \cite{Mosek}.
\vspace{-3mm}
\subsection{2-Bus, 2-Generator Example}
Let us consider a 2-bus network with one generator located at each bus. Data of this example is given in Table \ref{BusGen2}. The impedance of line (1,2) is $0.01008+\mathrm{i} 0.0504$.
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Bus and generator data for 2-bus 2-generator example.}
\label{BusGen2}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{rrrrrrrr}
\hline
Bus & $p_i^d$ & $q_i^d$ & $p_i^{\text{min}}$ & $p_i^{\text{max}}$ & $q_i^{\text{min}}$ & $q_i^{\text{max}}$ & cost \\
\hline
$1$ & $75$ & $-84.7$ & $75$ & $250$ & $-30$ & $300$ & $5.0$ \\
$2$ & $105$ & $22.8$ & $70$ & $300$ & $-30$ & $300$ & $1.2$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\caption{Projection of feasible region of 3-bus example onto $(p_1^g,q_1^g)$ space with respect to different load levels. Horizontal axis is $p_1^g$ and vertical axis is $q_1^g$. Black curve and blue region are the feasible regions of OPF and SOCP relaxation, respectively. Red line is the lower bound on $q_1^g$. All figures are in p.u.} \label{FeasReg3}
\subfigure[$\gamma=0.90$]{
\includegraphics[width=0.4645\columnwidth]{gamma090.eps}
}
\subfigure[$\gamma=1.00$]{
\includegraphics[width=0.4645\columnwidth]{gamma100.eps}
}
\subfigure[$\gamma=1.10$]{
\includegraphics[width=0.4645\columnwidth]{gamma110.eps}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
In Table \ref{table:Sens2}, we compare the SOCP relaxation and the global optimal solution of OPF for different levels of load, where load is varied as $[p_1^d\;\; p_2^d \;\; q_1^d \;\; q_2^d] = \gamma\cdot[ 75 \;\; 105 \;\; -84.7 \;\; 22.8 ]$ for some positive parameter $\gamma$.
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Objective costs for 2-bus 2-generator with varying load.}
\label{table:Sens2}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{rrr}
\hline
$\gamma$ & OPF & SOCP \\
\hline
$0.12$ & infeasible & infeasible \\
$0.13$ & infeasible & $459.00$ \\
$0.80$ & infeasible & $459.00$ \\
$0.81$ & $460.13$ & $460.13$ \\
$0.98$ & $496.96$ & $496.96$ \\
$0.99$ & $499.15$ & $499.15$ \\
$1.00$ & $563.56$ & $501.46$ \\
$1.01$ & $641.21$ & $503.76$ \\
$1.02$ & infeasible & $506.07$ \\
$2.92$ & infeasible & $1608.75$ \\
$2.93$ & infeasible & infeasible \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
When $\gamma \in [0.81, 0.99]$, we observe that the SOCP relaxation is exact. For $\gamma$ around 1.00, there is a finite optimality gap, which can be as large as $21.44\%$ at $\gamma=1.01$. Finally, for $\gamma \ge 1.02$, OPF becomes infeasible, whereas SOCP relaxation is still feasible. In fact, SOCP relaxation fails to detect infeasibility of OPF problem until $\gamma$ exceeds $2.93$.
Now, let us consider the case where voltages are fixed. In \cite{Lavaei14}, it has been proven that if angle differences are guaranteed to be small enough, then SDP/SOCP relaxations are tight even if there are real power lower bounds. However, we present an example which demonstrates that this does not extend to the case with reactive power lower bounds. To this end, let us fix the squared voltage magnitudes to $(c_{11}, c_{22})=(0.874,0.816)$. In this case, the global optimal solution of OPF is $573.82$ while the SOCP relaxation gives $503.37$. Hence, there is an optimality gap, even though angle difference is less than $1^{\circ}$.
Figure \ref{FeasReg2 all} presents possible configurations of the feasible region of the OPF and the SOCP relaxation projected to the $(p_1^g, p_2^g)$ space. In Figure \ref{FeasReg2 all}a, the SOCP relaxation is exact, while in Figure \ref{FeasReg2 all}b, the OPF is infeasible although the SOCP is feasible. In Figure \ref{FeasReg2 all}c, the SOCP relaxation is inexact due to the combined effect of active and reactive lower bounds. Finally, in Figure \ref{FeasReg2 all}d, the SOCP relaxation is inexact due to practical angle bounds ($30^\circ$) and reactive lower bounds.
\subsection{3-Bus, 1-Generator Example}
Consider a 3-bus radial network with three loads $[p_1^d\;\; p_2^d \;\; p_3^d] = [ 50 \;\; 70 \;\; 60]$ and $[q_1^d \;\; q_2^d \;\; q_3^d] = [ -52.3 \;\; 14.1 \;\; -82.3]$. The impedance of lines (1,2) and (2,3) are $0.01008+\mathrm{i} 0.0504$ and $0.07500+\mathrm{i} 0.0840$.
The only generator is located at bus 1 with $150 \le p_1^g \le 550$ and $ -100 \le q_1^g \le 500$. The cost of power generation is \$5 per MW.
Assume that the reactive load is scaled as $[q_1^d \;\; q_2^d \;\; q_3^d] = \gamma[ -52.3 \;\; 14.1 \;\; -82.3]$ for some positive $\gamma$. Table \ref{table:Sens3} shows the optimal costs of the OPF and the SOCP relaxation for different values of $\gamma$.
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Objective costs for 3-bus example with varying load.}
\label{table:Sens3}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{rrr}
\hline
$\gamma$ & OPF & SOCP \\
\hline
$0.95$ & $939.45$ & $939.45$ \\
$0.96$ & $939.90$ & $939.90$ \\
$0.97$ & $941.57$ & $940.87$ \\
$1.00$ & $950.70$ & $945.45$ \\
$1.03$ & $959.91$ & $950.05$\\
$1.04$ & infeasible & $951.60$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
For small values of $\gamma$, e.g. $\gamma\leq 0.96$, SOCP is exact. For values around $\gamma=1$, we observe a finite optimality gap between OPF and SOCP, where for larger values of $\gamma\geq 1.04$, the OPF becomes infeasible while the SOCP relaxation is still feasible. The infeasibility is exactly caused by the lower bound on reactive generation power
For this example, we also give the feasible region of OPF problem projected onto the $(p_1^g,q_1^g)$ space in Figure \ref{FeasReg3}. When $\gamma=0.90$, reactive power lower bound is redundant and the optimal solution of SOCP relaxation is feasible for OPF. However, for $\gamma=1.00$, constraint $q_1^{\text{min}} \le q_1^g$ is binding. Note that the optimal solution of the SOCP relaxation is not feasible for OPF and hence, the relaxation is not exact. Finally, when $\gamma=1.10$, SOCP is feasible whereas OPF is infeasible.
\section{Library of Radial Networks with Inexact SDP/SOCP Relaxation}
\label{section:library}
\subsection{Generation of Instances}
To facilitate further research, we generate several radial network instances from meshed networks in MATPOWER \cite{Matpower}. Given a meshed network, we first find a spanning tree { by switching off lines to obtain a radial network}. Then, only load values and generation lower/upper bounds are changed, whenever necessary, to construct examples where the SOCP/SDP relaxation is not exact. New instances can be downloaded from {\url{https://sites.google.com/site/burakkocuk/}}.
{Our examples are based on 9-, 14-, 30-, 39- and 57-bus standard instances. Due to our construction of the network topology, AC feasibility becomes a major issue. Although unrealistic examples can be constructed for even larger networks by reducing load values considerably, we choose not to sacrifice the realistic features of the instances. }
\subsection{Computational Results for SDP Relaxation vs. Global Optimal Solution}
For each instance generated as described above, we solve the SDP relaxation using MOSEK \cite{Mosek}. The code is written in C\# language and Visual Studio 2010 is used as the compiler. We report the value of the objective function, computation time and the rank of the solution. Here, rank is determined as the number of eigenvalues that are larger than $10^{-5}$.
SDP relaxation is compared against global optimal solution found using BARON \cite{BARON} and local solution found by MATPOWER \cite{Matpower} { and IPOPT \cite{wachter}}. Relative optimality gap for BARON is set to 0 so that global optimality can be certified. We should note that performance of BARON on rectangular formulation (\ref{rect form}) is very poor as it requires hours to prove global optimality. Instead, we use reformulation (\ref{SOCP}), which is valid for radial networks.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table*}
\caption{SDP relaxation vs. global solver BARON and local solver MATPOWER.}
\label{SDP vs. BARON}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccrrrrrrrrrrrr}
\hline
& & \multicolumn{ 3}{c}{SDP Relaxation} & & \multicolumn{ 2}{c}{BARON} & & \multicolumn{ 2}{c}{MATPOWER} & & \multicolumn{ 2}{c}{ {IPOPT} } \\
\cline{3-5} \cline{7-8} \cline{10-11}\cline{13-14}
based on & type & objective & time(s) & rank & & objective & time(s) & \% gap &objective & time(s) & &objective & time(s)\\
\hline
case9 & quadratic & 5335.70 & 0.04 & 8 & & 11277.95 & 1.17 & 52.69 & - & 0.17 & & - &0.17 \\
case9 & linear & 1481.93 & 0.06 & 8 & & 1756.47 & 1.11 & 15.63 & - & 0.08&& - &0.20\\
case9Q & quadratic & 10835.70 & 0.04 & 8 & & 16778.87 & 1.36 & 35.42 & - & 0.08&&16779.48& 0.31 \\
case14 & quadratic & 11861.87 & 0.07 & 8 & & 11932.07 & 35.32 & 0.59 & 11932.25 & 0.11 &&11932.25& 0.28\\
case14 & linear & 9892.70 & 0.09 & 4 & & 9952.42 & 0.79 & 0.60 & 9952.59 & 0.09&&9952.58& 0.23 \\
case\_ieee30 & quadratic & 4244.53 & 0.17 & 12 & & 4336.03 & 8347.79 & 2.11 & - & 0.12&&4794.32& 0.15 \\
case\_ieee30 & linear & 3035.61 & 0.22 & 12 & & 3606.91 & 2494.31 & 15.84 & - & 0.09 &&4562.26 &0.14\\
case30 & quadratic & 607.72 & 0.15 & 8 & & 619.01 & 2.52 & 1.82 & 619.04 & 0.09&&619.04 &0.23 \\
case30 & linear & 435.58 & 0.23 & 6 & & 445.83 & 8.50 & 2.30 & 445.84 & 0.11 &&445.84 &0.14\\
case30Q & quadratic & 676.88 & 0.20 & 4 & & 690.06 & 5.16 & 1.91 & 690.08 & 0.11 &&690.08& 0.36\\
case39 & quadratic & 44869.01 & 0.29 & 4 & & 45035.32 & 110.59 & 0.37 & - & 0.14 &&45037.05& 0.27\\
case39 & linear & 1900.09 & 0.36 & 4 & & 1903.07 & 1566.88 & 0.16 & - & 0.16&& 1903.14 &0.15\\
{ case57 } & quadratic & 10458.06 & 0.92 & 20 & & 12100.00 & $>10800$ & 13.57 & 12100.90 & 0.15 &&12100.86 &0.27\\
{ case57 } & linear & 8399.82 & 0.96 & 20 & & 10173.10 & $>10800$ & 17.43 & 10173.00& 0.16 &&10172.98& 0.26\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\end{landscape}
For all experiments, we used a 64-bit computer with Intel Core i5 CPU 3.33GHz processor and 4 GB RAM. Each instance is solved twice with quadratic and linear objectives. For the latter, we simply ignore the quadratic cost coefficients.
Our findings are summarized in Table \ref{SDP vs. BARON}. One can see that the SDP relaxation solution can be of high-rank (up to 12 for case\_ieee30 {and 20 for case57}). Also, the optimality gap (column ``\% gap'') {computed as $100\times (1 - z^{ SDP} / z^{ BARON})$, where $z^{ SDP}$ and $ z^{ BARON}$ are respectively the values of the SDP relaxation and the global optimal solution found by BARON,} can be quite large (more than 52\% for case9 with quadratic objective). Our examples clearly show that {the optimal value of the SDP relaxation can be quite different from the global optimal value}. {We also compare the optimal dispatch solutions $p^{SDP}$ and $p^{BARON}$ computed by the SDP relaxation and BARON to show that large differences in the objective function values are not artifacts of the cost parameters. In fact, the 2-norm $\|p^{SDP} - p^{BARON}\|$ is large, varying from 0.16 p.u. to 3.16 p.u. for our instances. This illustrates that the optimal solutions are quite different from one another.}
In general, MATPOWER is accepted to be a reliable and efficient OPF solver. It manages to find the global optimal solution up to a negligible difference for seven of the instances from our library. However, we observe that it fails to solve the remaining seven instances due to numerical issues.
{There are other robust NLP solvers available, e.g. IPOPT, which gives near global optimal solution for nine instances in the library, where small discrepancies in optimal objective function values compared to BARON are due to numerical errors. On the other hand, IPOPT fails in two 9-bus examples and it finds suboptimal solutions three times for both of the case\_ieee30 instances and case39 with quadratic objective.}
We should note that the global solver BARON can be computationally expensive. For instance, for case\_ieee30 with a quadratic objective, it requires more than 2 hours to prove optimality {whereas for 57-bus instances, BARON is not able to certify the global optimal solution within 3 hours time limit. Upon termination, the optimality gaps are 38.40\% and 29.37\% for quadratic and linear objectives, respectively.}
Also, the reformulation of OPF \eqref{SOCP} is only valid for radial networks. Hence, in general, using BARON as it is may not be applicable to
large-scale OPFs.
\section{Bound Tightening and Valid Inequalities for Global Optimization}
\label{section:valid}
In this section, we propose valid inequalities for the SOCP relaxation of the OPF problem to improve the computational time of the global solver BARON. The main algorithm of BARON is based on spatial branch-and-bound \cite{BARON}. It utilizes convex envelopes of the feasible region and polyhedral relaxations to improve lower bounds and prove global optimality. Therefore, it is very important to add valid inequalities and variable bounds so that BARON can obtain tighter relaxations. {A more detailed description is provided in Appendix \ref{app:baron}.}
To begin with, let us focus on formulation (\ref{SOCP}). Observe that $c_{ij}$ and $s_{ij}$ do not have explicit variable bounds although they have implied bounds due to (\ref{voltageAtBusR}) and (\ref{coupling}) as
\begin{equation}
-V_i^{\text{max}}V_j^{\text{max}} \le c_{ij}, s_{ij} \le V_i^{\text{max}}V_j^{\text{max}} \quad (i,j) \in \mathcal{L}
\end{equation}
However, these bounds are very loose knowing that angle differences are generally small. This fact suggests that these bounds can be improved. One way to obtain variable bounds is to optimize $c_{ij}$ and $s_{ij}$ over the set $\mathcal{S} = \{(p,q,c,s) : (\ref{activeAtBusR}) - (\ref{coupling}) \}$, which is a nonconvex set. Alternatively, one can find weaker bounds over the set $\mathcal{S}' = \{(p,q,c,s) : (\ref{activeAtBusR}) - (\ref{sine}), (\ref{couplingSOCP}) \}$ by solving SOCP relaxations. Let $\underline c_{ij} $ ($\underline s_{ij}$) and $\overline c_{ij} $ ($\overline s_{ij} $) denote lower and upper bounds found for $c_{ij}$ ($s_{ij}$), respectively.
Now, let us investigate how the box $\mathcal{B}_{ij}=[\underline c_{ij}, \overline c_{ij}]\times[\underline s_{ij}, \overline s_{ij}]$ is positioned with respect to the {``ring"-like set} $\mathcal{R}_{ij} = \{(c_{ij},s_{ij}): {\underline R_{ij}^2} \le c_{ij}^2 + s_{ij}^2 \le {\overline R_{ij}^2} \}$ where $\underline R_{ij}=V_i^{\text{min}}V_j^{\text{min}}$ and $\overline R_{ij}=V_i^{\text{max}}V_j^{\text{max}}$. In our experiments, {we observe that $\underline c_{ij} > 0$, which we assume hereafter. We should note that this is not a restrictive assumption, similar valid inequalities described below can be generated even if this assumption does not hold.}
Let us focus on the case with $\underline c_{ij} < \underline R_{ij}$, which gives rise to four possibilities:
\begin{itemize}
\item Case 1: $ \|(\underline c_{ij}, \underline s_{ij})\| < \underline R_{ij}$, $ \|(\underline c_{ij}, \overline s_{ij})\|< \underline R_{ij}$
\item Case 2: $ \| (\underline c_{ij}, \underline s_{ij})\| < \underline R_{ij}$, $ \|(\underline c_{ij}, \overline s_{ij})\|\ge \underline R_{ij}$
\item Case 3: $ \| (\underline c_{ij}, \underline s_{ij})\| \ge \underline R_{ij}$, $\|(\underline c_{ij}, \overline s_{ij})\|< \underline R_{ij}$
\item Case 4: $ \| (\underline c_{ij}, \underline s_{ij})\| \ge \underline R_{ij}$, $\|(\underline c_{ij}, \overline s_{ij})\|\ge \underline R_{ij}$
\end{itemize}
Figure \ref{typical} shows typical examples for each of four cases. In the rest of this section, we concentrate on how we can obtain valid inequalities for Cases 1, 2, and 3.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\caption{Positioning of $\mathcal{B}_{ij}$ and $\mathcal{R}_{ij}$. Red line is the cut produced by Algorithm \ref{alg:T1C}, when applicable. } \label{typical}
\subfigure[Case 1]{
\includegraphics[width=0.373\columnwidth]{Case1.eps}
}
\subfigure[Case 2]{
\includegraphics[width=0.373\columnwidth]{Case2.eps}
}
\subfigure[Case 3]{
\includegraphics[width=0.373\columnwidth]{Case3.eps}
}
\subfigure[Case 4]{
\includegraphics[width=0.373\columnwidth]{Case4.eps}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Valid Inequalities}
These cuts are designed to cut off the portion of $\mathcal{B}_{ij}$ inside the inner circle for Cases 1, 2, and 3 as depicted in Figure \ref{typical}. Algorithm \ref{alg:T1C} gives the exact procedure. {Note that the validity of the inequality follows from the fact that the points cut off from the box have norm less than $\underline R_{ij}$.} Note that for Case 4, the algorithm would produce the inequality $c_{ij} \ge \underline c_{ij}$, hence it is omitted.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Generation of Valid Inequalities.}
\label{alg:T1C}
\begin{algorithmic}
\FORALL{$(i,j) \in \mathcal{L}$}
\STATE Compute $\underline c_{ij}$, $\overline c_{ij}$, $\underline s_{ij}$ and $\overline s_{ij}$ over $ \mathcal{S}'$.
\STATE Update $ \mathcal{S}' = \mathcal{S}' \cap \mathcal{B}_{ij}$.
\IF{ ${0 < } \underline c_{ij} < \underline R_{ij}$ }
\IF{ $\|(\underline c_{ij}, \underline s_{ij})\| < \underline R_{ij}$, $ \|(\underline c_{ij}, \overline s_{ij})\|< \underline R_{ij}$ }
\STATE Set $y_1=\overline s_{ij}$, $y_2=\underline s_{ij}$ and compute \\ $x_1=\sqrt{\underline R_{ij}^2-\overline s_{ij}^2}$, $x_2=\sqrt{\underline R_{ij}^2-\underline s_{ij}^2}$
\ELSIF{ $\|(\underline c_{ij}, \underline s_{ij})\| < \underline R_{ij}$, $\|(\underline c_{ij}, \overline s_{ij})\|\ge \underline R_{ij}$}
\STATE Set $x_1=\underline c_{ij}$, $y_2=\underline s_{ij}$ and compute \\ $y_1=\sqrt{\underline R_{ij}^2-\underline c_{ij}^2}$, $x_2=\sqrt{\underline R_{ij}^2-\underline s_{ij}^2}$
\ELSIF{ $\| (\underline c_{ij}, \underline s_{ij})\| \ge \underline R_{ij}$, $\|(\underline c_{ij}, \overline s_{ij})\|< \underline R_{ij}$ }
\STATE Set $y_1=\overline s_{ij}$, $x_2=\underline c_{ij}$ and compute \\ $x_1=\sqrt{\underline R_{ij}^2-\overline s_{ij}^2}$, $y_2=-\sqrt{\underline R_{ij}^2-\underline c_{ij}^2}$
\ENDIF
\STATE Add $(y_1-y_2)c_{ij}-(x_1-x_2)s_{ij} \ge x_2y_1-x_1y_2$ as a valid inequality and update $ \mathcal{S}'$.
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Numerical Experiments}
The effect of valid inequalities are tested on our library of instances. The results are summarized in Table \ref{BARON cut}. We should note that MATPOWER is very efficient and accurate for the seven instances it is able to solve as shown in Table \ref{SDP vs. BARON}. Therefore, we mainly focus on the other seven instances where MATPOWER fails to solve. In Table \ref{BARON cut}, preprocessing refers to computing variable bounds and valid cuts.
For the 9-bus instances (case9, case9Q), BARON's computation time reduces slightly with the addition of cuts. However, the preprocessing time dominates the total computation time, which is larger than the case without cuts.
For the 30-bus IEEE instances, BARON can require hours to terminate. With the addition of variable bounds, total computation time reduces by 89\% and 90\% for quadratic and linear objectives, respectively. Quite impressively, the inclusion of valid inequalities further reduces the total computation time to only 17 seconds, less than 0.1\% of the computation time without variable bounds and cuts.
For 39-bus instances, the addition of variable bounds brings down total computation time by 76\% and 95\% for quadratic and linear objectives, respectively. In this case, the inclusion of valid inequalities decreases the computational time for linear objective. On the other hand, cuts slightly increases the total computational time in the case of quadratic objective.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{BARON with bounds and cuts. PT, BT and TT represent times of preprocessing, BARON solution and total computation in seconds. {RG represents the percentage root gap.}}
\label{BARON cut}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
\hline
& & \multicolumn{ 2}{c}{BARON} & & \multicolumn{ 4}{c}{BARON with bounds} & & \multicolumn{5}{c}{BARON with bounds and cuts} \\
\cline{3-4} \cline{6-9} \cline{11-15}
based on & type & BT (s) & {RG (\%)} & & PT (s) & BT (s) & TT (s) & {RG (\%)} & & PT (s) & BT (s) & TT (s) & \#cuts & {RG (\%)} \\
\hline
case9 & quadratic & 1.17 & 11.72 & & 4.34 & 1.08 & 5.42 & 9.72 & & 4.41 & 1.01 & 5.42 & 6 & 9.71\\
case9 & linear & 1.11 &16.13 & & 4.12 & 0.86 & 4.98 & 16.02& & 4.42 & 1.00 & 5.42 & 6& 16.05\\
case9Q & quadratic & 1.36 & 16.91& & 4.36 & 1.22 & 5.58 & 8.32 & & 4.34 & 1.11 & 5.46 & 6 &7.50\\
case14 & quadratic & 35.32 & 9.98& & 7.11 & 30.46 & 37.56 & 1.98 & & 6.89 & 41.99 & 48.88 & 7 &1.98\\
case14 & linear & 0.79 & 0.21& & 6.95 & 0.83 & 7.79 & 0.15& & 6.89 & 0.91 & 7.80 & 7 &0.39\\
case\_ieee30 & quadratic & 8347.79 &46.93 & & 16.91 & 900.50 & 917.41 & 29.88 & & 17.28 & 0.36 & 17.63 & 14 &0.00\\
case\_ieee30 & linear & 2494.31 &46.67 & & 16.89 & 249.48 & 266.37 & 33.69 & & 16.96 & 0.34 & 17.30 & 14& 0.00\\
case30 & quadratic & 2.52 &9.13 & & 17.21 & 1.91 & 19.12 & 7.74 & & 16.94 & 4.42 & 21.35 & 13&7.39 \\
case30 & linear & 8.50 &5.79 & & 17.60 & 2.40 & 19.99 & 5.15 & &16.23 & 1.91 & 18.14 & 13&4.41 \\
case30Q & quadratic & 5.16 & 13.25& & 16.53 & 2.39 & 18.93 & 12.11& & 16.80 & 1.83 & 18.64 & 13 &4.27\\
case39 & quadratic & 110.59 & 8.89& & 28.07 & 26.03 & 54.10 & 0.48 & &27.72 & 33.25 & 60.98 & 12&1.12 \\
case39 & linear & 1566.88 &2.56 & & 26.94 & 72.80 & 99.74 & 0.51 & & 28.17 & 42.62 & 70.79 & 12 &0.52\\
{ case57 } & quadratic & $>10800$ & 46.69& & 41.57 & 0.66 & 42.23& 0.00 & &40.17& 0.80 & 40.97 & 14 &0.00 \\
{ case57 } & linear & $>10800$ & 45.17& & 42.19 & 0.67 & 42.87 & 0.00 & & 45.23 & 0.67 & 45.91 & 14& 0.00\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\end{landscape}
\noindent However, compared to the case without bounds and cuts, BARON still requires less amount of time.
{For 57-bus instances, BARON without bounds was not able to certify the global optimal solution within 3 hours time limit. However, the strengthened variable bounds and valid inequalities enable BARON to solve these instances to global optimality within only 46 seconds.}
{As a final note, we should note that the applicability of the valid inequalities proposed in this section is not limited to the global optimization of radial networks, they can be used in meshed networks as well.
Moreover, precisely the same valid inequalities can be used in SOCP relaxation whereas the transformations $c_{ij}=e_ie_j+f_if_j$ and $s_{ij}= e_if_j-e_jf_i$ enable us to obtain linear matrix inequalities to be added to SDP relaxation. Although, for our instances, we have not observed any lower bound improvement in SOCP/SDP relaxations by the inclusion of the valid inequalities, we obtain stronger root node relaxations in BARON.
Let RG represent the percentage root gap calculated as $100\times (1 - z_{\text r} / z_{\text g})$, where $z_{\text r}$ and $ z_{\text g}$ are respectively the values of root node relaxation for BARON and global optimal solution. As we can see from Table \ref{BARON cut} that addition of bounds and valid inequalities strengthen the root node relaxation of BARON in general. In fact, case\_ieee30 and case57 instances are already solved at the root node. We should note that occasionally RG of BARON with bounds and cuts is slightly worse than BARON with bounds. However, this is due to the fact that valid inequalities change the problem structure and may lead to different preprocessing procedures carried out by the solver at the root node.}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{section:conc}
In this work, we study the impact of generation lower bounds on the performance of convex relaxations of AC OPF problems. For the fundamental two-bus one-generator model, we provide a complete characterization of all possible outcomes of the SOCP relaxation together with a detailed study of the projected feasible regions of the OPF and SOCP relaxation.
We provide a library of radial network instances {that} demonstrate large optimality gaps for SDP and SOCP relaxations. We also propose valid inequalities for the SOCP relaxation, which prove to be useful in reducing the computation time of global solver BARON. We {remind the reader} here that SDP relaxations are
very powerful and their importance is definite. Our work only {serves to} demonstrate the limitations of SDP relaxations and emphasizes the importance and the need to develop efficient global methods in solving OPF problems.
|
\section{The MOOC battle field}
In recent years, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have been in
the public discussion in Europe, as much as in the United States. I
had kept myself a safe distance from the debate until, about a year
ago, \'Ecole normale sup\'erieure (ENS) asked me to participate
in a pilot project to set up and teach a masters-level MOOC in
statistical/computational physics. The ENS project also included a course
on French philosophy,\cite{philos} and one on Galois theory,\cite{galois}
a branch of mathematics. A recording studio was to be installed on
our campus in the Latin quarter, and videos were to be recorded, cut
and edited by professionals. Courses were to be hosted on the Coursera
platform.\cite{coursera} I would be able to recruit additional teachers
and student assistants. All this effort was quite engaging.
I first checked that my colleagues with whom I had taught a successful
course in our English-language Physics masters program\cite{master} were
interested in adapting the course to the internet. I then signed up,
not expecting what was going to happen: Our 10-week MOOC on Statistical
Mechanics: Algorithms and Computations\cite{ourcourse} attracted 30,000
registered students, triggered 256,000 video downloads, and 120,000 visits
to its forum. When it was all over, we were overwhelmed by our teaching
experience with an enthusiastic international and trans-cultural class
of students that neither we nor our university had chosen. We had gone
to the center of core subjects in science, including the nature of phase
transitions, the physics of liquids, random processes, path integrals,
and Bose-Einstein condensation. We had discussed many deep connections
between physics and computing.
By the time it was over, we had presented and prepared for download
about 250 programs (in Python), and initiated a great amount of practical
computing and program writing and program rewriting in the nine homework
sessions. When we were done, we finally took our eyes off the forum
that for three months had been a buzzing platform of heated discussions
and of mutual help. We had motivated students toward a common goal,
but had also been boosted by their enthusiasm.
When the course was over, we had not suffered from the absence of a live
audience during lectures, although it is now most rewarding to discuss
with former students when they occasionally come up to us and present
themselves on the street in Paris, New York, or elsewhere at conferences
and seminars.
Students had worked hard, although not for university credit. They had
handed in 6300 homework solutions, and corrected about 20,000 of them
through the peer-correction system that worked amazingly well. They had
authored 5200 posts on the forum. After the course, 5\% of the students
who had followed the course most diligently indicated that they would use
what they had learned on a daily basis, 23\% several times per month,
and 50\% a few times a year. At the end of the course, they were as
exhausted as we were. A student from the Netherlands indicated that ``It
was a very challenging experience that totally absorbed me for almost
three months \ldots the coolest thing I ever did \ldots\ ." From Norway,
our own feelings were mirrored: ``Now, the course is over, I look up
from my PC -- the wife and child are still there \ldots\ ." Countless
posts and comments reflected on the experience, the material, and the
medium that it had taken place in.
It is difficult to foresee to what degree MOOCs will permeate core-level
academic training. I am even unable to tell whether the second edition
of our course, in early 2015, will recreate this year's ambiance, and
transmit knowledge, foster communication and exchange as efficiently. The
present text cannot provide a blueprint for online teaching, but it may
enrich the ongoing discussion about MOOCs from the vantage point of a
long-time teacher and recent home-comer from the MOOC battle field.
\section{Teasers, Green screens, Mother of Studies}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{MOOC_fig1.png}
\caption{Announcement video (``teaser") of our MOOC after professional
editing (left) and during production using a green screen (right).}
\label{figTeaser}
\end{figure}
Our MOOC project came to life four months before the launch date. It
was time to do the promotional video, the only live item to be rendered
visible without registration. Writing this three-minute ``teaser" took
one hour. Recording it brought us into contact with the camera and
editing team from ENS and from FEMIS, the Paris school of cinema. The
video professionals guided us toward the green screen technology, that
dissociates the recording of the ``actor" from the creation of the
scene: During takes, the otherwise empty scene was bathed in intense
green light that reflected from the background and was then eliminated
(see \Fig{figTeaser}). Text, equations, images, and animations
were then incorporated by the editor. From the start we were comfortable
with the fact that our pedagogical project was to be realized by videos
that used a genuine video technology (green screen), rather than by the
mere videotaping of a classroom course using classroom tools (such as
a blackboard and PowerPoint).
MOOCs differ from classroom teaching not only because the medium is
different, but more importantly because of a difference in viewing modes
and therefore in the relation to time. Students routinely accelerate or slow
down the video player (at constant audio pitch), they stop and may even quit.
Videos are not viewed in linear time, and difficult sequences are
replayed over and over again. The power to repeat is now in the hand of
the individual student and it suits individual needs. This power
gives new meaning to the eternal truth that ``repetition is the mother
of studies" and implies that the teachings must be less redundant
than before. Our usual kickoff classroom meeting melted down into
the three-minute teaser, and our 90-minute live classes turned into
half-hour videos, without any loss of content. In the shorter, less
repetitive, videos, even slight imprecisions (such as omitted words and
half sentences) would create terrible confusion, further amplified by the
multiple viewings. To avoid this confusion in our MOOC, the material was
carefully scripted, and all shootings were controlled by a fellow
teacher. This work flow was initiated with the teaser and was
kept during the entire course.
In their responses, 30\% of the students participating in the final
survey indicated that the single item that they liked best during the
course was the quality of the videos. Many messages on the forum and in
the survey made us think that our choices worked well.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=6.cm]{MOOC_fig2.jpg}
\caption{Modern marathons can be {\bf M}assive, yet their running
distance is not reduced. Our {\bf M}OOC likewise remained at the level
of an advanced masters course in physics. It appealed to a large number of
people with a variety of personal goals, performances, and levels
of involvement.}
\label{figMarathon}
\end{figure}
\section{Large Numbers, City Marathons}
Registration was free of charge, and there was no academic prerequisite
-- after all, one of the ``O"s in ``MOOC" stands for ``Open." Three
days after posting our teaser on the Coursera website, 667 students had
enrolled. One month later, there were 5000, and this number was still
far from the final count. We came to understand that our MOOC was to
be massive, but sensed that even with thousands of students, we should
continue to draw on all the advanced mathematical tools of our classes
at ENS, and aim at the same deep physical insights. We thus confirmed
that, even with a big crowd, we would engage in core-level (rather than
introductory) academic teaching.
Facing massive registrations, we thus arrived at the same conclusion as
the organizers of large-scale sports events. City marathons, for example,
have become extremely popular but they still run over 42.195\,km (see
\Fig{figMarathon}). Like our MOOC, they appeal to a large and quite
ambitious public with different backgrounds and a great span of personal
goals and performance levels.
The large number brings many new opportunities, beyond the fact that it
simply means more people. A larger forum is usually richer, especially
with the modern voting mechanism that allows the best posts to rise to the
top. In fact, MOOC teaching needs a large audience to ``take off,'' and
certainly more than what a regular classroom and the graduate school of a
single university can offer. Their massive nature is an opportunity, but
also a survival condition to sustain necessary liveliness in teaching. The
sheer size carries its own dangers. Catastrophic failure, for example the
inability to go through with a course, presents a real threat. Wherever
it happened in other MOOCs, it was widely publicized and discussed.
Among the students participating in the final survey, 20\% had completed
a bachelor's degree (or similar), 40\% had completed a master's degree,
and 30\% a doctorate, and 90\% of them had obtained their degree in a
scientific discipline. The multiplicity of personal goals was clearly
expressed on the forum. One student had struggled with homework~5,
the first one on quantum mechanics. When he was done, long after
the submission deadline, he opened a thread ``Yay! HW5 finished,"
that drew half a dozen of comments such as: ``Congratulations on
completing HW5!" A number of French post-high school (prep-school) professors
participated in the course, in order to obtain inspiration
for scientific Python programming projects in their own classes.
\section{Going live, Classes}
On February 3, 2014, the first week of our course went online. A lecture,
a tutorial, and a homework session introduced Markov chains and
Monte Carlo methods. Week two was about the emergence of statistical
mechanics from classical mechanics. In later weeks, we discussed
phase transitions and virial expansions, and derived the Maxwell and
Boltzmann distributions, among many other subjects. Students stayed
tuned when we turned our attention to quantum physics: density matrices,
path integrals, and Bose-Einstein condensation, before returning to
magnetism, optimization methods and L{\'e}vy distributions. Each subject
was illustrated by short Python programs that students could download,
run, and modify. Every week, we opened sub-forums corresponding to the
current themes. Contributions to these sub-forums took off shortly after
the video upload and abated when the corresponding homework assignment
had passed its due date.
Subjects such as the above are usually too difficult to be learned
from books or from videos alone. They are rather mastered by attending
a \emph{class}, abstractly defined as a group of students that meets
regularly during a given time period for instruction on a given subject
(``alumni" status is also often included in the definition). Classes
take place at universities, seminaries, conservatories, etc, and the
organization into classes made them survive the Gutenberg
media revolution in the 15th century, when knowledge became available in
printed books. Classes are also the essence of
present-day MOOCs. One must register (this defines the group) and there
are starting and end dates. Regularity is provided through the weekly
organization. Students meet on the forum and, in our case, during the
mutual correction of homework. The prime originality of MOOCs, compared
to other forms of distance learning, is the consistent organization of
classes with these characteristics.
From the start, students embraced the idea of our MOOC being a class
rather than an illustrated and animated text book.\cite{SMAC} On the first
day, a student spontaneously created a thread named ``Please allow me to
introduce myself \ldots\ ." Its first post, from Norway, drew 69 answers
from fellow students in Canada, the United States, Brazil, Serbia,
Macedonia, Sweden, India, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Argentina, Greece, and
other countries. Students were authorized to create threads. They might
address questions about Python installation on the different platforms,
but also address specific issues with threads such as ``lecture 5: 11.14
sec" or ``Tutorial 8 $@$ 8:00 characteristic peak \ldots\ ." Initial
posts triggered animated discussions, concerning subjects from computer
issues to Python programming, and to quantum mechanical wave functions
for students who had often never studied the subject. About 150 posts
on the forum (2.5\% of the total), were written by the teachers. Many of
them closed threads: they brought an end to a discussion.
There were also many more general threads. One was entitled ``My notes on
the course." It rendered accessible the entire notes from the ten weeks,
nicely written in \LaTeX\ and fully illustrated. It drew 50 ``likes"
and comments as: ``Thanks Tony! Excellent! Top Class notes indeed!!!"
A 15-minute youtube movie\cite{movie} that a student spontaneously created
and then announced on the forum, went over a particularly intricate
six-line algorithm in tutorial~3. It was greeted by a ``Dennis, you are
a hero." Clearly, our MOOC functioned like a class.
\section{Homeworks, Goals, and Grades}
In all but the final week of the course, a homework assignment enhanced
the lecture and the tutorial. The assignments were progressive, and
the required programming skills increased from week to week. After the
release (typically a four-page text), students had two weeks to hand in
their solutions. Immediately after the submission deadline, a master
solution was communicated to students who had contributed work, and
detailed instructions for grading were given. Students then anonymously
corrected three (or more) homework solutions of other students. The
entire process was handled on the Coursera website,\cite{coursera} and
it worked flawlessly. Conceiving the assignments and writing the master
solutions required great concentration. The ``grade" was computed from
the points obtained in the homework assignments (50\%) and from a final
two-hour multiple-choice exam (50\%). The overall requirements of our
course were very high, and it was difficult to make the cut to receive
a certificate. The certificate, which was not endorsed by ENS, did not
provide ``real" university credits. However, reaching the certificate
level constituted an undeniable academic achievement. More than 2000
students stayed with the course until the end, and 350 students earned
the certificate. These 350 students participated in the final survey.
To understand the massive student participation in a course that offered
no degree and few certificates, it is appropriate to analyze students'
motivation. In education research, motivation is understood along two
categories: The first category, the ``learning goal," applies when
students pursue educational programs (such as lectures and courses)
primarily to increase their competence. In this category, new challenges
are readily accepted, and failure is easily handled. As emphasized in
seminal psychological research\cite{Elliott_Dweck_1988}: ``The focus
of individuals who pursue learning goals (whether they believe their
ability to be high or low) is on improving ability over time, not on
proving current ability. As noted, obstacles will not as readily be
seen to imply goal failure and will, therefore, not require defensive
maneuvers, not as readily generate anxiety, and not detract from the
intrinsic rewards shown to derive from involvement and progress on a
valued task." Clearly, our MOOC was firmly planted on the learning goal.
In the second category, the ``performance goal," great value is attached
to doing better (in grades) or to avoid doing less well (in grades) than
others. The performance goal is a standard setting in higher education.
It requires a homogeneous class from which there is a high social price
for dropping out, and great recognition for performing well. However,
the social implications of the performance goal can lead weaker students
to shy away from challenges, and even the stronger students can be led to
avoid risk.\cite{Elliott_Dweck_1988} Binge studying, self-handicapping,
and cheating have been associated with the performance goal.
In the final survey, 98\% of students who had obtained the certificate
indicated that the absence of a real degree posed no problem to
them. Students thus confirmed the ``learning goal" motivation. It made
them adventurous and contributed to the excellent atmosphere during
the class. Although students concentrated on learning, they did voice
their frustrations with the built-in imperfections of the peer-correction
systems. Students were also quite critical of the few delays that occurred
in the uploads of lectures and homework assignments. Notwithstanding
their learning goals and their great attitude, they perceived themselves
as participating in a class, and they expected the regularity that is
part of its definition.
\section{Party in Pink, Violence of Learning}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{MOOC_fig3}
\caption{Tenth tutorial at 10:56, the final scene of our MOOC, after
professional editing (left) and during production using a green screen (right,
in the studio).}
\label{figScreenshot_party}
\end{figure}
The course ended, in the final tutorial, with an online party and
with champaign from a pink bottle (because of the green screen, see
\Fig{figScreenshot_party}). Our high-intensity project had been a fierce
battle. With thousands of students watching (and staying), we had been
in a ten-week euphoria. But with hundreds of students reacting week
after week, and scrutinizing every sequence of the videos and struggling
through each sentence of the homework assignments, we were constantly
on alert. Most of the material was created, in anxious euphoria, while
the course was running. Lacking experience, we needed the feedback from
week $n$ to prepare weeks $n+1$ and $n+2$. Fortunately, all the science
had been cleared up well ahead of the launch date and, following expert
advice, we included no last-minute scientific results. Our course was
a stand-alone project. We did not try to integrate it into the regular
program at ENS, which would have implied breaking it up into different
tracks, with proctored exams and staff-graded homework
for the local students. The split into different tracks might have broken the
spell of the course, and destroyed its lighter-than-air atmosphere. Courses such
as ours do not necessarily appeal to all students of physics, but it would be
easy to set up additional exams, outside of the MOOC, to meet requirements for
university credits, at ENS or elsewhere.
It is evident that lecturing (in MOOCs or in the classroom) is only one
part of our teaching activity, which encompasses lab sessions, practicals, and
small research projects. Teaching also extends to tutoring, the essential
one-to-one relation between a professor and a student, that MOOCs will never
supply. In evaluating MOOCs' possible impact, we must take into account that
learning is a complicated, multifaceted process that consists in the violent
confrontation of the student with the outside world. Even decades after our
student days, we all retain vivid, indelible memories of only a handful of very
special courses spread out over our years of study. Those courses were the ones
that shaped us into what we have become. Time will tell whether the new medium
of MOOCs is strong enough to leave this kind of imprint on students, and whether
tomorrow's professionals will have received formative influence from
courses delivered over the internet. The answer to this question is
not clear to me, but our first attempt to find out was sufficiently
encouraging to try again, in February 2015, for the second edition of
Statistical Mechanics: Algorithms and Computations.
\begin{acknowledgments}
Alberto Rosso, Michael K\"opf and Vivien Lecomte taught in the tutorials
and participated very actively in all stages of our MOOC. Tommaso
Comparin provided final versions of Python programs and produced the
English subtitles. Maxim Berman produced the computer animations inside
the videos. Emilie Noblet directed the studio. Baptiste Ribrault
was the editor. Additional camera was done by Nordine Meziane and by
Fr\'ed\'eric Borja. Yves Laszlo was in charge of the ENS MOOC program. My
deep gratitude goes to all of them.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
The harmonic oscillator is arguably the most fundamental building block at the core of our understanding of both classical and quantum physics. Interestingly, a host of phenomena originally encountered in quantum mechanics and initially thought to be of purely quantum-mechanical nature have been successfully modelled using coupled classical harmonic oscillators. Amongst these phenomena are electromagnetically induced transparency~\cite{Alzar2002}, rapid adiabatic passage~\cite{Shore2009,Maris1988} and Landau-Zener tunneling.\cite{Novotny2010}
A particularly rich subset of experiments is enabled by the coherent manipulation of a quantum mechanical two-level system, providing access to fascinating effects including Rabi oscillations, Ramsey fringes and Hahn echoes.\cite{Allen1987}
Remarkably, equipped with the models and ideas gained from studying quantum mechanical systems, researchers have returned to construct classical analogues of two-level systems.\cite{Dragoman2004,Tobar1991}
Coherent control of such a classical two-level system has been beautifully demonstrated for an ``optical atom'' consisting of two coupled modes of a cavity.\cite{Spreeuw1990,Bouwmeester1995} Recently, coherent control of classical two-level systems has been achieved with coupled micromechanical oscillators.\cite{Okamoto2013,Faust2013}
With the analogy between a two-level system and a coupled pair of classical harmonic oscillators well established, it is surprising that this analogy has not been used to familiarize students with the concepts of coherent control and to provide an accessible analogue to a variety of quantum optical phenomena. Furthermore, exploring the limits of any analogue typically illustrates very strikingly the genuine features of a physical theory which are not present in the theory in which the analogy is phrased.\cite{Frimmer2012}\\[-1ex]
In this paper we consider a pair of two parametrically driven coupled harmonic mechanical oscillators. From the Newtonian equations of motion we derive a set of equations of motion for the eigenmode amplitudes that are formally equivalent to the time-dependent Schr\"{o}dinger equation of a two-level atom. We then derive a set of coupled differential equations which are formally identical with the quantum Bloch equations, with the exception that the longitudinal and transverse relaxation times are equal. We illustrate the concept of the Bloch sphere and provide an intuitive understanding of coherent control experiments by discussing Rabi oscillations, Ramsey fringes and Hahn echoes. Finally, we point out the distinct differences between our mechanical analogue and a true quantum mechanical two-level system.
Our approach offers students an intuitive entry into the field and prepares them with the basic concepts of quantum coherent control.\\[-1ex]
\section{The mechanical atom}
\subsection{Equations of motion}
\label{sec:coupledosc}
\begin{figure}[!b]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Fig_coupledoscillators.eps}
\caption{Coupled mechanical oscillators with masses $m_A, m_B$ and spring constants $k_A=k-\Delta k, k_B=k+\Delta k$ with a detuning $\Delta k$ that can be time dependent. The oscillators are coupled with a spring of spring constant $\kappa$. Oscillator A can be driven by an external force $F(t)$.
\label{fig:coupledoscillators}}
\end{figure}
Throughout this paper we consider two coupled oscillators, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:coupledoscillators}, with masses $m_A$ and $m_B$, spring constants $k_A=k-\Delta k(t)$ and $k_B=k+\Delta k(t)$ with a small detuning $\Delta k(t)$ that can be time dependent, and coupled by a spring with spring constant $\kappa$, which is weak compared to $k$. Both oscillators are weakly damped at a rate $\gamma$. Oscillator $A$ can be externally driven by a force $F(t)$. Because of the coupling $\kappa$, the dynamics of oscillator $A$ couples over to oscillator $B$.
Such two coupled harmonic oscillators are a generic model system applicable to diverse fields of physics. For example, in molecular physics, oscillators $A$ and $B$ correspond to a pair of atoms. Similarly, in cavity quantum electrodynamics, $A$ is a two-level atom and $B$ is a cavity field. In cavity optomechanics, oscillator $A$ would represent a mechanical oscillator, such as a membrane or cantilever, and $B$ an optical resonator. For the following, we assume that the masses of the oscillators are equal ($m_A = m_B = m$). Then, in terms of the coordinates $x_A$ and $x_B$ of the two oscillators, the equations of motion are
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:coupledosc}
\begin{aligned}
\ddot{x}_A \,+\, \gamma\:\! \dot{x}_A \,+\, \left[\frac{k+\kappa}{m} - \frac{\Delta k(t)}{m}\right] x_A \,-\, \frac{\kappa}{m}\:\! x_B &\;=\; \frac{1}{m} F(t) \\[1ex]
\ddot{x}_B \,+\, \gamma\:\! \dot{x}_B \,+\, \left[\frac{k+\kappa}{m} + \frac{\Delta k(t)}{m}\right] x_B \,-\, \frac{\kappa}{m}\:\! x_A &\;=\; 0 .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
For ease of notation, we introduce the carrier frequency $\Omega_0$, the detuning frequency $\Omega_d$ and the coupling frequency $\Omega_c$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:frequencies}
\begin{aligned}
\Omega_0^2&= [k+\kappa] / m\\
\Omega_d^2&= \Delta k / m\\
\Omega_c^2&= \kappa/m
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and represent the coupled differential equations in Eq.~\eqref{eq:coupledosc} in matrix form as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:coupledoscMatrixForm}
\left[\dd{}{t} + \gamma \d{}{t} + \Omega_0^2\right]\!
\begin{bmatrix} x_A \\ x_B \end{bmatrix} + \begin{bmatrix} -\Omega_d^2 & - \Omega_c^2\\ -\Omega_c^2 & \;\,\Omega_d^2\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} x_A \\ x_B \end{bmatrix}
\;=\; \begin{bmatrix} f(t) \\ 0 \end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $f(t) = F(t)/m$. This system of equations describes the full dynamics of the coupled oscillator problem.\\[-1ex]
\subsection{Eigenmodes for constant detuning}
We first consider the case of constant detuning $\Delta k=\mathrm{const.}$ and solve for the eigenmodes of the system and their respective eigenfrequencies. To this end, we diagonalize the matrix in Eq.~\eqref{eq:coupledoscMatrixForm}. The eigenmodes $x_{e1}$ and $x_{e2}$ of the system can be derived from the coordinates of the two oscillators $x_A, x_B$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:transformEigenmodes}
\begin{bmatrix} x_A\\x_B\end{bmatrix} = U^{-1}\begin{bmatrix} x_{e1} \\ x_{e2} \end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $U$ is a transformation matrix whose rows are eigenvectors of the matrix in Eq.~\eqref{eq:coupledoscMatrixForm}. We find
\begin{equation}
U = \begin{bmatrix} U_{11} & U_{12}\\ U_{21} & U_{22} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \;\;-(\Omega_d / \Omega_c)^2 + \sqrt{1+ (\Omega_d / \Omega_c)^4} \\
1 & \;\;-(\Omega_d / \Omega_c)^2 - \sqrt{1+ (\Omega_d / \Omega_c)^4} \end{bmatrix} \; ,
\end{equation}
and the eigenfrequencies turn out to be
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{\pm} = \left[\Omega_0^2 \mp \sqrt{\Omega_d^4+\Omega_c^4}\,\right]^{1/2} \; .
\end{equation}
Thus, after transformation, Eq.~\eqref{eq:coupledoscMatrixForm} yields two independent differential equations for the normal mode coordinates $x_{e1}$ and $x_{e2}$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\left[\dd{}{t} + \gamma \d{}{t} + \Omega_+^2\right] x_{e1} &=& U_{11} \,f (t) \\[1ex]
\left[\dd{}{t} + \gamma \d{}{t} + \Omega_-^2\right] x_{e2} &=& U_{21} \,f (t).
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:decoupledHarmOsc}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=1.4\columnwidth]{Fig_splitting.eps}
\caption{(a) Eigenfrequencies $\Omega_+$ and $\Omega_-$ of the coupled oscillators as a function of the detuning $\Delta k$. The dashed lines show the eigenfrequencies in absence of coupling. The frequency splitting $\Delta\Omega$ at resonance ($\Delta k=0$) is proportional to the coupling strength $\kappa$. (b) The energy of the system can be swapped between the eigenmodes by harmonically modulating the spring detuning $\Delta k$.
\label{fig:splitting}}
\end{figure*}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:splitting}a we plot the eigenfrequencies $\Omega_{\pm}$ as a function of the detuning $\Delta k$. In the absence of coupling the two oscillators are independent and their eigenfrequencies follow the straight lines that intersect at $\Delta k = 0$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:splitting}a. However, in presence of finite coupling, the two curves no longer intersect. Instead, there is a characteristic anti-crossing of the eigenfrequencies. The frequency splitting at resonance ($\Delta k = 0$) is
\begin{equation}
\Delta\Omega\;=\; \Omega_--\Omega_+ \approx \frac{\Omega_c^2}{\Omega_0},
\end{equation}
where we made use of $\Omega_c\ll\Omega_0$. Thus, the splitting is proportional to the coupling strength $\kappa$. If the separation of the frequency branches $\Delta\Omega$ can be discriminated against their width, which scales with the damping constant $\gamma$, one considers the system to be in the so-called {\em strong coupling} regime.\cite{Novotny2010} Turning to the eigenmodes of the system, we find that on resonance the transformation matrix reads
\begin{equation}
U (\Delta k = 0) \;=\; \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1\\ 1 & -1 \end{bmatrix} \label{eq:TrafoUres} \; ,
\end{equation}
and the eigenmodes become
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Res_eigenmodes}
x_+ &=& \left. x_{e1}\right|_{\Delta k=0} &\,=\, x_A + x_B\\
x_- &=& \left. x_{e2}\right|_{\Delta k=0} &\,=\, x_A - x_B .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Thus, on resonance, the eigenmodes of the system are symmetric and antisymmetric superpositions of the two individual oscillators. For $x_+$ the two masses swing in phase and for $x_-$ out of phase, that is, against each other. The eigenfrequency of the symmetric mode is $\Omega_+=\sqrt{k\,/\,m}$, which is the frequency in absence of coupling. This result is obvious since the coupling spring plays no role for the symmetric mode. The eigenfrequency of the antisymmetric mode is $\Omega_-=\sqrt{(k+2\kappa)\,/\,m}$. It is higher than $\Omega_+$ because each oscillator feels the coupling spring.\\[-1ex]
We have thus far considered a static detuning $\Delta k$. Intriguing effects happen when $\Delta k$ becomes time dependent. For example, if oscillator $A$ is excited and the detuning $\Delta k$ is swept through the anti-crossing region, then, depending on how fast the parameter $\Delta k$ is varied, one can transfer the energy to oscillator $B$ or keep it on oscillator $A$. The former is referred to as an adiabatic transition and the latter as a diabatic transition. In a diabatic transition the system jumps from one branch in Fig.~\ref{fig:splitting}a to the other, a process referred to as a Landau-Zener transition.\cite{Novotny2010,Bouwmeester1995}
In this paper, instead of linearly sweeping $\Delta k$, we consider a detuning that varies harmonically in time. Before doing this, we introduce the slowly varying envelope approximation to establish the formal correspondence between the mechanical oscillator system and a quantum mechanical two-level system.\\[-1ex]
\subsection{The slowly varying envelope approximation}\label{sec:SVEA}
We are interested in the dynamics of the coupled oscillators when they are tuned close to resonance ($\Delta k =0$). Therefore, we transform the equations of motion Eq.~\eqref{eq:coupledoscMatrixForm} to the basis $x_+, x_-$ and obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:coupledoscMatrixFormEigen}
\left[\dd{}{t} + \gamma \d{}{t} + \Omega_0^2\right]\!
\begin{bmatrix} x_+ \\ x_- \end{bmatrix} + \begin{bmatrix} -\Omega_c^2 & - \Omega_d^2\\ -\Omega_d^2 & \;\,\Omega_c^2\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} x_+ \\ x_- \end{bmatrix}
\;=\; \begin{bmatrix} f(t) \\ f(t) \end{bmatrix}\, ,
\end{equation}
where we have used the transformation matrix $U(\Delta k=0)$ given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:TrafoUres}.
Note that the transformation to the (resonant) eigenmodes has interchanged the roles of detuning and coupling in the matrix in Eq.~\eqref{eq:coupledoscMatrixFormEigen} as compared to Eq.~\eqref{eq:coupledoscMatrixForm}. A driving force $f(t)$ can be used to excite the system in any eigenmode or superposition of eigenmodes. However, since we are interested in the dynamics of the system after its initialization, we will from now on set $f(t)=0$.\\[-1ex]
To understand the evolution of the eigenmodes we write
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SVEAansatz}
\begin{aligned}
x_+ & \,=\,\text{Re}\left\{a(t)\exp{[\imu\Omega_0t]}\right\}\\
x_- & \,=\,\text{Re}\left\{b(t)\exp{[\imu\Omega_0t]}\right\},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where each mode is rapidly oscillating at the carrier frequency $\Omega_0$ and modulated by the slowly varying complex amplitudes $a(t)$ and $b(t)$, respectively. Upon inserting Eq.~\eqref{eq:SVEAansatz} into the coupled equations of motion~\eqref{eq:coupledoscMatrixFormEigen} we assume that the amplitude functions $a(t)$ and $b(t)$ do not change appreciably during an oscillation period $2\pi/\Omega_0$, which allows us to neglect terms containing second time derivatives. This approximation corresponds to the {\em slowly varying envelope approximation} (SVEA). Furthermore, since we consider weak damping we use $2\imu\Omega_0+\gamma\approx 2\imu\Omega_0$. Using these approximations we arrive at the following equations of motion for the eigenmode amplitudes
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SVEAsystem}
\imu\begin{bmatrix} \dot{a} \\ \dot{b}\end{bmatrix} \;=\; \frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix} \Delta\Omega-\imu\gamma & \omega_d\\ \omega_d & -\Delta\Omega-\imu\gamma \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} a\\b\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation}
To simplify notation we have introduced the rescaled detuning frequency
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rescaledDetuning}
\omega_d=\Omega_d^2/\Omega_0.
\end{equation}
Note that, for the case of vanishing damping ($\gamma=0$), Eq.~\eqref{eq:SVEAsystem} resembles the time dependent Schr\"{o}dinger equation $\imu\hbar\:\!\partial_t\ket{\Psi}=\hat{H}\ket{\Psi}$ for a state vector $\ket{\Psi}=a(t)\ket{g}+b(t)\ket{e}$ that is a superposition of a ground state $\ket{g}$ and an excited state $\ket{e}$ separated in energy by $\hbar\Delta\Omega$. The two states are coupled by $\bra{e}\hat{H}\ket{g}=\hbar\omega_d/2$. Accordingly, our system of coupled harmonic oscillators can be considered as a ``mechanical atom'' whose ground state (excited state) is represented by the symmetric eigenmode $x_+$ (antisymmetric eigenmode $x_-$). Importantly, the detuning $\Delta k$ of the oscillators leads to a coupling of the eigenmodes $x_+$ and $x_-$.
\subsection{Parametrically driven system}\label{sec:paramDetunedSystem}
We now investigate the dynamics of the ``mechanical atom" for a time harmonic detuning
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:parametricDriving}
\Delta k(t)\;=\;-2\Omega_0m\!\:A\:\!\cos[\omega_\text{drive}t]\; ,
\end{equation}
such that $\omega_d = -A \left(\exp[\imu\omega_\text{drive}t]+\exp[-\imu\omega_\text{drive}t] \right)$. The amplitude $A$ corresponds to the magnitude of the external modulation, whereas $\omega_{\rm drive}$ is the frequency of the modulation (c.f. Fig.~\ref{fig:coupledoscillators}).
To ease the notation we apply the transformation
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:RotFrameAnsatz}
a&\;=\;\bar{a}(t)\exp{[-\imu\frac{\omega_\text{drive}}{2}t]}\\
b&\;=\;\bar{b}(t)\exp{[+\imu\frac{\omega_\text{drive}}{2}t]}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here, $\bar{a}$ and $\bar{b}$ are the slowly varying amplitudes of the symmetric and antisymmetric eigenmodes in a coordinate frame rotating at the driving frequency.
This transformation generates terms $\exp[\pm3\:\!\imu\:\!\omega_\text{drive}t/2]$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:SVEAsystem} which are rapidly oscillating and which we neglect since they average out on the time scales of interest. This approximation is commonly referred to as the {\em rotating wave approximation} (RWA).
In the RWA and after transformation into the rotating coordinate frame Eq.~\eqref{eq:SVEAsystem} reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SVEAsystemRotFrame}
\imu\begin{bmatrix} \dot{\bar{a}} \\ \dot{\bar{b}}\end{bmatrix} \;=\; \frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix} \delta-\imu\gamma \,& \;-A\\ -A \,& -\delta-\imu\gamma \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \bar{a}\\\bar{b}\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
where we have defined the detuning $\delta$ between the driving frequency and the level splitting
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:detuning}
\delta=\Delta\Omega-\omega_\text{drive}.
\end{equation}
Note that the RWA and the transformation into a rotating coordinate frame have turned the problem of two parametrically driven modes into a simple problem of two modes with a static coupling.
With the initial conditions $\bar{a}(t=0)=\bar{a}_0$ and $\bar{b}(t=0)=\bar{b}_0$ the solutions of Eq.~\eqref{eq:SVEAsystemRotFrame} are
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:solution_ab}
\begin{aligned}
\bar{a}(t)&=\left[\imu\frac{A}{\Omega_R}\sin\left(\frac{\Omega_Rt}{2}\right)\,\bar{b}_0\right. \\&+ \left. \left\{\cos\left(\frac{\Omega_Rt}{2}\right)-\imu\frac{\delta}{\Omega_R}\sin\left(\frac{\Omega_Rt}{2}\right)\right\}\bar{a}_0\right]\exp\left[-\frac{\gamma}{2}t\right],\\
\bar{b}(t)&=\left[\imu\frac{A}{\Omega_R}\sin\left(\frac{\Omega_Rt}{2}\right)\,\bar{a}_0\right. \\&+ \left. \left\{\cos\left(\frac{\Omega_Rt}{2}\right)+\imu\frac{\delta}{\Omega_R}\sin\left(\frac{\Omega_Rt}{2}\right)\right\}\bar{b}_0\right]\exp\left[-\frac{\gamma}{2}t\right],
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we have introduced the generalized Rabi-frequency
\begin{equation}\label{eq:RabiFreq}
\Omega_R=\sqrt{A^2+\delta^2}.
\end{equation}
Equations~\eqref{eq:solution_ab} together with~\eqref{eq:Res_eigenmodes}, \eqref{eq:SVEAansatz} and \eqref{eq:RotFrameAnsatz} are the general solutions to the problem of two coupled harmonic oscillators under a time harmonic detuning.
\subsection{The Bloch sphere and the Bloch equations}
\begin{figure}[!b]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Fig_BlochSphere.eps}
\caption{The Bloch sphere. A pair of amplitudes ($\bar{a},\bar{b}$) is represented by the Bloch vector $\vect{s}=(s_x,s_y,s_z)^T$. Normalized amplitude pairs ($|\bar{a}|^2+|\bar{b}|^2=1$) lie on the surface of the Bloch sphere, which has unit radius. All amplitude pairs $(\bar{a},\bar{b})\exp[\imu\varphi]$ with arbitrary $\varphi$ are mapped onto the same point $\vect{s}$.}
\label{fig:BlochSphere}
\end{figure}
While we have found the general solutions to the equations of motion for the parametrically driven system, it is worth representing these solutions in a vectorial form that was originally introduced by Felix Bloch in the context of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR).\cite{Bloch1946}
We introduce the Bloch vector $\vect{s}=(s_x,s_y,s_z)^T$ with the components
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:blochvectoreq}
\begin{aligned}
s_x &=& \bar{a} \,\bar{b}^{\ast} + \bar{a}^{\ast} \bar{b} &=& 2\, {\rm Re}\{\bar{a} \,\bar{b}^{\ast}\} &=& 2|\bar{a}||\bar{b}|\cos(\phi)\\
s_y &=& \imu\, \bar{a} \,\bar{b}^{\ast} - \imu \, \bar{a}^{\ast} \bar{b} &=& -2\;\! {\rm Im}\{\bar{a} \,\bar{b}^{\ast}\} &=& -2|\bar{a}||\bar{b}|\sin(\phi)\\
s_z &=& \bar{a}\, \bar{a}^{\ast} - \bar{b}\, \bar{b}^{\ast} &=& |\bar{a}|^2 - |\bar{b}|^2\; .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The Bloch vector $\vect{s}$ encodes in its three real-valued components the state of the coupled oscillators, which is represented by the amplitudes $|\bar{a}|, |\bar{b}|$ and the relative phase $\phi$. Importantly, every state $(\bar{a},\bar{b})$ of the oscillator system can be multiplied by an arbitrary phase factor $\exp[\imu\varphi]$ without changing the corresponding Bloch vector $\vect{s}$. Discarding this absolute phase of the complex amplitudes $\bar{a},\bar{b}$ reduces the degrees of freedom from four (two real amplitudes and two phases for $\bar{a}$ and $\bar{b}$) to three, such that the state of the oscillator system can be represented in the three dimensional Bloch vector space.\\[-1ex]
For an undamped system ($\gamma=0$) and appropriately normalized amplitudes ($|\bar{a}|^2+|\bar{b}|^2=1$) the tip of the Bloch vector always lies on a unit sphere, called the Bloch sphere. For the sake of example, let us consider a few distinct points on the Bloch sphere, sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:BlochSphere}. The north pole of the Bloch sphere $\vect{s}=(0,0,1)^T$ corresponds to the state vector $(\bar{a},\bar{b})=(1,0)$. In this state only the symmetric eigenmode of the system is excited, that is, the mechanical atom is in its ground state. Accordingly, when only the antisymmetric eigenmode is excited and the mechanical atom is in its excited state, corresponding to $(\bar{a},\bar{b})=(0,1)$, the tip of the Bloch vector is located at the south pole of the Bloch sphere $\vect{s}=(0,0,-1)^T$. All points on the equator of the Bloch sphere correspond to equal superpositions of the two eigenmodes, but with with varying relative phase $\phi$. For example, the state $(\bar{a},\bar{b})=(1,1)/\sqrt{2}$ lies at the intersection of the $\vect{e}_x$-axis and the Bloch sphere $\vect{s}=(1,0,0)^T$, whereas the state $(\bar{a},\bar{b})=(1,\imu)/\sqrt{2}$ lies at the intersection with the $\vect{e}_y$-axis $\vect{s}=(0,1,0)^T$.\\[-1ex]
It is instructive to express the dynamics of the coupled oscillator system in terms of the Bloch vector $\vect{s}$.
Using Eqs.~\eqref{eq:SVEAsystemRotFrame} and~\eqref{eq:blochvectoreq} we can easily show that the time evolution of the Bloch vector is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:BlochEqMotion}
\frac{\diff}{\diff t}\begin{bmatrix} s_x \\ s_y \\ s_z\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} -\gamma & -\delta & 0 \\ \delta & -\gamma & A \\ 0 & -A & -\gamma \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} s_x \\ s_y \\ s_z\end{bmatrix} .
\end{equation}
This system of equations can be represented in compact form as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:BlochEqMotion2}
\dot{s} \;=\; \vect{R} \times \vect{s} - \gamma\vect{s},
\end{equation}
where we defined the rotation vector $\vect{R}=(-A, 0, \delta)^T$. The equation of motion $\dot{\vect{s}}=\vect{R}\times\vect{s}$ describes the precession of the Bloch vector $\vect{s}$ around the rotation vector $\vect{R}$ with the angular frequency $\Omega_R$ defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:RabiFreq}. $\Omega_R$ equals the length of $\vect{R}$.\cite{Allen1987} Equations~\eqref{eq:BlochEqMotion} define the \emph{classical Bloch equations} and are the main result of this paper. The classical Bloch equations are formally identical to the quantum Bloch equations~\cite{Allen1987} with the exception of the damping terms.\\[-1ex]
Let us briefly recap here. We are dealing with a system of two coupled harmonic oscillators. The state of this system is entirely defined by the complex amplitudes of its eigenmodes, which correspond to a distinct points on the Bloch sphere. According to Eq.~\eqref{eq:BlochEqMotion2} we can bring the system from any starting point to any other point on the Bloch sphere simply by choosing the right rotation vector $\vect{R}$ and waiting for the right time to achieve the desired amount of rotation. This idea is at the core of the concept of \emph{coherent control}. Importantly, the rotation vector $\vect{R}$ enabling such coherent control is entirely defined by the parametric driving applied to the spring constants of the system. Remember that $A$ is nothing else but the (rescaled) amplitude of the spring modulation $\Delta k$, while $\delta$ is the difference between the frequency at which we modulate the spring constant and the frequency splitting of the mechanical atom $\Delta\Omega$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:splitting}b we have visualized the coherent redistribution of amplitudes between the eigenmodes by a parametric driving of $\Delta k$.\\[-1ex]
Having pointed out the similarities between a mechanical oscillator system and a quantum mechanical two-level system we note an important difference. The damping $\gamma$ ultimately forces the system into the state $(\bar{a},\bar{b})=(0,0)$, which means that the Bloch vector disappears. In contrast, due to spontaneous emission a quantum two-level system will always end up in its ground state after a long time. Clearly, while the concept of coherent control can be applied to entirely classical systems, spontaneous emission is a process that is genuinely quantum mechanical in nature and cannot be recovered in a system governed by classical mechanics.
It must be emphasized that spontaneous emission requires a fully quantized theory and cannot be derived by semi-classical quantum mechanics. Even Bloch added the decay constants semi-phenomenologically in his treatment of nuclear spins.\cite{Allen1987} In quantum mechanical systems one commonly distinguishes two decay rates. The first one, termed longitudinal decay rate $\gamma_1=1/T_1$, describes the decay of the inversion $s_z$, while the second one, the transverse decay rate $\gamma_2=1/T_2$ governs the decay of the components $s_x$ and $s_y$ of the Bloch vector. For the mechanical oscillator system we find $\gamma_1=\gamma_2=\gamma$ which explains the recent experimental finding by Faust \emph{et al.} in a micromechanical oscillator system.\cite{Faust2013}
Finally, we stress that the analogy between a pair of coupled mechanical oscillators and a quantum two-level system relies on the SVEA and accordingly breaks down whenever the amplitudes $|\bar{a}|^2, |\bar{b}|^2$ change on a time scale comparable to the carrier frequency $\Omega_0$.\\[-1ex]
\section{Operations on the Bloch sphere}
We have seen that by parametrically modulating the detuning of the coupled oscillators we can control the trajectory of the Bloch vector on the Bloch sphere at will. Three protocols for Bloch vector manipulation have proven particularly useful in the field of coherent control, leading to phenomena called Rabi oscillations, Ramsey fringes, and Hahn echo. We will now briefly discuss these phenomena.
\subsection{Rabi oscillations}
In 1937 Rabi studied the dynamics of a magnetic spin in a static magnetic field that is modulated by a radio frequency field and he found that the spin vector is periodically oscillating between parallel and anti-parallel directions with respect to the static magnetic field.\cite{Rabi1937} These oscillations are referred to as Rabi oscillations, or Rabi flopping. The mechanical atom reproduces the basic physics of this Rabi flopping.\\[-1ex]
\begin{figure}[!b]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Fig_Pulses.eps}
\caption{Controlling the dynamics of coupled oscillators with pulses of different duration and amplitude. (a) Starting in the ground state $(\bar{a},\bar{b})=(1,0)$ a $\pi/2$-pulse leaves both modes equally excited. (b) A $\pi$-pulse transfers the energy of $x_+$ to $x_-$, and (c) a $2\pi$ pulse brings the system back to where it started. In all cases we assumed no damping ($\gamma=0$) and no detuning ($\delta=0$).
\label{fig:pulses}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=1.4\columnwidth]{Fig_RabiOsc.eps}
\caption{(a) Bloch sphere with trajectory of Bloch vector during resonant Rabi oscillations marked in red. Starting from the north pole the Bloch vector rotates around the $\vect{e}_x$-axis. To rotate the Bloch vector by the angle $\Theta$ the driving field with amplitude $A$ has to be turned on for a time $t_\Theta=\Theta/A$. (b) Rabi oscillations of the populations $|\bar{a}|^2,|\bar{b}|^2$ for zero detuning ($\omega_\text{drive}=\Delta\Omega$) and damping $\gamma=\Omega_R/25$. The energy flops back and forth between the two oscillation modes $x_+$ and $x_-$. The Rabi frequency $\Omega_R$ defines the flopping rate, and is given by the rescaled modulation amplitude $A$ of the detuning $\Delta k$.
\label{fig:rabiosc}}
\end{figure*}
Let us neglect damping for the moment ($\gamma=0$) and assume a resonant ($\delta=0$) parametric driving $\Delta k \propto A\cos(\Delta\Omega\, t)$ to our system, such that the Bloch vector, starting at the north pole $\vect{s}=(0,0,1)^T$, rotates around the axis $\vect{R}=-A\:\!\vect{e}_x$ at a frequency $\Omega_R=A\,$ according to Eq.~\eqref{eq:BlochEqMotion2}. After a time $t_\pi=\pi/A$ the Bloch vector will have rotated to the south pole $\vect{s}=(0,0,-1)^T$. This means that the symmetric eigenmode now has zero amplitude while the antisymmetric eigenmode has unit amplitude, that is, $(\bar{a},\bar{b})=(0,1)$. Obviously, parametric driving for a time $t_\pi$ (called $\pi$-pulse) inverts our system. Accordingly, after parametrically driving the system for a time $t_{2\pi}=2\pi/A$ it has returned to its initial state at the north pole of the Bloch sphere. We have plotted the populations of the eigenmodes for three different pulse durations in Fig.~\ref{fig:pulses}.
In general, for a $\Theta$-pulse the parametric driving with amplitude $A$ is turned on for a time $t_\Theta=\Theta/A$. Remember that the driving signal oscillates at a frequency $\omega_\text{drive}$ according to Eq.~\eqref{eq:parametricDriving} and therefore undergoes many oscillations during the pulse. Importantly, we can make every pulse arbitrarily short by applying a driving signal with large amplitude $A$.
For a continuous parametric driving, starting at $\vect{s}=(0,0,1)^T$, the system is oscillating between its two eigenmodes at the resonant Rabi-frequency $\Omega_R=A$. We can explicitly convince ourselves that the picture of the Bloch sphere yields the correct result by considering the time evolution of the population of the eigenmodes, given by $|\bar{a}|^2$ and $|\bar{b}|^2$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:solution_ab}. For $(\bar{a}_0,\bar{b}_0)=(1,0)$ we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:solution_Rabi}
\begin{aligned}
|\bar{a}(t)|^2&\;=\;\cos^2\!\left(\Omega_Rt/2\right)\,\exp\left[-\gamma t\right]\\
|\bar{b}(t)|^2&\;=\;\sin^2\!\left(\Omega_Rt/2\right)\,\exp\left[-\gamma t\right].
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We plot the trajectory of the Bloch vector for a resonantly driven system in Fig.~\ref{fig:rabiosc}a and the populations $|\bar{a}|^2,|\bar{b}|^2$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:rabiosc}b. Indeed, for zero damping ($\gamma=0$) the energy oscillates back and forth between the two eigenmodes of the system at a frequency $\Omega_R$. However, a finite damping $\gamma$ makes the population of both eigenmodes die out with progressing time and the length of the Bloch vector is no longer conserved. For finite detuning ($\delta\ne0$) we find that even without damping the population inversion is reduced and no longer reaches a value of one. The population of the antisymmetric eigenmode reaches a maximum value of $|\bar{b}(t_\pi)|^2=A^2/\Omega_R^2$. The fact that the Rabi oscillations do not lead to a complete inversion of the system for finite detuning can be understood by considering the rotation of the Bloch vector on the Bloch sphere. For finite detuning the rotation vector $\vect{R}$ has a component in $\vect{e}_z$-direction such that a rotation of the Bloch vector $\vect{s}$ starting at the north pole of the Bloch sphere no longer reaches the south pole. Another important observation is that the non-resonant Rabi-oscillations always proceed at a frequency larger than in the resonant case ($\Omega_R>\Omega_R^\text{res}$ for all $\delta\ne0$) according to Eq.~\eqref{eq:RabiFreq}.\\[-1ex]
\subsection{Ramsey fringes}
We have seen that Rabi oscillations correspond to rotations around the $\vect{e}_x$-axis. What about rotations around other axes? Clearly, any detuning $\delta$ leads to an $\vect{e}_z$-component of the rotation vector $\vect{R}$, that is, a rotation around the $\vect{e}_z$-axis. Assume we prepare the mechanical oscillator system in a state $\vect{s}=(0,1,0)^T$. As we know from the previous section, we can reach this point by applying a $\pi/2$-pulse to a system in the state $\vect{s}=(0,0,1)^T$.
If we allow for a finite detuning $\delta$, according to Eq.~\eqref{eq:BlochEqMotion} the system will evolve away from the state $\vect{s}=(0,1,0)^T$ even if the driving is off ($A=0$). In fact, for $A=0$ the Bloch vector rotates around the Bloch sphere's equator at an angular frequency $\delta$, progressing by an angle $\Phi=\delta t$ in the equatorial plane within a time $t$. \\[-1ex]
It is puzzling at first sight that the Bloch vector is rotating even though no driving is applied to the system. To understand the precession of the Bloch vector for a finite detuning it is necessary to remind ourselves of two important facts: the first one is the frequency difference $\Delta\Omega$ between the eigenmodes of the system, the second one are the coordinate transformations we applied.
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=1.4\columnwidth]{Fig_RamseyOsc.eps}
\caption{(a) Trajectory of Bloch vector in a Ramsey experiment with detuning $\delta$ and waiting time $T=\pi/\delta$. During this time the Bloch vector makes a half rotation on the equator. During the time $t=\Phi/\delta$ the Bloch vector precesses by an angle $\Phi$ in the equatorial plane. (b) Ramsey fringes for finite damping $\gamma\ne0$. The populations $|\bar{a}|^2,|\bar{b}|^2$ are inverted after $T=n\,\pi/\delta$, with $n$ being an integer. The inset illustrates the applied pulse sequence which consists of two $\pi/2$-pulses separated by a waiting time $T$. The Ramsey fringes result from a phase difference acquired by the (mechanical) atom, which is due to the drive frequency $\omega_\text{drive}$ (dashed in inset while driving is off) being different from the transition frequency $\Delta\Omega$ (green).
\label{fig:ramseyosc}}
\end{figure*}
In the transformation Eq.~\eqref{eq:SVEAansatz} we separated out all fast oscillations at the carrier frequency $\Omega_0$. Accordingly, since the eigenmodes $x_+, x_-$ oscillate at frequencies $\Omega_\pm$, the amplitudes $a, b$ still contain oscillations at $\pm\Delta\Omega/2$. This frequency difference between the eigenmodes means that as time passes they acquire a relative phase difference. By transforming into a coordinate system rotating at the driving frequency in Eq.~\eqref{eq:RotFrameAnsatz} we exactly compensate for the phase difference between the eigenmodes if the driving frequency $\omega_\text{drive}$ exactly corresponds to the frequency splitting $\Delta\Omega$ between the levels. Thus, in this rotating frame, the Bloch vector is constant. If, however, we choose a finite $\delta$, we are transforming into a reference system that is detuned with respect to the transition frequency $\Delta\Omega$ and the Bloch vector will rotate even in the absence of driving.
The detuning $\delta$ can be made visible in an experimental scheme devised by Ramsey.\cite{Ramsey1950} The Ramsey method consists of three steps, as illustrated in the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:ramseyosc}b. First we bring the system from the north pole of the Bloch sphere to the state $\vect{s}=(0,1,0)^T$ with a short $\pi/2$-pulse with detuning $\delta$, second we wait for a time $T$, and finally we apply another $\pi/2$-pulse. In case of zero detuning the Bloch vector has not moved during the waiting time and accordingly we end up on the south pole of the Bloch sphere. However, if the detuning is finite, the Bloch vector will precess around the $\vect{e}_z$-axis by an angle $\Phi=\delta T$ before being rotated by $\pi/2$ around the $\vect{e}_x$-axis by the second pulse. For example, after a time $T=\pi/\delta$ the Bloch vector will have rotated to the point $\vect{s}=(0,-1,0)^T$ such that the second $\pi/2$-pulse will bring the system back to the north pole $\vect{s}=(0,0,1)^T$, as plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:ramseyosc}a. If we measure the populations $|a|^2,|b|^2$ after the second $\pi/2$-pulse we find the characteristic Ramsey fringes, plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:ramseyosc}b, where we also included a finite damping rate $\gamma$ that leads to an exponential decay of both populations.
\commentOut{
We can intuitively understand why the second $\pi/2$-pulse brings the system down to the south pole $(0,1)$ for the resonant case but back up to $(1,0)$ for a detuning $\delta=\pi/T$. The reason is that in the resonant case the driving field (despite being off during the time $T$) has not acquired a phase difference with respect to the mechanical atom oscillating at its transition frequency $\Delta\Omega$. Accordingly, whatever the waiting time $T$, the next pulse will simply continue the movement on the Bloch sphere. In contrast, in the case of finite detuning, the driving (illustrated as the solid black line while on in the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:ramseyosc}b and as a dashed line when off) and the mechanical atom (whose oscillation at frequency $\Delta\Omega$ is sketched as the green line in the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:ramseyosc}b) acquire a phase difference during the time $T$. If that phase difference equals $\pi$ the second pulse deexcites the mechanical atom back to the initial state $(1,0)$ instead of further exciting it to $(0,1)$.\\[-1ex]
}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=1.4\columnwidth]{Fig_HahnEcho.eps}
\caption{Hahn echo experiment. (a) The sequence of pulses and wait times represented as a trajectory on the Bloch sphere. The path starts at the north pole $\vect{s}=(0,0,1)^T$ and ends at the south pole $\vect{s}=(0,0,-1)^T$. (b) Measurement outcome of the Hahn experiment plotted as the populations $|\bar{a}|^2,|\bar{b}|^2$. The population of the symmetric mode $x_+$ is zero for all delay times $T$ while the population of the antisymmetric mode $x_-$ falls off exponentially with the damping constant $\gamma$. Inset: Illustration of the pulse sequence.
\label{fig:hahnecho}}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Hahn-echo}
Having established that a sequence of pulses and wait times can be represented by a trajectory on the Bloch sphere, we now consider the dynamics of the so-called \emph{Hahn echo} experiment.\cite{Hahn1950} The experiment involves a sequence of three short pulses (see inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:hahnecho}b).
As before, we start with the system in the lower energy eigenmode corresponding to the Bloch vector $\vect{s}=(0,0,1)^T$. Similar to the Ramsey experiment, we bring the system with a short $\pi/2$-pulse to $\vect{s}=(0,1,0)^T$, which corresponds to a superposition of the $x_+$ and $x_-$ modes.
During a waiting time $T/2$ the Bloch vector rotates around the $\vect{e}_z$-axis according to the detuning $\delta$ by an angle $\Phi=\delta T/2$ until one applies a short $\pi$-pulse. This pulse flips the Bloch vector around the $\vect{e}_x$-axis as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:hahnecho}a. Another wait time of $T/2$ rotates the Bloch vector to $\vect{s}=(0,-1,0)^T$, from where a $3\pi/2$ pulse brings it to the south pole $\vect{s}=(0,0,-1)^T$.
However, this is only true without damping. The complex amplitudes $(\bar{a},\bar{b})$ of the oscillation modes are both damped by a factor $\exp[-\gamma t/2]$ according to Eq.~\eqref{eq:solution_ab} and hence
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
|a(T)|^2 &= 0\\
|b(T)|^2 &= \text{e}^{-\gamma T}.
\label{eq:hahnresult}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Thus, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:hahnecho}b, by varying the time delay $T$ and measuring the energy in oscillation mode $x_-$ we can experimentally determine the damping $\gamma$ in the system.
Importantly, in the Hahn protocol, the precession performed by the Bloch vector during the first waiting interval is exactly compensated during the second waiting time. This fact is extraordinarily useful if one does an ensemble measurement on several systems with a distribution of detunings or if one repeatedly measures the same system which suffers from fluctuations in its transition frequency $\Delta\Omega$.
In quantum mechanics one distinguishes two types of damping, energy relaxation and phase decoherence. Since the propagation of the Bloch vector in the Hahn echo experiment happens only in the xy-plane (the pulses can be made arbitrarily short by increasing their amplitude) the Hahn echo experiment is able to eliminate the contribution due to energy relaxation and only render the damping due to phase decoherence.~\cite{Allen1987}\\[-1ex]
\section{Conclusions}
We have shown that a pair of coupled mechanical oscillators with parametrically driven detuning can serve as a classical analogon to a quantum mechanical two-level system. The correspondence between the classical and the quantum system is established by using the slowly varying envelope approximation, which casts the Newtonian equations of motion of the coupled oscillators into a form resembling the Schr{\"o}dinger equation for a two-level atom. The mechanical oscillator analogon features only a single decay rate for both longitudinal and transverse damping in contrast to a quantum mechanical two-level system which can show different decay rates due to spontaneous emission and dephasing processes. Also, the classical model does not conserve the total population of the levels since both eigenmodes are equally damped. Our treatment provides an easy introduction to the field of coherent control in the context of both classical and quantum systems. An extension of our discussion of the mechanical atom lends itself to introduce students to Pauli matrices, density operators and rotation operators.
\begin{acknowledgments}
The authors thank Lo\"{i}c Rondin for fruitful discussions and are most grateful for financial support by ETH Z{\"u}rich and ERC-QMES (No. 338763).
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Background on the Berkovich projective line}
\label{sec:berk}
\subsection{Berkovich points and disks}
The Berkovich projective line $\PP^1_{\Ber}$ over $\CC_v$ is a certain
compact Hausdorff topological space
containing $\PP^1(\Cv)$ as a subspace. The precise definition,
involving multiplicative seminorms on $\CC_v$-algebras,
is tangential to this paper; the interested reader may consult
Berkovich's monograph \cite{Ber}, the detailed
exposition in \cite{BR}, or the summary in \cite{BenAZ},
for example. We give only an overview here, without proofs.
There are four types of points in $\PP^1_{\Ber}$. Type~I points
are simply the points of $\PP^1(\Cv)$. Points of type~II and~III
correspond to closed disks in $\CC_v$. Specifically, for
$a\in\CC_v$ and $r>0$, the closed disk
$\bar{D}(a,r) := \{z\in \CC_v : |z-a|_v\leq r\}$
corresponds to a unique point, which we shall denote
$\zeta(a,r)$, in $\PP^1_{\Ber}$.
If $r\in |\CC_v^{\times}|_v$, the point $\zeta(a,r)$ is
of type~II; otherwise, $\zeta(a,r)$ is of type~III.
The type~II point $\zeta(0,1)$ is known as the
\emph{Gauss point}.
The remaining points of $\PP^1_{\Ber}$, knowns as the type~IV
points, correspond to equivalence classes of
descending chains $D_1\supsetneq D_2 \supsetneq \cdots$
of disks in $\CC_v$ with empty intersection.
Type~IV points will not be important in this paper,
though.
The absolute value $|\cdot|_v$ extends to a function
$|\cdot|_v : \PP^1_{\Ber}\smallsetminus\{\infty\} \to [0,\infty)$,
where in particular $|\zeta(a,r)|_v:=\max\{|a|_v,r\}$.
The space $\PP^1_{\Ber}$ is equipped with a topology,
known as either the \emph{Gel'fand topology} or the
\emph{weak topology}. The Gel'fand topology restricted to
$\PP^1(\Cv)$ coincides with the usual topology induced by $|\cdot|_v$.
Unlike $\PP^1(\Cv)$, however, $\PP^1_{\Ber}$ is compact (and still Hausdorff).
Given $a\in\CC_v$ and $r>0$,
$\bar{\calD}(a,r)\subseteq\PP^1_{\Ber}$
will denote
a certain closed subset whose
type~I points are those in $\bar{D}(a,r)$,
and whose type~II and~III points are of the form
$\zeta(b,s)$ with $\bar{D}(b,s)\subseteq\bar{D}(a,r)$.
Similarly, $\calD(a,r)\subseteq\PP^1_{\Ber}$
is a certain open subset whose type~I points are
those in $D(a,r)\subseteq\CC_v$,
and whose type~II and~III points are of the form
$\zeta(b,s)$ with $\bar{D}(b,s)\subseteq D(a,r)$
\emph{other than} $\zeta(a,r)$ itself.
More generally,
a \emph{closed Berkovich disk} is a subset of $\PP^1_{\Ber}$
of the form either $\calD(a,r)$ or
$\PP^1_{\Ber}\smallsetminus\bar{\calD}(a,r)$.
Similarly, an
\emph{open Berkovich disk} is a subset of $\PP^1_{\Ber}$
of the form either $\bar{\calD}(a,r)$ or
$\PP^1_{\Ber}\smallsetminus\calD(a,r)$.
For each of these four possibilities, the boundary
of the Berkovich disk consists of the single point $\zeta(a,r)$.
Meanwhile, a \emph{closed} (respectively, \emph{open})
\emph{connected affinoid} $U$ is a nonempty finite intersection
of closed (respectively, open) Berkovich disks.
If none of the disks in the intersection contains any other,
then the boundary of $U$ consists of the
(finitely many) boundary points of the disks in the intersection.
\subsection{Path-connectedness and the hyperbolic metric}
The space $\PP^1_{\Ber}$ is uniquely path-connected.
That is, for any
$x\neq y\in\PP^1_{\Ber}$, there is a unique subspace
$I\subseteq\PP^1_{\Ber}$ homeomorphic to the unit interval
$[0,1]\subseteq\mathbb{R}$,
where $x,y\in I$, and the homeomorphism takes
$x$ to $0$ and $y$ to $1$.
The set $I$ is called an \emph{interval} in $\PP^1_{\Ber}$,
and it is denoted $[x,y]$ or $[y,x]$.
The points in $[x,y]$ are said to \emph{lie between}
$x$ and $y$.
For example, if $x=\zeta(a,r)$ and $y=\zeta(a,s)$ with $s>r>0$,
then the interval $[x,y]$ consists of all points
$\zeta(a,t)$ with $r\leq t\leq s$.
$\PP^1_{\Ber}$ is also locally path-connected. Thus, any connected
open subset is, like $\PP^1_{\Ber}$ itself, uniquely path-connected.
Given a set of points $S\subseteq\PP^1_{\Ber}$,
the \emph{convex hull} of $S$ is the set
$\Gamma:=\bigcup_{x,y\in S} [x,y]$
consisting of all points lying between two points of $S$.
If $S$ is finite and nonempty, then the convex hull $\Gamma$ is a
finite tree. Conversely, any finite tree $\Gamma\subseteq\PP^1_{\Ber}$
is the convex hull of some nonempty finite set $S\subseteq\PP^1_{\Ber}$.
The unique path-connectedness endows $\PP^1_{\Ber}$
with a tree-like structure; however, unlike a finite tree,
it has points of infinite branching, and such points
are dense in any interval $[x,y]$ with $x\neq y$.
In fact, these infinitely-branched points are precisely the
type~II points, because for any type~II point $x=\zeta(a,r)$,
the complement
$\PP^1_{\Ber}\smallsetminus\{x\}$
consists of infinitely many connected components,
called the \emph{residue classes} at $x$.
Each of these components is an open Berkovich disk:
one is $\PP^1_{\Ber}\smallsetminus\bar{\calD}(a,r)$, while the rest are
the infinitely many disks
$\calD(b,r)\subseteq\PP^1(\overline{K})$ with $b\in\bar{D}(a,r)$.
Thus, the residue classes at $x$
are in one-to-one correspondence with the points
of $\PP^1(k)$, where $k$ is the residue field of $\CC_v$.
On the other hand, if $\zeta(a,r)\in\PP^1_{\Ber}$ is of type~III,
then $\PP^1_{\Ber}\smallsetminus\{\zeta(a,r)\}$ has two components:
the open Berkovich disks $\calD(a,r)$
and $\PP^1_{\Ber}\smallsetminus\bar{\calD}(a,r)$.
In addition, if $x\in\PP^1_{\Ber}$ is either of type~I or type~IV,
then $\PP^1_{\Ber}\smallsetminus\{x\}$ is still connected.
The set $\HH_{\Ber}:=\PP^1_{\Ber}\smallsetminus\PP^1(\Cv)$ is called
\emph{hyperbolic space} and admits a metric $d_{\mathbb{H}}$, which
can be easily described on the type~II and~III points.
Given $a\in\CC_v$ and $r\geq s>0$, we have
$$d_{\mathbb{H}}\big(\zeta(a,r) , \zeta(a,s)\big) := \log r - \log s.$$
The hyperbolic distance between two points $\zeta(a,r)$
and $\zeta(b,s)$ is then the sum of the distances from each
point to $\zeta(c,t)$, where $\bar{D}(c,t)$ is the smallest closed
disk in $\CC_v$ containing both $\bar{D}(a,r)$ and $\bar{D}(b,s)$.
The reader should be warned, however, that the $d_{\mathbb{H}}$-metric
topology on $\HH_{\Ber}$ is strictly stronger than Gel'fand topology,
and hence the former is known as the \emph{strong topology}.
However, if $\Gamma\subseteq\HH_{\Ber}$ is a finite tree, then the Gel'fand
and strong topologies each induce the same subspace topology on $\Gamma$.
\subsection{Rational functions on $\PP^1_{\Ber}$}
\label{sec:ratact}
Any nonconstant rational function $\phi\in\CC_v(z)$
extends uniquely to a continuous function
from $\PP^1_{\Ber}$ to $\PP^1_{\Ber}$. This extension, which we
also denote $\phi$, is in fact an open map.
For each point $x\in\PP^1_{\Ber}$, the image $\phi(x)$ is a
point of the same type. In addition, $\phi$ has a local
degree $\deg_x(\phi)$ at $x$.
The local degree is an integer between $1$ and $\deg\phi$;
in fact, for any $y\in\PP^1_{\Ber}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:degsum}
\sum_{x\in\phi^{-1}(y)} \deg_x(\phi) = \deg\phi.
\end{equation}
That is, every point of $\PP^1_{\Ber}$ has exactly $\deg\phi$ preimages,
counted with multiplicity.
Rather than formally defining $\phi$ and $\deg_x(\phi)$ on $\PP^1_{\Ber}$,
we note the following special cases.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
If $D(a,r)\subseteq\CC_v$ is an open disk
containing no poles of $\phi$, then the image $\phi(D(a,r))$
is also an open disk $D(b,s)$, and we have
$\phi(\zeta(a,r))=\zeta(b,s)$.
If there are no poles in the closed disk $\bar{D}(a,r)$,
then $\phi:\bar{D}(a,r)\to\bar{D}(b,s)$ is everywhere $m$-to-$1$,
counting multiplicity, for some $m\geq 1$;
in that case, $\deg_{\zeta(a,r)}(\phi)=m$.
\item
Writing $\phi=f/g$ with $f,g\in{\mathcal O}[z]$ and at least one coefficient
of $f$ or $g$ in ${\mathcal O}^{\times}$, define
$$\overline{\phi}:= \bar{f} / \bar{g} \in k(z)\cup\{\infty\}.$$
We have $\phi(\zeta(0,1))=\zeta(0,1)$ if and only if $\bar{\phi}$
is not constant.
In that case, $\deg_{\zeta(0,1)}(\phi) = \deg(\bar{\phi})$.
\item Given $\psi\in\CC_v(z)$ and $w\in\CC_v$, we will write
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:approxdef}
\phi(w)\approx \psi(w)
\quad\text{if}\quad |\phi(w)-\psi(w)|_v< |\phi(w)|_v.
\end{equation}
Fix $a\in\CC_v$ and $r>0$. Suppose there is some $\psi\in\CC_v(z)$
and $b\in\CC_v$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\phi(w)-b\approx \psi(w)$ for all $w\in\CC_v$ with $|w-a|_v<r$, and
\item $\psi(\zeta(a,r))=\zeta(0,s)$ for some $s>0$.
\end{itemize}
Then
$\phi(\zeta(a,r)) = \zeta(b,s)$,
and $\deg_{\zeta(a,r)}(\phi) = \deg_{\zeta(a,r)}(\psi)$.
\end{enumerate}
If $U\subseteq\PP^1_{\Ber}$ is connected and $\deg_x(\phi)=n$
is constant on $U$, then
$$d_{\mathbb{H}}(\phi(x),\phi(y)) = n d_{\mathbb{H}}(x,y) \quad\text{for all } x,y\in U.$$
\section{Dynamics on the Berkovich projective line}
\label{sec:dynamics}
\subsection{Berkovich Julia sets}
\label{sec:Julia}
Just as in complex dynamics, a rational function $\phi\in\CC_v(z)$
has an associated Julia set. As in Section~\ref{sec:berk},
we will only give definitions and state properties without proofs.
For further details,
see, for example,
\cite[Section~6.4]{BenAZ},
\cite[Section~10.5]{BR}, or \cite[Section~2.3]{FRL}.
\begin{defin}
\label{def:Julia}
Let $\phi\in\CC_v(z)$ be a rational function of degree $d\geq 2$.
The (\emph{Berkovich}) \emph{Julia set} of $\phi$ is the set
$\calJ_{\phi}\subseteq \PP^1_{\Ber}$ consisting of those points $x\in\PP^1_{\Ber}$
with the property that for any open set $U\subseteq\PP^1_{\Ber}$
containing $x$,
$$\PP^1_{\Ber} \smallsetminus \Big[ \bigcup_{n\geq 0} \phi^{-n}(U) \Big]
\quad \text{is finite}.$$
\end{defin}
The Berkovich Julia set of $\phi\in\CC_v(a)$ has a number
of properties familiar to complex dynamicists.
First, it is closed in $\PP^1_{\Ber}$ and hence compact.
Second, it is invariant under $\phi$, in the sense that
$\phi^{-1}(\calJ_{\phi}) = \phi(\calJ_{\phi})=\calJ_{\phi}$.
Third, for any $x\in\calJ_{\phi}$, the backward orbit
$${\mathcal O}^{-}_{\phi}(x) := \bigcup_{n\geq 0} \phi^{-n}(x)$$
is a dense subset of $\calJ_{\phi}$.
Fourth, if $x=\zeta(a,r)$ is a repelling periodic point
--- i.e., if $\phi^n(x)=x$ and $\deg_x(\phi^n)\geq 2$
for some $n\geq 1$ --- then $x\in\calJ_{\phi}$.
Meanwhile, it is possible that the $\calJ_{\phi}$
consists of a single point $x$,
which is necessarily a fixed point of type~II
satisying $\deg_x(\phi)=\deg\phi$. In that case, $\phi$
is said to have \emph{potentially good reduction}. However,
we will be mainly concerned with maps $\phi$
that do \emph{not} have potentially good reduction,
i.e., for which $\calJ_{\phi}$ consists of more than one point.
In that case,
$\calJ_{\phi}$ is a perfect set and in particular is
uncountable.
We note two other useful properties of the Julia set.
First,
for any open set $U$ intersecting $\calJ_{\phi}$,
some iterate $\phi^n(U)$ contains $\calJ_{\phi}$,
by \cite[Theorem~10.56(B')]{BR}.
Second, $\calJ_{\phi}$ is a
separable metrizable space and hence is second countable;
in fact, it has a basis consisting of countably many open
connected affinoids intersected with $\calJ_{\phi}$.
(This is true by \cite[Lemma~7.15]{FJ}, because, as
we will see in Section~\ref{sec:invarmeas},
$\calJ_{\phi}$ is the support of a Borel measure.)
It follows that $\calJ_{\phi}$
can intersect only countably many residue classes
of any point $x\in\PP^1_{\Ber}$.
\subsection{The invariant measure}
\label{sec:invarmeas}
Again in parallel with complex dynamics,
given a rational function $\phi\in\CC_v(z)$ of degree $d\geq 2$,
there is a naturally associated Borel probability measure $\mu=\mu_{\phi}$
on $\PP^1_{\Ber}$.
(The construction of this measure, via potential theory
on $\PP^1_{\Ber}$, first appeared in \cite{BRold,FRLold};
see also \cite[Section~10.1]{BR} and \cite{FRL}.)
The measure $\mu$ is invariant with respect to $\phi$,
meaning that $\mu(U)=\mu(\phi^{-1}(U))$ for any Borel set
$U\subseteq\PP^1_{\Ber}$.
According to \cite[Th\'{e}or\`{e}me~A]{FRL},
it is also mixing and hence ergodic, so that
any Borel set $U$ with $\phi^{-1}(U)=U$ has either
$\mu(U)=0$ or $\mu(U)=1$.
By the same theorem, its support $\Supp\mu$ is precisely
$\calJ_{\phi}$; see also \cite[Sections~10.1, 10.5]{BR}.
In the context of ergodic theory, the \emph{Jacobian}
of $\phi:\PP^1_{\Ber}\to\PP^1_{\Ber}$ is a nonnegative-valued function
such that for every Borel set $U\subseteq\PP^1_{\Ber}$
on which $\phi$ is injective,
we have $\mu(\phi(U)) = \int_U \Jac_{\phi}(x) \, d\mu(x)$.
In \cite[Lemme~4.4(2)]{FRL}, Favre and Rivera-Letelier
proved that any rational function $\phi\in\CC_v(z)$
of degree $d\geq 2$ has a Jacobian, given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:jacfmla}
\Jac_{\phi}(x) = \frac{d}{\deg_x(\phi)}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Entropy}
\label{sec:entropy}
Let $X$ be a topological space and $f:X\to X$ a continuous function.
If $\mu$ is a Borel probability measure on $X$ and ${\mathcal P}$ is
a finite partition of $X$ into measurable pieces,
the entropy of ${\mathcal P}$ is
$H({\mathcal P}) := -\sum_{U\in{\mathcal P}} \mu(U)\log(\mu(U))$.
If $\mu$ is $f$-invariant, the
(\emph{measure-theoretic}) \emph{entropy} of $f$ is
$$h_{\mu}(f) = h_{\mu}(X,f)
:= \sup_{{\mathcal P}} \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n}
H({\mathcal P} \vee f^{-1} {\mathcal P} \vee \cdots \vee f^{-n}{\mathcal P}),$$
where the supremum is over all finite measurable partitions ${\mathcal P}$
of $X$, the partition
${\mathcal P}\vee{\mathcal P}'$ consists of all nonempty intersections
$U\cap U'$ with $U\in{\mathcal P}$ and $U'\in{\mathcal P}'$,
and $f^{-i}{\mathcal P} := \{f^{-i}(U) : U\in{\mathcal P}\}$.
If $X$ is compact, the \emph{topological entropy} of $f$ is
$$h_{\textup{top}}(f) = h_{\textup{top}}(X,f) =
\sup_{{\mathcal U}} \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n}
\log N({\mathcal U} \vee f^{-1} {\mathcal U} \vee \cdots \vee f^{-n}{\mathcal U}),$$
where the supremum is over all finite open covers of $X$, and
$N({\mathcal U})$ is the minimum number of elements of ${\mathcal U}$ needed
to cover $X$.
If $X$ is compact and metrizable,
the \emph{variational principle} states that
$h_{\textup{top}}(f) = \sup\{h_{\mu}(f):\mu\in M(X,f)\}$,
where $M(X,f)$ is
the set of all $f$-invariant Borel probability measures on $X$.
(See, for example, \cite[Theorem~8.6]{Wal}.)
Let $\phi\in\CC_v(z)$ be a rational function of degree $d\geq 2$,
with Julia set $\calJ_{\phi}\subseteq\PP^1_{\Ber}$,
invariant measure $\mu=\mu_{\phi}$ supported on $\calJ_{\phi}$,
and Jacobian function $\Jac_{\phi}(x) = d/\deg_x(\phi)$
as in Section~\ref{sec:invarmeas}.
In \cite[Th\'{e}or\`{e}mes~C,D]{FRL}, Favre and Rivera-Letelier proved
that
$$0\leq \int_{\PP^1_{\Ber}} \log \Jac_{\phi}(x) \, d\mu(x)
\leq h_{\mu}(\calJ_{\phi},\phi)
\leq h_{\textup{top}}(\calJ_{\phi},\phi)
= h_{\textup{top}}(\PP^1_{\Ber},\phi)
\leq \log d.$$
(Actually, if $\charact\CC_v=p>0$,
then the final $d$ above can
be replaced by the sharper $\deg_{\textup{sep}}(\phi)$,
the smallest degree of $\psi\in\CC_v(z)$ such that we can write
$\phi(z)=\psi(z^{p^r})$. Since all of our maps will be separable,
however, we will always have $\deg_{\textup{sep}}(\phi)=d$.)
\subsection{Gurevich Entropy}
\label{sec:gurevich}
Let ${\mathcal A}$ be a countable set, and let $C=\{c(a,b)\}_{a,b\in{\mathcal A}}$
be an ${\mathcal A}\times{\mathcal A}$ matrix of $1$'s and $0$'s.
Equip ${\mathcal A}$ with the discrete topology, let $X={\mathcal A}^{\mathbb{N}}$
equipped with the product topology, and let
$$Y :=\big\{ \{a_n\}_{n\geq 0}\in X : c(a_n,a_{n+1})=1
\text{ for all } n\geq 0\big\}$$
be the set of sequences consistent with $C$.
Define the (\emph{one-sided}) \emph{topological Markov shift}
$T:Y\to Y$ by $T(\{a_n\}_{n\geq 0}) = \{a_{n+1}\}_{n\geq 0}$.
If ${\mathcal A}$ is finite, then $Y$ is compact, and the variational
principle holds for $h_{\textup{top}}(Y,T)$.
However, if ${\mathcal A}$ is countable, then $Y$ is
usually not compact, making it unclear how to even define
the topological entropy. Gurevich \cite{Gur69} addressed this issue
by defining the \emph{Gurevich entropy} to be
$$h_{\textup{Gur}}(T)=h_{\textup{Gur}}(Y,T)
=\sup h_{\textup{top}}(Y',T'),$$
where the supremum is over all subsets $Y'\subseteq Y$
(with associated shift $T':=T|_{Y'}$) formed by restricting
to a finite subset ${\mathcal A}'\subseteq{\mathcal A}$ of symbols.
The Gurevich entropy can often be computed combinatorially.
For $a,b\in{\mathcal A}$, a \emph{path} of length $n$ from $a$ to $b$ is
a finite sequence $a=a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_n=b$ with $c(a_{i-1},a_i)=1$
for all $i=1,\ldots,n$.
For any $n\geq 0$, let
$p_{a,b}(n)$ denote the number of paths of length $n$ from $a$ to $b$.
Let $R$ be the radius of convergence (convergence in $\mathbb{C}$,
that is) of the associated generating function
$P_{a,b}(z) := \sum_{n\geq 0} p_{a,b}(n) z^n$.
If the underlying directed graph is strongly connected --- i.e., if for
any $a,b\in{\mathcal A}$, there is a path from $a$ to $b$ --- then
Vere-Jones proved \cite{VJ} that $R$ is independent of $a$ and $b$,
and Gurevich proved \cite{Gur70} that $h_{\textup{Gur}}(T)=-\log R$.
For any $a\in{\mathcal A}$, a \emph{first-return loop} at $a$ is a
path from $a$ to $a$ for which none of the intermediate symbols
in the path is $a$. For each $n\geq 1$, let $f_a(n)$ be the
number of first-return loops at $a$ of length $n$.
It is easy to show (see, for example, \cite[Lemma~7.1.6(iv)]{Kit}
or \cite[Equation~(1)]{Rue}) that the associated generating
function $F_a(z) := \sum_{n\geq 1} f_a(n) z^n$ satisfies
$P_{a,a}(z) = 1/(1-F_a(z))$ for $|z|<R$.
In particular, if $1-F_a(z)$ has a real root $r>0$
such that $F_a$ converges and is nonzero on $|z|<r$,
then $r=R$, and hence $h_{\textup{Gur}}(T)=-\log r$.
For more on Markov shifts on countably many symbols,
see, for example,
\cite{BBG} \cite[Chapter 1]{GurSav}, \cite[Chapter 7]{Kit},
\cite{Rue}, or \cite{Sar}.
\section{Proof of Theorem~A and Related Results}
\label{sec:proofa}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:treepreim}
Let $\phi\in\CC_v(z)$ be a nonconstant rational function,
and let $\Gamma\subseteq\HH_{\Ber}$ be a finite tree. Then $\phi^{-1}(\Gamma)$
is the union of finitely many pairwise disjoint finite trees
$Z_1,\ldots,Z_n$. Moreover, for each $i=1,\ldots, n$,
we have $\phi(Z_i)=\Gamma$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Pick $y_1,\ldots,y_m\in\HH_{\Ber}$ such that $\Gamma$ is the convex hull
of $S:=\{y_1,\ldots,y_m\}$; discarding some of these points if necessary,
we may assume that no $y_i$ lies between any other two $y_j$'s.
Let $W$ be the unique connected component
of $\PP^1_{\Ber}\smallsetminus S$ intersecting $\Gamma$.
Note that $W$ is an open connected affinoid (possibly with finitely
many type~IV points removed, if some $y_i$ is of type~IV), with
$\partial W =S$.
By \cite[Lemma~9.12]{BR}, $\phi^{-1}(W)$ is a union of at most
$d$ pairwise disjoint open connected affinoids $U_1,\ldots, U_n$
(again, possibly with finitely many type~IV points removed),
where $\phi(U_i)=W$
and $\phi(\partial U_i)=S$, for each $i=1,\ldots, n$.
For each $i$, let $Z_i := \overline{U}_i \cap \phi^{-1}(\Gamma)$.
For any $z_1,z_2\in Z_i$, the image $\phi((z_1,z_2))$
of the open interval strictly between them is a path between
$\phi(z_1),\phi(z_2)\in \Gamma$ that never hits $S$.
Thus, $\phi([z_1,z_2])\subseteq \Gamma$, and hence $[z_1,z_2]\subseteq Z_i$.
That is, $Z_i$ is connected. Moreover, since $\phi$ is an open
map, the only points $w\in Z_i$ for which $Z_i\smallsetminus \{w\}$
is still connected
are those for which $\phi(w)$ is an endpoint of $\Gamma$. In other
words, the only endpoints of $Z_i$ belong to
$\phi^{-1}(S)\cap\overline{U}_i = \partial U_i$.
Since each $y_i$ has at most $\deg\phi$ preimages,
$\partial U_i$ is a finite set, and hence $Z_i$ is a finite tree.
Finally, because $\phi(\overline{U_i})=W$, we have $\phi(Z_i)=\Gamma$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~A]
\textbf{Step 1}.
First, we will show
that the backward orbit $\bigcup_{n\geq 0} \phi^{-n}(x_0)$
intersects $I$ as a dense subset.
Let $L$ be the (hyperbolic)
length of $I$, i.e., the $d_{\mathbb{H}}$-distance between
the two endpoints of $I$.
By hypothesis~(d), each subinterval $I_i\subseteq I$
has hyperbolic length $c_i^{-1}L \leq L/2$
and contains an element of $\phi^{-b_i}(x_0)$.
Partition each $I_i$ into $m$ subintervals
$I^{(2)}_{i,j}:= \phi^{-b_i}(I_j)\cap I_i$,
for $1\leq j\leq m$. Each $I^{(2)}_{i,j}$ must have length
at most $L/4$ and contain an element of
$\phi^{-b_i-b_j}(x_0)$.
Continuing in this fashion, we obtain, at the $\ell$-th step,
a partition of $I$ into $m^{\ell}$ subintervals, each of length
at most $L/2^{\ell}$ and containing an elment of the backward
orbit of $x_0$. Letting $\ell$ increase to infinity, we see
that $I\cap \bigcup_{n\geq 0} \phi^{-n}(x_0)$ is dense in $I$,
as claimed.
\textbf{Step 2}.
Next, we observe that $\Gamma\subseteq \calJ_{\phi}$. Indeed,
since $x_0\in \calJ_{\phi}$ by hypothesis~(a), and since the Julia set is
closed and invariant under $\phi$, it follows from Step~1 that
$I\subseteq\calJ_{\phi}$. By hypothesis~(c) and the invariance
of $\calJ_{\phi}$, then, we have $\Gamma\subseteq\calJ_{\phi}$.
\textbf{Step 3}.
Now we show that $\calJ_{\phi}$ is connected.
For every integer $n\geq 0$, let $\Gamma_n:=\phi^{-n}(\Gamma)$,
and let $X_n:=\Gamma_0 \cup \cdots \cup \Gamma_n$.
Then $X_n\subseteq\calJ_{\phi}$, again by the
invariance of the Julia set.
We will show, by induction, that $X_n$ is a finite tree.
By hypothesis, $X_0=\Gamma$ is a finite tree. If we know $X_n$
is a finite tree, then by Lemma~\ref{lem:treepreim},
$\phi^{-1}(X_n)$ is a finite union
$Z_1\cup\cdots\cup Z_M$ of finite trees, each of which
maps onto $X_n$ under $\phi$.
By hypothesis~(b), then,
since $x_0\in \Gamma\subseteq X_n$, each tree $Z_i$
has a nontrivial intersection with $\Gamma$,
including at least one point of $\phi^{-1}(x_0)$.
Hence, $X_{n+1} = X_n \cup \Gamma$ is a finite union of finite trees,
each of which intersects $\Gamma\subseteq X_{n+1}$.
Since $X_{n+1}\subseteq\PP^1_{\Ber}$ has no loops, it is indeed
a finite tree.
Thus, $X:=\bigcup_{n\geq 0}X_n=\bigcup_{n\geq 0}\Gamma_n \subseteq\calJ_{\phi}$
is connected.
Since $\bigcup_{n\geq 0}\phi^{-n}(x_0)\subseteq X$
is dense in $\calJ_{\phi}$,
then, $\calJ_{\phi}=\overline{X}$ is the closure of a
connected set and hence is connected.
\textbf{Step 4}.
If $\Gamma$ is not contained in an interval, there is a point $y\in \Gamma$
such that $\Gamma\smallsetminus\{y\}$ has at least three components.
Because $\PP^1_{\Ber}$ is uniquely path-connected,
$y$ is also a branch point of $\calJ_{\phi}\supseteq \Gamma$.
By the invariance of $\calJ_{\phi}$ and the mapping properties of
residue classes, then, any point $x$ in the backward orbit of $y$
is also a branch point of $\calJ_{\phi}$.
Since $\bigcup_{n\geq 0}\phi^{-n}(y)$ is dense in $\calJ_{\phi}$,
we are done.
\end{proof}
As promised in the introduction, we can prove in some cases
that $\calJ_{\phi}$ has a dense subset of points of
\emph{infinite} branching, i.e.,
points $x\in\calJ_{\phi}$
for which $\calJ_{\phi}\smallsetminus\{x\}$ has infinitely many
connected components.
To state the relevant condition,
we need the following definition.
\begin{defin}
Let $p:=\charact k$ be the residue characteristic of $\CC_v$,
let $\phi\in\CC_v(z)$ be a rational function, and let
$x\in\PP^1_{\Ber}$ be a point of type~II that is
periodic of period $m\geq 1$.
Let $h\in\PGL(2,\CC_v)$ map $x$ to $\zeta(0,1)$,
and let $\psi:=h\circ\phi^m \circ h^{-1}$,
so that the reduction $\overline{\psi}\in k(z)$
has degree $\deg\overline{\psi}\geq 1$.
If $\overline{\psi}$ is purely inseparable,
i.e., if $\overline{\psi}(z)=\eta(z^{p^r})$
for some $\eta\in\PGL(2,k)$ and some $r\geq 0$,
we say that $x$ is a \emph{purely inseparable}
periodic point of $\phi$.
\end{defin}
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:infbranch}
Let $\phi$, $\Gamma$, and $I$ be as in Theorem~A.
Suppose that $\Gamma$ has a branch point $y$ that is
periodic under $\phi$.
Suppose also that $y$ is not a purely inseparable
repelling periodic point.
Then $\calJ_{\phi}$ has a dense set of points $x$
at which $\calJ_{\phi}$ has infinite branching.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Replacing $\phi$ by an iterate, we may assume $y$ is fixed.
Since $y$ has at least three residue classes, it must be of type~II.
After a change of coordinates, then, we may assume that
$y=\zeta(0,1)$ is the Gauss point. Let $\bar{\phi}\in k(z)$ denote
the reduction of $\phi$, so that $\deg(\bar{\phi})\geq 1$.
We claim that $\zeta(0,1)$ is a point of infinite branching of
$\calJ_{\phi}$.
If $\deg(\bar{\phi})=1$, then since $\zeta(0,1)\in\calJ_{\phi}$,
there must be a residue class $U$ of $\zeta(0,1)$ that intersects
$\calJ_{\phi}$ but such that the corresponding point $u$ of $\PP^1(k)$
is not periodic under $\bar{\phi}$.
(See \cite[Theorem~6.19]{BenAZ} and the discussion that follows it.)
The backward orbit
$\bigcup_{n\geq 0} \bar{\phi}^{-n}(u)$ in $\PP^1(k)$ is therefore
infinite, and hence there are infinitely many corresponding residue
classes $U'$ of $\zeta(0,1)$ whose forward orbits contain $U$.
These infinitely many residue classes therefore all intersect ${\mathcal J}_{\phi}$.
On the other hand,
if $\deg(\bar{\phi})\geq 2$, then $\zeta(0,1)$ is a repelling
fixed point;
by hypothesis, then, $\bar{\phi}$ is not purely inseparable.
Thus, there are at most two points of $\PP^1(k)$
that have finite backward orbit under $\bar{\phi}$.
(Outside of the purely inseparable case,
the Riemann-Hurwitz formula applies, bounding
the number of such exceptional points, just as in
complex dynamics.)
Since there are at least three directions
at $\zeta(0,1)$ intersecting $\calJ_{\phi}$, there must be at
least one such direction $U$ for which the corresponding point
$u\in\PP^1(k)$ has infinite backward orbit under $\bar{\phi}$.
As in the previous paragraph,
the infinitely many corresponding preimage
residue classes must all intersect ${\mathcal J}_{\phi}$.
Either way, then, infinitely many residue classes
at $\zeta(0,1)$ intersect ${\mathcal J}_{\phi}$.
That is, $y$ is a point of infinite branching of
$\calJ_{\phi}$. As in Step~4 of the proof of Theorem~A, then,
all elements of the backward orbit of $y$ are also points of
infinite branching of $\calJ_{\phi}$.
Since $\bigcup_{n\geq 0} \phi^{-n}(y)$ is dense in $\calJ_{\phi}$,
we are done.
\end{proof}
\section{Computing the entropy}
\label{sec:markov}
The heart of Theorem~B is conclusion (a),
that the countable partition ${\mathcal P}$
is a one-sided generator of finite entropy.
Being a one-sided generator for $\phi$ means that
the $\sigma$-algebra generated by
$\big\{ \phi^{-n}(U) : U\in{\mathcal P} \text{ and } n\geq 0 \big\}$
is the full Borel $\sigma$-algebra on $\calJ_{\phi}$.
The finiteness of the entropy, meanwhile, is by the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:finent}
Let $\phi\in\CC_v(z)$, $\mu$, and ${\mathcal P}$ be as in Theorem~B.
Then
$$\sum_{U\in{\mathcal P}} -\mu(U) \log(\mu(U)) < \infty.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If ${\mathcal P}$ is finite, the statement is trivial. Thus,
we may assume that ${\mathcal P}$ is infinite, and hence
that $\calJ_{\phi}$ has more than one point.
As noted in Section~\ref{sec:Julia}, $\calJ_{\phi}$
is therefore uncountable. Since each
of the countably many elements
of ${\mathcal P}$ either is countable or contains a nonempty
open set, at least one $U_0\in{\mathcal P}$ must
contain a nonempty open set.
By properties of the Julia set,
there must be some $N\geq 1$ such that
$\phi^N(U_0)=\calJ_{\phi}$.
For every integer $n\geq 0$, define
$${\mathcal P}_n :=\{U\in{\mathcal P} : \phi^i(U)\cap U_0 = \varnothing
\text{ for all } i=0,\ldots, n-1\},$$
so that ${\mathcal P}={\mathcal P}_0 \supseteq {\mathcal P}_1\supseteq \cdots$.
Next, define $A_n:=\bigcup_{U\in {\mathcal P}_n} U$,
so that $\calJ_{\phi}=A_0 \supseteq A_1 \supseteq \cdots$.
\textbf{Step 1}.
We claim that
$A_{n+N} \subseteq \phi^{-N}(A_n) \cap A_N$
for any $n\geq 0$.
Clearly $A_{n+N}\subseteq A_N$. Given $U\in{\mathcal P}_{n+N}$,
then, it suffices to show that $\phi^N(U)\subseteq A_n$.
By the hypotheses of Theorem~B, $\phi^N(U)=\bigcup_{V\in {\mathcal R}} V$
for some subset ${\mathcal R}\subseteq{\mathcal P}$.
Since
$$\phi^i(V)\cap U_0 \subseteq \phi^i(\phi^N(U))\cap U_0
= \phi^{N+i}(U) \cap U_0 = \varnothing$$
for all $V\in{\mathcal R}$ and all $i=0,\ldots, n-1$,
we have ${\mathcal R}\subseteq {\mathcal P}_n$. Thus,
$\phi^N(U)\subseteq\bigcup_{V\in {\mathcal P}_n} V = A_n$,
proving the claim.
\textbf{Step 2}.
Next, we claim that
$\mu(\phi^{-N}(A_n)\smallsetminus A_N) \geq d^{-N} \mu(A_n)$
for any $n\geq 0$.
Since $A_n=\bigcup_{U\in{\mathcal P}_n} U$ is a countable disjoint union,
it suffices to show that
$\mu(\phi^{-N}(U)\smallsetminus A_N) \geq d^{-N} \mu(U)$
for any $U\in{\mathcal P}_n$. Fix such a $U$.
By the hypotheses, each iterate $\phi^i(U_0)$ is a union
of elements of ${\mathcal P}$, each of which in turn maps bijectively onto a
union of elements of ${\mathcal P}$. Thus, since $\phi^N(U_0)=\calJ_{\phi}$,
there is some $V_{N-1}\subseteq\phi^{N-1}(U_0)$ contained
in an element of ${\mathcal P}$ such that $\phi$ maps $V_{N-1}$ bijectively
onto $U$. By similar reasoning, there is some
$V_{N-2}\subseteq\phi^{N-2}(U_0)$ contained
in an element of ${\mathcal P}$ such that $\phi$ maps $V_{N-2}$ bijectively
onto $V_{N-1}$. Continuing in this fashion, there is some
$V_0\subseteq U_0$ such that $\phi^N$ maps $V_0$ bijectively onto $U$.
Since $N\geq 1$, we have
$$V_0\subseteq \phi^{-N}(U)\cap U_0
\subseteq \phi^{-N}(U)\smallsetminus A_N.$$
Thus, by properties of the Jacobian
discussed in Section~\ref{sec:invarmeas}, we have
\begin{align*}
\mu(U) &= \mu\big(\phi^N(V_0)\big)
= \int_{V_0} \Jac_{\phi^N}(x)\, d\mu(x)
= \int_{V_0} \frac{d^N}{\deg_x(\phi^N)}\, d\mu(x)
\\
& \leq \int_{V_0} d^N \, d\mu(x) = d^N \mu(V_0) \leq
d^N \mu\big(\phi^{-N}(U)\smallsetminus A_N\big),
\end{align*}
proving the claim.
\textbf{Step 3}.
By Steps~1 and~2 and the $\phi$-invariance of $\mu$, we have
\begin{align*}
\mu(A_{n+N}) & \leq \mu\big(\phi^{-N}(A_n) \cap A_N\big)
= \mu\big(\phi^{-N}(A_n)\big) -
\mu\big(\phi^{-N}(A_n) \smallsetminus A_N\big)
\\
& = \mu(A_n) - \mu\big(\phi^{-N}(A_n) \smallsetminus A_N\big)
\leq (1-d^{-N}) \mu(A_n)
\end{align*}
for any $n\geq 0$.
Thus,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sumAn}
\sum_{n\geq 1} \mu(A_n)
\leq \Big[ \sum_{m\geq 0} (1-d^{-N})^m \Big]\cdot
\Big[ \sum_{i=1}^N \mu(A_i) \Big] < \infty.
\end{equation}
\textbf{Step 4}.
For any $n\geq 0$, set ${\mathcal P}'_n:={\mathcal P}_n\smallsetminus{\mathcal P}_{n+1}$.
Applying similar reasoning as in Step~2, observe that
for any $n\geq 0$ and any $U\in{\mathcal P}'_n$,
there is some $V\subseteq U$ such that
$\phi^n$ maps $V$ bijectively onto $U_0$.
Another computation with the integral of the Jacobian
then shows that $\mu(U_0)\leq d^n \mu(V) \leq d^n \mu(U)$.
Thus, $\mu(U) \geq d^{-n}\mu(U_0)$.
Moreover, any uncountable $U\in{\mathcal P}$ must contain
a nonempty open set, forcing
$\phi^n(U)=\calJ_{\phi}\supseteq U_0$
for some $n\geq 0$. Hence $U\in{\mathcal P}'_n$.
Thus, ${\mathcal P}':=\bigcup_{n\geq 0}{\mathcal P}'_n$ consists of all
elements of ${\mathcal P}$ except the countable ones,
which have measure zero.
We can now bound the entropy of ${\mathcal P}$ using these observations:
\begin{align*}
h({\mathcal P}) &=
\sum_{U\in{\mathcal P}} -\mu(U) \log(\mu(U))
= \sum_{n\geq 0} \sum_{U\in {\mathcal P}'_n} - \mu(U) \log(\mu(U))
\\
&\leq
\sum_{n\geq 0} \sum_{U\in {\mathcal P}'_n}
\mu(U) \big[ n\log d - \log(\mu(U_0)) \big]
\\
& = -\log \mu(U_0) \sum_{U\in{\mathcal P}'} \mu(U)
+ \log d \sum_{n\geq 0} \sum_{U\in {\mathcal P}'_n} n \mu(U)
\\
&= -\log \mu(U_0) + \log d \sum_{n\geq 1} \mu(A_n)
<\infty,
\end{align*}
where the final inequality is by Step~3.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem B]
\textbf{Step 1}.
Let ${\mathcal U}$ be the set of finite intersections of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Uint}
U_{0} \cap \phi^{-1}(U_{1}) \cap \cdots \cap \phi^{-n}(U_{n}),
\end{equation}
where $n\geq 0$ and $U_0,\ldots,U_n\in{\mathcal P}$.
We claim that every element of ${\mathcal U}$ is path-connected,
proceeding by induction on $n$. The sets with $n=0$ are
path-connected by hypothesis. If the claim is known for sets with $n=m$,
an element of ${\mathcal U}$
with $n=m+1$ is of the form $U \cap \phi^{-1}(V)$, where
$U\in{\mathcal P}$ and $V$ is path-connected.
Since $\phi(U)$ and $V$ are path-connected, and since $\PP^1_{\Ber}$
is uniquely path-connected, $\phi(U)\cap V$ is path-connected.
On the other hand, because $\phi$ is an open map
and, by hypothesis, is injective on $U$, the restriction
$\phi:U \cap \phi^{-1}(V) \to \phi(U)\cap V$ is a homeomorphism.
Thus, $U \cap \phi^{-1}(V)$ is path-connected, proving the claim.
\textbf{Step 2}.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:finent}, ${\mathcal P}$ has finite entropy.
Recall from Section~\ref{sec:Julia}
that $\calJ_{\phi}$
has a topological basis of countably many open
connected affinoids intersected with $\calJ_{\phi}$.
Each open connected affinoid is, in turn, the intersection
of finitely many open disks.
Thus, to prove statement~(a), it suffices to show that
for any open disk $D\subseteq \PP^1_{\Ber}$, the set $D\cap\calJ_{\phi}$
belongs to the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the set ${\mathcal U}$ of Step~1.
Give such an open disk $D$, let $y\in\mathbb{H}$ be its unique boundary point.
If $y\not\in\calJ_{\phi}$, then because $\calJ_{\phi}$ is connected,
$D\cap\calJ_{\phi}$ either is empty or is all of $\calJ_{\phi}$;
either way, it is in the $\sigma$-algebra generated by ${\mathcal U}$.
Thus, we may assume that $y\in\calJ_{\phi}$.
For any $x\in D\cap\calJ_{\phi}$, note that $x\neq y$, since
$y\not\in D$. We claim that for some large enough
$n\geq 0$, $\phi^n(x)$ and $\phi^n(y)$ lie in distinct
partition elements $U\in{\mathcal P}$.
Otherwise, by the hypotheses that some iterate of $\phi$ is expanding
on each $U$, and that $\calJ_{\phi}$ has finite $d_{\mathbb{H}}$-diameter,
there is some $m\geq 0$ such that
$d_{\mathbb{H}}(\phi^m(x),\phi^m(y)) > \diam_{\mathbb{H}}(\calJ_{\phi})$,
contradicting the fact that $\phi^m(x),\phi^m(y)\in\calJ_{\phi}$.
Hence, there is some $V_x\in {\mathcal U}$ such that $x\in V_x$
but $y \not\in V_x$. Since $V_x$ is connected by the claim
of Step~1, we must have $x\in V_x\subseteq D\cap\calJ_{\phi}$. Thus,
$D\cap\calJ_{\phi} = \bigcup_{x\in D\cap\calJ_{\phi}} V_x$.
However, since ${\mathcal U}$ is countable, the union on the right is
in fact a countable union. Therefore, $D\cap\calJ_{\phi}$
belongs to the $\sigma$-algebra on $\calJ_{\phi}$
generated by ${\mathcal U}$, proving statement~(a).
\textbf{Step 3}.
Our proof of statement~(b) consists mainly of verifying the
hypotheses of an entropy formula of Rokhlin.
First, as we noted in Section~\ref{sec:Julia}, $\calJ_{\phi}$ is a separable
metrizable space. As a closed subset of $\PP^1_{\Ber}$, it is also compact.
Thus, by \cite[Theorem~15.4.10]{Roy}, it is a Lebesgue space.
(This is a technical condition meaning
that as a measure space, $\calJ_{\phi}$
is isomorphic to $[0,1]$ plus perhaps countably many points.
See also \cite[Theorem~2.1]{Wal}.)
Second, recall from Section~\ref{sec:invarmeas}
that $\mu$ is ergodic on $\calJ_{\phi}$.
Third, ${\mathcal P}$ is a countable one-sided generator for
$\phi:\calJ_{\phi}\to\calJ_{\phi}$, and of finite entropy,
by statement~(a).
Fourth, $\phi$ is essentially countable-to-one
in the sense of \cite[Definition~2.9.2]{PU}, since
$\phi$ is finite-to-one.
Thus, by Rokhlin's formula
(see, for example, \cite[Theorem~2.9.7]{PU}),
the hypotheses of which we checked in the previous paragraph,
and by equation~\eqref{eq:jacfmla}, we have
$$h_{\mu}(\phi) = \int_{\PP^1_{\Ber}} \log \Jac_{\phi}(x) \, d\mu(x)
=\int_{\PP^1_{\Ber}} \log\Big( \frac{d}{\deg_x(\phi)} \Big) \, d\mu(x),$$
proving statement~(b).
\textbf{Step 4}.
Let $Y$ denote the space of one-sided symbol sequences described in
part~(c) of Theorem~B: the symbol space is the set ${\mathcal A}$
of uncountable elements of ${\mathcal P}$, and symbol
$U\in{\mathcal A}$ can be followed by symbol $V\in{\mathcal A}$
if and only if $V\in S_U$.
The topology on $Y$ is inherited from
the product topology on ${\mathcal A}^{\mathbb{N}}$, where we
equip the symbol space ${\mathcal A}$ with the discrete topology.
Let $T:Y\to Y$ denote the shift map on $Y$.
Writing each $U\in{\mathcal P}$ as the union of an open set
and a countable set $C_U$, let
$Z_0\subseteq\calJ_{\phi}$ be the (countable) union of all of the
countable sets $C_U$.
Then, let
$Z:=\bigcup_{n\geq 0}\phi^{-n}(Z_0)\subseteq\calJ_{\phi}$
be the (countable) set of all points with iterates in $Z_0$.
Let $J:=\calJ_{\phi}\smallsetminus Z$.
Define $Q: J \to Y$
by letting $Q(x)$ be the sequence
$\{U_n\}_{n\geq 0}$, where $U_n$ is the unique element of ${\mathcal A}$
containing $\phi^n(x)$. Clearly $Q\circ\phi = T\circ Q$.
Moreover, since $J\subseteq \PP^1_{\Ber}$ is Hausdorff,
part~(a) implies that different points in $J$
have different symbol sequences; that is, $Q$ is injective.
\textbf{Step 5}.
Let $W:=Y\smallsetminus Q(J)$.
We claim that $W$ is a countable set.
Given $u=\{U_i\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\in W$, let $E_n\subseteq U_0$ be the
finite intersection given by expression~\eqref{eq:Uint}, for each $n\geq 0$.
Clearly $U_0=E_0\supseteq E_1 \supseteq E_2 \supseteq\cdots$.
Define $B_u$ to be the set of all points in $\PP^1_{\Ber}$ that
are accumulation points of sequences
$\{x_n\}_{n\geq 0}\subseteq U_0$ with $x_n\in E_n$.
For each $i\in\mathbb{N}$, the set
$\tilde{U}_i:=\calJ_{\phi}\smallsetminus (Z_0\cup U_i)$
is a union of opens and hence is open in $\calJ_{\phi}$.
Thus, $\phi^{-i}(\tilde{U}_i)$ is also open. In addition,
for any sequence $\{x_n\}_{n\geq 0}$ as in the previous paragraph,
we have $x_n\not\in \phi^{-i}(\tilde{U}_i)$ for all $n\geq i$.
Therefore, $B_u\cap \phi^{-i}(\tilde{U}_i)=\varnothing$,
and hence $B_u\subseteq \phi^{-i}(Z_0\cup U_i)$ for all $i\in\mathbb{N}$.
If there were some $x\in B_u \cap \bigcap_{i\in\mathbb{N}} \phi^{-i}(U_i)$,
then we would have $u=Q(x)$, contradicting our assumption
that $u\in W$. Instead, then, we have
$B_u\subseteq \bigcup_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\phi^{-i}(Z_0)=Z$.
We have shown that $B_u$ is a subset of $Z$ for any $u\in W$.
For the remainder of this step, fix $z\in Z$,
and let $u=\{U_i\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ and $v=\{V_i\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$
be two distinct symbol sequences in $W$ with $z\in B_u\cap B_v$.
Choose $M\geq 0$ large enough that $\phi^M(z)\in Z_0$,
choose $N\geq 0$ large enough that $U_N\neq V_N$, and
let $n=\max\{M,N\}$.
Define $E_n:=\bigcap_{i=0}^n \phi^{-i}(U_i)$
and $F_n:=\bigcap_{i=0}^n \phi^{-i}(V_i)$, both of which
are connected, by Step~1. In addition, by our choice of $n$,
we have $E_n\cap F_n=\varnothing$;
thus, $E_n$ and $F_n$ cannot both intersect a common
residue class at $z$.
On the other hand,
although one or the other might contain $z$ itself,
both $E_n$ and $F_n$ contain points other than $z$.
Recall from the end of Section~\ref{sec:Julia}, however,
that only countably many residue classes at $z$ can intersect
$\calJ_{\phi}$. Since $E_n$ and $F_n$ are subsets of
$\calJ_{\phi}$, we have shown that there can only be countably
many $u\in W$ with $z\in B_u$. Because $Z$ itself is countable,
we have proven our claim that $W$ is countable.
\textbf{Step 6}.
Define $Y':= Y\smallsetminus W = Q(J)$, so that $Q:J\to Y'$ is bijective.
$Y'$ has a topological basis consisting of cylinder sets, i.e.,
sets given by specifying the first $n$ symbols
$U_0,\ldots,U_n\in{\mathcal A}$ of the symbol sequence $u\in Y'$.
The inverse image of such a cylinder set under $Q$ is given
by expression~\eqref{eq:Uint} and hence is measurable in $J$.
Thus $Q:J\to Y'$ is (Borel) measurable.
Conversely, by part~(a), any Borel subset $U$ of $Y'$
belongs to the $\sigma$-algebra generated by ${\mathcal U}$,
and hence $Q(U)$ belongs to the $\sigma$-algebra generated
by the cylinder sets on $Y'$, which is the Borel $\sigma$-algebra
on $Y'$. Thus, the bijection $Q:J\to Y'$ gives an isomorphism of
(Borel) $\sigma$-algebras.
Recalling from Step~4 that $Q\circ\phi = T\circ Q$, then,
there is a one-to-one correspondence between
the set $M(J,\phi)$ of $\phi$-invariant
Borel probability measures on $J$ and
the set $M(Y',T)$ of $T$-invariant
Borel probability measures on $Y'$
Moreover, if $\mu\in M(J,\phi)$ and $\nu\in M(Y',T)$
are corresponding such measures,
then the entropies $h_{\mu}(J,\phi)$ and $h_{\nu}(Y',T)$ clearly coincide.
Meanwhile, since $Z=\calJ_{\phi}\smallsetminus J$ is $\phi$-invariant,
any measure $\mu\in M(J,\phi)$ extends to a measure
in $M(\calJ_{\phi},\phi)$ via $\mu(Z)=0$.
Conversely, since $Z$ is countable,
any measure $\mu\in M(\calJ_{\phi},\phi)$
either has $\mu(Z)=1$ and hence has entropy zero,
or else it induces a measure $\tilde{\mu}\in M(J,\phi)$,
given by $\tilde{\mu}(E)=\mu(E\cap J)/\mu(J)$, of
greater entropy.
A similar relationship applies to $M(Y,T)$ and $M(Y',T)$,
since $W$ is also countable and $T$-invariant.
Because $\calJ_{\phi}$ is a compact metrizable space,
the variational principle applies to it.
Meanwhile, Gurevich proved \cite{Gur70} (see also \cite[Theorem~1.3]{Rue})
that $h_{\textup{Gur}}(T)$
is the supremum of all the
measure-theoretic entropies of $T:Y\to Y$.
Thus,
\begin{align*}
h_{\textup{top}}(\phi)
&= \sup\{h_{\mu}(\calJ_{\phi}, \phi) : \mu\in M(\calJ_{\phi},\phi) \}
= \sup\{h_{\mu}(J, \phi) : \mu\in M(J,\phi) \}
\\
&= \sup\{h_{\nu}(Y',T) : \nu\in M(Y',T) \}
= \sup\{h_{\nu}(Y,T) : \nu\in M(Y,T) \}
=h_{\textup{Gur}}(T).
\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\section{A degree 6 example}
\label{sec:examples}
\subsection{With arbitrary residue field}
\label{ssec:sextic}
Fix $a\in\CC_v^{\times}$ with $0<|a|_v<1$. Fix $b\in\CC_v$ with
$|b|_v=|b-1|_v=1$,
and define
$$\phi(z) = \frac{az^6 + 1}{az^6 + z(z-1)(z-b)}
= 1 + \frac{1-z(z-1)(z-b)}{az^6 + z(z-1)(z-b)}.$$
Let $\Gamma\subseteq \PP^1_{\Ber}$ be the convex hull
of the four points
$$\zeta(0,|a|_v^{-1/2}),
\zeta(0,|a|_v^{1/2}),
\zeta(1,|a|_v^{1/2}),
\text{ and }
\zeta(b,|a|_v^{1/2}).$$
Thus, $\Gamma$ is a tree consisting of four segments,
which we denote $I$, $J_0$, $J_1$, and $J_b$,
extending from the Gauss point $\zeta(0,1)$ to the
above four points, respectively. See Figure~\ref{fig:sextictree}.
\begin{figure}
\label{fig:sextictree}
\includegraphics{sextictree.eps}
\caption{The tree $\Gamma$ for the map of Section~\ref{ssec:sextic}.}
\end{figure}
Break $I$ into the following three equal-length pieces:
$$I_1=[\zeta(0,1),\zeta(0,|a|_v^{-1/6})], \;
I_2=[\zeta(0,|a|_v^{-1/6}),\zeta(0,|a|_v^{-1/3})],$$
$$\text{and} \quad I_3=[\zeta(0,|a|_v^{-1/3}),\zeta(0,|a|_v^{-1/2})].$$
Note that the Gauss point $x_0=\zeta(0,1)\in I$ is fixed and repelling,
since the reduction
$\overline{\phi}(z) = 1/(z(z-1)(z-\overline{b}))$ has degree $3>1$.
In particular, $x_0\in\calJ_{\phi}$.
Meanwhile, recalling the definition of the symbol
$\approx$ from \eqref{eq:approxdef}, observe that:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$\phi(\zeta(0,r))=\zeta(0,1/r^3)$ for $1<r<|a|_v^{-1/6}$,
since $\phi(z)\approx 1/z^3$ for $1<|z|_v<|a|_v^{-1/6}$. Thus, $\phi$
maps $I_1$ bijectively onto $J_0$,
stretching $d_{\mathbb{H}}$ by a factor of $3$.
\item
$\phi(\zeta(0,r))=\zeta(0,|a|_vr^3)$
for $|a|_v^{-1/6} < r < |a|_v^{-1/3}$,
since $\phi(z)\approx az^3$ for $|a|_v^{-1/6}<|z|<|a|_v^{-1/3}$.
Thus, $\phi$
maps $I_2$ bijectively onto $J_0$,
again stretching $d_{\mathbb{H}}$ by a factor of $3$,
but this time oriented in the opposite direction.
\item
$\phi(\zeta(0,r))=\zeta(1,|a|_v^{-1} r^{-3})$
for $|a|_v^{-1/3} < r < |a|_v^{-1/2}$,
since $\phi(z)-1\approx -1/(az^3)$
for $|a|_v^{-1/3}<|z|_v<|a|_v^{-1/2}$. Thus, $\phi$
maps $I_3$ bijectively onto $J_1$,
stretching $d_{\mathbb{H}}$ by a factor of $3$.
\end{itemize}
In addition, $\phi$ maps each of $J_0$, $J_1$, and $J_b$ bijectively,
and in fact isometrically, onto $I$.
Therefore, $\phi^2$ maps each of $I_1$, $I_2$, and $I_3$ onto $I$,
stretching distances on each by a factor of $3$. In addition,
$\Gamma\subseteq I\cup \phi^{-1}(I)$, and $\phi$ maps $\zeta(0,|a|_v^{-1/3})$
to the Gauss point $x_0=\zeta(0,1)$ with local degree $3$.
Hence, $\phi^{-1}(x_0)=\{x_0, \zeta(0,|a|_v^{-1/3})\}\subseteq \Gamma$,
and thus $x_0\in I\subseteq \Gamma$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem~A
for $\phi$.
As a result, the Julia set $\calJ_{\phi}$ is connected
and has a dense set of branch points.
In fact, since
$\overline{\phi}(z) = 1/(z(z-1)(z-\overline{b}))$ is separable,
those branch points have infinite branching, by Theorem~\ref{thm:infbranch}.
\subsection{Intervals of measure zero}
\label{ssec:leaves6}
Favre and Rivera-Letelier \cite{FRL3} have announced a proof
of the following fact: if the invariant measure $\mu_{\psi}$ of a rational
function $\psi\in\CC_v(z)$ charges an interval in $\mathbb{H}$, then the
Julia set $\calJ_{\psi}$ is also contained in an interval.
In particular, the interval $I$ contained in our
Julia set $\calJ_{\phi}$ of Section~\ref{ssec:sextic}
must have mass $\mu_{\phi}(I)=0$.
We can also see this identity directly for our map $\phi$, as follows.
As we noted, $\phi^2$ maps each of $I_1$,
$I_2$, and $I_3$ bijectively onto $I$, with $\deg_x(\phi^2)=3$
for all $x\in I$ other than the (finitely many) endpoints of
$I_1$, $I_2$, and $I_3$.
By the Jacobian formula~\eqref{eq:jacfmla}, for each $i=1,2,3$,
we have
$$\mu_{\phi}(I) = \mu_{\phi}(\phi^2(I_i))
=\int_{I_i} \Jac_{\phi^2}(x) \, d\mu_{\phi}(x)
=\int_{I_i} \frac{6^2}{3} \, d\mu_{\phi}(x)
= 12\mu_{\phi}(I_i).$$
Thus, since $I$ is the union of $I_1$, $I_2$, and $I_3$, any two
of which intersect on a set of measure zero, we have
$$\mu_{\phi}(I)
= \mu_{\phi}(I_1) + \mu_{\phi}(I_2) + \mu_{\phi}(I_3)
= \frac{1}{4}\mu_{\phi}(I),$$
proving our claim that $\mu_{\phi}(I)=0$.
It follows immediately from this observation
that $\mu_{\phi}(\bigcup_{n\geq 0} \phi^{-n}(I)) = 0$.
As noted in the proof of Theorem~A, the Julia set $\calJ_{\phi}$
is the closure of $\bigcup_{n\geq 0} \phi^{-n}(I)$.
However, viewing $\calJ_{\phi}$ as a tree with infinite branching,
this set $\bigcup_{n\geq 0} \phi^{-n}(I)$ includes
all of the interior points of the tree. Thus, the set $L$ of
leaves --- that is, $L$ consists of those $x\in\calJ_{\phi}$
for which $\calJ_{\phi}\smallsetminus\{x\}$ is still connected
--- has mass $\mu_{\phi}(L)=1$.
\subsection{The entropy in residue characteristic 3}
\label{ssec:ent6}
We will now compute the measure-theoretic and topological entropies
of the sextic map $\phi$ of Section~\ref{ssec:sextic}
when the residue characteristic $\charact k$ is $3$,
when $|3|_v\leq |a|_v < 1$, and when neither of
$1,\bar{b}\in \mathbb{P}^1(k)$ is postcritical
under the action of $\bar{\phi}(z)=1/(z(z-1)(z-\bar{b}))$.
Since the only critical points of $\bar{\phi}$ are $\infty$
(with forward orbit $\{0,\infty\}$) and
$\gamma:=-\bar{b}/(\bar{b}+1)$, this last condition says simply that
$1$ and $\bar{b}$ are not in the forward
orbit of $\gamma$. In particular, the condition holds for
the map given in the introduction, which
has $b=-1$, and hence $\gamma=\infty$.
\begin{claim}
\label{claim:fatou}
Let $y:=\zeta(0,|a|_v^{-1/6})$. Then
$$\phi(y) = \zeta(0,|a|_v^{1/2}), \quad
\phi^2(y) = \phi^{4}(y)=\zeta(0,|a|_v^{-1/2}), \quad\text{and}\quad
\phi^3(y) = \zeta(1,|a|_v^{1/2}),$$
with $\deg_y(\phi)=6$ and $\deg_{\phi^2(y)}(\phi^2)=3$.
Moreover, setting
$$W:=\{x\in\PP^1_{\Ber} : |x|_v=|a|_v^{-1/6}\}\smallsetminus\{y\},$$
we have $\phi(W)=\bar{\calD}(0,|a|_v^{1/2})\smallsetminus\{\phi(y)\}$,
and
$$\phi^2(W)=\phi^4(W)=
\{x\in\PP^1_{\Ber} : |x|_v \geq |a|_v^{-1/2} \} \smallsetminus
\{\zeta(0,|a|_v^{-1/2})\}.$$
In particular, $\phi^i(W)\subseteq\calF_{\phi}$ for all $i\geq 0$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Let $\psi(z) := a^{-1/2}\phi(a^{-1/6}z)$, so that
$\bar{\psi}(z)=(z^6+1)/z^3$.
Thus, $\deg\bar{\psi}=6$, and hence
we have $\phi(y) = \zeta(0,|a|_v^{1/2})$, with $\deg_y(\phi)=6$.
Similar computations confirm the claimed values of $\phi^i(y)$
for $i=2,3,4$, and that $\deg_{\phi^2(y)}(\phi^2)=3$.
The characterization of each $\phi^i(W)$
also comes from direct computation.
Since $\phi^j(W)=\phi^2(W)$ for $j\geq 2$ even, and $\phi^j(W)=\phi^3(W)$
for $j\geq 3$ odd, the union of the forward images of any $\phi^i(W)$
omits infinitely many points of $\PP^1_{\Ber}$, and hence
$\phi^i(W)\subseteq\calF_{\phi}$.
\end{proof}
Define $V_0:=\{\phi(y)\} =\{\zeta(0,|a|_v^{1/2})\}$,
$V_\infty:=\{\phi^2(y)\} =\{\zeta(0,|a|_v^{-1/2})\}$,
and $V_1:=\{\phi^3(y)\} =\{\zeta(1,|a|_v^{1/2})\}$.
By Claim~\ref{claim:fatou}, each of $V_0$, $V_1$, $V_\infty$
is an endpoint of ${\mathcal J}_{\phi}$.
The set
$\calJ_{\phi}\smallsetminus\{\zeta(0,1)\}$ consists of countably
many branches: one extending towards $\infty$, and the
rest of the form $U_c:=\calJ_{\phi}\cap \calD(c,1)$ where $c\in k$.
(Here, we abuse notation by lifting $c\in k$ to an element of ${\mathcal O}$,
which we also denote $c$.)
Let ${\mathcal C}\subseteq k$ be the set of those $c\in k$
for which $U_c\neq\varnothing$,
and let ${\mathcal C}':={\mathcal C}\smallsetminus\{0,1\}$.
Define $U'_0:=U_0\smallsetminus V_0$ and $U'_1:=U_1\smallsetminus V_1$.
Meanwhile, let
$$
U_{\infty,1} :=
\{x\in\calJ_{\phi}:|x|_v \geq |a|_v^{-1/6}\}\smallsetminus V_\infty,
\quad\text{and}\quad
U_{\infty,2} := \{x\in\calJ_{\phi}: 1< |x|_v < |a|_v^{-1/6}\}.$$
Finally, let $V=\{\zeta(0,1)\}$.
Clearly,
$${\mathcal P}:=\{V,V_0,V_1,V_\infty,
U_{\infty,1},U_{\infty,2},U'_0,U'_1\}\cup\{U_c:c\in{\mathcal C}'\}$$
is a countable partition of $\calJ_{\phi}$,
where $V$, $V_0$, $V_1$, and $V_\infty$ are
singletons, $U_{\infty,1}$ is the union
of an open set and the singleton $\{y\}$,
and the remaining elements of ${\mathcal P}$ are open in $\calJ_{\phi}$.
We have $\phi(V)=V$, $\phi(V_0)=\phi(V_1)=V_{\infty}$, and
$\phi(V_\infty)=V_1$.
In the notation of Section~\ref{ssec:sextic},
$U_{\infty,2}\cap \Gamma$ is the interval $I_1$
with its endpoints removed, while
$U_{\infty,1}\cap \Gamma=I_2\cup I_3$.
Thus,
$\phi(U_{\infty,2})=U'_0$,
$\phi(U_{\infty,1})=\calJ_{\phi}$, and
$$\phi(U'_0)=\phi(U'_1)= U_{\infty,1}\cup U_{\infty,2},
\quad\text{while}\quad
\phi(U_{\bar{b}}) = U_{\infty,1}\cup U_{\infty,2}\cup V_{\infty}.$$
There are also three values of $c$ (namely, the roots of
$\bar{\phi}(c)=1$) for which $\phi(U_c)=U'_1\cup V_1$.
Finally, $\phi(U_c) = U_{\bar{\phi}(c)}$ for every other
$c\in{\mathcal C}'\smallsetminus\{\bar{b}\}$.
Note, by our assumed condition on $b$, that $\phi$ is injective
on $U'_0$, $U'_1$, and each $U_c$,
with local degree $1$ at all points of these sets.
\begin{claim}
\label{claim:temp}
With notation as above, $\deg_x(\phi)=3$ for all
$x\in U_{\infty,1}\cup U_{\infty,2}\smallsetminus\{y\}$.
Moreover, $\calJ_{\phi}$ has finite hyperbolic diameter,
and $\phi$ is injective on both
$U_{\infty,1}$ and $U_{\infty,2}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
For $\alpha, w \in\CC_v$ with
$1< |w|_v < |\alpha|_v < |a|_v^{-1/6}$, we have
$\phi(\alpha+w) - \alpha^{-3} \approx -\alpha^{-6} w^3$,
and thus $\phi:\bar{D}(\alpha,r) \to \bar{D}(\alpha^{-3}, |\alpha|_v^{-6} r^3)$
is $3$-to-$1$ for all $1\leq r\leq |\alpha|_v$.
(Here, we are using the hypothesis that $|3|_v\leq |a|_v$.)
Hence, $\deg_{\zeta(\alpha,r)}(\phi)=3$ for all such $\alpha,r$.
In addition, we have
$\phi(\bar{D}(\alpha,1))=\bar{D}(\alpha^{-3},|\alpha|_v^{-6})$.
Since $\phi(z)\approx 1/bz$ for $z\in D(0,1)$,
it follows that $\phi^2:\bar{D}(\alpha,1) \to \bar{D}(b^{-1}\alpha^3, 1)$.
Similarly, if $|a|_v^{-1/6} < |\alpha|_v < |a|_v^{-1/3}$
and $1\leq r\leq |\alpha|_v$, then
$\phi:\bar{D}(\alpha,r)\to\bar{D}(a\alpha^3, |a|_v r^3)$
is also $3$-to-$1$, with
$\phi(\bar{D}(\alpha,1)) = \bar{D}(a\alpha^3, |a|_v)$.
Likewise, if $|a|_v^{-1/3} < |\alpha|_v < |a|_v^{-1/2}$
and $1\leq r \leq |\alpha|_v$, then
$\phi:\bar{D}(\alpha,r)\to\bar{D}(1/(1+a\alpha^3), |a\alpha^6|_v^{-1}r^3)$
is again $3$-to-$1$, with
$\phi(\bar{D}(\alpha,1))= \bar{D}((a(b-1)\alpha^3)^{-1}, |a|_v)$.
In either case, we get
$\deg_{\zeta(\alpha,r)}(\phi)=3$ for all such $\alpha,r$,
and $\phi^2(\bar{D}(\alpha,1))\subseteq \bar{D}(\phi^2(\beta,1))$
with $|\beta|_v>1$.
If $1\leq r \leq|\alpha|_v = |a|_v^{-1/3}$,
then $\deg_{\zeta(\alpha,r)}(\phi)=3$,
although the point $\phi(\zeta(\alpha,r))$ could lie in $\bar{\calD}(0,1)$.
In fact, the image $\phi(D)$ of the disk $D=\bar{D}(\alpha,1)$ is of the form
$\bar{D}(\beta,|a\beta^2|_v)$ with $|\beta|_v\geq 1$.
If $|\beta|_v\leq |a|_v^{-1/2}$, so that $\phi(D)$
is not contained in $\phi^2(W)\subseteq\calF_{\phi}$,
then the radius of $\phi(D)$ is at most $1$.
In addition, if $|\beta|_v=1$, then $\phi(D)=\bar{D}(\beta,|a|_v)$.
One consequence of the previous three paragraphs is that for any disk
$D=\bar{\calD}(\alpha,1)$ with $1<|\alpha|_v < |a|^{-1/2}$,
then either $D\subseteq W$, or
\begin{itemize}
\item $\phi(D)$ is of the form
$\bar{\calD}(\beta,s)$, where $|\beta|_v\leq 1$ and $s\leq |a|_v$, or
\item $\phi(D)$ or $\phi^2(D)$ is of the form
$\bar{\calD}(\beta,s)$, where $|\beta|_v> 1$ and $s\leq 1$.
\end{itemize}
Similarly, if $D=\bar{\calD}(\alpha,|a|_v)$ with $|\alpha|_v\leq 1$,
we get the same conclusions.
All such disks therefore map into one another, and hence they all
lie in the Fatou set. Thus,
$\calJ_{\phi}\smallsetminus \bar{\calD}(0,1)$
consists only of points of the form $x=\zeta(\alpha,r)$ with
$r\geq 1$. By the same three paragraphs,
$\deg_{x}(\phi)=3$ for all
$x\in U_{\infty,1}\cup U_{\infty,2}\smallsetminus\{y\}$,
proving the first statement of the claim.
Recall that $U_{\infty,1}\smallsetminus\{y\}$
maps onto $\calJ_{\phi}\smallsetminus\{\phi(y)\}$,
and $U_{\infty,2}$ maps onto $U'_0$,
while each $U_c$ maps bijectively onto $U_{\bar{\phi}(c)}$.
(Or onto $U'_1 \cup V_1$, if $\bar{\phi}(c)=1$.)
Thus, by equation~\eqref{eq:degsum},
$\phi$ must be injective on both $U_{\infty,1}$ and $U_{\infty,2}$.
Finally, we have seen that if $\zeta(\alpha,r)\in\calJ_{\phi}$,
then either $1<|\alpha|_v\leq |a|_v^{-1/2}$ and $1\leq r\leq |\alpha|_v$,
or else $|a|_v^{1/2}\leq |\alpha|_v \leq 1$ and $|a|_v \leq r \leq |\alpha|_v$.
Any such point lies within hyperbolic distance less than $-2\log|a|_v$
from $\zeta(0,1)$. Since $\calJ_{\phi}$ is connected, it follows that
any point of $\calJ_{\phi}$ (not just those of type II or III)
also lies within that distance of $\zeta(0,1)$.
Thus, $\calJ_{\phi}$ has finite hyperbolic diameter,
proving the claim.
\end{proof}
Claim~\ref{claim:temp} confirms most of the hypotheses
of Theorem~B, including the first bullet point.
In addition, because $y$ is the only point in
$\{x\in \calJ_{\phi} : |x|_v = |a|_v^{-1/6}\}$, the
sets $U_{\infty,1}\smallsetminus\{y\}$ and $U_{\infty,2}$
are both connected, and $\deg_x(\phi)=3$ is constant on each.
Thus, $d_{\mathbb{H}}(\phi(x),\phi(x')) = 3d_{\mathbb{H}}(x,x')$
for any $x,x'\in U_{\infty,1}$, and similarly for $U_{\infty,2}$.
Since $U'_0$ and $U'_1$ map onto $U_{\infty,1}\cup U_{\infty,2}$,
while $U_{\bar{b}}$ maps onto $U_{\infty,1}\cup U_{\infty,2} \cup V_\infty$,
and every other $U_c$ maps onto $U_{\bar{\phi}(c)}$
(and hence eventually onto $U_{\infty,1}\cup U_{\infty,2} \cup V_\infty$),
we have verified the remaining hypotheses of Theorem~B.
Invoking part~(b) of the Theorem, then,
$$h_{\mu}(\phi) = \int_{\PP^1_{\Ber}} \log(6/\deg_x(\phi)) \, d\mu(x)
=(\log 6) \mu(\bar{\calD}(0,1))
+ (\log 2) \mu(U_{\infty,1}\cup U_{\infty,2}),$$
where $\mu=\mu_{\phi}$ is the invariant measure.
However, since $\phi:U_{\infty,1}\to\calJ_{\phi}$ is bijective,
with constant local degree $\deg_{x}(\phi)=3$
except at the one point $x=y$,
the defining property of $\Jac_{\phi}$ shows that
$\mu(U_{\infty,1}) = 1/2$. Similarly,
$$\mu(U'_0) = \frac{1}{6}\mu(U_{\infty,1}\cup U_{\infty,2})
= \frac{1}{12} + \frac{1}{6}\mu(U_{\infty,2}),
\quad\text{and}\quad
\mu(U_{\infty,2}) = \frac{1}{2}\mu(U'_0).$$
Thus, $\mu(U_{\infty,2})=1/22$, and hence
$\mu(U_{\infty,1}\cup U_{\infty,2}) = 6/11$.
Substituting into the above formula therefore gives
$$h_{\mu}(\phi) = \frac{5}{11}\log 6 + \frac{6}{11}\log 2
= \log 2 + \frac{5}{11}\log 3.$$
We now compute the Gurevich entropy of the resulting
Markov shift on the set of symbols
${\mathcal A} = \{U_{\infty,1}, U_{\infty,2}, U'_0, U'_1, U_{\bar{b}}, \ldots\}$.
With that ordering of the symbols, the transition matrix
is the transpose of
$$
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots
\\
1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots
\\
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots
\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots
\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots
\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots
\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots
\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots &
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots &
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots &
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots
\end{bmatrix}
$$
For notational convenience, we will identify each
state in ${\mathcal A}$ with the number of its corresponding column;
that is, $U_{\infty,1}$ is $1$, $U_{\infty,2}$ is $2$,
$U'_{0}$ is $3$, $U'_{1}$ is $4$, $U_{\bar{b}}$ is $5$, etc.
We will compute $F_1(z)$, the generating function
for first-return loops at state~1.
As described in Section~\ref{sec:gurevich}, we can
compute $h_{\textup{Gur}}(T)$, and hence
$h_{\textup{top}}(\phi)$, from the roots of $1-F_1$.
To count first-return loops at $1$ of various lengths, let us consider
four separate types of such loops.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The unique length one loop $1,1$,
giving a contribution of $z$ to $F_1(z)$.
\item
Loops beginning $1,2,\ldots$. The next state after $2$
must be $3$, followed by either $1$ or $2$. Thus,
we get one first-return loop of every
odd length at least $3$, of the form $1,2,3,2,3,\ldots,3,1$.
The type~(b) loops therefore contribute
$z^3 + z^5 + z^7 + \cdots = z^3/(1-z^2)$ to $F_1(z)$.
\item
Loops beginning $1,a$, where $a\in\{3,4,5\}$.
The next state must be either $1$ or $2$. Thus,
for each of $a=3,4,5$,
we get one first-return loop of every
positive even length, of the form $1,a,2,3,2,3,\ldots,3,1$
(where there could be zero copies of $2,3$).
The type~(c) loops therefore contribute
$3(z^2 + z^4 + z^6 + \cdots) = 3z^2/(1-z^2)$ to $F_1(z)$.
\item
Loops beginning $1,a$, where $a\geq 6$.
Any such state $a$ is followed by a unique path
of some length $k$ through states numbered $6$ and higher
to either state $4$ or $5$.
Call such a state $a$ a $k$-state. For each $k\geq 1$, there are $3^k$
$k$-states with paths to $4$, and $3^k$ with paths to $5$,
for a total of $2\cdot 3^k$ $k$-states.
After $k$ steps, each loop starting from a $k$-state
looks like the tail of one of type~(c), giving a loop of
length $k+2m$ for each $m\geq 1$ and each $k$-state.
Together, then, all $2\cdot 3^k$ $k$-states contribute
$2\cdot 3^k z^k (z^2 + z^4 + z^6 + \cdots)
= 2\cdot 3^k z^{k+2}/(1-z^2)$ to $F_1(z)$.
Summing across all $k\geq 1$, then, the type~(d) loops contribute
$\displaystyle \frac{6 z^3}{(1-z^2)} (1 + 3z + (3z)^2 + \cdots)
= \frac{6 z^3}{(1-z^2)(1-3z)}$ to $F_1(z)$.
\end{enumerate}
Adding up all four types' contributions, we have
$$F_1(z) = z + \frac{z^3 + 3z^2}{(1-z^2)} +
\frac{6 z^3}{(1-z^2)(1-3z)}
=\frac{z-3z^3}{(1-z^2)(1-3z)}.$$
Thus,
$$1- F_1(z)=\frac{(1-3z - z^2 + 3z^3) - (z-3z^3)}{(1-z^2)(1-3z)}
= \frac{1-4z - z^2 + 6z^3}{(1-z^2)(1-3z)}.$$
The root of $F_1(z)$ of smallest absolute value is $r=1/\lambda$,
where
$\lambda\approx 3.8558\ldots$ is the largest (real) root of the polynomial
$t^3 - 4t^2 - t + 6$.
Hence, as claimed in the introduction,
$$h_{\mu}(\phi) = \log 2 + \frac{5}{11} \log 3
\quad\text{and}\quad
h_{\textup{top}}(\phi) = \log \lambda.$$
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:sextic}
The assumption that the residue characteristic $p=\charact k$ of $\CC_v$
is $3$ is essential to the computations of this section.
Indeed, if $p\neq 3$, then
$\deg_{x}(\phi)=1$ for all $x=\zeta(c,r)$ with
$1,r<|c|_v$, except possibly for $|c|_v=|a|_v^{-1/6}$.
As a result, $\phi$ is injective and preserves the hyperbolic distance
on all of the side branches off $I\smallsetminus\{\zeta(0,|a|_v^{-1/6})\}$.
Thus, outside of a certain measure zero set (consisting of
those $x\in\calJ_{\phi}$
for which all but finitely many iterates $\phi^n(x)$ lie in branches
off $|a|_v^{-1/6}$), the points of the leaf set $L$ of
Section~\ref{ssec:leaves6} lie at infinite
hyperbolic distance from $\zeta(0,1)$. Hence,
$\mu_{\phi}$-almost all points of ${\mathcal J}_{\phi}$
are of Type~I, and therefore $\mu_{\phi}(\HH_{\Ber})=0$.
By the final statement of \cite[Th\'{e}or\`{e}me~D]{FRL}, then, we
have
$$h_{\mu}(\phi) = h_{\textup{top}}(\phi) = \log \deg\phi =\log 6.$$
Thus, $\mu=\mu_{\phi}$ is a measure of maximal entropy for $\phi$
if $p\neq 3$.
\end{remark}
{\bf Acknowledgements.}
Authors R.B., E.K., and O.M.\
gratefully acknowledge the support of NSF grant DMS-1201341.
Authors D.B.\ and R.C.\ gratefully acknowledge the support of
Amherst College's Dean of Faculty student support funds.
Author D.O.\
gratefully acknowledges the support of Amherst College's
Schupf Scholar program.
The authors thank Mike Boyle, Charles Favre, and Cesar Silva for their helpful
discussions, and the referee for a careful reading
and helpful suggestions and corrections.
|
\section{Introduction}
It is a difficult problem to characterize 3-manifolds which admit a
spherical CR uniformization, i.e. manifolds which can occur as the
manifold at infinity of some infinite volume complex hyperbolic
surface (or perhaps complex hyperbolic orbifold with isolated
singularities).
Of course $S^3$ as well as lens spaces trivially admit a spherical CR
uniformizations (the orbifold fundamental group of the corresponding
complex hyperbolic quotient is then a finite cyclic group). Quotients
of the 3-dimensional Heisenberg group by lattices also provide another
somewhat trivial class, since once can think of the Heisenberg group
as a model of $\partial H^2_\mathbb{C}\setminus\{pt\}$; this class consists of
circle bundles over a 2-torus.
More generally, it is well known that many Seifert
fibrations occur, by taking deformations of Fuchsian subgroups of
$PU(2,1)$. For small deformations, the corresponding quotients are
disk bundles over surfaces (or more generally 2-dimensional
orbifolds), yielding circle bundles as manifolds at infinity. Note
that none of the above examples are hyperbolic manifolds.
In the last decade, R. Schwartz discovered that many hyperbolic
manifolds can occur as well, see~\cite{richBook} for a nice overview
of his constructions. The starting point was the construction of a
spherical CR uniformization of the Whitehead link
complement~\cite{richWLC}, and of a \emph{closed} hyperbolic
3-manifold~\cite{schwartz4447}. Schwartz went on to produce infinitely
many examples through a somewhat delicate Dehn surgery theorem. Recent
work of Parker and Will~\cite{parkerwill} shows that the Whitehead
link complement admits at least two distinct spherical CR
uniformizations, i.e. it occurs as the manifold at infinity of two
non-isometric complex hyperbolic orbifolds.
The figure eight knot complement was shown to admit a spherical CR
uniformization~\cite{derauxfalbel}. In fact it turns out uncountably
many pairwise non-conjugate discrete subgroups of $PU(2,1)$ yield the
figure eight knot as their manifold at infinity,
see~\cite{derauxdeformfig8}.
The general question of the classification of hyperbolic 3-manifolds
which admit a spherical CR uniformization is still widely open.
A general approach to investigate the above general question was laid
down by Falbel a few years ago. He devised a computational way to
determine all the conjugacy classes of representations of the
fundamental group of any given open open 3-manifolds (with torus ends)
with unipotent boundary holonomy. The rough idea is to use an ideal
triangulation of the manifold, so that representations are
parametrized by cross-ratios of quadruples of points in
$\partial_\infty H^2_\mathbb{C}$, and to write compatibility equations for
these cross-ratios to yield a representation (with appropriate
boundary holonomy conditions). For more information on this,
see~\cite{falbelfigure8},~\cite{bfg} and for another parametrization
of the representation variety, see~\cite{ggz}.
For manifolds that can be built by gluing up to three tetrahedra, the
solutions to the compatibility equations can be computed using current
computer technology (and somewhat sophisticated computational
techniques for solving polynomial systems), see~\cite{fkr}. We will
refer to this list of representations as the FKR census.
It turns out there are in fact very few discrete representations in
the FKR census. Since the representations in the census are not
representative of the whole character variety (for computational
convenience, the authors list only representations where the
peripheral holonomy consists of unipotent matrices), we will not take
the trouble of giving detailed arguments that prove non-discreteness
results.
We focus on cases where we know the representation is discrete, namely
the pairs $(M,\rho)$ in Table~\ref{tab:discrete}.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l}
(1) \verb|m003|, $\rho=\rho_{2\_1}$\\
(2) \verb|m004|, $\rho=\rho_{1\_1}$\\
(3) \verb|m004|, $\rho=\rho_{3\_1}$\\
(4) \verb|m004|, $\rho=\rho_{4\_1}$\\
(5) \verb|m009|, $\rho=\rho_{4\_3}$\\
(6) \verb|m015|, $\rho=\rho_{3\_3}$
\end{tabular}
\caption{The list of discrete representations in the FKR census, for
non-compact manifolds built out of at most three
tetrahedra.}\label{tab:discrete}
\end{table}
We suspect that these are in fact the only discrete representations
into $PU(2,1)$ in the FKR census (apart from the representations with
finite image, which do not appear in the list in~\cite{fkr}).
Note that it is not clear whether discreteness of a representation
$\rho:\pi_1(M)\rightarrow PU(2,1)$ (even together with boundary
parabolicity) suffices to guarantee that $\rho$ is the holonomy of a
spherical CR structure on $M$. The main problem is that there is no
natural way to extend quadruples of points to
full-fledged tetrahedra in $\partial H^2_\mathbb{C}$. For
instance, the attempts in~\cite{falbelfigure8} and~\cite{falbelwang}
yield branched CR structures, and it is not known whether these
representations are the holonomy of an unbranched CR structure.
In fact we will be more restrictive and require not only that $\rho$
be the holonomy of a structure, but that it produce a spherical CR
{\bf uniformization} of $M$ (Schwartz call these \emph{complete}
spherical CR structures, see~\cite{richBook} for instance). We briefly
recall basic definitions pertaining to this notion.
Recall that a discrete group $\Gamma\subset PU(2,1)$, acts properly on
the complex hyperbolic plane $\ch 2$. The action extends to its
boundary at infinity $\partial_\infty \ch 2$, but it is usually no
longer proper.
\begin{dfn}
The domain of discontinuity $\Omega_\Gamma$ is the largest open
subset of $\partial_\infty \ch 2$ where the action is proper. Its
complement $\Lambda_\Gamma=\partial_\infty \ch 2 - \Omega_\Gamma$ is
called the limit set of $\Gamma$.
\end{dfn}
When the action of $\Gamma$ on $\Omega_\Gamma$ has no fixed points,
the quotient $\Gamma\setminus \Omega_\Gamma$ is a manifold, which of
course carries a CR structure inherited from the standard CR structure
on $\partial_\infty \ch 2\simeq S^3$.
\begin{dfn}
Let $\Gamma\subset PU(2,1)$ be a discrete group whose action on $\ch
2$ has only isolated fixed points. Then the quotient
$\Gamma\setminus \Omega_\Gamma$ is called the {\bf manifold at
infinity} of $\Gamma$.
\end{dfn}
We will sometimes call $\Gamma\setminus \Omega_\Gamma$ the manifold at
infinity of $\Gamma$, rather than the manifold at infinity of
$\Gamma\setminus H^2_\mathbb{C}$.
\begin{dfn}
Let $\rho:\pi_1(M)\rightarrow PU(2,1)$ be a representation. We say
that $\rho$ gives a spherical CR uniformization of $M$ if
$\Gamma=\textrm{Im}(\rho)$ is discrete, all its fixed points in $\ch
2$ are isolated, and the manifold at infinity of $\Gamma$ is
homeomorphic to $M$.
\end{dfn}
We now summarize what is known about the representations that appear
in Table~\ref{tab:discrete}, in historical order
(the numbers opening each paragraph are given to follow the notation
in the table).
(2), (3), (4) The representations of $\pi_1(\verb|m004|)$ were studied
in~\cite{falbelfigure8} and~\cite{derauxfalbel}. They are all
discrete, non-faithful representations.
(3) The group $Im(\rho_{3\_1})$ can be checked to be a
(non-elementary) normal subgroup of the Eisenstein-Picard lattice,
i.e. a normal subgroup of $PU(2,1,\mathbb{Z}[\omega])$
(see~\cite{falbelfigure8}). It follows that its limit set is all of
$S^3$, or equivalently that it has empty domain of discontinuity. This
makes it obvious that $\rho_{2\_1}$ is not the holonomy of a
uniformization (but it is not known whether it is the holonomy of a
spherical CR structure).
(1) A similar property holds for the image $Im(\rho_{2\_1})$ of the only
representation of $\pi_1(\verb|m003|)$ in the FKR census, which is a
normal subgroup of a lattice sometimes referred to as the sister of
the Eisenstein-Picard lattice (the Eisenstein-Picard lattice and its
sister have the same covolume, and up to conjugation they are the only
non-uniform arithmetic lattices with that volume, see~\cite{stover}).
(2), (4) The two other representations of $\pi_1(\verb|m004|)$ were
studied in~\cite{derauxfalbel}, where the author and Falbel gave a
proof that they both give a spherical CR uniformization of the figure
eight knot complement (in fact these two representations differ by
precomposition by an orientation reversing outer automorphism of
$\pi_1(\verb|m004|)$).
A more enlightening fundamental domain for the action of the group
$Im(\rho_{1\_1})$ can be obtained quite naturally as a Ford domain
centered at the fixed point of the image of a peripheral subgroup, as
worked out in~\cite{derauxdeformfig8}. That domain exhibits an
explicit horotube structure for the group, as defined
in~\cite{richBook}. Moreover, the combinatorial structure of the Ford
fundamental domain exhibits striking similarities with the structure of
the Ford domain in $H^3_\mathbb{R}$ for the holonomy group of the unique
complete hyperbolic structure on the figure eight knot complement.
(5) Performing the same analysis for other discrete groups with cyclic
unipotent holonomy in the FKR census, one gets the following:
\begin{thm} \label{th1}
The representation $\rho_{4\_3}$ is the holonomy of a spherical CR
uniformization of $M=\verb|m009|$.
\end{thm}
Rather than using the group of the FKR census, we will give a triangle
group interpretation of that group, in the spirit of Schwartz's
constructions. This will make it easier for the reader to get
explicit matrices for the group.
The author went through the same analysis as
in~\cite{derauxdeformfig8} and worked out the combinatorics of the
Ford domain for $Im(\rho_{4\_3})$ (really, he instructed the computer
to work this out for him). The group presentation then
comes for free from the Ford domain. From that Ford domain, it is
relatively easy to compute the fundamental group of the manifold at
infinity, and to find an explicit isomorphism with the fundamental
group of \verb|m009| (of course one also needs to check that the
peripheral subgroups correspond in this isomorphism).
The details are quite unpleasant to write in a paper
(see~\cite{derauxdeformfig8} for similar arguments), so
we will not give the details of the proof of Theorem~\ref{th1}. We
only focus on proving discreteness and getting a group presentation
for $Im(\rho_{4\_3})$ (see Theorem~\ref{thm:poincare}).
Note that, unlike the case of the figure eight knot complement, the
boundary of the complex hyperbolic Ford domain does not have exactly
the same local combinatorial structure as the Ford domain of the real
hyperbolic structure (compare the 2-faces of Figure~\ref{fig:prisms}
with the shaded 2-faces in Figures~\ref{fig:faces-1},~\ref{fig:faces-2}).
(5)=(6) In view of the main results
of~\cite{schwartz4447},~\cite{derauxfalbel} and Theorem~\ref{th1}, one
may be tempted to dream of a positive answer to the following question
raised by Falbel:\\
\noindent{\bf Question:} Let $M$ be a non-compact hyperbolic
3-manifold of finite volume, and let $\rho:\pi_1(M)\rightarrow
PU(2,1)$ be a \emph{discrete} representation such that every peripheral
subgroup is mapped to a cyclic group generated by a unipotent
element. Is the manifold at infinity of $\rho(\pi_1(M))$ homeomorphic
to $M$?\\
The requirement that peripheral $\mathbb{Z}\oplus\mathbb{Z}$ subgroups are mapped to
subgroups isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}$ is included because of the results
in~\cite{falbelfigure8} (the corresponding representation is boundary
injective, but the domain of discontinuity is empty, so there is no
manifold at infinity at all).
The next result shows that the answer is negative in general; it
suggests one needs to be very cautious when studying
representations of $3$-manifolds into $PU(2,1)$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:conjugacy}
The groups $\rho_{3\_3}(\pi_1(\verb|m015|))$ and
$\rho_{4\_3}(\pi_1(\verb|m009|))$ are conjugate in $PU(2,1)$.
\end{thm}
In section~\ref{sec:chford}, we will prove that both representations
are discrete, have non-empty domain of discontinuity, and that the
image group has only isolated fixed points in $\ch 2$. In particular
at least one of the two manifolds gives a negative answer to Falbel's
question. Using Theorem~\ref{th1} (which we will not prove), one would see
that the negative answer is actually provided by the manifold
\verb|m015|. In other words, the manifold at infinity of
$\rho_{3\_3}(\pi_1(\verb|m015|))$ is \emph{the wrong manifold}, in the
sense that it is homeomorphic to \verb|m009|, \emph{not} to
\verb|m015|.
Let us emphasize once more that Theorem~\ref{thm:conjugacy} shows
that a discrete, boundary unipotent representation of the fundamental
group of a given non-compact manifold into $PU(2,1)$, is not
necessarily the holonomy of a spherical CR uniformization of that
manifold, even if the peripheral holonomy is cyclic.
In section~\ref{sec:fillings} we will describe a technical feature
shared by all the noncompact hyperbolic manifolds that are known to
admit a spherical CR uniformization. For the time being, this feature
may serve as an explanation for the existence of these exotic
uniformizations. Specifically, it turns out that all finite volume non
compact 3-manifolds that are known to admit a spherical CR
uniformization all admit an exceptional Dehn filling that is a Seifert
fibration over a $p,q,r$-orbifold (see Theorem~\ref{thm:exceptional})
with $p,q,r\geq 3$. For 3-manifolds that do not have such Seifert Dehn
fillings, no satisfactory evidence of non-existence of spherical CR
uniformizations is presently available (but the FKR census gives no
discrete representation with cyclic unipotent boundary holonomy).
Now theorem~\ref{thm:conjugacy} will be an obvious consequence of a
stronger statement, namely Theorem~\ref{thm:trianglegroups}, which
gives a way to reconstruct the image of the two relevant FKR census
representations directly by deforming triangle groups. The idea is to
take the obvious embedding of the 3,3,5-triangle group, obtained via
the injection $SO(2,1)\subset SU(2,1)$, where reflections in $H^2_\mathbb{R}$
are extended to complex reflections in $H^2_\mathbb{C}$. Note that this
representation is type-preserving, in the sense that elliptic
(resp. parabolic, loxodromic) elements are mapped to elliptic
(resp. parabolic, loxodromic) elements.
The index two subgroup of words of even length in the triangle group
has a manifold at infinity which is a Seifert fibration over the
3,3,5-orbifold (see chapter~4 of~\cite{richBook}). It is well known
that, modulo conjugation in $PU(2,1)$, the deformation space of this
representation of the 3,3,5-triangle group is an interval
(see~\cite{schwartzICM} for instance), and one expects that, at least
for small deformations, the group should remain discrete, and the
manifold at infinity should not change its homeomorphism type.
The idea is then to consider the first place in the deformation space
where the representation is no longer type-preserving. A conjectural
quantitative analysis of when this happens is stated
in~\cite{schwartzICM}; in the case at hand, the first change in types
should occur when the word $I_2I_3I_1I_3$ (which is loxodromic in the
original triangle group) becomes parabolic. We will call the
corresponding group the first 3,3,5-triangle group with an
\emph{accidental parabolic element}, even though the validity of this
description really relies on the validity of Schwartz's
conjectures. This group is often denoted $(3,3,5;\infty)$ in the
literature.
In this paper, we describe explicit representations of
$\pi_1(\verb|m009|)$ and $\pi_1(\verb|m015|)$ onto the
$(3,3,5;\infty)$ triangle group, and show that they map peripheral
subgroups to cyclic subgroups generated by the accidental parabolic
element. The accidental parabolic element is a unipotent element,
i.e. it has 1 as its only eigenvalue (see
section~\ref{sec:fillings}). From this one can easily identify these
two representations as specific representations in the FKR census (see
section~\ref{sec:trianglegroups}).
We finish by noting that the result of
Theorem~\ref{thm:trianglegroups}, even though it gives a way to bypass
the use of the FKR census, was widely inspired by detailed inspection
of the representations in the census. Originally, the author had computed
Ford domains for the image of the census representations that looked
discrete, and noticed that two of these Ford domains were isometric.
In that sense, the Ford domain of a group (centered at the fixed a
suitably chosen parabolic element) gives a very efficient conjugacy
invariant of the group, just like it does in the real hyperbolic case
(in that case, the tiling dual to the tiling by the Ford domain
produces the so-called canonical decomposition,
see~\cite{epsteinpenner}).
\begin{flushleft}{\bf Acknowledgements:}
This work was partly supported by the ANR, through the grant SGT
(``Structures G\'eom\'etriques Triangul\'ees''). The author also
benefited from generous support from the GEAR network (NSF grants
DMS 1107452, 1107263, 1107367), via funding of an long term visit at
ICERM; the author warmly thanks ICERM for its hospitality,
Elisha Falbel, Pierre-Vincent Koseleff and Fabrice
Rouillier for sending him an early version of their census; Ben
Burton, Nathan Dunfield and Dave Futer for useful conversations
related to this work; and finally the referee, who suggested
several improvements in the manuscript.
\end{flushleft}
\section{Ford domains in $H^3_\mathbb{R}$} \label{sec:realford}
We briefly recall the general notion of Ford domain for discrete
subgroups of $PSL_2(\mathbb{C})=Isom(H^3_\mathbb{R})$, and describe these domains for
the special case of the holonomy group of the complete hyperbolic
structures on three specific 3-manifolds, namely \verb|m004|,
\verb|m009|, \verb|m015| in the Hildebrand-Weeks census.
\subsection{Real hyperbolic space and Ford domains}
Here we view $H^3_\mathbb{R}$ as the upper half space
$$
\{(z,t)\in \mathbb{C}\times \mathbb{R}: t>0\},
$$
with the metric $(dx^2+dy^2+dt^2)/t^2$.
Recall that $\Gamma\subset PSL_2(\mathbb{C})$ acts on $\partial_\infty
H^3_\mathbb{R}\simeq P^1_\mathbb{C}$ by its linear action on $C^2$. Working in an
affine chart, one gets an action by fractional linear transformations,
i.e.
$$
z\mapsto \frac{az+b}{cz+d}.
$$
The basic point is that these maps extend to give an isometric
action of $PSL_2(\mathbb{C})$ on $H^3_\mathbb{R}$, uniquely determined by the fact
that circles in $\mathbb{C}$ give the boundary of a unique sphere in $\mathbb{C}\times
\mathbb{R}$ orthogonal to the horizontal plane $\mathbb{C}$.
A formula for the extension can be most easily obtained by seeing
$H^3_\mathbb{R}$ as a totally geodesic subspace of $H^4_\mathbb{R}$, which is
isometric to $H^1_\H$, the 1-dimensional quaternionic hyperbolic
space, see~\cite{parkerjyva} for instance.
Concretely, one gets
$$
(z,t)\mapsto \left(\frac{(az+b)(\bar c \bar z+\bar d)+a\bar c
t^2}{|cz+d|^2+|c|^2t^2},\frac{t}{|cz+d|^2+|c|^2t^2}\right).
$$
Now let
$$
\gamma=\left(\begin{matrix}a&b\\c&d
\end{matrix}\right),
$$
and suppose $c\neq 0$, or equivalently that $\gamma$ does not fix
infinity.
\begin{dfn}
The \emph{isometric circle} of $\gamma$ is the circle in $\mathbb{C}$ where
the derivative of the corresponding fractional linear transformation
has modulus 1, which has equation $|cz+d|=1$. The \emph{isometric
sphere} of $\gamma$ is the unique sphere in $\mathbb{C}\times \mathbb{R}$
orthogonal to $\mathbb{C}$ that contains its isometric circle, with equation
$|cz+d|^2+|tc|^2=1$.
\end{dfn}
Note that the circle has center $-d/c$ and radius $1/|c|$. Moreover,
it is easy to see that $\gamma$ maps its isometric circle to the
isometric circle of $\gamma^{-1}$. Finally, note that the hemispheres
in $\mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{R}$ orthogonal to $\mathbb{C}$ are totally geodesic copies of
$H^2_\mathbb{R}$ in $H^3_\mathbb{R}$.
\begin{dfn}
The Ford domain of $\Gamma$ in $\H^3_\mathbb{R}$ is the connected component
containing infinity of the complement of all isometric spheres of
elements in $\Gamma$.
\end{dfn}
Provided the group $\Gamma$ is discrete, its Ford domain is a
fundamental domain for the action of $\Gamma$ if and only if no
element of $\Gamma$ fixed infinity.
It is useful to normalize the matrices so that infinity does have a
nontrivial stabilizer, in which case the stabilizer acts on $\mathbb{C}\simeq
\partial_\infty H^3_\mathbb{R}$ by a group $S$ of similarities, and one gets a
fundamental domain for the decomposition of $\Gamma$ into $S$-cosets
(see~\cite{beardon} for instance).
\subsection{The Hildebrand-Weeks census}
The Hildebrand-Weeks census is a list of all 1-cusped hyperbolic
3-manifolds that can be built by gluing up to 5 tetrahedra,
see~\cite{hildebrand-weeks}. For completeness, we mention that the
census was subsequently extended to allow for more tetrahedra,
see~\cite{callahan-hildebrand-weeks}, see also the work of
Thistlethwaite~\cite{thistlethwaite}, and Burton~\cite{burton}, but
the manifolds we consider in this paper require only 3 ideal
tetrahedra.
Recall that when it exists, the complete hyperbolic metric actually
has finite volume, so the metric is unique by Mostow rigidity; in
other words, the Kleinian groups are determined \emph{up to
conjugation} in $PSL_2(\mathbb{C})$. Because of the issue of possible
conjugation, it is sometimes difficult to compare different groups,
but there is a canonical way to associate a triangulation, obtained by
taking the decomposition \emph{dual} to the Ford domain
(see~\cite{epsteinpenner}).
This canonical decomposition is of course encoded in SnapPy; we will
start our description from the output of SnapPy for each of the three
manifolds considered in this paper, obtained with the \verb|canonize|
command (we are using SnapPy version 2.0, but the commands we use are
so standard that they should remain stable in subsequent versions).
In order to avoid cumbersome notation, throughout
section~\ref{sec:realford}, we will use the same notation for
generators in group presentations, and their image in $PSL_2(\mathbb{C})$, so
$x$ will sometimes stand for $\rho(x)$; this is reasonable because all
the representations we consider in this section are known to be faithful.
\subsubsection{\bf m004}
{\bf Presentation:}
$$
\langle\ x,y\ |\ x[x,y][y^{-1},x^{-1}]\ \rangle
$$
{\bf Generators of a peripheral subgroup:}
$$
xy,\quad [x,y^{-1}][x^{-1},y^{-1}]
$$
{\bf Shape of the cusp:}
$$
2i\sqrt{3}
$$
{\bf Triangular generators:}
$$
x^2yx^{-1} = \left(\begin{matrix} 1 & 0 \\ \alpha & 1\end{matrix}\right),\quad
xyx = \left(\begin{matrix} 1 & \alpha \\ 0 & 1\end{matrix}\right),
$$
where $\alpha=\frac{i-\sqrt{3}}{2}$, which has minimal polynomial
$x^4-x^2+1$. Note that there is in fact a representation into $PSL_2(K)$ for a
smaller number field, but we will not need this here.\\
The triangular shape of $s=x^2yx^{-1}$ and $t=xyx$ is easy to guess
from the SnapPy canonical presentation; it is not completely obvious
that these two matrices generate the whole group, so we mention that
$$
[s^{-1},t]
=x[y^{-1},x^{-1}]x^2yx^{-2}y^{-1}x^{-1}=x[y,x]xyx^{-2}y^{-1}x^{-1} = xyt^{-1},
$$
so $xy$ is in the group generated by $s$ and $t$, which easily proves
that $s$ and $t$ generate.
Finally, we summarize how to obtain the minimal polynomial of
$\alpha$. Using $s$ and $t$ as generators, the previous discussion
implies
$$
x=\left(\begin{matrix} -\alpha^2+1 & -\alpha^3 \\ \alpha^3 & \alpha^4+\alpha^2+1
\end{matrix}\right),\quad
y=\left(\begin{matrix} z\alpha^4+2\alpha^2+1 & 2\alpha^3+\alpha \\ -2\alpha^3 & -2\alpha^2+1
\end{matrix}\right).
$$
The relation in the presentation translates into a set of
polynomial equations in a. Specifically, we require that
$M = x[x,y][y^{-1},x^{-1}]$
is scalar, which becomes
$$
\begin{array}{c}
M_{1,2}
= -\alpha^3(\alpha^4+\alpha^2+1)(\alpha^4-\alpha^2+1)(\alpha^8-\alpha^4+2\alpha^2+1) = 0\\
M_{2,1}
= \alpha^3(\alpha^4+\alpha^2+1)^2(\alpha^4-\alpha^2+1)^2 = 0\\
M_{1,1}-M_{2,2}
= -\alpha^2(\alpha^4+\alpha^2+1)(\alpha^4-\alpha^2+1)(\alpha^{10}+2\alpha^8-\alpha^6+2\alpha^4+\alpha^2+2)
\end{array},
$$
so taking $\alpha$ to be a root of $x^4-x^2+1$ will certainly give
a representation into $PSL_2(\mathbb{C})$ (other choices of $\alpha$ will give
Galois conjugate representations).
In particular, for $\alpha=(i-\sqrt{3})/2$, one gets lower triangular
matrices for the stabilizer of a cusp by computing
$$
x^2yx^{-1} = \left(\begin{matrix} 1 & 0 \\ \alpha & 1
\end{matrix}\right),\quad
x[x,y][x,y^{-1}]x^{-1} = \left( \begin{matrix} -1 & 0 \\ -\sqrt{3}-3i & -1
\end{matrix}\right).
$$
and the ratio of the lower left entries give the shape of the cusp, namely
$$
-\frac{\sqrt{3}+3i}{\alpha} = 2i\sqrt{3}.
$$
\subsubsection{\bf m009}
{\bf Presentation:}
$$
\langle\ x,y\ |\ x[x,y]x[x,y^{-1}]\ \rangle
$$
{\bf Generators of a peripheral subgroup:}
$$
xy,\quad x^{-1}y^{-1}x^3y^{-1}x^{-1}y
$$
{\bf Shape of the cusp:}
$$
i\sqrt{7}
$$
The SnapPy representations give matrices with entries in
$\mathbb{Q}(i,\beta)$, where
$$
\beta^4+\beta^2+2=0.
$$
The specific matrices are then given by
$$
x=\left(\begin{matrix} -\beta^3-\beta & i \\
-i & \beta
\end{matrix}\right),\quad
y=\left(\begin{matrix} -\beta^3 & i \\
-i(\beta^2+1) & \beta
\end{matrix}\right),
$$
where $\beta$ is the root which is given to eight decimal places by
$\beta_0=0.67609672 + 0.97831834i$. Note that the other roots of the
polynomial $\beta^4+\beta^2+2$, namely $-\beta_0$ and $\pm
\overline{\beta}_0$, happen to give representations that are conjugate
in $PSL_2(\mathbb{C})$ either to the above representation or to its complex
conjugate, even though this is far from a general phenomenon (Galois
conjugates of lattice representations are often non-discrete).
It is easy to see that the single fixed point of $xy$ is
$-i\beta$, so that the matrix
$$
q = \left(\begin{matrix}
-i\beta & 0\\ 1&1/\beta^2
\end{matrix}\right)
$$
conjugates $xy$ into
$$
\left(\begin{matrix}1&1\\0&1
\end{matrix}\right),
$$
and then the other generator of the above peripheral subgroup gets conjugated to
$$
\left(\begin{matrix}
-1 & 1+2\beta^2\\
0 & -1
\end{matrix}\right).
$$
Note that
$$
(2\beta^2+1)^2=4\beta^4+4\beta^2+1=-7,
$$
so that $1+2\beta^2=\pm i\sqrt{7}$, and with the above choice of
the root $\beta$ given above, one checks it is actually $i\sqrt{7}$.
In any case, the cusp section corresponds to a square lattice,
generated by $1$ and $i\sqrt{7}$.
\subsubsection{\bf m015}
{\bf Presentation:}
$$
\langle\ x,y\ |\ [x,y^{-1}]x^3[y,x^{-1}]y^2\ \rangle
$$
{\bf Generators of a peripheral subgroup:}
$$
xy,\quad (xy)^2[x,y^{-1}]x[y^{-1},x]y^{-1}xy
$$
{\bf Shape of the cusp:}
$$
4(\gamma-1)
$$
{\bf Triangular generators:}
$$
yx = \left(\begin{matrix} -1 & -\gamma \\ 0 & -1\end{matrix}\right),\quad
xyx = \left(\begin{matrix} 1 & 0 \\ \gamma & 1\end{matrix}\right),
$$
where $\gamma$ is a complex root of $x^3-x^2+1$ (say the one which
is approximately $0.87743883-0.74486176i$).\\
The shape of the matrices for the triangular matrices $yx$ and $xyx$
is easily guessed from the SnapPy matrices (which gives only numerical
approximations of those matrices), and the minimal polynomial for
$\gamma$ is a consequence of the relation given for these
generators. Note also that it is clear that $xy$ and $xyx$ generate
the group.
\subsection{Ford domains in $H^3_\mathbb{R}$}
The above information allows to study the Ford domains in
$H^3_\mathbb{R}$. The rough idea is to compute a symmmetric set of somewhat
short words in the generators, to consider their isometric spheres (as
well as their images under the cusp group), which gives a ``partial''
Ford domain (i.e. a polytope that may or may not be equal to the
actual Ford domain).
In order to check whether the partial Ford domain is equal to the Ford
domain, one can then apply the Poincare polyhedron theorem in order to
check whether copies of the Ford domain under the group tile
$H^3_\mathbb{R}$. The fact that our set of words is symmetric implies that
faces of the Ford domain are paired (the face for $\gamma$ is sent to
the one for $\gamma^{-1}$), and one needs to check the cycle
conditions (which roughly say that on the level of codimension two
faces, the side-pairings induce a local tiling of $H^3_R$).
The Ford domains are by construction invariant under the action of the
peripheral subgroups, so they are not fundamental domains (they are
only fundamental domains for the decomposition of the group into
cosets of a given peripheral subgroup).
The classical way to obtain an actual fundamental domain for the
action of the group is to intersect it with a fundamental domain for
the action of the cusp group, which is a lattice in $\mathbb{C}$. Hence one
can simply intersect the Ford domain with a vertical prism over a
parallelogram in $\mathbb{C}$.
Another way is to select a representative for each orbits of faces of
the Ford domain under the action of the cusp group (we may assume that
the union of the face representatives is connected). A fundamental
domain is then obtained again as a vertical prism, but over a union
faces contained in spheres.
Looking at the picture from infinity, we see polygons in $\mathbb{C}$, which
are depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:prisms} for the three groups that
appear in this paper.
The picture for \verb|m004| is very classical, and appears already
in~\cite{rileyFigure8}. In that case all isometric spheres bounding
the Ford domain have the same radius, and they can be taken to be
given simply by the spheres of radius 1 centered at points in the
Eisenstein lattice $\mathbb{Z}[\omega]$, $\omega=(-1+i\sqrt{3})/2$.
In the other two cases, there are three different radii for the
isometric spheres that bound the Ford domain. The pictures can of
course be obtained directly in SnapPy (using the
\verb|cusp_neighborhood| command).
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\subfigure[m004]{\epsfig{figure=pics/fordm004.eps,width=0.2\textwidth}}\quad
\subfigure[m009]{\epsfig{figure=pics/fordm009.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}}
\subfigure[m015]{\epsfig{figure=pics/fordm015.eps,width=0.8\textwidth}}
\caption{Prism description of some $1$-cusped hyperbolic
manifolds}\label{fig:prisms}
\end{figure}
\section{Exceptional fillings of census manifolds}\label{sec:fillings}
It is well known that for every complete finite volume hyperbolic
manifold $M$, all but finitely many Dehn fillings are hyperbolic,
see~\cite{thurstonNotes},~\cite{neumannzagier},~\cite{petronioporti}. For
simplicity, we assume that $M$ only has one cusp, and write $M(p/q)$
for the Dehn filling of slope $p/q$.
Here $p/q$ is a reduced fraction (or possibly infinity), and is
supposed to specify the slope of a circle on the boundary torus that
is chosen to bound a meridian in the 2-torus that gets glued to $M$.
Note that $M(p/q)$ is only well-defined once a meridian and longitude
have been chosen in the boundary torus of $M$, which can be done
canonically when $M$ is a knot complement (otherwise we will use the
meridian and longitude provided by SnapPy when using the
Hildebrand-Weeks census with the notation \verb|m0jk| that we have
used throughout the paper).
A lot of work has been done over the years in order to make the
``finitely many'' part of the statement effective, i.e. to give bounds
on the number of all exceptional slopes for knot complements, or to
characterize possible Dehn fillings. For instance, exceptional
surgeries of 2-bridge knots are classified in~\cite{brittenhamwu}. A
convenient place to find a list for a lot of manifolds in the
beginning of the Hildebrand-Weeks census is~\cite{magicmanifold}. One
can also gather a lot of experimental evidence for their statements by
using recent versions of SnapPy (simply produce a triangulation for
various Dehn-filling, and pass them on to Regina for further
analysis).
A key observation, in view of the main statement
of~\cite{derauxfalbel} (see also Table~\ref{tab:discrete}) is that
\verb|m004|, \verb|m009| and \verb|m015| all have exceptional Dehn
fillings that produce Seifert fibrations over spherical
$(p,q,r)$-orbifolds (these are often called \emph{small} Seifert
fibrations), all with $p,q,r\geq 3$. For convenience of notation, we
write $M_4$ (resp. $M_9$, $M_{15}$), for \verb|m004|, \verb|m009| and
\verb|m015|.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:exceptional}
The following Dehn fillings are small Seifert spaces.
\begin{itemize}
\item $M_4(\pm 3)$ is a Seifert fibration over the $(3,3,4)$-spherical
orbifold.
\item $M_9(-2)$ is a Seifert fibration over the $(3,3,5)$-spherical
orbifold.
\item $M_{15}(1)$ is a Seifert fibration over the $(3,3,5)$-spherical
orbifold.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
These claims can be gathered somewhat painfully from the information
in~\cite{magicmanifold}, see Proposition~2.2~(26) of that paper. The
main difficulty is that the slope of a Dehn filling depends on the
basis of the homology that is used. In this paper, we use the basis
that is in the SnapPy database, whereas Martelli-Petronio use the
basis induced from the canonical bases for the homology of the three
boundary components of the magic link complement. The relationship
between the two follows from elementary Kirby calculus
(see~\cite{rolfsen}, p.265).
Note that Table~8 of~\cite{magicmanifold} also contains the claim
about $M_4=N(1,2)$ and $M_9=N(1,3)$ ($N(p,q)$ denotes a Dehn filling
of two of the three cusps of the magic manifold with slopes $p$ and
$q$ respectively); $M_9$ is not a knot in $S^3$, but it is a knot in
$\mathbb{R}P^3$.
For the reader who is more versed in geometry than topology, the best
way to check Theorem~\ref{thm:exceptional} is to use SnapPy in
conjunction with Regina. Indeed, the following SnapPy commands will
produce a triangulation for the Dehn filling of \verb|m009| with slope
$-2$:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l}
\verb|M = Manifold('m009')|\\
\verb|M.dehn_fill((-2,1))|\\
\verb|T = M.filled_triangulation()|\\
\verb|T.save()|
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
This triangulation can then be imported in Regina; either the manifold
is recognized right away, or it can be recognized by performing a
Census Lookup (indeed for the Dehn fillings that appear in the present paper,
this lookup turns out to be successful). In the above example, Regina
describes the Dehn filling by
\begin{center}
\verb| SFS [S2: (3,1) (3,1) (5,-4)]|
\end{center}
where SFS stands for Seifert Fibered Space, and the rest gives gluing
information. The base of the fibration is $S^2$, and there are three
singular fibers, with gluing data given by the following pairs of
integers. For the precise meaning of the gluing data, see chapter 12
of~\cite{hempel}. Here we simply mention that the base is a sphere
with three orbifold points, with weights 3,3 and 5. In particular, by
contracting all the fibers, one gets a homomorphism of $\pi_1(M_9)$
onto a $(3,3,5)$-triangle group.
Apart from the possibility of a bug in these well-established computer
programs, this computer check can be regarded as a proof because it is
purely combinatorial in nature. Note also that we have stated
Theorem~\ref{thm:exceptional} only for motivational purposes. It
implies that the fundamental groups of $M_4$, $M_9$ and $M_{15}$ all
admit homomorphisms onto a $(3,3,n)$-triangle group, with $n=4$ or
$5$; in fact, in the next section, we will construct explicit such
homorphisms without appealing to Theorem~\ref{thm:exceptional}.
\section{Complex hyperbolic geometry and triangle groups}\label{sec:trianglegroups}
The main goal of this section is to give a triangle group
interpretation of two of the discrete groups that occur as holonomy
groups in the FKR census, namely $\rho_{4\_3}(\pi_1(M_9))$ and
$\rho_{3\_3}(\pi_1(M_{15}))$, see
Theorem~\ref{thm:trianglegroups}. This identification will immediately
imply that these holonomy groups are actually conjugate to each other
in $PU(2,1)$.
For basics on complex hyperbolic geometry and triangle groups,
see~\cite{goldman},~\cite{schwartzICM},~\cite{derauxfalbel} for instance.
Recall that complex hyperbolic triangle groups generated by three
complex involutions $I_1$, $I_2$, $I_3$ that satisfy
$$
(I_1I_2)^p=(I_2I_3)^q=(I_3I_1)^r=Id.
$$
In that context, the condition $p,q,r\geq 3$
can be thought of as requiring that the triangle does not have any
right angle, or equivalently that the corresponding $\mathbb{R}$-Fuchsian
triangle group admit non-trivial deformations:
\begin{prop}
$(2,q,r)$-triangle groups in $PU(2,1)$ are rigid, but
$(p,q,r)$-triangle groups with $p,q,r\geq 3$ have a 1-dimensional
character variety.
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
This follows from the explicit parametrization of triangle
groups. Given an irreducible triangle (i.e. without any global fixed
point), we can take three polar vectors $v_1,v_2,v_3$ to the mirrors
of generating involutions as a basis of $\mathbb{C}^3$. After suitably
normalizing these vectors, we may assume $\langle v_j,v_j\rangle=1$
for all $j$, and we may also assume $\langle v_1,v_2\rangle$ and
$\langle v_2,v_3\rangle$ are real (but in general, $\langle
v_1,v_2\rangle$ will not be real). An invariant of the phase change
for the $v_j$'s is given by the triple Hermitian product
$$
\langle v_1,v_2\rangle \langle v_2,v_3\rangle \langle v_3,v_1\rangle,
$$
whose argument is sometimes called the angular invariant of the
triangle; one checks that for every $(p,q,r)$, only an interval of
values of the angular invariant can be realized by complex
hyperbolic triangles, characterized by requiring that the Hermitian matrix
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nondiagonal}
H=\left(\begin{matrix}
1 & -\cos\frac{\pi}{r} & -\cos\frac{\pi}{q}\varphi\\
-\cos\frac{\pi}{r} & 1 & -\cos\frac{\pi}{p}\\
-\cos\frac{\pi}{q}\overline{\varphi} & -\cos\frac{\pi}{p} & 1
\end{matrix}\right),
\end{equation}
have negative determinant, where $\varphi=e^{it}$ and $t\in\mathbb{R}$ is the
angular invariant. Note that $t=0$ corresponds to $\mathbb{R}$-Fuchsian groups.
When none of the cosines is zero, the signature condition translates
to a lower bound on $\cos t$, which gives an interval containing 0
of admissible values of $t$. If one of the cosines is 0, then all
$(p,q,r)$-triangle groups are $\mathbb{R}$-Fuchsian, and they are all
isometric to each other.
\end{pf}
The following result is a strengthening of the claim that the discrete
representations of $M_9$ and $M_{15}$ in the FKR census are
conjugate. The idea is to identify the image of these representations as explicit
triangle groups; the fact that these two 3-manifolds both admit an
exceptional Dehn filling that is a Seifert fibration over a
3,3,5-orbifold (see Theorem~\ref{thm:exceptional}) immediately implies that
their fundamental group admits a homomorphism onto the 3,3,5-triangle
group (obtained by contracting of the fibers).
In Theorem~\ref{thm:trianglegroups}, we describe an explicit such
homomorphism and show that the corresponding peripheral holonomy is
cyclic unipotent; hence the corresponding representations must
actually appear somewhere in the FKR census, and they are easily
identified in the census list using the field of cross ratios.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:trianglegroups}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Up to conjugacy and complex conjugation, there is a unique
$(3,3,4)$-triangle group such that $I_2I_3I_1I_3$ is
parabolic. Its even length words subgroup is conjugate to both
$\rho_{1\_1}(\pi_1(M_4))$ and $\rho_{4\_1}(\pi_1(M_4))$, or in
other words to the holonomy group of the unique boundary unipotent
spherical CR uniformization of the figure eight knot complement.
\item Up to conjugacy and complex conjugation, there is a unique
$(3,3,5)$-triangle group such that $I_2I_3I_1I_3$ is
parabolic. The even length subgroup of that triangle group is
conjugate to both $\rho_{4\_3}(\pi_1(M_9))$ and
$\rho_{3\_3}(\pi_1(M_{15}))$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{rmk}
The triangle groups that appear in Theorem~\ref{thm:trianglegroups}
are often denoted $(3,3,4;\infty)$ and $(3,3,5;\infty)$,
respectively.
\end{rmk}
\begin{pf}
We treat the case of $(3,3,5)$-triangles, the other one being
entirely similar. In that case, the matrix of equation~\eqref{eq:nondiagonal} reads
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hermform}
H = \left(\begin{matrix}
1 & -\frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{4}\varphi\\
-\frac{1}{2} & 1 & -\frac{1}{2}\\
-\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{4}\overline{\varphi} & -\frac{1}{2} & 1
\end{matrix}\right),
\end{equation}
which has negative determinant for $\varphi=e^{it}$ and
$|t|<\arccos\frac{\sqrt{5}-3}{2}$.
It is not difficult to verify that $1$ is always an eigenvalue of
$I_2I_3I_1I_3$, and that it has real trace (the latter
follows from the fact that it is the product of two involutions,
namely $I_2$ and $I_3I_1I_3$, so it is conjugate to its own
inverse). In particular, if it is parabolic, then it must
actually be unipotent, hence its trace must be equal to 3.
Now even when $I_2I_3I_1I_3$ is not parabolic, its two other
eigenvalues are complex conjugate (provided we work with matrices in
$SU(2,1)$), and their sum is
$$
\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}(2c+1),
$$
which is equal to 2 for $c=\sqrt{5}/2-1$. This corresponds to taking
$$
\varphi = ( \sqrt{5}-2+i\sqrt{4\sqrt{5}-5} )/2.
$$ which is one of the complex roots of the polynomial
$x^4+4x^3+x^2+4x+1$. In other words, the relevant triangle group can
be written in terms of matrices with entries in
$K=\mathbb{Q}(\varphi)$\label{pagenbfield}, which is number field of
degree 4 (beware that this extension is not Galois). The matrices
actually have entries in the ring of integers $\mathcal{O}_K$
(recall that generators are complex reflections of order 2).
Note that the above value of $\varphi$ is indeed in the range where
the Hermitian form has signature $(2,1)$. In fact, for that
value of $c$, one gets
$$
\det(H) = - \frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{16}.
$$
\noindent
{\bf The case of \verb|m009|}
From SnapPy, we gather that $\pi_1(M_9)$ has the presentation
$$
\langle\ a,b,c,d\ |\ bac=db, c=ad, ca^{-1}bd^{-1}=id\ \rangle,
$$
with a peripheral subgroup generated by $b^{-1}adc^{-1}d$ and
$d^{-1}cd^{-1}bc^{-1}db^{-1}$. This can be simplified to
$$
\langle a,d\ |\ a^2[a,d][a,d^{-1}]\ \rangle,
$$
with a peripheral subgroup generated by $[d^{-1},a]d$ and
$d^{-1}a[a,d^{-1}]a^{-1}$.
We describe an explicit homomorphism from $\pi_1(M_9)$ to the
$(3,3,5)$ triangle group, which maps into the index two subgroup of
even length words.
$$
\langle\ I_1,I_2,I_3\ |\ (I_1I_2)^3, (I_2I_3)^3, (I_3I_1)^5\ \rangle.
$$
Hoping that no confusion will arise, we use word notation, so that
we write $123212$ for $I_1I_2I_3I_2I_1I_2$, for instance.
The map
$$
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
a\mapsto 2132\\
d\mapsto 1232
\end{array}\right.
$$
extends to a homomorphism $\sigma:\pi_1(M_9)\rightarrow
\Gamma(3,3,5;\infty)$. We skip the routine verification of this
statement. Note that, under this homomorphism, it is routine as well
to verify that the peripheral subgroups get mapped to cyclic groups
generated by a single unipotent element.
Specifically, one checks that $[d^{-1},a]d$ gets mapped to $2313$,
whereas $d^{-1}a[a,d^{-1}]a^{-1}$ gets mapped to $(2313)^2$, so that
our representation has cyclic unipotent boundary holonomy.\\
\noindent
{\bf The case of \verb|m015|}
We now sketch the corresponding arguments for
$\pi_1(M_{15})$. The geometric presentation from SnapPy has the form
$$
\langle\ a,b,c,d\ |\ bad,\ cb^{-1}abd^{-1},\ cdc^{-1}a\ \rangle,
$$
which can easily be simplified to
$$
\langle\ a,b\ |\ b=ab^2a^{-1}[b^{-2},a^{-1}]\ \rangle.
$$
SnapPy also gives generators for a peripheral subgroup, namely
$d^{-1}c = b^{-1}a^{-1}b$ and $b^{-1}acbd^{-1}a^{-1}d = b^{-3} a^{-1} b^3
a^{-1} b^{-1}$.
One checks that
$$
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
a\mapsto 2313\\
b\mapsto 1313\\
\end{array}\right.
$$
induces a well-defined homomorphism, and it maps the above two peripheral
elements to $131(2313)131$ and its inverse, respectively.\\
Now the homomorphisms we just constructed are both boundary
unipotent, these representations must appear somewhere in the FKR
census. Up to complex conjugation, there are three representations of
$\pi_1(M_9)$ in the census. The field generated by the cross ratios of
the corresponding tetrahedra are different, only one has degree 4,
namely that for $\rho_{4\_3}$. Similarly, there is only one representation of $\pi_1(M_{15})$ with
the same field of cross ratios, namely $\rho_{3\_3}$.
\end{pf}
\section{The complex hyperbolic Ford domain}\label{sec:chford}
The Ford domain for boundary unipotent spherical CR uniformization of
the figure eight knot complement is studied
in~\cite{derauxdeformfig8}. We now sketch the corresponding analog for
the manifold \verb|m009| (giving all details would be much longer than
for the figure eight knot complement, but in fact it is not more
difficult).
We quickly review some basic material about Ford domains. It is
convenient to work with coordinates where the Hermitian form is given
by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stdform}
J=\left(\begin{matrix}
0&0&1\\
0&1&0\\
1&0&0
\end{matrix}\right),
\end{equation}
and we write $p_\infty$ for $(0,0,1)$. Recall that $\partial_\infty
H^2_\mathbb{C}\setminus \{p_\infty\}$ identifies with the Heisenberg group
$\mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{R}$, see section~4.2.2 of~\cite{goldman}. This identification
is obtained by considering the unipotent stabilizer of $p_\infty$;
note that a lower triangular matrix with unit diagonal is an isometry
of $J$ if and only if it has the form
$$
M(z,t)=\left(
\begin{matrix}
1&0&0\\
z&1&0\\
-|z|^2/2+it&-\overline{z}&1
\end{matrix}
\right),
$$
for some $z\in\mathbb{C}$ and $t\in \mathbb{R}$. The group of such matrices acts
simply transitively on $\partial_\infty H^2_\mathbb{C}\setminus \{p_\infty\}$,
which gives the identification.
One easily computes that
$$
M(z,t)M(w,u)=M(z+w,t+u+Im(z\overline{w})),
$$
which suggests a group law on $\mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{R}$; up to a coefficient of 2,
this is the Heisenberg group law used in~\cite{goldman}, so we call
$(z,t)$ Heisenberg coordinates.
For a subgroup $\Gamma\subset PU(2,1)$, the Ford domain
$F_{\Gamma,p_\infty}$ centered at $p_\infty$ is given in homogeneous
coordinates by the set of vectors $Z\in \mathbb{C}^3$ that satisfy
$$
|\langle P_\infty,Z\rangle| \leq |\langle \tilde{g}P_\infty,Z\rangle|
$$
for all $g\in\Gamma$, where $\tilde{g}$ denotes any matrix
representative of $g\in\Gamma$. For each $g\in\Gamma$ not fixing
$p_\infty$, the set of points satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defface}
|\langle P_\infty,Z\rangle| = |\langle \tilde{g}P_\infty,Z\rangle|
\end{equation}
is a so-called \emph{bisector}, which we denote by $\mathcal{B}_g$. It
is a basic fact that the trace at infinity of any such bisector, seen
in Heisenberg coordinates, is a \emph{bounded} topological sphere,
called a \emph{spinal sphere}.
\begin{dfn}\label{dfn:face}
The 3-dimensional polyhedron given by the intersection of the Ford
domain $F_{\Gamma,p_\infty}$ with $\mathcal{B}_g$ will be denoted by
$b_g$.
\end{dfn}
When $\Gamma$ is discrete and $p_\infty$ is not fixed by any
non-trivial element in $\Gamma$, the Ford domain is actually a
fundamental domain for the action of $\Gamma$. If $p_\infty$ has a
discrete stabilizer $P\subset\Gamma$, then the Ford domain is only a
fundamental domain for the decomposition of $\Gamma$ into $P$-cosets
(see~\cite{derauxparkerpaupert} or~\cite{derauxfalbel} for instance).
It is usually difficult to determine this set explicitly, even though
it is fairly accessible to experimentation. Indeed, the boundary of
this domain is made up of pieces of bisectors, and bisector
intersections are now fairly well understood, see~\cite{goldman} for
instance. The basic point is that pairs of bisectors that occur in a
Ford domain have connected intersection, diffeomorphic to a smooth
disk. This imporant fact is stated in Theorem~9.2.6 of~\cite{goldman}
(in Goldman's language, pairs of bisectors that contain faces of a
Ford domain are called \emph{covertical} bisectors).
If $\Gamma$ can be represented by matrices in a given number field (of
reasonably small degree), there are computational tools to certify the
combinatorics of 2-faces of the Ford domain (see~\cite{derauxdeformfig8}).
We now apply these general notions to the groups that are the images
of the relevant FKR representations. Recall that we gave a detailed
description of these representations in
section~\ref{sec:trianglegroups}; our description relied on a specific
Hermitian form, see equation~\eqref{eq:nondiagonal}. In those
coordinates, one can easily work out formulas for the matrices $I_1$,
$I_2$, $I_3$, namely
$$
I_1=\left(\begin{matrix}
1 & -1 & \alpha\\
0 & -1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -1
\end{matrix}\right),
\quad
I_2=\left(\begin{matrix}
-1 & 0 & 0\\
-1 & 1 & -1\\
0 & 0 & -1
\end{matrix}\right),\quad
I_3=\left(\begin{matrix}
-1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & -1 & 0\\
\overline{\alpha} & -1 & 1
\end{matrix}\right),
$$
where $\alpha=-1+(1+\sqrt{5})(1-is)/4$ and $s=\sqrt{4\sqrt{5}-5}$.
We start by conjugating these three matrices so that they preserve the
standard Hermitian $J$, see equation~\eqref{eq:stdform}, and so that
$I_2I_3I_1I_3$ becomes (lower) triangular.
This is done by an easy
linear algebra computation, we give one explicit possible conjugation,
namely
$$
Q = \left(\begin{matrix}
\sqrt{2}+(3-\sqrt{5})(-5+is)/4\sqrt{2} & 0 & -\sqrt{2}+(1+\sqrt{5})(1-is)/4\sqrt{2}\\
(2+(2-\sqrt{5})(-3+is))/4\sqrt{2} & \sqrt{2}/2 & -\sqrt{2}\\
(1-\sqrt{5})(-1+is)/4\sqrt{2} & 0 & -\sqrt{2}+(1+\sqrt{5})(-1+is))/4\sqrt{2}\\
\end{matrix}\right).
$$
One easily checks that $Q^*HQ=J$. Writing $\tilde{I}_k=Q^{-1}I_kQ$, one checks that
$$
\tilde{I}_2=\left(\begin{matrix}
-1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -1
\end{matrix}\right),\quad
\tilde{I}_2\tilde{I}_3\tilde{I}_1\tilde{I}_3=
\left(
\begin{matrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
1 & 1 & 0\\
-\frac{1}{2}&-1&1
\end{matrix}
\right).
$$
The matrices for $\tilde{I}_1$ and $\tilde{I}_3$ are much more
complicated, so we do not write them out. In what follows, we simply will
write $I_k$ for $\tilde{I}_k$, since no confusion should arise.
\begin{dfn}\label{dfn:group}
Let $\Gamma$ be the even length subgroup of the
$(3,3,5;\infty)$-triangle group, i.e. the subgroup generated by
$I_1I_2$ and $I_2I_3$. We define $a=I_2I_3I_1I_3$, and write $A$ for
$a^{-1}$.
\end{dfn}
Recall that the fixed point of $a$ is $p_\infty=(0,0,1)$. We write
$F=F_\Gamma=F_{\Gamma,p_\infty}$ for the corresponding Ford domain.
By construction, it cannot be a fundamental domain for the action of
$\Gamma$, since it is invariant under the action of the cyclic group
generated by $a$. It has infinitely many faces, but there are only ten
$a$-orbits of faces. Representatives of these orbits are given by the
faces $b_g\subset\mathcal{B}_g$ for elements $g$ in Table~\ref{tab:corefaces}.
\begin{table}
$$
32, 23; 2321, 1232; 12, 21; 232131, 131232; 32131232, 23213123.
$$
\caption{The list of group elements whose orbit points define ten core
faces, i.e. representatives of each orbit of faces under the
$a$-action.}\label{tab:corefaces}
\end{table}
Note that we do not give the shortest possible word in
Table~\ref{tab:corefaces}, because we consider only even length words
in the triangle group. For instance, $32(e_3)=3(e_3)$,
$12(e_3)=1(e_3)$, etc.
We will number the elements in Table~\ref{tab:corefaces} as
$g_1=32,g_2=23,g_3=2321,\dots,g_{10}=23213123$ (in the same order as
listed in the table), and number the images of these under powers of
$a$ by setting for $j=1,\dots,10$ and $k\in\mathbb{N}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:numbering}
a^k g_j = g_{10(2k-1)+j};\quad a^{-k} g_j = g_{20k+j}.
\end{equation}
The corresponding ten polytopes $b_{g_1},\dots,b_{g_{10}}$ are depicted in
Figures~\ref{fig:faces-1} and~\ref{fig:faces-2}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\hfill\subfigure[32]{\epsfig{figure=pics/pic335_face1.eps, width=0.45\textwidth}}\hfill
\subfigure[23]{\epsfig{figure=pics/pic335_face2.eps, width=0.45\textwidth}}\hfill\,\\
\hfill\subfigure[2321]{\epsfig{figure=pics/pic335_face3.eps, width=0.45\textwidth}}\hfill
\subfigure[1232]{\epsfig{figure=pics/pic335_face4.eps, width=0.45\textwidth}}\hfill\,\\
\caption{Combinatorics of some faces of the Ford domain. In the faces
for 23 and 32, there is an extra 16-gon that lies on the boundary at
infinity, not drawn in the picture. For other faces, the boundary
2-face is shaded in gray. The Ford domain has infinitely many faces,
but every face is the image of one of the depicted 10 faces under an
appropriate power of $a=2313$ (we write $A=3132$ for its inverse);
see also Figure~\ref{fig:faces-2}.}\label{fig:faces-1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\hfill\subfigure[12]{\epsfig{figure=pics/pic335_face5.eps, width=0.2\textwidth}}\hfill
\subfigure[21]{\epsfig{figure=pics/pic335_face6.eps, width=0.2\textwidth}}\hfill
\hfill\subfigure[32131232]{\epsfig{figure=pics/pic335_face9.eps, width=0.2\textwidth}}\hfill
\subfigure[23213123]{\epsfig{figure=pics/pic335_face10.eps, width=0.2\textwidth}}\hfill\,\\
\hfill\subfigure[232131]{\epsfig{figure=pics/pic335_face7.eps, width=0.45\textwidth}}\hfill
\subfigure[131232]{\epsfig{figure=pics/pic335_face8.eps, width=0.45\textwidth}}\hfill\,
\caption{More faces of the Ford domain.}\label{fig:faces-2}
\end{figure}
The pictures were obtained by parametrizing the 1-skeleton, and
mapping the 1-skeleton by a transformation that identifies the ambient
bisector with the unit ball in $\mathbb{R}^3$, in such a way that the
$\mathbb{C}$-slices are given by horizontal disks, and $\mathbb{R}$-slices are given
by vertical lines containing the $z$-axis. For an explanation of how
this can be done explicitly, see~\cite{derauxfalbel} for instance.
A priori, it is not clear why each face should have only finitely many
neighboring faces; this follows easily from the fact that the action
of $a$ in the $x$-coordinate is a translation, and the fact that the
spinal spheres in a Ford domain are given in Heisenberg coordinates by
bounded sets (note that if two spinal spheres are disjoint, then the
corresponding bisectors are disjoint).\label{page:disjoint}
In what follows, we write $F$ for $F_{\Gamma,p_\infty}$, and $E$ for
$\partial_\infty F\setminus \{p_\infty\}\subset \mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{R}$. We use Heisenberg
coordinates $(x,y,t)$, where $z=x+iy$. One easily computes the action
of $a=I_2I_3I_1I_3$ to be given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tsl}
(z,t)\mapsto(z+1,t-Im(z)).
\end{equation}
In particular, this map preserves every horizontal line in the plane
$Im(z)=0$. Each of these lines is a $\mathbb{R}$-circle (going through the
point $p_\infty$), i.e. it bounds a totally geodesic copies of
$H^2_\mathbb{R}$ in $H^2_\mathbb{C}$. The union of these real planes is the
\emph{invariant fan} of $a$, see~\cite{goldmanparker}.
For the sake of brevity, we write $p$ rather than $p_\infty$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:poincare}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The maps $g_k$ define side pairings of $F$. More precisely,
if $k$ is odd, $g_k(b_k)=b_{k+1}$ and $F\cap g_k(F)=b_{k+1}$;
when $k$ is even, $g_k(b_k)=b_{k-1}$ and $F\cap g_k(F)=b_{k-1}$.
\item These pairings satisfies the hypotheses of the Poincar{\'e}
polyhedron theorem for cosets of the unipotent cyclic group
$\langle a\rangle$.
\item The group $\Gamma$ has the following presentation,
$$
\langle x_1,x_2 | x_1^3,x_2^3, (x_1x_2)^5 \rangle,
$$
where we have written $x_1=I_1I_2$, $x_2=I_2I_3$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{pf}
(1) The key for checking this is to certify that the combinatorics given
in Figures~\ref{fig:faces-1} and~\ref{fig:faces-2} are correct. We
do not expand on the details, but this can be done because the
entries of the generators, as well as the center of the Ford domain,
can be given by entries a number field of small degree (here the
degree is 4, see page~\pageref{pagenbfield}).
One easily verifies that the isometries given in
Table~\ref{tab:corefaces} define side pairings of the Ford domain,
by computing several orbits under appropriate group
elements. Clearly it is enough to work on the core faces, i.e. the
representatives given in Table~\ref{tab:corefaces}. We will give
some detail only for the first two faces, the other ones being
entirely similar.
For instance, the fact that $I_2I_3$ maps $b_1$ to $b_2$ follows
from the fact that $I_2I_3$ does what is announced in
Table~\ref{tab:orbits}, where we use the numbering of
equation~\ref{eq:numbering}.
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
Point & \#2 & \#3 & \#4 & \#5 & \#7 & \#8 & \#9 & \#11 & \#12\\
Image & \#1 & \#22 & \#12 & \#11 & \# 26 & \# 14 & \#8 & \#23 & \#21\\[0.3cm]
Point & \#13 & \#15 & \#17 & \#18 & \#19 & \#21 & \#22 & \#24 & \#32\\
Image & \#27 & \#7 & \#43 & \#10 & \#41 & \# 4 & \#6 & \#18 & \#30
\end{tabular}
\caption{Table of correspondence of the 2-faces of $b_1$ and
$b_2$, under the natural side pairing map $I_2I_3:B_1\rightarrow
B_2$.}\label{tab:orbits}
\end{table}
Clearly by construction $I_2I_3(B_1)=B_2$, because
$g_2=g_1^{-1}$. The first column of the table means that
$I_2I_3(B_1\cap B_2)=B_1\cap B_2$, and this follows readily from the
fact that $I_1I_2$ has order 3.
The next column in the table says that $I_2I_3(B_1\cap B_3)=B_2\cap
B_{22}$; this follows from the fact that
$$
I_2I_3(g_3p)=g_{22}p=a^{-1}g_2p.
$$
Equivalently, we claim
$$
23\cdot 2321 p=3132\cdot 23 p.
$$
This is an obvious consequence of the fact that $(23)^3=id$.
In fact all other claims in the table are all consequences of the
relations $(12)^3,(23)^3$ and $(31)^5$, as well as the fact that
2313 fixes $p$.
In any event, it should be clear that the claims in the table can
readily be checked with a computer (at worst, one performs
computation in the relevant number field).
(2) The second item is checked by tracing the Poincar{\'e}
cycles. Recall that a \emph{ridge} is by definition a codimension
two facet of $F$. Note that no ridge of the Ford domain is totally
geodesic (this requires a computation, it amounts to saying that for
$k\neq l$, $p$, $g_kp$ and $g_lp$ are never in a common complex
line, or in other words, any choice of homogeneous coordinates for
these three vectors produces a basis of $\mathbb{C}^3$). By the discussion on
page~\pageref{page:disjoint}, only finitely many checks need to be made,
since for $m$ large enough, $B_k\cap a^m B_l=\emptyset$.
The ridges of $F$ are so-called Giraud disks, which are generic
intersections of two bisectors; because the complex spines all
intersect in $p$, we can think of the intersections as being
coequidistant, and in particular their intersections are all smooth
disks, equidistant of three points
$p,g_kp,g_lp$, with $k\neq l$.
Because of Giraud's theorem
(see~\cite{giraud},~\cite{goldman},~\cite{deraux4445}), the ridges
of $F$ are on precisely three bisectors, so the local tiling
condition near generic ridges is actually a consequence of the
existence of side-pairings.
(3) The explicit cycles are obtained by computing orbits of these
triples of points under the side pairings; whenever a ridge in the
cycle differs from the starting ridge by a power of $a$, we close
the cycle up by that power of $a$ (see~\cite{derauxparkerpaupert}
or~\cite{parkerbook}).
We work out a few cycles, the other ones being similar. The ridge
$b_1\cap b_2$ is sent to itself by $I_2I_3$, in fact
$$
p \stackrel{23}{\longrightarrow} 23(p) \stackrel{23}{\longrightarrow} 2323(p)=32(p) \stackrel{23}{\longrightarrow} p.
$$
This clearly gives a cycle transformation of order 3 preserving
that ridge, so we get the relation
$$
(23)^3=id.
$$
The ridge $b_1\cap b_3$ is slightly more interesting. One checks
(most conveniently with a computer), that
$$
p,g_1p,g_3p
\stackrel{2313}{\longleftarrow}
p,g_{21}p,g_{23}p
\stackrel{321313}{\longleftarrow}
g_{24}p,g_{21}p,p
\stackrel{313213}{\longleftarrow}
g_{2}p,p,g_{22}p
\stackrel{23}{\longleftarrow}
p,g_1p,g_3p.
$$
The corresponding relation is
$$
2313\cdot 321313\cdot 313213 \cdot 23 = id,
$$
which can be simplified, using $232=323$, to
$$
(12)^3=id.
$$
One easily checks that $b_1\cap b_7$ gives
$$
(13)^5=id.
$$
Using the relations $(12)^3=(23)^3=(31)^5=id$, one checks that the
other cycle relations can be reduced to a trivial relation.
\end{pf}
\begin{prop}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The only elliptic elements in $\Gamma$ are conjugates of powers of
$12$, $23$ or $31$; in particular, no elliptic element of $\Gamma$
fixes any point in $\partial_\infty H^2_\mathbb{C}$.
\item The only parabolic
elements in $\Gamma$ are conjugates of powers of $2313$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
(1) As mentioned in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:poincare}, the ridge
cycles are all conjugate to powers of $12$, $23$ or $31$. One then
considers cycles of lower-dimensional facets, namely 1-faces and
vertices.
The cycles of 1-faces turn out to be trivial, and the only non-trivial
vertex cycles correspond to the fixed points of $13$ and that of
$321323$ (or conjugates of these under some power of $a$).
(2) Since ideal vertices all have trivial stabilizers, the only parabolic
elements in the group are the ones stabilizing the center of the Ford
domain, which is by construction a fundamental domain modulo cosets of
$\langle 2313\rangle$
\end{pf}
The combinatorial structure of $\partial E$ can be gathered from the
shaded 2-faces in Figures~\ref{fig:faces-1} and~\ref{fig:faces-2}
(apart from the first two faces, where the corresponding boundary
14-gon is not shown on the picture). It may seem somewhat reminiscent
of the boundary of the real hyperbolic Ford domain, but it is quite
different (unlike the case of the spherical CR uniformization of the
figure eight knot complement, see~\cite{derauxdeformfig8}).
Because of the shearing by the imaginary part of $z$ in
formula~\ref{eq:tsl}, it is not that easy to produce a meaningful
2-dimensional picture of $\partial E$, which is topologically a
cylinder. Note that the $x$-axis is entirely outside $E$, and it gives
a core curve for a solid cylinder (in $\partial_\infty H^2_\mathbb{C}$, one
gets a solid torus pinched at $p_\infty$). This means that $E$ is the
complement of a topological solid cylinder; it is in fact a horotube,
in Schwartz's terminology~\cite{richBook}.
The determination of the topology of the manifold at infinity is
somewhat delicate. From the combinatorial description of the $\partial
E$ (together with the action of the cyclic group generated by 2313),
one can compute the fundamental group of the manifold. Indeed, one can
start with a presentation of the fundamental group of the 1-skeleton,
and include a relation saying that each loop coming from the boundary
of a 2-cell becomes trivial in the 2-skeleton.
The bookkeeping of this computation is of course prohibitingly lengthy
when performed by hand, but it is fairly well suited to calculations
performed by the computer. The end result is that the manifold at
infinity does have the same fundamental group as \verb|m009|, and one
can check the peripheral subgroups are preserved under this
isomorphism.
|
\section{Introduction}
Throughout, $\mathbb{K}$ denotes a field of any characteristic.
We denote by ${\rm GA}_n(\mathbb{K})$ the group of polynomial automorphisms of $\mathbb{A}^n_{\mathbb{K}}$.
We consider ${\rm Aff}_n(\mathbb{K})$ (resp. ${\rm BA}_n(\mathbb{K})$, resp. ${\rm TA}_n(\mathbb{K})$), the subgroup of
${\rm GA}_n(\mathbb{K})$ of affine (resp. triangular, resp. tame) automorphisms (see Section~2 or \cite{vdE} for precise definitions).
In this paper we are interested with the question of finding proper intermediate subgroups between
${\rm Aff}_n(\mathbb{K})$ and ${\rm TA}_n(\mathbb{K})$.
If $n=2$, it is well known that such intermediate subgroups exist. The classical Jung-van der Kulk theorem (\cite{Jung,Kulk}) states that
${\rm GA}_2(\mathbb{K})={\rm TA}_2(\mathbb{K})$ and, moreover, ${\rm GA}_2(\mathbb{K})$ is the amalgamated free product of ${\rm Aff}_2(\mathbb{K})$ and ${\rm BA}_2(\mathbb{K})$ along their intersection.
Using this structure theorem, we can uniquely define the height of any automorphism $\phi \in {\rm GA}_2(\mathbb{K})$ as the maximum of the degrees of the triangular automorphisms in any reduced decomposition of $\phi$, and let $H_d$ denote the set of all automorphisms of height at most $d$. Then we have ${\rm Aff_2}(\mathbb{K})=H_1 \subset H_2 \subset H_3 \subset\cdots \subset {\rm TA}_2(\mathbb{K})$ is an ascending sequence of (proper) subgroups of ${\rm TA}_2(\mathbb{K})$.
In particular, for all $\beta\in{\rm BA}_2(\mathbb{K})\ensuremath{\smallsetminus}{\rm Aff}_2(\mathbb{K})$ then $\langle{\rm Aff}_2(\mathbb{K}),\beta\rangle$
is a proper subgroup of ${\rm TA}_2(\mathbb{K})$.
In the case that $n > 2$ and $\mathbb{K}$ has positive characteristic, then it is also known that there are many intermediate subgroups between ${\rm Aff}_n(\mathbb{K})$
and ${\rm TA}_n(\mathbb{K})$ (see, for example, \cite{EK}). However, in characteristic zero, the question is much more nuanced\footnotemark. The first partial results in this direction concern subgroups of the form $\langle {\rm Aff}_n(\mathbb{K}), \beta \rangle$ for a single automorphism $\beta \in {\rm GA}_n(\mathbb{K}) \setminus {\rm Aff _n}(\mathbb{K})$. In 1997, Derksen gave an elementary proof (unpublished, but see \cite{vdE} Theorem 5.2.1 for a proof) that the triangular automorphism $\sigma:=(x_1+x_2^2,x_2,\ldots,x_n)\in{\rm BA}_n(\mathbb{K})$, along with the affine subgroup, generates the entire tame group (when ${\rm char}(\mathbb{K})=0$); that is, $\langle{\rm Aff}_n(\mathbb{K}),\sigma\rangle={\rm TA}_n(\mathbb{K})$. This motivated the definition of {\em co-tame} automorphisms as follows:
\begin{definition}
An automorphism $\phi\in{\rm GA}_n(\mathbb{K})$ is called {\em co-tame} if $\langle{\rm Aff}_n(\mathbb{K}),\phi\rangle\supset{\rm TA}_n(\mathbb{K})$.
\end{definition}
\footnotetext{Recently, Wright \cite{Wright} showed that in characteristic zero, ${\rm TA}_3 (\mathbb{K})$ is an amalgamated free product of three subgroups along their pairwise intersection, which implies a much weaker structure on ${\rm TA}_3(\mathbb{K})$. Unlike in dimension two, we no longer have a reasonably unique representation of every tame automorphism. }
One can naturally ask:
\begin{question}\label{Q:cotame}Let $n \geq 3$, and let $\mathbb{K}$ be a field of characteristic zero. Is every automorphism in ${\rm GA}_n(\mathbb{K})$ co-tame?
\end{question}
Note that this is intimately related to the question of finding intermediate subgroups, as an example of an automorphism $\beta$ which is tame but not co-tame\ would provide an intermediate subgroup ${\rm Aff}_n(\mathbb{K}) \subset \langle {\rm Aff }_n (\mathbb{K}), \beta \rangle \subset {\rm TA}_n(\mathbb{K})$.
In 2004, Bodnarchuk \cite{Bodnarchuk} generalized Derksen's result in the following way: if $\mathbb{K}$ has characteristic zero,
then all non-affine triangular and bitriangular automorphisms (i.e., elements of the form $\beta _1 \alpha \beta _2$ for some $\beta _1, \beta _2 \in {\rm BA}_n(\mathbb{K})$ and $\alpha \in {\rm Aff} _n(\mathbb{K})$) are co-tame. Interestingly, the first author \cite{E} recently showed that certain wild (i.e., not tame) automorphisms, including the famous Nagata automorphism, are co-tame.
In this paper, we provide a negative answer to Question \ref{Q:cotame} when $n=3$ by constructing an automorphism which is tame but not co-tame. More precisely, fix an integer $N\ge 1$ and
consider the automorphisms $\beta=(x+y^2(y+z^2)^2,y+z^2,z)\in {\rm BA}_3(\mathbb{K})$, $\pi=(y,x,z)\in {\rm Aff}_3(\mathbb{K})$ and
$\theta_N=(\pi\beta)^N\pi(\pi\beta)^{-N} \in {\rm TA}_3(\mathbb{K})$. We prove the following result (without any assumption about the characteristic of $\mathbb{K}$):\\
\noindent {\bf Main Theorem.} \textit{For all integers $N\ge 3$, the automorphism $\theta_N$ is not co-tame.
In other words, $\langle{\rm Aff}_3(\mathbb{K}),\theta_N\rangle$ is a proper subgroup of ${\rm TA}_3(\mathbb{K})$.
Moreover, this group is the amalgamated free product of ${\rm Aff}_3(\mathbb{K})$ and
$\langle{\cal C},\theta_N\rangle$ along their intersection ${\cal C}$ where ${\cal C}=\{\alpha\in{\rm Aff}_3(\mathbb{K})\ |\ \alpha\theta_N=\theta_N\alpha\}$ is a finite cyclic group.\\
}
\begin{remark} $\theta _1$ is co-tame\ by the aforementioned result of Bodnarchuk.
\end{remark}
The main theorem immediately implies the result in the title of this paper:
\begin{corollary}
For any field $\mathbb{K}$, ${\rm Aff} _3 (\mathbb{K})$ is not a maximal subgroup of ${\rm TA} _3 (\mathbb{K})$.
\end{corollary}
In section \ref{s:general}, we describe some general, commonly used definitions. We make some specific notations and definitions in section \ref{s:notations} which are necessary to state our key technical result (Theorem \ref{thm:Pstable}). This statement of Theorem \ref{thm:Pstable} and the proofs of its consequences (including the main theorem) comprise section \ref{s:main}. The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Pstable} is quite technical, and is deferred to the ultimate section.
\section{General definitions}\label{s:general}
\subsection{Degrees}
Let $n\ge 1$ be an integer.
We denote by $\mathbb{K}[{\bf x}]=\mathbb{K}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ the polynomial algebra in $n$ commutative variables ${\bf x}=\{x_1,\ldots,x_n\}$.
We write ${\bf x}^v=x_1^{i_1}\cdots x_n^{i_n}$ for any $v=(i_1,\ldots,i_n)\in\mathbb{N}^n$.
For a given $P\in \mathbb{K}[{\bf x}]$ we denote by ${\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (P)\subset\mathbb{N}^n$ the \textit{support} of $P$; that is, the
set of $n$-tuples $v\in\mathbb{N}^n$ such that the coefficient of ${\bf x}^v$ in $P$ is nonzero.
The main technical tool in this paper is the use of various degree functions. Here, we mean ``degree function'' in a little more generality than most authors, so we give a precise definition. Typically, the co-domain of a degree function is the natural numbers or the integers; we instead consider any totally ordered commutative monoid $M$, and set $\overline{M}=M \cup {-\infty}$ with the convention that $-\infty+n=-\infty$ and $-\infty < n$ for all $n \in M$.
\begin{definition}Let $A$ be a $\mathbb{K}$-domain and $M$ a totally ordered commutative monoid.
A map $\deg : A \rightarrow \overline{M}$ is called a {\em degree function} provided that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\deg(f)=-\infty$ if and only if $f=0$,
\item $\deg(fg)=\deg(f)+\deg(g)$ for all $f,g \in A$,
\item $\deg(f+g) \leq \max \{ \deg(f), \deg(g)\}$ for all $f,g \in A$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Two easy consequences of the definition are that $\deg(c)=0$ for any $c \in \mathbb{K}^*$, and that if $\deg(f) \neq \deg(g)$, then equality holds in property 3.
The two families of degree functions that we will use are {\em weighted degree} and {\em lexicographic degree}, the latter of which takes values in $\mathbb{N}^n$.
\begin{itemize}
\item
For any $w\in\mathbb{N}^n\ensuremath{\smallsetminus}\{\bf 0\}$, we denote the $w$\textit{-weighted degree} of $P$ by $$ \deg_w(P)=\max _{v \in {\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (P)} \{v \cdot w\},$$ where ($\cdot$) denotes the scalar product
in $\mathbb{R}^n$. The case $w=(1,\ldots,1)$ corresponds to the usual notion of the total degree of a polynomial.
\item
For an integer $1\le i\le n$, let ${\geq} _i$ denote the $i$-th cyclic lexicographic ordering of $\mathbb{N}^n$; that is, the standard basis vectors are ordered by $$e_i >_i e_{i+1} >_i \cdots >_i e_n >_i e_1 >_i \cdots >_i e_{i-1}.$$
Letting ${\rm max} _i$ denote the maximum with respect to this ordering, we define the {\em $i$-th lexicographic degree} of $P$ to be
$${\rm ldeg}_i(P) = {\rm max} _i ({\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (P))$$
\end{itemize}
\begin{example} Let $P=x+y^2(y+z^2)^2$. Then we have
\begin{align*}
\deg _{(4,1,0)} (P) &= 4 & \ldeg _1 (P) &= (1,0,0) \\
\deg _{(4,0,1))} (P) &= 4 & \ldeg _2 (P) &= (0,4,0) \\
\deg _{(8,2,1)} P &=8 & \ldeg _3 (P) &= (0,2,4).
\end{align*}
\end{example}
\subsection{Polynomial Automorphisms}
We adopt the following standard notations of polynomial automorphism groups:
\begin{itemize}
\item ${\rm MA}_n(\mathbb{K})$ denotes the monoid of polynomial endomorphisms; that is, the set $\mathbb{K}[{\bf x}]^n$ with the composition $$(\phi_1,\ldots,\phi_n)(\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_n)=(\phi_1(\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_n),\ldots,\phi_n(\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_n)).$$
\item ${\rm GA}_n(\mathbb{K})$ is the group of polynomial automorphisms (or the {\em general automorphism group}), defined to be the group of invertible elements of ${\rm MA}_n(\mathbb{K})$.
\item The \textit{affine subgroup} of ${\rm GA}_n(\mathbb{K})$ is
$${\rm Aff}_n(\mathbb{K})=\{(\phi_1,\ldots,\phi_n)\in{\rm GA}_n(\mathbb{K})\,|\,\deg_{(1,\ldots,1)}(\phi_i)=1\ \text{for each}\ 1\le i\le n\}.$$
\item The \textit{triangular subgroup} of ${\rm GA}_n(\mathbb{K})$ is
$${\rm BA}_n(\mathbb{K})=\{(\phi_1,\ldots,\phi_n)\in{\rm GA}_n(\mathbb{K})\,|\,\phi_i\in\mathbb{K}^*x_i+\mathbb{K}[x_{i+1},\ldots, x_n]\ \text{for each}\ 1\le i\le n\}$$
\item The \textit{tame subgroup} is ${\rm TA}_n(\mathbb{K}) = \langle {\rm Aff}_n(\mathbb{K}), {\rm BA}_n(\mathbb{K}) \rangle$. It is well known to be the entire group ${\rm GA}_n(\mathbb{K})$ for $n=1,2$, while Shestakov and Umirbaev \cite{SU} famously showed that it is a proper subgroup when $n=3$ and ${\rm char} (\mathbb{K})=0$. Whether it is a proper subgroup or not is a well known, quite difficult open question in higher dimensions and/or positive characteristic.
\end{itemize}
The group ${\rm GA}_n(\mathbb{K})$ is isomorphic to the group of automorphisms of $\Spec \mathbb{K}[{\bf x}]$ over $\Spec \mathbb{K}$, and is anti-isomorphic to the group of $\mathbb{K}$-automorphisms of $\mathbb{K}[{\bf x}]$.
We freely abuse this correspondence and, given $\phi\in {\rm GA}_n(\mathbb{K})$ and $P \in\mathbb{K}[{\bf x}]$, we denote by $(P)\phi \in \mathbb{K}[{\bf x}]$ the image of $P$ by the $\mathbb{K}$-automorphism of $\mathbb{K}[{\bf x}]$ corresponding to $\phi$.
By writing the automorphism on the right, the expected composition holds,
namely $(P)\phi \psi = ((P)\phi)\psi$ for $P\in\mathbb{K}[{\bf x}]$ and $\phi, \psi \in {\rm GA}_n(\mathbb{K})$. We refer the reader to \cite{vdE} for a comprehensive reference on polynomial automorphisms.
We make one elementary observation on how one can compute the degree of the image of a polynomial under an automorphism. We will use this frequently and without further mention.
\begin{lemma}
Let $\gamma\in{\rm GA}_n(\mathbb{K})$, and let $P\in\mathbb{K}[{\bf x}]$.
Let $\deg: \mathbb{K}[{\bf x}] \rightarrow \overline{M}$ denote a degree function (for some totally ordered commutative monoid $M$), and let $m \in M$.
If $\deg(({\bf x}^v)\gamma)\le m$ for all $v\in{\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (P)$, then $\deg((P)\gamma)\le m$.
Moreover, if $\deg(({\bf x}^v)\gamma)=m$ for a unique $v\in{\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (P)$ then $\deg((P)\gamma)= m$.
\end{lemma}
\section{Notations}\label{s:notations}
For the remainder of this paper, we restrict our attention to dimension 3.
For convenience, we set ${\bf x}=\{x,y,z\}$ instead of $\{x_1,x_2,x_3\}$. We denote by ${\cal A}={\rm Aff}_3(\mathbb{K})$
(resp. ${\cal B}={\rm BA}_3(\mathbb{K})$) the subgroup of affine (resp. triangular) automorphisms.
We fix also an integer $N\ge 3$ and
we consider the following automorphisms:
\begin{align*}
\beta & =(x+y^2(y+z^2)^2,y+z^2,z)\in {\cal B} \\
\pi & =(y,x,z)\in {\cal A} \\
\theta & =\theta_N= (\pi\beta)^N\pi(\pi\beta)^{-N}\in {\rm TA}_3(\mathbb{K}).
\end{align*}
\begin{remark} We will repeatedly make use of the fact that $\pi$ and $\theta$ are involutions, i.e. $\beta^2=\pi^2=\id$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Some sets of polynomials}
Let $m\ge 1$ and $n\ge 0$ be integers. The following technical definitions will play a crucial role in our methods (see figures \ref{figp} and \ref{figq}):
\begin{align*}
P_{m,n} &= \{(i,j,k) \in \mathbb{N}^3\ |\ 4i+j \leq 4m,\ 4i+k \leq 4m+n,\ 8i+2j+k \leq 8m+n\} \\
\mathcal{P}_{m,n} &= \{P \in\mathbb{K}[{\bf x}]\ |\ {\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (P)\in P_{m,n}\} \\
&=\{P \in\mathbb{K}[{\bf x}]\,|\,\deg_{(4,1,0)}(P)\leq 4m,\ \deg_{(4,0,1)}(P) \leq 4m+n,\ \deg_{(8,2,1)}(P)\leq 8m+n\} \\
\mathcal{P}_{m,n} ^* &= \{P \in \mathcal{P}_{m,n}\ |\ {\rm ldeg}_2(P)=(0,4m,n),\ {\rm ldeg}_3(P)=(0,2m,4m+n)\} \\
Q_{m,n} &= \{(i,j,k) \in \mathbb{N}^3\ |\ i+j \leq m,\ 3i+3j+k \leq 3m+n\} \\
\mathcal{Q}_{m,n} &= \{P \in\mathbb{K}[{\bf x}]\ |\ {\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (P)\in Q_{m,n}\} \\
&= \{P \in\mathbb{K}[{\bf x}]\ |\ \deg_{(1,1,0)} \leq m,\ \deg_{(3,3,1)} \leq 3m+n \} \\
\mathcal{Q}_{m,n} ^* &= \{P \in \mathcal{Q}_{m,n}\ |\ {\rm ldeg}_2(P)=(0,m,n)\}
\end{align*}
Moreover, we consider
$$\mathcal{P}^*=\bigcup_{m\ge 1,n\ge 0}\mathcal{P}_{m,n} ^*\hspace{.3cm}{\rm and}\hspace{.3cm}
\mathcal{Q}^*=\bigcup_{m\ge 1,n\ge 0}\mathcal{Q}_{m,n} ^*$$
For all integers $m\ge 1$ and $n\ge 0$, one can easily check that $\mathcal{P}_{m,n}^*\subset \mathcal{Q}_{4m,n}^*$, and thus $\mathcal{P}^*\subset \mathcal{Q}^*$.
\begin{example} $(x^mz^n)\beta \in \mathcal{P}_{m,n}^*$ for all $m \geq 1$, $n \geq 0$.
\end{example}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line join = round, line cap = round,scale=0.75, every node/.style={transform shape}]
\pgfmathsetmacro{\m}{1.4};
\pgfmathsetmacro{\n}{1.6};
\coordinate [label=right:{$(0,4m,n)$}] (A) at (4*\m,\n,0);
\coordinate [label=below :{$(0,4m,0)$}] (B) at (4*\m,0,0);
\coordinate [label=left:{$(m,0,n)$}](C) at (0,\n,\m);
\coordinate [label=left:{$(m,0,0)$}] (D) at (0,0,\m);
\coordinate [label=above right:{$(0,2m,4m+n)$}](E) at (2*\m, 4*\m+\n,0);
\coordinate [label=left: {$(0,0,4m+n)$}] (F) at (0,4*\m+\n,0);
\draw[-] (A) -- (B) -- (D) -- (C) --cycle;
\draw[label=left: {test}] (A) -- (C) -- (E) -- cycle;
\draw[-] (C) -- (E) -- (F) --cycle;
\node[draw=none] at (2*\m,\m+\n,0) { $8i+2j+k = 8m+n$};
\draw[-latex] (\m,4.5*\m+\n,0) to[out=225,in=90,looseness=1] (0.5*\m, 4*\m+0.5*\n, 0) ;
\node[draw=none] at (1.5*\m, 4.6*\m+\n,0) {\small $4i+k=4m$};
\draw[-latex] (3*\m, -1/2*\n,0) to [out=135,in=270,looseness=1] (2*\m,\n /2,0);
\node[draw=none] at (3.5*\m,-1.3*\n /2,0) {$4i+j = 4m$};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (5*\m,0,0) node[right] {$j$};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (0,5*\m+\n,0) node[above] {$k$};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (0,0,2*\m) node[below left] {$i$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{ $P_{m,n}$\label{figp} }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line join = round, line cap = round, scale=0.75, every node/.style={transform shape}]
\pgfmathsetmacro{\m}{2};
\pgfmathsetmacro{\n}{1.5};
\coordinate [label=right:{$(0,m,n)$}] (A) at (\m,\n,0);
\coordinate (B) at (\m,0,0);
\coordinate [label=left:{$(m,0,n)$}](C) at (0,\n,\m);
\coordinate (D) at (0,0,\m);
\coordinate [label=above right:{$(0,0,3m+n)$}] (F) at (0,3*\m+\n,0);
\draw[-] (A) -- (B) -- (D) -- (C) --cycle;
\draw[-] (A) -- (C) -- (F) -- cycle;
\draw[-latex] (\m,\m+\n,0) to[out=180,in=90,looseness=1] (0.5*\m, \m+0.5*\n, 0) ;
\node[draw=none] at (1.9 *\m,\m+\n,0) { $3i+3j+k=3m+n$};
\draw[-latex] (\m, 0, 0.75*\m) to [out=180,in=270,looseness=1] (0.3*\m, 1/4*\n,0);
\node[draw=none] at (1.4*\m,0,0.75*\m) { $i+j=m$};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (1.5*\m,0,0) node[right] {$j$};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (0,3.5*\m+\n,0) node[above] {$k$};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (0,0,1.5*\m) node[below left] {$i$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{ $Q_{m,n}$\label{figq} }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{remark}These definitions are variations of a standard tool for studying polynomials, namely the Newton polytope. The Newton polytope of a polynomial $P$ is defined as $\ensuremath{{\rm New}} (P) = \ensuremath{{\rm conv}} \left( {\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (P) \cup \{\bf 0\} \right)$ (here, $\ensuremath{{\rm conv}}$ denotes the convex hull in $\mathbb{R}^3$). For any $(a,b,c) \in \mathbb{N}^3$, let ${\rm cub}(a,b,c)$ denote the rectangular cuboid $${\rm cub}(a,b,c)=\{(i,j,k) \in \mathbb{N}^3\ |\ 0\leq i\leq a,\ 0\leq j \leq b,\ 0 \leq k \leq c\}.$$
For a set $S \subset \mathbb{N}^3$, we set $${\rm cub}(S)=\bigcup _{(a,b,c) \in S} {\rm cub}(a,b,c).$$ Then we can interpret $P_{m,n}$ as $$P_{m,n}={\rm cub}\left( {\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} \left( (x+y^2(y+z^2)^2)^mz^n \right) \right).$$
In particular, $\ensuremath{{\rm New}} \left(( (x+y^2(y+z^2)^2)^mz^n \right) \cap \mathbb{N}^3 \subset P_{m,n}$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Some subgroups of the affine group}
We consider the following nested sequence of subgroups of the affine group:
\begin{align*}
{\cal A}_0 &={\cal A} = {\rm Aff} _3 (\mathbb{K}),\\
{\cal A}_1 &={\cal A} \cap {\cal B} = {\rm Aff} _3 (\mathbb{K}) \cap {{\rm BA}_3}(\mathbb{K}) ,\\
{\cal A}_2 &=\{(u^8x+by+cz+d,u^2y,uz)\ |\ u\in\mathbb{K}^*,\,b,c,d\in\mathbb{K}\},\\
{\cal A}_3 &=\{(u^8x+cz+d,u^2y,uz)\ |\ u\in\mathbb{K}^*,\,c,d\in\mathbb{K}\},\\
{\cal A}_4 &=\{(u^2x,u^2y,uz)\ |\ u\in\mathbb{K}^*,u^6=1\}.
\end{align*}
If we set ${\cal C}=\{\alpha\in{\cal A}\ |\ \alpha\theta=\theta\alpha\}$, we have ${\cal A}_4\subset{\cal C}$
since for every element $\alpha\in{\cal A}_4$ it's easy to check that $\alpha\pi=\pi\alpha$ and $\alpha\beta=\beta\alpha$.
The opposite inclusion ${\cal C}\subset{\cal A}_4$ is a consequence of our main result.
\section{Main results}\label{s:main}
Using results from section~\ref{s:5props}, we prove our main technical result.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:Pstable}
The set ${\cal P}^*$ is stable under the action of the automorphisms $\pi\beta$, $\pi\beta^{-1}$
and $(\pi\beta^{-1})^3\alpha\pi(\pi\beta)^3$ for any $\alpha\in{\cal A}\ensuremath{\smallsetminus}{\cal A}_4$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $\gamma\in\{\beta,\beta^{-1}\}$ then $({\cal P}^*)\pi\gamma\subset{\cal P}^*$ by Proposition~\ref{prop:PtoQ}. To show that $(\pi\beta^{-1})^3\alpha\pi(\pi\beta)^3$ preserves ${\mathcal P}^*$, we separately consider the four cases $\alpha\in{\cal A}_{i-1}\ensuremath{\smallsetminus}{\cal A}_i$ ($i\in\{1,2,3,4\}$). In particular, we have:
\begin{enumerate}[1)]
\item If $\alpha\in{\cal A}_0\ensuremath{\smallsetminus}{\cal A}_1$ then $(\mathcal{P}^*) \alpha \beta \subset \mathcal{Q}^*$ (Proposition~\ref{prop:A0-A1}).
\item If $\alpha\in{\cal A}_1\ensuremath{\smallsetminus}{\cal A}_2$ then $({\cal P}^*)\pi\beta^{-1}\alpha\beta\subset{\cal Q}^*$ (Proposition~\ref{prop:A1-A2}).
\item If $\alpha\in{\cal A}_2\ensuremath{\smallsetminus}{\cal A}_3$ then $({\cal P}^*)\pi\beta^{-1}\alpha\beta\pi\beta\subset{\cal Q}^*$ (Proposition~\ref{prop:A2-A3}).
\item If $\alpha\in{\cal A}_3\ensuremath{\smallsetminus}{\cal A}_4$ then $({\cal P}^*)(\pi\beta^{-1})^2\alpha\beta\pi\beta\subset{\cal Q}^*$ (Proposition~\ref{prop:A3-A4}).
\end{enumerate}
But by Proposition \ref{prop:PtoQ}, $({\mathcal Q}^*) \pi \beta \subset {\mathcal P}^*$, so we can simply apply $\pi \beta$ once more to end up in ${\mathcal P}^*$. Thus $({\mathcal P}^*)(\pi \beta ^{-1} )^3 \alpha \pi (\pi \beta)^3 \subset {\mathcal P}^*$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} If $\alpha \in {\cal A}_4$, then $(\pi\beta^{-1})^3\alpha\pi(\pi\beta)^3 = \pi \alpha$, which does not preserve $\mathcal{P}^*$ in general. However, since $\mathcal{A}_4 \subset \mathcal{C}$, we will take advantage of the commutativity of these elements to push them out of the way.
\end{remark}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:Pstable1}
Let $r\ge 1$ be an integer. Let $\alpha_0,\ldots,\alpha_{r}\in{\cal A}$, and set $\phi=\alpha_0\theta\alpha_1\cdots\theta\alpha_{r}$.
If $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{r-1}\in{\cal A}\ensuremath{\smallsetminus} {\cal A}_4$, then there exist $\alpha,\alpha'\in {\cal A}$ such that
$(y)\alpha\phi\alpha'\in{\cal P}^*$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We set $\theta^\prime=\theta\pi = (\pi\beta)^N (\pi \beta ^{-1})^N$;
$\alpha = \alpha _0 ^{-1}$; $\alpha ^\prime = \alpha _{r}^{-1}\pi$;
and $\alpha _i ^\prime = \pi \alpha _i \pi $ for $1 \leq i \leq r-1$. Note that since $\mathcal{A}_4$ is fixed under conjugation by $\pi$, $\alpha _1 ^\prime, \ldots, \alpha _{r-1} ^\prime \notin {\mathcal A}_4$. Then we have
\begin{align*}
\alpha \phi \alpha ^\prime &= \theta^\prime \alpha _1 ^\prime \pi \theta^\prime \alpha _2^\prime \pi \cdots \theta^\prime \alpha _{r-1}^\prime \pi \theta^\prime \\
&=(\pi \beta) (\pi \beta) ^{N-1} \left( \prod _{i=1} ^{r-1} (\pi \beta ^{-1}) ^N \alpha _i ^\prime \pi (\pi \beta) ^N\right) (\pi \beta ^{-1}) ^N
\end{align*}
Since $(y)\pi \beta \in {\cal P}_{1,0}^{*}\subset{\cal P}^{*} $, we deduce $(y)\alpha\phi\alpha'\in{\cal P}^*$ by Theorem \ref{thm:Pstable}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:Pstable2} Let $\phi\in\langle{\cal A},\theta\rangle\ensuremath{\smallsetminus}{\cal A}$. Then there exist $\alpha,\alpha'\in {\cal A}$ such that
$(y)\alpha\phi\alpha'\in{\cal P}^*$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Since $\theta^{-1}=\theta$ and $\phi\in\langle{\cal A},\theta\rangle$, we can write
$\phi = \alpha _0 \theta \alpha _1 \theta \cdots \alpha _r \theta \alpha _{r}$ for some $\alpha _0,\ldots,\alpha _{r} \in {\cal A}$.
If some $\alpha _i \in {\mathcal C}$ ($1 \leq i \leq r-1$), then we can shorten our sequence. Thus, since $\phi \notin {\mathcal A}$, we may assume $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{r-1}\in{\cal A}\ensuremath{\smallsetminus} {\cal C}\subset {\cal A}\ensuremath{\smallsetminus} {\cal A}_4$ and $r\ge 1$, and hence the result follows from Corollary \ref{cor:Pstable1}
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:com}
${\cal C}={\cal A}_4$. In particular, ${\mathcal C}$ is a finite cyclic group of order $1,2,3$ or $6$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We noted above that ${\cal A}_4\subset{\cal C}$, so we are left to prove the opposite containment. Suppose for contradiction that there exists $\rho\in{\cal C}\ensuremath{\smallsetminus}{\cal A}_4$.
By Corollary~\ref{cor:Pstable1} (with $r=2$, $\alpha_0=\alpha_2={\rm id}$ and $\alpha_1=\rho$),
there exist $\alpha,\alpha'\in {\cal A}$ such that $(y)\alpha\theta\rho\theta\alpha'\in{\cal P}^*$.
Since $\rho$ commutes with the involution $\theta$, we have $\alpha\theta\rho\theta\alpha'=\alpha\rho\alpha'\in{\cal A}$.
This is a contradiction, as for any $\gamma \in {\mathcal A}$, $\ldeg _2 ( (y)\gamma) \leq_2 (0,1,0) <_2 (0,4m,n)$ for any $m \geq 1$, $n \geq 0$ and thus $(y)\gamma \notin {\mathcal P}^*$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
Let $\phi\in {\rm TA}_3(\mathbb{K})$ be a tame automorphism with $\deg_{(1,1,1)}((f)\phi)\le 5$ for all $f \in \mathbb{K}[{\bf x}]$ with $\deg _{(1,1,1)} (f) = 1$. If $\phi \notin \mathcal{A}$, then $\phi\not\in\langle{\cal A},\theta\rangle$. In particular, $ \langle \mathcal{A}, \theta \rangle$ is a proper subgroup of $\mathcal{T}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Suppose for contradiction that $\phi\in\langle{\cal A},\theta \rangle$. Applying Corollary~\ref{cor:Pstable2} to $\phi$, there exist $\alpha,\alpha'\in {\cal A}$ such that $(y)\alpha\phi\alpha'\in{\cal P}^*$. Since $\deg _{(1,1,1)} (y) \alpha = 1$, by assumption $\deg _{(1,1,1)} ( (y)\alpha \phi) \leq 5$, and so $\deg _{(1,1,1)} ( (y)\alpha \phi \alpha ^\prime ) \leq 5$ (since $\alpha ^\prime$ is affine).
But if $P=(y)\alpha \phi \alpha ^\prime \in{\cal P}^*$, there must exist integers $m\ge 1$ and $n\ge 0$ such that $P\in{\cal P}_{m,n}^*$,
in which case $(0,2m,4m+n)\in{\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (P)$. Thus $5 \geq \deg_{(1,1,1)}(P)\ge 6m+n\ge 6$, a contradiction. So we must have $\phi \not \in\langle{\cal A},\theta \rangle$.
\end{proof}
\begin{example} $(x+y^2,y,z) \in {\rm TA}_3(\mathbb{K}) \setminus \langle \mathcal{A}, \theta\rangle$.
\end{example}
\begin{corollary}
The group $\langle{\cal A},\theta\rangle$ is the amalgamated free product of ${\cal A}$ and
$\langle{\cal C},\theta\rangle$ along their intersection ${\cal C}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $r\ge 1$ be an integer. Let $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{r-1}\in{\cal A}\ensuremath{\smallsetminus}\langle{\cal C},\theta\rangle$
and $\rho_1,\ldots,\rho_{r}\in\langle{\cal C},\theta\rangle\ensuremath{\smallsetminus}{\cal A}$.
Set $\phi:=\rho_1\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_{r-1}\rho_{r}$. Since it is clear that $\mathcal{A}$ and $\langle \mathcal{C}, \theta \rangle$ generate $\langle \mathcal{A}, \theta \rangle$, it suffices to check that $\phi \notin \mathcal{C}$.
Using the fact that $\theta$ is an involution, we can write $\rho_i=\theta c_i$ for some $c_i\in{\cal C}={\mathcal A}_4$ for each $1\le i\le r$.
By Corollary~\ref{cor:Pstable1}
(with $\alpha'_0={\rm id}$, $\alpha'_i=c_i\alpha_i \in \mathcal{A} \setminus \mathcal{C} = \mathcal{A} \setminus \mathcal{A}_4$ for all $1\le i\le r-1$ and $\alpha'_r=c_r$),
there exist $\alpha,\alpha'\in {\cal A}$ such that $(y)\alpha\phi\alpha'\in{\cal P}^*$. As in the proof of Corollary \ref{cor:com}, this implies $\phi\not\in{\cal A}$ and hence $\phi \notin {\mathcal C}$ as required.
\end{proof}
The Main Theorem in the introduction is a direct consequence of these last two corollaries.
\section{Proofs of the five propositions}\label{s:5props}
\hspace*{.3cm} The technical details necessary to prove Theorem \ref{thm:Pstable}, namely Propositions \ref{prop:PtoQ}, \ref{prop:A0-A1}, \ref{prop:A1-A2}, \ref{prop:A2-A3}, and \ref{prop:A3-A4}, are contained in this section. The basic idea is to understand the actions of various automorphisms on $\cal P^*$ and $\cal Q^*$. First, we show in section \ref{secQP} that the map $\pi \beta$ behaves very nicely in this respect (in particular, it preserves $\cal P^*$). The subsequent two sections study how affine automorphisms affect things. The essential idea is that an affine map can distort $\cal P^*$ some, but this can be rectified by subsequent applications of $\pi$ and/or $\beta$. For technical reasons, we treat triangular affine maps separately in the final section, and non-triangular affine maps in section \ref{nontriangularAffine}.
\subsection{From $\mathcal{Q}_{m,n}^{*}$ to $\mathcal{P}_{m,n}^*$} \label{secQP}
\begin{definition}
Let $\gamma \in {\rm GA}_3(\mathbb{K})$, and set $w_1=(4,1,0)$, $w_2=(4,0,1)$, and $w_3=(8,2,1)$. $\gamma$ is called {\em $\beta$-shaped} if $\deg _{w_i} \gamma = \deg _{w_i} \beta$ and $\ldeg _i \gamma = \ldeg _i \beta$ for each $i=1,2,3$.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
$\beta$ and $\beta ^{-1}=(x-y^2(y-z^2)^2, y-z^2,z)$ are both $\beta$-shaped.
\end{example}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:PtoQ}
Let $m\ge 1$ and $n\ge 0$ be integers. If $\gamma \in \mathcal{G}$ is $\beta$-shaped, then $(\mathcal{Q}_{m,n}^{*}) \pi\gamma \subset \mathcal{P}_{m,n}^*$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $P\in\mathcal{Q}_{m,n}^{*}$, and write $\gamma = (X,Y,Z)$. Then since $\gamma$ is $\beta$-shaped, the degrees of $X$, $Y$, and $Z$ are given in the following table:
$$
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& \deg_{(4,1,0)} & \deg_{(4,0,1)} & \deg_{(8,2,1)} & {\rm ldeg}_1 & {\rm ldeg}_2 & {\rm ldeg}_3 \\
\hline
X & 4 & 4 & 8 & (1,0,0) & (0,4,0) & (0,2,4) \\
\hline
Y & 1 & 2 & 2 & (0,1,0) & (0,1,0) & (0,0,2) \\
\hline
Z & 0 & 1 & 1 & (0,0,1) & (0,0,1) & (0,0,1) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$$
Since $P \in \mathcal{Q}_{m,n}^*$, then for all $v=(i,j,k)\in{\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (P)$, we have $i+j\le m$, $3i+3j+k\le 3m+n$
and $({\bf x}^v)\pi\gamma=Y^{i}X^{j}Z^{k}$. We deduce:
\begin{align*}
\deg_{(4,1,0)}(({\bf x}^v)\pi\gamma)&=i+4j\le 4(i+j)\le 4m,\\
\deg_{(4,0,1)}(({\bf x}^v)\pi\gamma)&=2i+4j+k\le (i+j)+(3i+3j+k)\le m+3m+n=4m+n,\\
\deg_{(8,2,1)}(({\bf x}^v)\pi\gamma)&=2i+8j+k\le 5(i+j)+(3i+3j+k)\le 5m+3m+n=8m+n,\\
{\rm ldeg}_2(({\bf x}^v)\pi\gamma)&=(0,i+4j,k)\le_2 (0,4m,n),\\
{\rm ldeg}_3(({\bf x}^v)\pi\gamma)&=(0,2j,2i+4j+k)\le_3 (0,2m,4m+n).
\end{align*}
We note that each of these last two inequalities is an equality if and only if $(i,j,k)=(0,m,n)$ which belongs to ${\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (P)$. Thus $(P)\pi \gamma \in \mathcal{P}_{m,n}^*$.
\end{proof}
Applying this to $\beta$ and $\beta ^{-1}$, and recalling that $\mathcal{P}^* \subset \mathcal{Q}^*$, we have
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:PtoQ}
If $\gamma\in\{\beta,\beta^{-1}\}$ then $({\cal Q}^*)\pi\gamma\subset{\cal P}^*$ and $({\cal P}^*)\pi\gamma\subset{\cal P}^*$.
\end{proposition}
\subsection{The non triangular case}\label{nontriangularAffine}
The following technical lemma is necessary to prove Proposition \ref{prop:A0-A1}.
\begin{lemma}
Let $(a,b,c)\in\mathbb{N}^3\ensuremath{\smallsetminus}\{(0,0,0)\}$. We set $f(v)=ai+bj+ck$ for $v=(i,j,k)\in P_{m,n}$.
Set $m'=\max\{f(v)\ |\ v\in P_{m,n}\}$.
\begin{enumerate}[1)]
\item If $b>\max\{{a\over 4},2c\}$ and $c\ne 0$ then $f(v)=m'$ if and only if $v=(0,4m,n)$.
\item If $b>{a\over 4}$ and $c=0$ then $f(v)=m'$ if and only if $v=(0,4m,d)$ with $0\le d\le n$.
\item If $c>\max\{{b\over 2},{a-2b\over 4}\}$ and $b\ne 0$ then $f(v)=m'$ if and only if $v=(0,2m,4m+n)$.
\item If $c>{a\over 4}$ and $b=0$ then $f(v)=m'$ if and only if $v=(0,d,4m+n)$ with $0\le d\le 2m$.
\item If $c=\frac{a-2b}{4} > \frac{b}{2}$, then $f(v)=m^\prime$ if and only if $v=(m-d,2d,4d+n)$ with $0 \leq d \leq m$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let ${\rm conv}$ denote the convex hull in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Define $S_1, S_2 \in P_{m,n}$ by
\begin{align*}
S_1=\{ &(0,0,0), (m,0,0), (0,4m,0), (m,0,n), \\ &(0,4m,n), (0,2m,4m+n), (0,0,4m+n)\} \\
S_2=\{&(m,0,n), (0,4m,n), (0,2m,4m+n)\}
\end{align*}
Note that $S_2 \subset S_1$. It is easy to check (see Figure \ref{figp}) that ${\rm conv}\ P_{m,n} = {\rm conv}\ S_1$ (and in fact, $P_{m,n} = \left( {\rm conv}\ S_1\right) \cap \mathbb{N}^3$). Then, since $f$ is a linear form and $a,b,c \geq 0$ , we have
$$ m^\prime = \max\{f(v)\ |\ v\in {\rm conv}\ P_{m,n}\} = \max\{f(v)\ |\ v\in S_1\} = \max\{f(v)\ |\ v\in S_2\}$$
We deduce
$$m'=\max\{am+cn,4bm+cn,2bm+4cm+cn\}=m\left(\max\{a,4b,2b+4c\}\right)+cn.$$
Cases 1) and 2): If $b>\max\{{a\over 4},2c\}$ then $m^\prime=4bm+cn$, and $E:=\{v\in \mathbb{R}^3\ | \ f(v)=m'\}$ is a plane which contains $(0,4m,n)$ and neither $(m,0,n)$ nor $(0,2m,4m+n)$. Since ${\rm conv}\ P_{m,n} = {\rm conv}\ S_1$ and $E$ is not parallel to any face of ${\rm conv}\ S_1$, then $E \cap {\rm conv}\ P_{m,n}$ must be either a single point or an edge in $S_1$; thus we must either have $E \cap P_{m,n}=\{(0,4m,n)\}$ or $E \cap P_{m,n} = \{ (0,4m, d)\ |\ 0 \leq d \leq n\}$. It is easy to check that the former case happens precisely when $c \neq 0$, and the latter when $c=0$.
Cases 3) and 4): If $c > \max\{ \frac{b}{2}, \frac{a-2b}{4}\}$, then $m^\prime=2bm+4cm+cn$, and $E:=\{v\in \mathbb{R}^3\ | \ f(v)=m'\}$ is a plane which contains $(0,2m,4m+n)$ and neither $(m,0,n)$ nor $(0,4m,n)$. Since ${\rm conv}\ P_{m,n} = {\rm conv}\ S_1$and $E$ is not parallel to any face of ${\rm conv}\ S_1$, then $E \cap {\rm conv}\ P_{m,n}$ must be either a single point in $S_1$, or a line segment connecting two points in $S_1$; thus we must either have $E \cap P_{m,n}=\{(0,2m,4m+n)\}$ or $E \cap P_{m,n} = \{ (0,d, 4m+n)\ |\ 0 \leq d \leq 2m\}$. It is easy to check that the former case happens precisely when $b \neq 0$, and the latter when $b=0$.
Case 5) : If $c=\frac{a-2b}{4}>\frac{b}{2}$, then $m^\prime=ma+cn$, and $E:=\{v \in \mathbb{R}^3\ |\ f(v)=m^\prime\}$ is a plane containing $(m,0,n)$ and $(0,2m,4m+n)$ but not $(m,0,n)$. Then $E \cap \ensuremath{{\rm conv}} P_{m,n}$ is the line segment from $(m,0,n)$ to $(0,2m,4m+n)$, giving the result.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
A degree function ${\rm deg}$ is called {\em $\beta$-lexicographic} if, writing $\beta=(X,Y,Z)$, ${\rm deg}(X)>{\rm deg}(Y)>{\rm deg}(Z)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
The three lexicographic degrees, as well as the weighted degrees for the weights $(4,1,0)$, $(4,0,1)$, $(8,2,1)$, $(1,1,0)$, and $(3,3,1)$ are all $\beta$-lexicographic, as is the usual degree (i.e. the $(1,1,1)$-weighted degree).
\end{example}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:A0-A1}
Let $m\ge 1$ and $n\ge 0$ be integers. Let $\alpha\in{\cal A}_0 \setminus {\cal A}_1={\cal A} \setminus {\cal B}$.
Then there exist $m^\prime \geq m$, $n^\prime \geq 0$ such that
$(\mathcal{P}_{m,n}^{*}) \alpha \beta \subset \mathcal{Q}_{m^\prime,n^\prime} ^*$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $\deg$ be a $\beta$-lexicographic degree function. We observe that for any fixed $v=(i,j,k) \in \mathbb{N}^3$, $\deg\left( ({\bf x}^v)\alpha \beta\right)=\deg(X^{i'}Y^{j'}Z^{k'})$
for some triple $(i^\prime, j^\prime, k^\prime)\in\mathbb{N}^3$. Moreover, since $\alpha \in \mathcal{A}$ and $\alpha\not\in {\cal B}$,
it must be the case that $(i^\prime, j^\prime, k^\prime)$ is one of the following 15 triples: $(i+j+k,0,0)$, $(i+j,k,0)$, $(i+j,0,k)$, $(i+k,j,0)$, $(i+k,0,j)$, $(j+k,i,0)$, $(j+k,0,i)$, $(i,k,j)$, $(j,i,k)$, $(j,k,i)$, $(k,i,j)$, $(k,j,i)$, $(i,j+k,0)$, $(j,i+k,0)$, $(k,i+j,0)$.
We alert the reader that the triple $(i^\prime, j^\prime, k^\prime)$ is determined only by $\alpha$ and is independent of $(i,j,k)$ and the choice of $\beta$-lexicographic degree function $\deg$. We have
\begin{align*}
\deg_{(1,1,0)}(X^{i'}Y^{j'}Z^{k'})&=4i'+j' \\
\deg_{(3,3,1)}(X^{i'}Y^{j'}Z^{k'})&=3(4i'+j')+k' \\
{\rm ldeg}_2(X^{i'}Y^{j'}Z^{k'}) &=(0,4i'+j',k').
\end{align*}
We can write $4i'+j'=ai+bj+ck=f(i,j,k)$, and $3(4i'+j')+k'=a'i+b'j+c'k=(3a+\epsilon)i+(3b+\mu)j+(3c+\nu)k=g(i,j,k)$
where $a,b,c\in\{0,1,4\}$ and $a'=3a+\epsilon$, $b'=3b+\mu$ and $c'=3c+\nu$ where $\epsilon,\mu,\nu\in\{0,1\}$ (since $k'\in\{0,i,j,k\}$). We note that $a^\prime$, $b^\prime$, and $c^\prime$ must all be nonzero.
We set
\begin{align*}
m' &=\max\{f(v)\ |\ v\in P_{m,n}\} \\ n'&=\max\{g(v)\ |\ v\in P_{m,n}\}-3m'.
\end{align*}
Now, we consider $P\in \mathcal{P}_{m,n}^{*}$. We recall that this implies $$\{(0,4m,n),(0,2m,4m+2n)\}\subset{\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (P)\subset P_{m,n}.$$
Setting $Q=(P)\alpha\beta$,we will show $Q \in\mathcal{Q}_{m^\prime,n^\prime} ^*$. Note that $$\deg(Q)= \max _{(i,j,k) \in {\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (P)} \deg(X^{i^\prime}Y^{j^\prime}Z^{k^\prime})$$ where $(i',j',k')$
is one of the 15 triples above where $(i,j,k)\in{\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (P)$. Since ${\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (P)\subset P_{m,n}$, our definitions of $m^\prime$ and $n^\prime$ immediately imply $\deg_{(1,1,0)}(Q)\le m'$ and $\deg_{(3,3,1)}(Q)\le 3m'+n'$. It remains to check that ${\rm ldeg}_2(Q)=(0,m',n')$; to do so, we show that
there exists a unique $v=(i,j,k)\in{\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (P)$ such that ${\rm ldeg}_2(X^{i'}Y^{j'}Z^{k'})=(0,m',n')$. Equivalently, we show that there exists a unique $v=(i,j,k) \in {\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (P)$ such that $f(v)=m^\prime$ and $g(v)=3m^\prime+n^\prime$. \\
Case 1) Suppose $(i',j',k')\in\{(i+j,k,0), (i+j,0,k), (j,i,k), (j,k,i), (j,i+k,0)\}$. In this case $b=4$
(since $j$ appears in the first component) and $c\le 1$ (since $k$ does not appear in the first component).
We deduce $b>\max\{{a\over 4},2c\}$ and $b'>\max\{{a'\over 4},2c'\}$. Note that $c^\prime \neq 0$, so applying the preceding lemma (Case 1) to $g$ yields that $v=(0,4m,n)$ is the unique element in $P_{m,n}$, hence in ${\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (P)$, such
that $g(v)=3m'+n^\prime$. But the lemma (Case 1 or 2) applied to $f$ implies $f(0,4m,n)=m^\prime$ as required. \\
Case 2) Suppose $(i',j',k')\in\{(i+j+k,0,0), (i+k,j,0), (j+k,i,0), (j+k,0,i), (k,j,i),(k,i+j,0), (i+k,0,j), (k,i,j) \}$.
In this case $c=4$ (since $k$ appears in the first component) .
We deduce $c>\max\{{b\over 2},{a-2b\over 4}\}$ and $c'>\max\{{b'\over 2},{a'-2b'\over 4}\}$. Since $b^\prime \neq 0$,
the preceding lemma (Case 3) applied to $g$ gives that $v=(0,2m,4m+n)$ is the unique element in $P_{m,n}$, hence in ${\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (P)$, such that $g(v)=3m'+n^\prime$. But the lemma (Case 3 or 4) applied to $f$ implies $f(0,2m,4m+n)=m^\prime$ as required. \\
Case 3) Suppose $(i',j',k') \in \{(i,j+k,0), (i,k,j)\}$. In this case $a^\prime=12$ and $c^\prime=3$ (with $b^\prime \in \{1,3\}$).
We deduce $c'>\max\{{b'\over 2},{a'-2b'\over 4}\}$.
The lemma (Case 3) applied to $g$ yields that $v=(0,2m,4m+n)$ is the unique element in $P_{m,n}$, hence in ${\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (P)$, such that $g(v)=3m'+n^\prime$. But the lemma applied to $f$ (case 3 or 5) implies $f(0,2m,4m+n)=m^\prime$ as required.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The triangular case}
Once again, we begin with a technical lemma which will aid in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:A1-A2}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:TC}
Let $m\ge 1$ and $n\ge 0$ be integers. Let $\gamma=(X,Y,Z)\in {\cal B}$ be such that
${\rm ldeg}_2(X)=(0,b,c)$ where $b\ge 1$ and $c\ge 0$, $\deg_{(3,3,1)}(X)=3b+c$ and $\deg_{(3,3,1)}(Y)=3$.
Then $(\mathcal{P}_{m,n}^{*})\pi\gamma\subset {\mathcal{Q}_{m',n'}^*}$ where $m'=4bm\ge m$ and $n'=4cm+n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that the assumptions (particularly $\gamma \in {\cal B}$) immediately imply
\begin{align*}
\deg _{(1,1,0)} (X) &= b & \deg _{(1,1,0)} (Y) &= 1 & \deg _{(1,1,0)} (Z) &= 0 \\
\deg _{(3,3,1)} (X) &= 3b+c & \deg _{(3,3,1)} (Y) &=3 & \deg _{(3,3,1)} (Z) &= 1 \\
\ldeg _2 (X) &= (0,b,c) & \ldeg _2 (Y) &= (0,1,0) & \ldeg _2 (Z) &= (0,0,1)
\end{align*}
Let $v=(i,j,k) \in P_{m,n}$. Noting that $({\bf x}^v)\pi\gamma=Y^{i}X^{j}Z^{k}$, we compute
\begin{align*}
\deg _{(1,1,0)} ( ({\bf x})^v \pi \gamma) &= i+bj \\&\leq b(4i+j) \\&\leq 4bm=m^\prime \\
\deg _{(3,3,1)} ( ({\bf x})^v \pi \gamma) &= 3i+(3b+c)j+k \\&\leq (3b+c-2)(4i+j)+(8i+2j+k)
\\&\leq (3b+c-2)(4m)+(8m+n) \\
&= 3m^\prime+n^\prime \\
\ldeg _2 (({\bf x})^v \pi \gamma) &= (0, i+bj, cj+k) \\
&\leq _2 (0, b(4i+j), n^\prime) \\
&\leq _2 (0,m^\prime,n^\prime)
\end{align*}
Moreover, equality is attained in the last case if and only if $(i,j,k)=(0,4m,n)$, which is in the support of every element of $\mathcal{P}_{m,n}^*$. Thus we see $(\mathcal{P}_{m,n}^{*})\pi\gamma\subset\mathcal{Q}_{m',n'}^*$ as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:A1-A2}
If $\alpha\in{\cal A}_1\ensuremath{\smallsetminus}{\cal A}_2$ then $({\cal P}^*)\pi\beta^{-1}\alpha\beta\subset{\cal Q}^*$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} We write $\alpha=(a_1x+b_1y+c_1z+d_1,b_2y+c_2z+d_2,c_3z+d_3)$ with $a_1,b_2,c_3\in\mathbb{K}^*$ and $b_1,c_1,d_1,c_2,d_2,d_3\in\mathbb{K}$. Set $\gamma = \beta ^{-1} \alpha \beta$, and write $\gamma=(X,Y,Z)$. We will show that we can apply Lemma~\ref{lem:TC} to $\gamma$. A direct computation shows
\begin{align*}
Z&=c_3z+d_3 \\
Y&=b_2y+ez^2+fz+g \\
X&=a_1x
F_4y^4+F_3y^3+F_2y^2+F_1y+F_0
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
F_4 &= a_1-b_2^4 & F_3 &= 2(a_1z^2-b_2^3(Z_2+Z_3)) \\
F_2 &= a_1z^4-b_2^2(Z_2^2+4Z_2Z_3+Z_3^2) & F_1 &= b_1-2b_2(Z_2+Z_3)Z_2Z_3 \\
F_0 &=Z_1-Z_2^2Z_3^2,
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
e&=b_2-c_3^2 & f&=c_2-2c_3d_3 & g&=d_2-d_3^2,
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
Z_1& =b_1z^2+c_1z+d_1 & Z_2&=b_2z^2+c_2z+d_2 & Z_3&=ez^2+fz+g .
\end{align*}
We easily check that $\deg_{(3,3,1)}(Y)=3$. Set ${\rm ldeg}_2(X)=(0,b,c)$ where $b,c\ge 0$ (and in fact, $b \leq 4$). It remains to be checked that $b \geq 1$ and $\deg _{(3,3,1)} (X) = 3b+c$.
Since $Z_1,Z_2$ and $Z_3$ are polynomials in $z$ of degree $\le 2$, the support of $X$ contains $(1,0,0)$
and some points $(0,j,k)$ such that $2j+k\le 8$ and $j\le b$.
Hence $$\deg_{(3,3,1)}(X)=\max\{3j+k\,;\,(0,j,k)\in{\ensuremath{\rm supp\ }} (X)\}\le 8+b.$$
We now examine the possible cases. First, suppose $a_1\ne b_2^4$. Then $F_4 \neq 0$, so $(b,c)=(4,0)$ and $\deg_{(3,3,1)}(X)=12=3b+c$, and Lemma \ref{lem:TC} completes the proof.
Next, assume for the remainder that $a_1=b_2^4$, so $F_4=0$. If $e \neq 0$, then $F_3$ is a degree 2 polynomial in $z$, hence $(b,c)=(3,2)$ and $\deg_{(3,3,1)}(X)=11=3b+c$, and again Lemma \ref{lem:TC} completes the proof..
So we may now assume $e=0$ (so $Z_3=fz+g$ and $F_3=-2b_2^3 \left((c_2+f)z+2(d_2+g)\right)$) as well. If $c_2+f \neq 0$, then $F_3$ is a degree 1 polynomial in $z$, hence $(b,c)=(3,1)$ and $\deg_{(3,3,1)}(X)=10=3b+c$, and again Lemma \ref{lem:TC} completes the proof.
We now additionally assume $c_2+f=0$ (so $F_3=2(d_2+g)$) as well. If $d_2+g \neq 0$, then $(b,c)=(3,0)$. In this case, one can check that $F_2$ is a polynomial of degree at most 3, so $\deg _{(3,3,1)}(X)=9=3b+c$.
Next, we assume that $d_2+g=0$ as well (so $F_3=0$). Then $F_2$ is a polynomial in $z$ of degree at most 3. If $c_2+2f \neq 0$, $F_2$ has degree $3$, so $(b,c)=(2,3)$ and $\deg _{(3,3,1)}(X)=9=3b+c$.
Finally, we must consider the case $c_2+2f=0$. Since we were already assuming $c_2+f=0$, we have $c_2=0$ and $f=0$, hence $d_3=0$. But since $0=d_2+g=d_2+(d_2-d_3)^2=2d_2$, we have $d_2=0$. Since $e=0$, we have $b_2=c_3^2$, and since $a_1=b_2^4$, we thus can simplify $\alpha$ to
$$\alpha = (c_3^8x+b_1y+c_1z+d_2, c_3^2y, c_3z)$$
and note that this precisely means that $\alpha \in \mathcal{A}_2$. In particular, since $\alpha \notin \mathcal{A}_2$, we must have $b >1$. Thus the result follows immediately from Lemma \ref{lem:TC}
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:A2-A3}
If $\alpha\in{\cal A}_2\ensuremath{\smallsetminus}{\cal A}_3$ then $({\cal P}^*)\pi\beta^{-1}\alpha\beta\pi\beta\subset{\cal Q}^*$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since $\alpha \in \mathcal{A}_2$, we can write $\alpha=(u^8x+b_1y+c_1z+d_1,u^2y,uz)\in{\cal A}_2\ensuremath{\smallsetminus}{\cal A}_3$
for some $u,b_1\in\mathbb{K}^*$ and $c_1,d_1\in\mathbb{K}$. A direct computation shows that $$\pi\beta^{-1}\alpha\beta\pi\beta=(u^2X,u^8Y+b_1X+b_1z^2+c_1z+d_1,uz)$$ where $X=(x)\beta = x+y^2(y+z^2)^2$ and
$Y=(y)\beta = y+z^2$. Since $b_1$ is nonzero, the rest of the proof proceeds exactly along the lines of the case $(i',j',k')=(i+j,0,k)$ (Case 1) in Proposition~\ref{prop:A0-A1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:A3-A4} If $\alpha\in{\cal A}_3\ensuremath{\smallsetminus}{\cal A}_4$ then
$({\cal P}^*)(\pi\beta^{-1})^2\alpha\beta\pi\beta\subset{\cal Q}^*$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since $\alpha \in \mathcal{A}_3$, we can write $\alpha=(u^8x+c_1z+d_1,u^2y,uz)$ for some $u\in\mathbb{K}^*$ and $c_1,d_1\in\mathbb{K}$.
We compute $$\gamma:=\pi\beta^{-1}\alpha\beta\pi=(u^2x,u^8y+c_1z+d_1,uz).$$
Clearly $\gamma\in{\cal A}_1$, and one easily checks that $\gamma \notin {\cal A}_2$. Then Proposition~\ref{prop:A1-A2} implies that
$({\cal P}^*)(\pi\beta^{-1})^2\alpha\beta\pi\beta=({\cal P}^*)\pi\beta^{-1}\gamma\beta\subset{\cal Q}^*$.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Many simple models of inflation adeptly reproduce the observed properties of the primordial cosmological perturbations \cite{Hinshaw:2012aka,Ade:2013xsa,Ade:2013zuv,Ade:2013uln}, predicting a nearly scale-invariant power spectrum and minimal amounts of primordial non-Gaussianity. In the slow-roll, single-field paradigm the predictions of a given model are easily determined as an algebraic function of the field's potential $V$ and its derivatives in terms of a hierarchy of slow-roll parameters. The resulting observables are simple to compute and easy to interpret.
However, relaxing any of the basic assumptions of the slow-roll, single-field models complicates this simple analysis. In particular, for many inflationary scenarios (\emph{e.g.}, multifield inflation, gauge inflation, and non-minimal couplings),
the background and mode equations are complex systems of coupled, nonlinear ODEs, making analysis difficult in all but a few cases.
Furthermore, while slow-roll, single-field inflation is a simple and easily understood model, it may not necessarily be considered natural in the context of high-energy theories. For example, low energy effective theories derived from string theory generically contain hundreds of scalar fields with complicated interactions, and many theories consider non-minimal couplings to the Ricci scalar (for a recent review, see Ref.~\cite{Baumann:2014nda}). While analytical studies have been able to overcome subsets of these problems, most of the techniques that have been used are situation-specific, which limits their applicability to novel models.
While significant progress can be made in the slow-roll limit, only numerical techniques can explore the full predictions of more complex inflation models. Even in the purely homogeneous limit, numerically solving the nonlinear Klein--Gordon equation for the homogeneous background fields reveals many interesting features that do not arise in slow-roll analyses, \emph{e.g.}, sensitivity to initial conditions \cite{Easther:1997hm,Clesse:2009ur,Easther:2013bga,Easther:2014zga}. These complications lead naturally to the numerical exploration of inflationary models.
In this paper we present and describe \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace,\footnote{Publicly available at \url{www.modecode.org}.} an efficient Fortran 95/2000 package that numerically solves the equations of motion for the background fields and the first-order perturbations for multifield inflation models in which the fields have canonical kinetic terms and are minimally coupled to gravity. \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace\ calculates the adiabatic, tensor, and various isocurvature power spectra as a function of scale $k$, but does not evaluate higher order correlators. If the potential is sum-separable, \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace\ uses the solution to the background equations of motion to evaluate the slow-roll $\delta N$ predictions for the scalar and tensor power spectra and their derivatives near the pivot scale $k_*$, also giving the slow-roll results for $n_s$, $r$, $f_\mathrm{NL}$, etc. The code has been extensively tested with various compilers, including the open-source GNU Fortran compiler.
Several numerical codes have been developed to study single-field models~\cite{Adams:2001vc,Peiris:2003ff,Martin:2006rs, Hall:2007qw,Bean:2007eh,Lorenz:2007ze,Martin:2010kz,Martin:2010hh,Martin:2013nzq}. Here, we build on \textsc{ModeCode}~\cite{Mortonson:2010er,Easther:2011yq,Norena:2012rs}, which was developed to test single-field inflation models and interfaced with tools such as \textsc{CAMB}~\cite{Lewis:1999bs}, \textsc{CosmoMC}~\cite{Lewis:2002ah}, and \textsc{MultiNest}~\cite{Feroz:2008xx}. \textsc{ModeCode} was designed for the Bayesian analysis of inflation and used by the \emph{Planck} collaboration~\cite{Ade:2013uln} to obtain the posterior probabilities and marginal likelihoods for inflation models. Moving to the multifield case significantly increases the numerical demands on the solver, and puts a premium on efficiency due to the much greater computational resources required by these analyses. A few codes exist to analyze multified models, but the publicly available codes are inadequate for models with many fields and arbitrary potentials. Notably, \textsc{Pyflation} \cite{Huston:2009ac,Huston:2011fr,Huston:2011vt,Huston:2013kgl} is an object-oriented Python code that uses the same method we employ here for solving the perturbation equations, but cannot easily generate large samples due to the speed constraints imposed by a dynamic programming language.
This significant extension to \textsc{ModeCode} can be used to study the power spectra of analytically intractable multifield inflationary potentials, and to explore the generic predictions of complex models by marginalizing over large numbers of possible parameters. Complementing currently available codes~\cite{Huston:2009ac,Huston:2011fr,Huston:2011vt,Huston:2013kgl}, \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace specializes in obtaining large Monte Carlo samples of initial conditions and parameter prior probabilities. To help users familiarise themselves with \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace\ the package includes initial conditions priors used in Refs.~\cite{Frazer:2013zoa,Easther:2013bga,Easther:2013rva}. The ability of this code to efficiently generate large Monte Carlo samples has permitted studies of the generic predictions of multifield inflation models with more than 100 fields~\cite{Easther:2013rva,Price:2014ufa}.
In practice, the code can simulate the evolution of the mode equations for $\mathcal O(10^2)$ fields,\footnote{Estimates regarding field number are based on $N_{f}$-quadratic inflation, which is not numerically intensive.} but will become inefficient for significantly more fields due to the increasing dimensionality of the system, which increases with the number of fields as $\mathcal O(N_f^2)$. However, it can efficiently sample the evolution of the background equations of motion for at least $\mathcal O(10^3)$ fields. While solving just the background equations allows the exploration of background dynamics for such a large number of fields, if the model is sum-separable, then it will also give the slow-roll predictions for the adiabatic curvature power spectrum, as well as $f_\mathrm{NL}$ and $\tau_\mathrm{NL}$, in terms of the $\delta N$ approximation. This should be valid when the fields are much lighter than $H$ at horizon crossing and slow-roll holds throughout the duration of inflation. \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace is released with several example models already implemented and it is straightforward to add to this number.
In \S\ref{sect:results}, we demonstrate the features of \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace with an $N_f$--flation potential with a sharp step, which we parametrize by a hyperbolic tangent function, following Refs.~\cite{Adams:1997de,Adams:2001vc}. We show that, in addition to oscillatory features in the adiabatic curvature power spectrum that are expected from the single-field analysis~\cite{Adams:2001vc,Adshead:2011jq}, with more than one field there are also oscillatory features in the isocurvature spectra, which might result in non-trivial evolution of the power spectrum after inflation.
We also show that the numerical computation of isocurvature modes results in an inherent numerical instability, since some definitions of isocurvature perturbations involve computing the difference between two quantities that are of the same order of magnitude. This induces a dominant numerical error when these two quantities begin to approach the adiabatic limit. We overcome this problem by implementing a modified definition of isocurvature perturbations~\cite{Easther:2013rva}, which is numerically stable to many more orders of magnitude than some alternative definitions. We also implement a geometrical optics indicator of isocurvature evolution as first presented in Ref.~\cite{Seery:2012vj}. While this measure only relies on background quantities and also does not suffer from instabilities, as implemented here it does not provide an absolute value of isocurvature, only an indicator of its growth or decay.
Finally, in \S\ref{sect:pert_review} we provide a concise review of multifield perturbation theory with the aim of dispelling misconceptions that exist about this topic, which the enlightened reader can skip.
\section{Features of \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace}
We begin by highlighting some of the useful characteristics of \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace.
\paragraph{Speed:}
The purpose of \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace is to provide a fast and efficient solver that is well-tested and can be applied to a wide range of possible inflationary scenarios. \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace is written in Fortran 95/2000, increasing its capabilities relative to existing codes~\cite{Huston:2009ac,Huston:2011fr,Huston:2011vt,Huston:2013kgl} and making it tractable to investigate models with many fields or to obtain large Monte Carlo samples from a model's parameter space. In particular, prototype versions of this program were used in Refs.~\cite{Easther:2013rva,Price:2014ufa} to analyze large samples of 100-field $N_f$-monomial inflation.
\paragraph{Generality:}
The code facilitates Bayesian approaches to studying inflation, where the model's parameters are drawn from prior probabilities from which we can compute a probability distribution for specified observable associated with the model. We consider simple situations, \emph{e.g.}, evolving a model given fixed model parameters and initial conditions, as sub-cases of the more general Bayesian framework. To facilitate the use of general priors we have implemented the sampling routines in modules which are simple to adapt and restructure for the user's purposes.
\paragraph{Robustness:}
The program exits gracefully when encountering fatal errors of either a technical or cosmological nature, while also catching specific errors that might only affect one particular configuration of the model. We have extensively checked the program output on various Macintosh and Linux machines with both the \textsc{gfortran} and \textsc{ifort} compilers, and include both a fourth-order Runge-Kutta integrator and an implicit backward-difference formula method, which is suitable for stiff problems.
\paragraph{Statistics:}
\textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace provides pivot-scale observables, summarized in Table~\ref{table:observables} and can sample the adiabatic and isocurvature power spectra as a function of scale $k$. We have implemented a variety of numerically stable indicators of the amount of isocurvature present in the system.
\paragraph{Slow-roll comparison:}
If the potential $V$ is sum-separable, \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace can also calculate observables using the $\delta N$ approximation, which assumes slow-roll. Since these quantities rely only on solutions of the background equations of motion they are efficient and simple to calculate, scaling with the number of fields as $\mathcal O(N_f)$. Consequently, if the model is well-described by the slow-roll approximation between horizon crossing and the end of inflation, computing observables in the $\delta N$ formalism is efficient and easy.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ l p{7cm} l }
\hline
\hline
Power spectra (PS) & Type & Reference \\
\hline
${\mathcal P_\calR}(k)$ \dotfill &
Adiabatic scalar spectrum \dotfill &
Eq.~\eqref{eqn:pad} \\
%
${\mathcal P_\calS}(k)$ \dotfill &
Isocurvature spectrum \dotfill &
Eq.~\eqref{eqn:piso} \\
%
${\mathcal P_{\delta P, \mathrm{nad}}}(k)$\dotfill &
Non-adiabatic pressure spectrum \dotfill &
Eq.~\eqref{eqn:ppnad} \\
%
${\mathcal P_\mathrm{ent}}(k)$ \dotfill &
Entropic spectrum \dotfill &
Eq.~\eqref{eqn:pent} \\
%
${\mathcal P_\mathrm{\calR \calS}}(k)$\dotfill &
Adiabatic--non-adiab. cross spectrum \dotfill &
Eq.~\eqref{eqn:cross} \\
%
$\mathcal P_h(k)$ \dotfill &
Tensor spectrum \dotfill &
-- \\
\hline
\hline
%
Observable at $k_*$ & Name & Description \\
\hline
$A_s$ \dotfill &
Scalar amplitude \dotfill&
${\mathcal P_\calR}(k_*)$ \\
%
$A_\mathrm{iso}$ \dotfill &
Isocurvature ampl. \dotfill &
${\mathcal P_\calS}(k_*)$ \\
%
$A_\mathrm{Pnad}$ \dotfill &
Non-adiab. pressure ampl. \dotfill &
${\mathcal P_{\delta P, \mathrm{nad}}}(k_*)$ \\
%
$A_\mathrm{ent}$ \dotfill &
Entropy ampl. \dotfill &
${\mathcal P_\mathrm{ent}}(k_*)$ \\
%
$A_\mathrm{Cross}$ \dotfill &
Cross spectra ampl. \dotfill &
${\mathcal P_\mathrm{\calR \calS}}(k_*)$ \\
\hline
$n_s$ \dotfill &
Scalar spectral index \dotfill &
$\mathcal D_* \log {\mathcal P_\calR}+1$ \\
%
$n_t$ \dotfill &
Tensor spectral index \dotfill &
$\mathcal D_* \log {\mathcal P_h}$ \\
%
$n_\mathrm{iso}$ \dotfill &
Isocurvature spectral index \dotfill &
$\mathcal D_* \log {\mathcal P_\calS}$ \\
%
$n_\mathrm{ent}$ \dotfill &
Entropy spectral index \dotfill &
$\mathcal D_* \log {\mathcal P_\mathrm{ent}}$ \\
%
$n_\mathrm{Pnad}$ \dotfill &
Non-adiab. pressure spectral index \dotfill &
$\mathcal D_* \log {\mathcal P_{\delta P, \mathrm{nad}}}$ \\
\hline
$\alpha_s$ \dotfill &
Scalar running \dotfill &
$\mathcal D_*^2 \log {\mathcal P_\calR}$ \\
%
$r$ \dotfill &
Tensor-to-scalar ampl. \dotfill &
${\mathcal P_h}(k_*)/{\mathcal P_\calR}(k_*)$ \\
%
$\Theta$ \dotfill &
Bundle width \dotfill &
Eq.~\eqref{eqn:Theta} \\
%
$\cos \Delta$ \dotfill &
$\omega$-$s$ correlation angle \dotfill &
Eq.~\eqref{eqn:Delta} \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Typical observables at the pivot scale $k_*$. The derivative $\mathcal D_* \equiv \mathrm{d}/\mathrm{d} \log k$ is evaluated at $k=k_*$. \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace can also generate the full power spectra as a function of scale $\mathcal P(k)$.}
\label{table:observables}
\end{table}
\section{A brief review of multifield perturbation theory}
\label{sect:pert_review}
We begin with a short review of first-order, non-interacting multifield perturbation theory before describing \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace and the dynamics of many-field inflation. There are some substantial differences between single-field and multifield inflation, which we highlight in Section~\ref{ssect:highlight}. Table~\ref{table:observables} gives a list of the pivot-scale observables that \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace computes.
There are a few excellent reviews of this topic~\cite{Lyth:1998xn,Langlois:2008mn,Lyth:2009zz,Huston:2011fr} and we particularly recommend Refs.~\cite{Salopek:1988qh,Bassett:2005xm} for more information. We first present the nuts-and-bolts of the mode function approach to first-order, multifield perturbations, which is implemented in \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace. Then we describe the widely-used $\delta N$-formalism, which has also been implemented for ease of use and for comparison to the perturbation solutions.
\subsection{The highlights}
\label{ssect:highlight}
Multifield inflation differs from the single field case in the following important respects.
\paragraph{Isocurvature:}
Multifield inflation generally permits both adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations.
Adiabatic perturbations are related by a gauge transformation to the curvature perturbation on comoving hypersurfaces $\mathcal R$, while isocurvature perturbations are \emph{entropic} perturbations between different matter components on flat hypersurfaces. In single-field inflation there is only one matter component, so there are only adiabatic perturbations.
\paragraph{Super-horizon evolution:}
Isocurvature perturbations source adiabatic perturbations, causing them to evolve even on super-horizon scales. While this can generate novel signatures such as non-Gaussianity, this can also be problematic for comparing the predictions of a model with observation: unless isocurvature modes decay into an \emph{adiabatic limit} before the end of inflation, the curvature perturbation does not become conserved and is thus sensitive to post-inflationary physics.
\paragraph{The two-index mode function:}
With more than one field, either (a) the direct interaction between fields or (b) the gravity-mediated interaction will mix the particle creation and annihilation operators as a function of time \cite{Salopek:1988qh}. Instead of a single index mode function, we therefore need to solve for a mode matrix $\psi_{IJ}$, where $\delta \phi_I = {\psi_{IJ}} a^J$, for $N_f$ annihilation operators $a^J$.
\paragraph{Initial conditions dependence:}
Multifield inflation models have an infinite number of possible inflationary solutions each of which can, in principle yield a different perturbation spectrum. Consequently, the observable spectra for multifield models can depend on their initial conditions in ways that have no direct analogue in slow-roll, single-field models, which have only one possible trajectory in field-space.
\paragraph{Inherently stochastic predictions:}
Even if the potential $V$ is completely fixed, multifield models will give an inherent spread of predictions due to the allowed variance in the fields' initial conditions. In general, multifield models will predict a variety of spectra, unless the stochasticity in the initial conditions can be controlled \emph{a priori}.
\subsection{Classical background}
Consider $N_f$ scalar fields $\phi_I$ with the matter sector of the action given by
\begin{equation}
S = \int d^4x \sqrt{-g} \left[ - \frac{1}{2} \partial_\mu \phi_I \partial^\mu \phi^I - V(\phi_I) \right] ,
\label{eqn:action}
\end{equation}
where we use the Einstein summation convention over repeated indices. Greek indices describe spacetime, going from $0,\dots,3$, upper-case Latin indices describe the number of fields, going from $1,\dots,N_f$, and lower-case Latin indices describe space, going from $1, \dots, 3$. The field space indices are raised using the Kronecker delta $\delta^{IJ}$. The determinant of the spatial metric $g_{\mu \nu}$ is $g$. In this paper we only consider inflation models with minimal coupling to Einstein gravity and a matter sector described by scalar fields. The current incarnation of \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace only solves models with canonical kinetic terms, but we give the equations of motion for models with a non-trivial field-space metric in Appendix~\ref{app:fieldmetric}. Implementing these general field-space metrics is straightforward since \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace has been written modularly, but is left for future work.
First-order, non-interacting perturbation theory separates the homogeneous, classical background from the spatially-dependent modes as $\phi_I(t, \vec{x}) \to \phi_I(t) + \delta \phi_I(t, \vec{x})$,
where we assume that these two components can be treated independently.
The homogeneous background fields obey the Klein--Gordon equations
\begin{equation}
\ddot{\phi}_I + 3H \dot{\phi}_I + \frac{\partial V}{\partial \phi^I} = 0 ,
\label{eqn:KGtime}
\end{equation}
where an overdot indicates a derivative with respect to cosmic time $t$ and we use $M_\mathrm{Pl}^2 = (8 \pi G)^{-1} =1 $ throughout this paper. The 0-0 Einstein field equation gives the Friedmann equation
\begin{equation}
3H^2 = \frac{1}{2} \dot{\phi}_I\dot{\phi}^I\ + V(\phi_I) ,
\label{eqn:fried}
\end{equation}
which can be differentiated with respect to $t$ to yield
\begin{equation}
2\dot{H} = - \dot \phi_0^2 .
\label{eqn:clock}
\end{equation}
In Eq.~\eqref{eqn:clock} we have used the inflaton \emph{trajectory velocity}, $\dot \phi_0^2 \equiv \dot{\phi}_I \dot \phi^I$. We can regard the composite field $\phi_0$ as the clock of multifield inflation. It is the classical field defined along the inflaton trajectory, and represents the length of the classical field-space path.
In practice, if the dynamics are inflationary, it is numerically convenient to evolve the equation with the number of $e$-folds $N_e \equiv \ln a(t)$ as the independent variable, giving
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 \phi_I}{\mathrm{d} N_e^2 } + (3 -\epsilon) \frac{\mathrm{d} \phi_I}{\mathrm{d} N_e} + \frac{1}{H^2}\frac{\partial V}{\partial \phi^I} = 0 ,
\label{eqn:back}
\end{equation}
where we have defined the first slow-roll parameter as
\begin{equation}
\epsilon\equiv-\frac{\dot H}{H^2}
=\frac{1}{2} \frac{\mathrm{d} \phi_I}{\mathrm{d} N_e} \frac{\mathrm{d} \phi^I}{\mathrm{d} N_e}.
\label{eqn:eps}
\end{equation}
The Friedmann equation~\eqref{eqn:fried} can then also be expressed as
\begin{equation}
H^2 = \frac{V}{3 - \epsilon} .
\label{eqn:H_eps}
\end{equation}
If $V \approx 0$, Eq.~\eqref{eqn:H_eps} requires $\epsilon \approx 3$, which will result in numerical instability whenever we try to set initial conditions that are dominated by their kinetic energy. We side-step this issue by using the cosmic time Eq.~\eqref{eqn:KGtime} and $H$ as defined in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:fried}.
Solving Eq.~\eqref{eqn:back} therefore only requires the initial conditions $\phi_I$ and $\mathrm{d} \phi_I/\mathrm{d} N_e$, because the dependence on the scale factor $a$ is explicitly removed by the 0-0 Einstein equation~\eqref{eqn:H_eps} as a result of assuming a flat FLRW spacetime. As mentioned in \S\ref{ssect:highlight}, the perturbation spectrum depends on these initial conditions, which are specified as a prior probability distribution $P(\phi_I, \phi_I^{\prime})$.
\subsection{Mode equations}
\label{ssect:mode}
To obtain the first-order equation of motion for the perturbations $\delta \phi_I$, we need to expand the action~\eqref{eqn:action} to second-order and include the first-order scalar perturbations to the flat FLRW metric, given by
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{d} s^2 = - \left(1 + 2 \Phi \right) \mathrm{d} t^2 - 2 \, a^2 B_{,i} \, \mathrm{d} t \, \mathrm{d} x^i + a^2 \left[ \left(1 - 2\Psi \right) \delta_{ij} - 2 \partial_{\langle i} \partial_{j \rangle} E \right] \mathrm{d} x^i \mathrm{d} x^j ,
\label{eqn:pertFRW}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\langle i} \partial_{j \rangle} E \equiv \partial_{ i} \partial_{j } E - \frac{1}{3} \delta_{ij} \nabla^2 E
\label{eqn:XXX}
\end{equation}
is trace-free.
We choose the spatially-flat gauge, so that $\Psi = E =0$, and vary the expanded action $\delta S_\phi$ with respect to the perturbations $\delta \phi_I(t,\vec x)$ to get the first-order equation of motion for the free-field perturbations.
After Fourier-transforming the scalar perturbations to $\delta \phi_I({\mathbf{k}})$, the mode equations in this gauge are
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 \delta \phi_I}{\mathrm{d} N_e^2} + (3-\epsilon) \frac{\mathrm{d} \delta \phi_I}{\mathrm{d} N_e} + \frac{k^2}{a^2H^2} \delta \phi_I + C_{IJ} \delta \phi^J = 0,
\label{eqn:dphi_mode}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{cij}
C_{IJ} \equiv \frac{\partial_I\partial_J V}{H^2} + \frac{1}{H^2} \left(\frac{\mathrm{d} \phi_I}{\mathrm{d} N_e} \partial_J V + \frac{\mathrm{d} \phi_J}{\mathrm{d} N_e} \partial_I V \right)
+ (3-\epsilon) \frac{\mathrm{d} \phi_I}{\mathrm{d} N_e} \frac{\mathrm{d} \phi_J}{\mathrm{d} N_e}
\end{equation}
and $\partial_I \equiv \partial/\partial \phi_I$.
The equation of motion for the tensor metric perturbations can be derived similarly; since the non-gauge degrees of freedom are massless and only minimally coupled to the matter sector, the resulting equations of motion are identical to the case of single-field inflation.
To solve the perturbation equations, it is usually convenient to work with the Mukhanov--Sasaki variable $u_I \equiv a \delta \phi_I$. The mode equation for $u_I$ is
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 u_I}{\mathrm{d} N_e^2} + (1-\epsilon) \frac{\mathrm{d} u_I}{\mathrm{d} N_e} + \left(\frac{k^2}{a^2H^2} - 2 + \epsilon \right) u_I + C_{IJ} u^J = 0
\label{eqn:ptbmodeeqn}
\end{equation}
with $C_{IJ}$ as in Eq.~\eqref{cij}.
Since the mass matrix, defined as $m^2_{IJ} \equiv \partial_I\partial_J V$, is not necessarily diagonal, the perturbation equations~\eqref{eqn:ptbmodeeqn} mix the annihilation operators for all of the fields \cite{Salopek:1988qh}. We therefore need to expand each perturbation mode $u_I({\mathbf{k}})$ and $u_I^\dagger({\mathbf{k}})$ using $N_f$ harmonic oscillators $a_J({\mathbf{k}})$:
\begin{equation}
u_I({\mathbf{k}}, N_e) = \psi_{I}^{\;\; J} ({\mathbf{k}}, N_e) a_J({\mathbf{k}}) \qquad \mathrm{and} \qquad
u_I^\dagger({\mathbf{k}}, N_e) = \psi_{I}^{\;\;J, *}({\mathbf{k}}, N_e) a_J^\dagger({\mathbf{k}}) ,
\end{equation}
where $(\dagger)$ and $(*)$ represent Hermitian and complex conjugation, respectively.\footnote{An alternative approach is to simply bypass this issue by solving for the field correlation functions directly rather than the individual modes, as in the transport method \cite{Mulryne:2009kh, Mulryne:2010rp, Seery:2012vj, Mulryne:2013uka}. }
We can then define canonical commutation relations $ [ a_J({\mathbf{k}}), a^\dagger_I({\mathbf{k}}')] = (2\pi)^3 \delta_{IJ} \delta^{(3)}({\mathbf{k}} - {\mathbf{k}}')$. The mode matrix $\psi_{IJ}$ evolves according to
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 \psi_{IJ}}{\mathrm{d} N_e^2} + (1-\epsilon) \frac{\mathrm{d} \psi_{IJ}}{\mathrm{d} N_e} + \left(\frac{k^2}{a^2H^2} - 2 + \epsilon \right) \psi_{IJ} + C_{IL} \psi^{L}_{\; \, J} = 0 .
\label{eqn:psi}
\end{equation}
Finding the perturbation spectrum requires setting initial conditions in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:psi} and using the background equations~\eqref{eqn:back} to find the time $N_{e,\mathbf{k}}$ when the mode $\mathbf k$ leaves the horizon, which also depends on the moment at which the pivot scale $k_*$ leaves the horizon, $N_*$ $e$-folds before the end of inflation.
The usual initial condition is the Bunch-Davies state~\cite{Bunch:1978yq}, which assumes the field basis has been chosen such that the $\psi_{IJ}$ are originally diagonal and sets the initial condition for Eq.~\eqref{eqn:psi} as if the mode matrix were freely oscillating in Minkowski space. This is well-motivated, since for modes deep in the horizon $k \gg aH$, the mode matrix $\psi_{IJ}$ obeys the free wave equation in conformal time
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 \psi_{IJ}}{\mathrm{d} \tau^2} + k^2 \psi_{IJ} = 0,
\label{eqn:psi_conf}
\end{equation}
where $d\tau \equiv a \, dt$.
If we assume that the mode matrix is initially diagonal at $\tau = -\infty$, then Eq.~\eqref{eqn:psi_conf} yields two solutions
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_{IJ} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2k}}\left( C_1 e^{ik\tau} + C_2 e^{-ik\tau} \right) \delta_{IJ}.
\end{eqnarray}
Translating to $e$-fold time, the initial conditions can be set by
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:BD}
\psi_{IJ}\Big|_{N_e=0} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2k}}\, (C_1 + C_2)\, \delta_{IJ}
\qquad \mathrm{and} \qquad
\frac{\mathrm{d} \psi_{IJ}}{\mathrm{d} N_e}\Big|_{N_e=0} = \frac{i}{aH}\sqrt{\frac{k}{2}}\,(C_1 - C_2)\,\delta_{IJ} ~.
\end{equation}
The Bunch-Davies initial condition is equivalent to choosing $C_1 = 0$ and $C_2 = 1$. While only the Bunch-Davies initial condition is implemented in \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace, non--Bunch-Davies modes could be easily accommodated.\footnote{One would do this by changing the modes' initial conditions in the \code{set\_background\_and\_mode\_ic()} subroutine in \code{modpk.f90}.}
Although the $u_I$'s are convenient for short wavelength modes, they grow exponentially after the modes exit the horizon. So once the mode is outside the horizon, \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace switches from $u_I$ to $\delta \phi_I$ by matching boundary conditions at a time $N_e^*$ just after horizon crossing with
\begin{equation}
u_I\Big|_{N_e^*} = e^{N_e^*} \delta \phi_I \Big|_{N_e^*} \qquad \mathrm{and} \qquad
\frac{\mathrm{d} u_I}{\mathrm{d} N_e}\Big|_{N_e^*} = e^{N_e^*} \left(\delta \phi_I + \frac{\mathrm{d} \delta \phi_I}{\mathrm{d} N_e}\right)\Big|_{N_e^*}.
\label{eqn:changevar}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Power spectra}
Unlike single-field inflation, the multifield power spectrum involves contractions of the mode matrix. Using the canonical commutation relations above, the two-point VEV of the field perturbations yields the power spectrum
\begin{equation}
P_{\delta \phi}^{IJ} (k) = \frac{k^3}{2\pi^2} \left[\frac{1}{a^2}\right] \psi^{I}_{\; L} \; \psi^{J L,*} \, .
\label{eqn:power}
\end{equation}
When the field trajectories are not turning, on super-horizon scales the fields $\phi_I$ and their momenta $\pi_I$ commute, indicating that they have transitioned to a regime where Eq.~\eqref{eqn:power} can be interpreted as an expectation value over realizations of classical, random fields.
To relate this field-space power spectrum to gauge-invariant perturbation variables \cite{Bardeen:1980kt,PhysRevD.28.679,GrootNibbelink:2000vx}, we first define the curvature perturbation on comoving hypersurfaces ${\cal R}$ by
\begin{equation}
{\cal R} \equiv \Psi + \frac{1}{3} \nabla^2 E + aH \left( B + v \right) ,
\label{eqn:rginvariant}
\end{equation}
where $v$ is given in terms of the momentum density of the stress-energy tensor $T^{\mu}_{\; \; \nu}$ as
\begin{equation}
T^{i}_{\; \, 0} \equiv \left( \bar \rho + \bar P \right) \delta^{ij} \frac{\partial v}{\partial x^j} ,
\label{eqn:XXX}
\end{equation}
where $\bar \rho$ and $\bar P$ are the background energy and pressure densities, respectively.
If we evaluate Eq.~\eqref{eqn:rginvariant} on spatially-flat hypersurfaces during inflation, ${\cal R}$ reduces to
\begin{equation}
{\cal R} = -\frac{H}{\dot \phi_0} \; \omega_I \delta \phi^I ,
\label{eqn:rptb}
\end{equation}
where $\omega_I \equiv \dot \phi_I/ \dot \phi_0$ is a basis vector that projects $\delta \phi_I$ along the direction of the classical background trajectory, given by the solutions to Eq.~\eqref{eqn:back}. The vector $\vec \omega$ and a complementary set of $(N_f-1)$ mutually orthonormal basis vectors $\vec s_K$ form the kinematic basis~\cite{Gordon:2000hv,GrootNibbelink:2001qt}, where the separation between the adiabatic perturbations in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:rptb} and transverse, isocurvature perturbations is made explicit. Since $\vec \omega$ depends on the nonlinear background evolution, in \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace we find the $\vec s_K$ numerically by Gram--Schmidt orthogonalization.
The \emph{adiabatic curvature power spectrum} ${\mathcal P_\calR}$ is then the projection of ${\mathcal{P}_{\delta \phi}^{IJ}}$ along the field vector $\omega_I$, scaled by the pre-factor in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:rptb}, leaving
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal P_\calR} (k) = \frac{1}{2 \epsilon} \omega_I \omega_J {\mathcal{P}_{\delta \phi}^{IJ}}(k) .
\label{eqn:pad}
\end{equation}
The gauge-invariant scalar density spectrum in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:pad} is the final result for the adiabatic two-point function to first-order in perturbation theory.
Since Eqs.~\eqref{eqn:rptb}~and~\eqref{eqn:pad} are projected along $\vec \omega$, a simple definition for the isocurvature perturbations ${\cal S}_K$ is the orthogonal projection along the $\vec s_K$ directions
\begin{equation}
{\cal S}_K \equiv - \frac{H}{\dot \phi_0} s_{K}^{\, \; J} \delta \phi_J .
\label{eqn:iso}
\end{equation}
By projecting ${\mathcal{P}_{\delta \phi}^{IJ}}$ onto all the directions $s_K$ that are orthogonal to $\omega_I$ and scaling the result as in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:pad}, leads to the \emph{isocurvature power spectrum}:
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal P_\calS} (k) = \frac{1}{2 \epsilon}\sum_{KL}^{N_f -1} \, \sum_{IJ}^{N_f} s_I^{\; \, K} s_J^{\; \, L} \, {\mathcal{P}_{\delta \phi}^{IJ}}(k),
\label{eqn:piso}
\end{equation}
where we have left the summations explicit to indicate that the isocurvature basis vectors are $(N_f-1)$--dimensional. We include this definition of isocurvature because it is numerically stable, as we discuss in Sect.~\ref{ssect:iso}.
Similarly, we define the \emph{adiabatic-isocurvature cross-spectra} ${\mathcal P_\mathrm{\calR \calS}}$, which is the cross-correlation between the comoving curvature perturbation and the total isocurvature perturbation, given by the contraction of ${\mathcal{P}_{\delta \phi}^{IJ}}$ with both $\omega$ and the isocurvature basis vectors $s_K$
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal P_\mathrm{\calR \calS}}(k) = \frac{1}{2 \epsilon} \sum_{K}^{N_f-1} \, \sum_{IJ}^{N_f} \omega_I s_K^J \left( {\mathcal{P}_{\delta \phi}^{IJ}} +{\mathcal{P}_{\delta \phi}^{JI}} \right) .
\label{eqn:cross}
\end{equation}
Cross-correlations are generically expected if the background trajectory is curved as modes of interest leave the horizon. By parametrizing Eq.~\eqref{eqn:cross} with the scalar value
\begin{equation}
\cos \Delta \equiv \frac{{\mathcal P_\mathrm{\calR \calS}}}{\sqrt{{\mathcal P_\calR} \, {\mathcal P_\calS}}},
\label{eqn:Delta}
\end{equation}
it was shown in Ref.~\cite{Byrnes:2006fr} that, for the case of $N_f = 2$, the value of $r$ is suppressed relative to the single-field, slow-roll expectation by $r \approx 16 \epsilon \sin^2 \Delta,$ to first-order in slow-roll. In principle, $\Delta$ may be detectable from CMB observations~\cite{Bartolo:2001rt,Wands:2002bn}.
However, by differentiating Eq.~\eqref{eqn:rginvariant} with respect to time $t$, the comoving curvature perturbation will not necessarily be constant even for $k \ll aH$. Instead,
\begin{equation}
\dot {\cal R} = -\frac{H}{\dot \phi_0^2} \delta P_\mathrm{nad} ,
\label{eqn:XXX}
\end{equation}
where $\delta P_\mathrm{nad}$ is the non-adiabatic pressure perturbation~\cite{GarciaBellido:1995qq,Wands:2000dp,Malik:2002jb}. This quantity is the difference between the total pressure perturbation
\begin{equation}
\delta P = \dot \phi_I \dot{\delta \phi^I} - \dot{\phi}_I\dot{\phi}^I \Phi - V_{,I} \delta \phi^I ,
\label{eqn:pptb}
\end{equation}
and the adiabatic pressure perturbation $\delta P_\mathrm{ad} = c_s^2 \delta \rho$, where the speed of sound is $c_s^2 = \dot P / \dot \rho$ and the lapse function is
\begin{equation}
\Phi = \frac{1}{2H} \dot \phi_I \delta \phi^I,
\label{eqn:lapse}
\end{equation}
defined in the spatially-flat gauge~\cite{Malik:2001rm}. Given the total density perturbation
\begin{equation}
\delta \rho =\dot \phi_I \dot{\delta \phi^I} - \dot{ \phi}_I\dot{ \phi}^I \Phi +V_{,I} \delta \phi^I ,
\label{eqn:rhoptb}
\end{equation}
the \emph{non-adiabatic pressure power spectrum} ${\mathcal P_{\delta P, \mathrm{nad}}}$ reduces to
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathcal P_{\delta P, \mathrm{nad}}} (k) = \frac{k^3}{2 \pi^2 a^2}
& \left[
A^I A^J \psi_{I}^{\; \, L} \psi_{LJ}^* + A^I B^J \psi_{I}^{\; \, L} \psi_{LJ}^\prime \right. \\
&\left. + B^I A^J \psi_{J}^{* \; \,L} \psi_{LI}^\prime + B^I B^J \psi_{I}^{\prime \; \, L} \psi_{LJ}^{* \prime}
\right] , \notag
\label{eqn:ppnad}
\end{eqnarray}
where $(\prime)$ indicates a derivative with respect to $e$-foldings $N_e$ and we have defined the vectors
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:avect}
A_I = \frac{1}{3 a H^2 \epsilon} \phi^{\prime,L}
\left[
\left( -3 H^2 \phi_L^\prime - \partial_L V \right) \partial_I V
+ H^2 \partial_M V \, \phi^{\prime, M} \left( \delta_{LI} + \frac{1}{2} \phi_L^\prime \phi_I^\prime \right)
\right]
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
B_I = \left(1- c_s^2 \right) H^2 \phi_I^\prime.
\label{eqn:bvect}
\end{equation}
By analogy to Eq.~\eqref{eqn:iso}, we can build an entropy perturbation from the non-adiabatic pressure perturbation \cite{Gordon:2000hv,Malik:2004tf,Huston:2011fr}, with
\begin{equation}
\delta S = \frac{H}{\dot P} \delta P_\mathrm{nad}.
\label{eqn:entptb}
\end{equation}
From this we obtain our final definition of isocurvature, the \emph{comoving entropy spectrum}, given by
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal P_\mathrm{ent}} (k) = \left( \frac{H}{\dot P} \right)^2 {\mathcal P_{\delta P, \mathrm{nad}}} .
\label{eqn:pent}
\end{equation}
\subsection{$\delta N$ formalism}
\label{sect:dN}
The separate-universe assumption \cite{Starobinsky:1986fxa,Lyth:1984gv,Sasaki:1995aw,Salopek:1990jq,Sasaki:1998ug,Wands:2000dp}, often referred to as $\delta N$, states that when smoothed on some physical scale much larger than the horizon, the evolution of each smoothed patch can be computed using only background quantities. By identifying that $\zeta = \delta N$, where $\zeta$ is the curvature perturbation on constant density hypersurfaces and $\delta N$ measures the variation in the number of $e$-folds between an initial flat hypersurface and a subsequent constant density hypersurface, Lyth and Rodriguez demonstrated that this assumption can be taken advantage of when computing correlation functions by performing a Taylor expansion in terms of the initial conditions \cite{Lyth:2005fi}.
\begin{equation}
\zeta =N_{,I} \delta \phi^{I}_{*} + \frac{1}{2}N_{,IJ}\delta \phi_{*}^I \delta \phi_{*}^J + \dots\, .
\label{eqn:deltaN}
\end{equation}
The main difficulty in this approach lies in computing the derivatives of the number of $e$-folds ($N_{,I} \equiv \partial N_e / \partial \phi_{I,*}$, $N,_{IJ}$ \emph{etc.}). However for sum-separable models these expressions can be computed analytically~\cite{Vernizzi:2006ve,Battefeld:2006sz}. For models with fields much lighter than $H$ at horizon crossing, the numerically intensive calculation of solving for the modes may therefore be unnecessary. \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace implements this $\delta N$ slow-roll formalism where we assume that $t_*$ is the moment when the pivot-scale $k_*$ leaves the horizon and that the field perturbations at this time are uncorrelated, with a power spectrum
\begin{equation}
\mathcal P_{\delta \phi}^{IJ} = \left( \frac{H}{2 \pi} \right)^2 \delta^{IJ}.
\label{eqn:XXX}
\end{equation}
We also assume that the tensor modes, which are massless and uncoupled to the matter sector, have a power spectrum $\mathcal P_{h} = 8 \, (H/2 \pi)^2$.
At least to first order, on super-horizon scales $\zeta = \mathcal R$ \cite{Malik:2008im}, which allows us to compare the predicted power spectrum for $\zeta$ using the $\delta N$ formalism to the adiabatic power spectrum in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:pad}.
If the potential $V$ is sum-separable so that
\begin{equation}
V = \sum_{I} V_I(\phi_I),
\label{eqn:XXX}
\end{equation}
then we can use the Klein--Gordon equations~\eqref{eqn:back} for the scalar fields to obtain a sum-separable expression for the amount of expansion between the two surfaces
\begin{equation}
N_e = - \sum_I \int_*^c \frac{V_I}{V_I'} d \phi_I,
\label{eqn:N}
\end{equation}
where $V_I' \equiv dV_I/d\phi_I$. If $V$ were not sum-separable, the derivatives of $N_e$ would in general have to be obtained numerically by evolving the background equations of motion~\eqref{eqn:back} on a stencil in field-space and taking the finite difference. We have not implemented this feature in \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace as it is more computationally intensive than solving the mode equations.
When the potential is sum-separable, the derivatives of $N_e$ can be simplified into the expressions~\cite{Vernizzi:2006ve,Battefeld:2006sz}
\begin{equation}
N_{,I} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \epsilon_{I}^*}} \frac{V_I^* + Z_I^c}{V^*}
\label{eqn:XXX}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
N_{,IJ} = \delta_{IJ} \left[1 - \frac{\eta_I^*}{2 \epsilon_I^*} \left( \frac{V_I^* + Z_I^c}{V^*} \right) \right]
+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \epsilon_J^*} V^*} \frac{ \partial Z_J^c}{\partial \phi_I^*},
\label{eqn:XXX}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
Z_I^c = V^c \frac{\epsilon_I^c}{\epsilon^c} - V_I^c,
\label{eqn:XXX}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
Z_{IJ}^c = - \frac{V_c^2}{V^*} \sqrt{\frac{2}{\epsilon_J}}
\left[\sum_{K=1}^{N_f} \epsilon_K \left( \frac{\epsilon_I}{\epsilon} - \delta_{IK} \right) \left( \frac{\epsilon_J}{\epsilon} - \delta_{JK}\right) \left( 1 - \frac{\eta_K}{\epsilon} \right) \right]_c,
\label{eqn:XXX}
\end{equation}
and the slow-roll parameters are
\begin{equation}
\epsilon \equiv \sum_I \epsilon_I = \frac{1}{2} \sum_I \frac{V_I'^2}{V^2}
\label{eqn:XXX}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\eta \equiv \sum_I \eta_I = \sum_I \frac{V_I''}{V}.
\label{eqn:XXX}
\end{equation}
The contribution from the EOI surface is therefore completely encoded in the functions $Z_I$ and its derivatives.
The relationship~\eqref{eqn:deltaN} and the expansion equation~\eqref{eqn:N} allow us to define pivot-scale observables for the scalar perturbations $\zeta$. We will focus on the observables obtainable only through the first and second derivatives of $N_e$, and express our results only to the lowest order in slow-roll. We start with the $\zeta$ power spectrum
\begin{equation}
\mathcal P_\zeta = N_{,I} N^{,I} \left( \frac{H}{2 \pi} \right)^2,
\label{eqn:XXX}
\end{equation}
and the tensor-to-scalar ratio
\begin{equation}
r = \frac{8}{N_{,I} N^{,I}},
\label{eqn:XXX}
\end{equation}
which have simple expressions only in terms of $N_{,I}$. The adiabatic and tensor spectral indices $n_s$ and $n_t$ also have easily evaluated expressions
\begin{equation}
n_s -1 = -2 \epsilon_* - \frac{2}{N_{,I} N^{,I}} +
\left( \frac{2}{V} \right) \frac{V_{,IJ} N^{,I} N^{,J}}{ N_{,K} N^{,K}}
\label{eqn:XXX}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
n_t = \frac{ -2 \epsilon_* } {1- \epsilon_*} .
\label{eqn:XXX}
\end{equation}
The expression for the scalar running $\alpha_s$ is more complicated, but straightforward to compute (\emph{e.g.}, Eq. 6.14 in Ref.~\cite{Dias:2012nf}).
To obtain the amplitude of the predicted non-Gaussianity we further assume that the field perturbations at horizon crossing are purely Gaussian, since the non-Gaussianity generated by sub-horizon evolution of the modes is typically slow-roll suppressed~\cite{Seery:2005gb,Vernizzi:2006ve}, assuming that slow-roll is not violated. Following Refs.~\cite{Maldacena:2002vr,Vernizzi:2006ve}, we use the non-linearity parameter
\begin{equation}
- \frac{6}{5} f_\mathrm{NL} \equiv \left[ \frac{\prod_i k_i^3}{\sum_i k_i^3} \right] \frac{B_\zeta}{4 \pi^4 \mathcal P_\zeta^2} \approx \frac{ N_{,I} N_{,J} N^{,IJ}}{ \left( N_{,K} N^{,K} \right)^2},
\label{eqn:XXX}
\end{equation}
where $B_\zeta$ is the bispectrum. Given Gaussian field perturbations at horizon crossing, the trispectrum amplitude is then parametrized by the non-linearity parameters \cite{Alabidi:2005qi,Byrnes:2006vq}
\begin{equation}
\tau_\mathrm{NL} = \frac{ N_{,IJ} N^{,IK} N^{,J} N_{,K}}{ \left( N_{,L} N^{,L} \right)^3}
\label{eqn:XXX}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
g_\mathrm{NL} = \left( \frac{25}{54} \right) \frac{N_{,IJK} N^{,I}N^{,J}N^{,K}}{\left(N_{,L}N^{,L} \right)^3}.
\label{eqn:XXX}
\end{equation}
Since $g_\mathrm{NL} \sim N_{,IJK}$ we do not compute it here, although it could be implemented by taking the third derivative of $N_e$ as in Ref.~\cite{Battefeld:2006sz}.
\subsection{Bundle width}
\label{ssect:bundle}
An alternative method of monitoring isocurvature is to acknowledge that under slow-roll, the separate universe assumption is precisely analogous to geometrical optics in field space~\cite{Seery:2012vj}. The smoothed spatial patches described in Sect.~\ref{sect:dN} each correspond to a distinct non-interacting trajectory in field space with perturbed initial conditions with respect to some arbitrary fiducial trajectory. These perturbed trajectories can then be thought of as forming a \emph{bundle} moving through a medium with refractive index $\sqrt{2\epsilon}$. One can therefore track isocurvature evolution using only background quantities, by associating isocurvature growth and decay with dilation and contraction of the bundle. While the precise analogy with geometrical optics does not remain when slow-roll is violated, one still has a useful set of geometrical quantities for understanding the evolution of field perturbations.
Under slow-roll, the Klein--Gordon equation reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:KGSR}
\frac{\mathrm{d} \phi_{I}}{\mathrm{d} N_e}=-\partial_{I}\log V,
\end{equation}
which is \emph{Huygen's equation} and an infinitesimal vector propagated along the beam is called a \emph{Jacobi field}. If we take $\delta\phi_{I}$ to be such a field, we can obtain from Eq.~\eqref{eq:KGSR} how it will propagate:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d} \delta\phi_{I}}{\mathrm{d} N_e}=-\left [\partial_{I}\partial_{J}\log V\right ] \delta\phi^{J},
\end{equation}
which is the slow-roll analogue of Eq.~\eqref{eqn:ptbmodeeqn} \cite{Seery:2012vj, Mulryne:2013uka}. Indeed, we could have recast the whole of Sect.~\ref{ssect:mode} in this language \cite{Mulryne:2013uka}. The term in square brackets is usually referred to as the expansion tensor and it encodes all information required for tracking field perturbations;\footnote{This point is heavily emphasised in the context of the \emph{transport method} of computing inflationary correlation functions \cite{Mulryne:2009kh, Mulryne:2010rp, Seery:2012vj, Mulryne:2013uka, DiasUnpub}.} under slow-roll it has a particularly simple geometric interpretation. We can decompose the expansion tensor as
\begin{equation}
\partial_{I}\partial_{J}\log V=\frac{\theta}{N_{f}}+\sigma_{IJ}+\omega_{IJ},
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_{IJ}$ is the symmetric shear, $\omega_{IJ}$ is the antisymmetric twist, and the key quantity for our purposes is the dilation, given by the trace
\begin{equation}
\theta= \mathrm{Tr}\, \partial_{I}\partial_{J}\log V.
\label{eqn:bundle}
\end{equation}
If $\theta>0$, then isocurvature is growing and if $\theta<0$, then isocurvature is decaying. We can then find a measure $\Theta$ of the bundle width by integrating this along the inflationary trajectory
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Theta}
\Theta\equiv \exp \left[ \int_{N_{0}}^{N} \theta(N') dN' \right],
\end{equation}
which normalizes the bundle width so that $\Theta (N_0) \equiv 1$.
In situations where we only want to solve the background equations of motion, the bundle width is informative for understanding whether or not $\zeta$ becomes conserved on superhorizon scales, which is a crucial requirement when comparing the predictions of a model with observation. For two fields $\Theta\rightarrow0$ is a necessary and sufficient condition for the approach to an adiabatic limit. However when there are more fields the situation is more complicated, \emph{e.g.}, the bundle may contract to a sheet rather than a caustic. We refer the reader to Ref.~\cite{Seery:2012vj, Dias:2012nf, DiasUnpub} for more details.
\section{The method}
\label{sect:method}
We outline the procedure used to obtain the power spectrum predictions, with the algorithmic structure of \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace in Algorithm~\ref{alg:mmc}. While this largely follows previous implementations, such as \textsc{Pyflation} \cite{Huston:2009ac,Huston:2011fr,Huston:2011vt,Huston:2013kgl}, we give the method the sake of clarity and reproducibility.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{\textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace method}
\label{alg:mmc}
\begin{algorithmic}
\State \textbf{define} sample size, $V$, $k_*$
\ForAll{elements in sample}
\Procedure{Background Solver:}{}
\State \textbf{get} Lagrangian parameters for $V$ and ICs for Eq.~\eqref{eqn:back} from prior PDF
\State \textbf{with} the end-of-inflation (EOI) criterion set by user, \textbf{solve} Eq.~\eqref{eqn:back} until EOI
\State \textbf{check} inflation ($\ddot a >0$) started and ended
\EndProcedure
\Procedure{Scale-factor Normalizer:}{}
\State \textbf{get} $N_*$ from user \textbf{or} by prior PDF
\State \textbf{check} total inflationary $e$-folds $N_\mathrm{tot} \ge N_*$
\State \textbf{define} $a$ such that $k_* = a_* H_*$ at $N_e = N_\mathrm{tot} - N_*$ before inflation ends
\EndProcedure
\Procedure{$\delta N$ Calculator:}{}
\If{$V$ is sum-separable,} calculate $\delta N$ observables near $k_*$
\EndIf
\EndProcedure
\ForAll{modes $k$}
\Procedure{Mode Initializer:}{}
\State \textbf{define} initial time $N_{e,0}$ with $k \gg a_0 H_0$
\State \textbf{while} the corrections to Eq.~\eqref{eqn:psi_conf} are above some tolerance:
\State \qquad \textbf{set} earlier $N_{e,0}$
and \textbf{check} $N_{e,0} > 0 $
\State \textbf{set} Bunch-Davies IC for mode matrix $\psi_{IJ}(\mathbf k)$ at $N_{e,0}$
\EndProcedure
\Procedure{Mode Solver:}{}
\State \textbf{solve} Eq.~\eqref{eqn:ptbmodeeqn} until $k \approx aH$
\State \textbf{change} variable as in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:changevar} and \textbf{solve} until EOI
\State \textbf{calculate} power spectra for $k$
\EndProcedure
\EndFor
\Procedure{$k_*$-observable Calculator:}{}
\State \textbf{calculate} amplitudes, spectral indices, \emph{etc.} at $k_*$ by finite difference in $k$-space
\EndProcedure
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
We start by defining the functional form of the potential $V$ and prior probability distribution functions (PDFs) for the parameters that define $V$, which we call Lagrangian parameters or model parameters, and the background initial conditions $\phi_{I,0}$ and $\phi_{I,0}^\prime$. We treat the simple situation of exactly specifying a set of Lagrangian parameters and initial conditions as a special case, where the prior probability for these parameters is trivial. Given these priors, the program will build a numerical sample by iteration until a pre-defined number of samples is reached.
\textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace first solves the background equations of motion~\eqref{eqn:back} until the end-of-inflation. While we have included the natural condition of $\epsilon =1$ as the default ending criterion for inflation, there is complete functionality to end inflation by another method, in particular a waterfall transition via the hybrid mechanism~\cite{Linde:1993cn,Copeland:1994vg} at some reference phase-space point.
Given a value for the number of $e$-folds $N_*$ between when the pivot scale $k_*$ leaves the horizon and the end-of-inflation, which is either fixed by the user or set in each iteration of the code through the sampling of a prior probability $P(N_*)$, we obtain the value of $H$ at horizon crossing by interpolating the numerical background solution. The pivot scale $k_*$ must be pre-defined by the user and defaults to $0.002 \; \mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$. From this, we normalize the size of the universe so that $k_* = a H_*$ at $N_e = N_\mathrm{tot}-N_*$.
For each scale of interest $k$, we set the modes' initial conditions at a time $N_{e,0}$ when that mode is significantly sub-horizon, $k \gg a_0 H_0$. For the Bunch-Davis initial state, this point is chosen iteratively by making sure that the relative corrections to Eq.~\eqref{eqn:psi_conf} that are sub-dominant for $k \gg aH$ are smaller than a pre-defined tolerance. This tolerance is set to $1\e{-5}$; from observing the sub-horizon evolution of the modes, using a tolerance at least this tight gives no change to the value of the modes at horizon crossing.
We then solve the mode equations~\eqref{eqn:ptbmodeeqn} for the variable $\psi_{IJ}$ for the period of time when the modes are smaller than the causal horizon, $k \gtrsim aH$, and then switch to a two-index matrix built from the $u_I$ in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:changevar} for super-horizon evolution. The power spectra are calculated for each $k$ and various pivot-scale statistics are evaluated by finite-difference between a few scales $k_i$ near $k_*$. If the potential $V$ is sum-separable, the program also calculates the $\delta N$ values for the observables described in Section~\ref{sect:dN}.
Numerous checks are performed on the background and mode equation evolution so that \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace will either fail gracefully if a fatal exception is raised or declare a particular initial parameter set invalid and iteratively generate a new set of parameters in order to explore cosmologically relevant parameter sets. We have extensively tested the numerical stability of the code and have included a number of easily controllable options allowing the user to control the numerical accuracy, as well as the type of ODE solver.
\section{Numerical results}
\label{sect:results}
\subsection{Isocurvature stability}
\label{ssect:iso}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{./isocurv_compare.pdf}
\caption{The evolution of the power spectra during the last 55 $e$-folds of inflation for a two-field $N_f$-quadratic model. (\emph{Left}) The power spectrum for adiabatic (\emph{green}) and non-adiabatic (\emph{blue}) pressure perturbations $\delta P$.
The total pressure spectrum and the adiabatic pressure spectrum are nearly coincident on this scale, so the total pressure spectrum ${\mathcal P_{\delta P}}$ has not been plotted. The gray area is an estimate of the region dominated by double-precision error due to round-off in ${\mathcal P_{\delta P, \mathrm{nad}}}$. (\emph{Right}) The power spectra for perturbations in the adiabatic curvature ${\mathcal P_\calR}$, the isocurvature ${\mathcal P_\calS}$, and the comoving entropy ${\mathcal P_\mathrm{ent}}$. ${\mathcal P_\mathrm{ent}}$ is a rescaling of ${\mathcal P_{\delta P, \mathrm{nad}}}$ and is numerically unstable for $N_e \gtrsim 30$ in this model. ${\mathcal P_\calS}$ is numerically stable until the end of inflation.
}
\label{fig:iso}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:iso} illustrates a problem that arises when computing the isocurvature spectra ${\mathcal P_{\delta P, \mathrm{nad}}}$ and ${\mathcal P_\mathrm{ent}}$. We have plotted the super-horizon evolution of the power spectra for the adiabatic and non-adiabatic pressure perturbations, as well as the adiabatic curvature, entropic, and isocurvature spectra, with $N_*=55$, for a two-field inflation model with the potential
\begin{equation}
V = \frac{1}{2}m_1^2 \phi_1^2 + \frac{1}{2}m_2^2 \phi_2^2.
\label{eqn:V_2field}
\end{equation}
To match the analysis performed in Refs.~\cite{Lalak:2007vi,Huston:2011fr,Avgoustidis:2011em,Huston:2013kgl} we choose $m_1^2=10^{-11.7}$, $m_2^2=10^{-10.0}$, and initial conditions $\phi_{1,0} = \phi_{2,0} = 12.0 \, M_\mathrm{Pl}$. In particular, Fig.~\ref{fig:iso} can be compared directly to Figs~1~and~3 in Ref.~\cite{Huston:2011fr}. With this choice of parameters, the background trajectory evolves primarily along the direction of the heavier field $\phi_2$ for $N_e \lesssim 25$, then turns sharply toward the $\phi_1$ direction for the remainder of inflation. The effect of this turn on the super-horizon perturbations can be seen clearly in the power spectra in Fig.~\ref{fig:iso}.
In general, the calculation of ${\mathcal P_{\delta P, \mathrm{nad}}}$ and ${\mathcal P_\mathrm{ent}}$ becomes dominated by numerical error as the isocurvature perturbations decay. From Fig.~\ref{fig:iso}, regardless of the amplitude of the isocurvature modes, the adiabatic pressure perturbations $\delta P_\mathrm{ad} = c_s^2 \delta \rho$ do not exponentially decay between horizon exit and the end of inflation. For the example model~\eqref{eqn:V_2field}, the power spectrum for $\delta P_\mathrm{ad}$ is approximately constant after the turn at $N_e \approx 25$. However, the total pressure perturbation $\delta P$ is approximately equal to $\delta P_\mathrm{ad}$ during this time and the difference between the two reduces exponentially as the isocurvature modes decay.
Since $\delta P_\mathrm{nad} \equiv \delta P - \delta P_\mathrm{ad}$ and $\delta P_\mathrm{ad} \to \delta P$, the numerical accuracy for $\delta P_\mathrm{nad}$ is limited by the real precision of the computer, which results in a finite difference error in the numerical calculation of $\delta P_\mathrm{nad}$ and a loss of significance. Using standard double precision accuracy, the expected error in $\delta P_\mathrm{nad}$ should then be
\begin{equation}
\Delta_\mathrm{err} {\mathcal P_{\delta P, \mathrm{nad}}} \sim \mathcal O(10^{-15}) \; \mathcal P_{\delta P} \sim \mathcal O(10^{-15}) \; \mathcal P_{\delta P, \mathrm{ad}},
\label{eqn:num_error}
\end{equation}
which is confirmed in Fig.~\ref{fig:iso}. Without correcting for this dominant error term, the value of ${\mathcal P_{\delta P, \mathrm{nad}}}$ will oscillate arbitrarily between zero and the limit in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:num_error}, which is an upper bound on the amplitude of the non-adiabatic pressure perturbations. Since entropic perturbations are usually defined as~\cite{Malik:2004tf}
\begin{equation}
S_{IJ} \equiv \zeta_I - \zeta_J ,
\label{eqn:XXX}
\end{equation}
where $\zeta_I$ is the curvature perturbation resulting from the $I^\mathrm{th}$ fluid, this problem will arise naturally for all calculations of ${\mathcal P_\mathrm{ent}}$.
In contrast, the calculation of ${\mathcal P_\calS}$ in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:piso} is directly proportional to the value of the decaying isocurvature modes in the kinematic basis. Using this isocurvature spectrum largely alleviates the numerical problems with $\delta P_\mathrm{nad}$, yielding a more faithful measure with a higher degree of accuracy. Figure~\ref{fig:iso} shows the exponential decay of ${\mathcal P_\calS}$ after the super-horizon turn at $N_e \sim 25$. We compare this to ${\mathcal P_\mathrm{ent}}$, which becomes numerically unstable at $N_e \approx 30$, showing that the two measures ${\mathcal P_\calS}$ and ${\mathcal P_\mathrm{ent}}$ are separated by 27 orders of magnitude at the end of inflation, despite being of the same magnitude at horizon crossing.\footnote{As the adiabatic limit is approached, ${\mathcal P_\calS}$ can also receive a dominant contribution from roundoff error in the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization procedure. If some components of the isocurvature vectors $s_K^I$ are much smaller than others, this can result in a spurious projection of ${\mathcal P_\calR}$ onto the isocurvature directions. In \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace we have included an optional subroutine \code{renormalize\_remove\_smallest} in \code{modpk\_potential.f90}, where the components of $s_K^I$ are set to zero if they do not affect the normalization of $s_K$, \emph{i.e.}, if the value of $s_K^I$ is indistinguishable from roundoff error. In practice, we have never seen this problem arise, so this option needs to be uncommented in the source code before compilation.}
\subsection{A case study: $N_f$-flation with a step}
\label{ssect:case}
We have shown in Refs.~\cite{Easther:2013rva,Price:2014ufa} that \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace is able to produce large volume Monte Carlo samples for $N_f$--monomial inflation with the potential
\begin{equation}
V = \frac{1}{p} \sum_I \lambda_I |\phi_I|^p,
\label{eqn:V_monomial}
\end{equation}
for real exponents $p$ \cite{Liddle:1998jc,Kanti:1999vt,Kanti:1999ie,Kaloper:1999gm,Easther:2005zr,Dimopoulos:2005ac,Kim:2006ys,Kim:2006te,Kim:2007bc,Wenren:2014cga}. In Ref.~\cite{Easther:2013rva} we focused on the $N_f$--quadratic case with $p=2$ and demonstrated that the predictions for the power spectrum do not sensitively depend on the prior probability chosen for the initial conditions of the fields. In Ref.~\cite{Price:2014ufa} we further demonstrated this for the general case in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:V_monomial}, while focusing on the gravitational wave consistency relation. We were able to straightforwardly compare the analytical $\delta N$ results to the numerics, greatly simplifying the procedure for comparing analytical results to the full numerical calculation. We include all of the IC priors used in these papers in \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace.
Since we have already demonstrated the power of \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace in Monte Carlo sampling, in this paper we will instead focus on a few case studies that are interesting due to their analytic intractability.
We present results for a multifield generalization of the inflationary step-potential first used in Ref.~\cite{Adams:2001vc}. This potential has the form
\begin{equation}
V = \frac{1}{2} \sum_I m_I^2 \phi_I^2 \left[ 1 + c_I \tanh \left( \frac{\phi_I - \bar \Phi_{I}}{d_I} \right) \right]
\label{eqn:V_step}
\end{equation}
with masses $m_I$ and real constants $d_I$, $c_I$, and $\bar \Phi_I$ specifying the slope, amplitude, and position, respectively, for a step feature in the $I\th$ field. Phase transitions in sectors coupled only gravitationally to the inflaton sector may generate these hyperbolic-tangent features in $V$ and leave an observable imprint in the primordial density spectra if these symmetry breaking transitions occur during the last $\mathcal O(60)$ $e$-folds of inflation \cite{Adams:1997de,Adams:2001vc}. In the sharp-step limit, these features introduce oscillations as a function of $k$ into the adiabatic curvature power spectrum and a scale-dependent, oscillatory bispectrum~\cite{Adams:2001vc,Chen:2006xjb,Chen:2008wn,Adshead:2011jq}. To keep $V>0$ we require $c_I<1$ and to satisfy the latest constraints on oscillations in the scalar power spectrum amplitude requires $c_I \lesssim 10^{-3}$, assuming that the step occurs as the scales relevant for the CMB leave the horizon \cite{Easther:2013kla,Meerburg:2013cla,Meerburg:2013dla}.
With $c_I \to 0$, Eq.~\eqref{eqn:V_step} is an uncoupled assisted inflation model~\cite{Liddle:1998jc,Copeland:1999cs}, first proposed in Ref.~\cite{Dimopoulos:2005ac}. Models with a step feature are additionally interesting, because they can fit a wider range of data and have been well-studied in the single-field case. In particular, Ref.~\cite{Adshead:2011jq} contains an elegant analytical calculation for the single-field case of Eq.~\eqref{eqn:V_step}. However, replicating the same calculation for the general potential would be difficult --- if not impossible --- with the same techniques, since the possible existence of isocurvature perturbations significantly complicates the analysis. Consequently, a numerical exploration of this model is well-motivated.
Fixing the number of fields to $N_f=10$, we set the initial conditions to $\phi_{I,0}=10$, with the initial velocities set in slow-roll. The size and slope of the step are set to $c_I = 10^{-3}$ and $d_I=10^{-2}$ respectively, and the masses $m_I$ relative to the fiducial mass to $\bar m^2 =4.30\e{-11}$, which in the single-field limit yields $A_s$ at the best-fit value from the \emph{Planck} $TT$ data. Following Ref.~\cite{Easther:2005zr}, we choose the masses $m_I$ according to the Mar\v{c}enko-Pastur distribution
\begin{equation}
P(m_I^2) = \frac{1}{2 \pi m_I^2 \; \bar m^2 \beta} \; \sqrt{ \left( \beta_+ - m_I^2 \right) \left( m_I^2 - \beta_- \right) },
\label{eqn:MP}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\beta_{\pm} = \bar m^2 \left( 1 \pm \sqrt{\beta} \right)^2
\label{eqn:betaeq}
\end{equation}
with $\beta =1/2$.
This distribution of masses is derived in Ref.~\cite{Easther:2005zr}, and has also been used in Refs.~\cite{Kim:2007bc,Battefeld:2008bu,Easther:2013rva,Bachlechner:2014hsa}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{./field_back.pdf}
\caption{
(\emph{Left}) The masses $m_I$ for each of the 10 fields in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:V_step}, drawn from the distribution~\eqref{eqn:MP} with $\bar m^2 = 4.3\e{-11}$, compared to the corresponding step positions $\bar \Phi_I$ for that field, which is positioned so that the pivot scale $k_*=0.002\; \mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ leaves the horizon at $\bar \Phi_I$, given the initial conditions $\phi_{I,0} = 10$.
(\emph{Right}) The field trajectories (\emph{colored lines}), with the same initial condition, as a function of $e$-folding $N_e$, with $k_*$ (\emph{vertical line}) leaving the horizon 55 $e$-folds before the end of inflation. The step positions $\bar \Phi_I$ are marked in blue and $N_e$ has been renormalized so that $k_*=aH$ at $N_e=0$.
}
\label{fig:field_back}
\end{figure}
We set the step positions $\bar \Phi_I$ for each field at the field-space point where the pivot scale $k_*=0.002 \; \mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ leaves the horizon at $N_*=55$ $e$-folds before the end of inflation in the no-step limit, $c_I \to 0$.
Since the fields have identical initial conditions, the $\bar \Phi_I$ are functions only of the masses, so we plot the step positions versus the $m_I$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:field_back}. We also present the field-space trajectories according to Eq.~\eqref{eqn:back} for the last 75 $e$-folds of inflation with these parameters. The heavier fields relax more quickly toward their minimum at $\phi_I =0$ and the lighter fields have a larger value at horizon crossing. Since $c_I = 10^{-3}$, the step is not obviously visible at the level of the background trajectory without zooming in significantly.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{./pk_compare.pdf}
\caption{Features in the power spectra due to the step~\eqref{eqn:V_step}, which is positioned so that it affects the power spectra around the pivot scale $k_*= 0.002 \; \mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ (\emph{gray}). We compare (\emph{dashed, blue}) the no-step case with $c_I=0$, to (\emph{solid, green}) the case with $c_I = 10^{-3}$. While there are oscillations in the adiabatic ${\mathcal P_\calR}$, isocurvature ${\mathcal P_\calS}$, and entropic ${\mathcal P_\mathrm{ent}}$ spectra, there is little variation in the tensor spectrum ${\mathcal P_{h}}$.
}
\label{fig:pk_compare}
\end{figure}
However, Fig.~\ref{fig:pk_compare} shows the substantial effect on the power spectra due to the steps. We see oscillatory behavior in the adiabatic, isocurvature, and entropic power spectra, but almost no change in the tensor spectrum. Furthermore, we can see clearly that ${\mathcal P_\calS}$ and ${\mathcal P_\mathrm{ent}}$ exhibit a nearly identical feature, simply scaled by a factor of roughly 65. These features in the isocurvature spectrum may lead to interesting effects during reheating or the subsequent evolution of the post-inflation universe.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sect:conclusion}
We present the Fortran 95/2000 code \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace, designed to maximize computational efficiency when numerically exploring a broad range of multifield inflation models. The code also provides Monte Carlo sampling of prior probabilities for inflationary model parameters and initial conditions, enabling automated model exploration and the computation of probability distributions for observables. The mode equation method has a broad range of applicability, but the computational cost scales with the number of fields as $\mathcal O(N_{f}^{2})$. For models with sum-separable potentials, we have also implemented a slow-roll $\delta N$ calculation, which only requires solving the background equations of motion once in order to obtain the full power spectrum as well as higher order statistics. This drastically improves computation time, since the background equations of motion are only $\mathcal O(N_f)$.
This code was used to explore the predictions of models with $\order{100}$ fields in Refs.~\cite{Easther:2013rva,Price:2014ufa}; here, we demonstrated its use with an $N_f$-flation model with a step. We find that a feature in the inflationary potential not only results in a feature in both the adiabatic power spectrum as a function of scale, ${\mathcal P_\calR}(k)$, as well as the isocurvature spectra ${\mathcal P_\calS}$, ${\mathcal P_\mathrm{ent}}$, and ${\mathcal P_{\delta P, \mathrm{nad}}}$, with possible implications for the dynamics of many-field preheating scenarios. Further, we see numerical evidence that the isocurvature spectrum ${\mathcal P_\calS}$ is a simple rescaling of the entropic spectrum ${\mathcal P_\mathrm{ent}}$, indicating that the projection of the mode power spectrum onto the isocurvature directions is related to a quantity that sources a change in $\mathcal R$ on super-horizon scales.
\textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace complements codes that currently exist to numerically compute the inflationary power spectra~\cite{Adams:2001vc, Ringeval:2005yn, Martin:2006rs, Huston:2009ac,Mortonson:2010er, Easther:2011yq, Huston:2011fr,Huston:2011vt,Norena:2012rs,Huston:2013kgl, DiasUnpub}. We provide a basic usage manual for \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace in Appendix~\ref{app:usage} to help users to adapt this program to their own problems. The theoretical basis of the method is outlined in Section~\ref{sect:method}. The ability of \textsc{MultiModeCode}\xspace to solve numerically challenging problems, such as the step-potential in \S\ref{ssect:case}, and to provide large samples of many-field inflationary models adds significantly to the early universe cosmologist's toolkit for exploring and understanding realistic inflation models.
\acknowledgments
We thank Grigor Aslanyan, Adam Christopherson, Mafalda Dias, Ian Huston, Karim Malik, David Mulryne, David Seery, and Jonathan White for many helpful discussions throughout the duration of this work. We acknowledge the use of the \code{dvode\_f90\_m.f90} numerical integration code,\footnote{\url{www.radford.edu/~thompson/vodef90web/}} developed by G. Byrne, S. Thompson, and LLNL, which we redistribute here under the terms of their BSD-like license, and the CSV writing capabilities of the FLIBS open-source library,\footnote{\url{http://flibs.sourceforge.net/}} developed by Arjen Markus.
JF is supported by IKERBASQUE, the Basque Foundation for Science. HVP is supported by STFC and the European Research Council under the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant agreement no 306478-CosmicDawn. The authors acknowledge the contribution of the NeSI high-performance computing facilities and the staff at the Centre for eResearch at the University of Auckland. New Zealand's national facilities are provided by the New Zealand eScience Infrastructure (NeSI) and funded jointly by NeSI's collaborator institutions and through the Ministry of Business, Innovation \& Employment's Research Infrastructure programme [{\url{http://www.nesi.org.nz}}]. This work has been facilitated by the Royal Society under their International Exchanges Scheme. This work was supported in part by National Science Foundation Grant No. PHYS-1066293 and the hospitality of the Aspen Center for Physics.
|
\section{Introduction}
The GAMA survey (http://www.gama-survey.org/) is a multi-wavelength spectroscopic survey that covers $\sim360$ deg$^2$, which includes $\sim400,000$ galaxy redshifts down to a magnitude limit of $r_{AB}=19.8$ (\cite[Driver et al. 2011]{DR11}). We chose three stripes within GAMA that cover $\sim144$ deg$^2$ with $\sim110,000$ galaxy spectra. These three equatorial sky stripes are centred at 9h, 12h and 14.5h (\cite[Driver et al. 2011]{DR11}).
We have implemented a new cluster finding technique to find overdensities and estimate cluster masses, simultaneously. We find number galaxy overdensities by using an adaptive method based on the Delaunay Tessellation Field Estimator (\cite[DTFE, Schaap \& van de Weygaert 2000, Platen 2009]{SW00,platen}), mass estimation is done using caustic analysis (\cite[e.g., Serra et al. 2011, Alpaslan et al. 2012]{S11,A12}). We use this method to detect clusters of galaxies within the mass range of $10^{12}$ to $10^{16}\ \mathcal{M}_{\odot}$, up to $z=0.3$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=2.72in]{Figure1.eps}
\includegraphics[width=2.55in]{Figure2.eps}
\caption{ The left panel present the comoving density traced by the cluster found in this study (indicated by filled stars), we have compare our results those of Menanteau et al, (2013) generated from a sample of massive clusters selected by the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect (open triangles), the continuous dashed line is a simple halo occupation model (HOD). In the right panel we present a compilation of previous results on the characteristic scale for the two-point cluster correlation as a function of cluster separation, the filled big dots represents the results for our sample. We find agreement with previous studies and models}\label{fig1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Overview and Results}
We have found 113 cluster within GAMA. For this sample we have estimated positions, cluster redshifts, velocity dispersions, cluster sizes, and cluster integrated luminosity. Our algorithm has been tested using the GAMA mock catalogs (\cite[Robotham et al. 2011]{R11}). The calculation the cluster luminosities have been generated by using the individual cluster-galaxy luminosity functions (LF) corrected for completeness. We have evaluated the cluster selection function by the application of a simple halo occupation distribution (HOD) model. We want to stress that the density of clusters found by mass selection methods (e.g., the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT), \cite[Menanteau et al. 2013]{M13}) is comparable to one found in this work; however, we have covered a larger mass range by more than three orders of magnitude. In addition, we have generated the two-point correlation for clusters of galaxies for our sample. We find broad agreement previous observations and predictions (\cite[Estrada et al. 2009]{Es09}). We have generated the mass-to-light ratio (M/L) for the clusters and BCGs in our sample, we find that a single power law $\mathcal{L}\propto\mathcal{M}^{\eta}$ can describe . We found $\eta=0.6-1$ for clusters and $\eta_{BGC}=0.1-0.4$ for BCGs. These relations agree with the results of \cite[Lin et al.(2004)]{YM04a} and \cite[Lin \& Mohr(2004)]{YM04b}.
The sample found in this study can be used for further studies in galaxy evolution and its relation with environment. We have shown that optical surveys such as GAMA can be used to select cluster by mass. A sample of cluster selected by our method can be used to traced baryon acoustic oscillations using in a survey in which galaxies are selected in the same fashion as GAMA but covering a larger volume.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Galaxy clusters have been utilized prominently in astrophysics and cosmology since pioneering work by Fritz Zwicky and George Abell. Clusters are the most massive gravitationally-bound systems in the Universe, with masses $\gtrsim 10^{14}\ \mathrm{M_{\odot}}$, and contain scores to hundreds of galaxies embedded in dark matter halos. These objects are useful cosmological probes because halo abundance as a function of mass and redshift depend sensitively on fundamental cosmological parameters. Therefore, measures of cluster abundance can be used to constrain these parameters {\citep[e.g.][]{2005RvMP...77..207V, 2011ARA&A..49..409A, 2011MNRAS.417.2938S}}. However, accurately measuring cluster masses for application in cosmology is a difficult endeavor.
Clusters can be identified across multiple wavelengths. They were first detected in the visible spectrum as overdensities of galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{1958ApJS....3..211A, 1968cgcg.book.....Z}. They are identified as overdensities of red galaxies in both visible and IR \citep[e.g.][]{2005ApJS..157....1G, 2010ApJS..191..254H, 2012MNRAS.420.1167A} and can be found as extended X-ray sources \citep[e.g.][]{2002ARA&A..40..539R, 2009ApJ...692.1033V}. Clusters are also detected by their unique signature in the cosmic microwave background, as a decrement below 218 GHz and an increment above, as predicted by \cite{1972CoASP...4..173S} \citep[e.g.][]{2009ApJ...701...32S, 2011ApJ...737...61M, 2014A&A...571A..29P}.
Once clusters are identified, mass measurements are needed to map observable cluster properties to the underlying mass. Cluster masses can be deduced from a variety of techniques including: x-ray observations from which one can infer a mass profile \citep[e.g.][]{2009ApJ...692.1033V, 2010MNRAS.406.1773M}, a temperature-weighted gas mass via the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect \citep[e.g.][]{2010ApJ...719.1045L, 2013JCAP...07..008H}, mass measurement via strong and weak gravitational lensing
\citep[e.g.][]{2007arXiv0709.1159J, 2008JCAP...08..006M}, the caustic technique which uses galaxy velocities to determine a mass profile \citep[e.g.][]{2003ApJ...585..205B, 2010MNRAS.407..263A, 2011MNRAS.412..800S}, {the galaxy infall kinematics beyond the virial radius to determine a cluster mass profile \citep[e.g.][]{2013MNRAS.431.3319Z}}
and dynamical mass measurements which employ the virial theorem \citep[e.g.][]{1990ApJS...72..715T, 1996ApJ...458..435C, 1996ApJ...473..670F, 1997ApJ...478..462C, 1998ApJ...505...74G, 2010ApJ...721...90B, 2010ApJ...715L.180R, 2013ApJ...772...25S, 2013arXiv1311.4953R}.
\cite{zwicky1933rotverschiebung} used the dynamical mass approach. His work applied the virial theorem, using the dispersion of galaxy velocities to infer the mass of the Coma cluster. Because dynamical mass measurements probe the entire mass distribution, both regular baryonic matter as well as dark matter, he was able to use the virial theorem to conclude that dark matter outweighed luminous matter in the Coma system. The virial theorem, which relates kinetic energy to gravitational potential energy, predicts that halo mass relates to galaxy velocity dispersion, $\sigma_v$, as a power law.
The simplest approach is to treat clusters and their host halos as self-similar, dynamically-relaxed systems with the galaxy velocity dispersion, $\sigma_v$, summing up the halo's dynamics. However, evidence points toward complications that introduce scatter to the idealized case.
Numerical simulations are useful tools in studying these complex dynamic systems and analyzing sources of scatter in dynamical mass predictions.
\cite{Evrard:2008aa} find that dark matter particle velocity dispersion scales with total mass as a power law, with a small lognormal scatter. They identify $\approx10\%$ of the halo population as merger transients, exhibiting higher-than-expected dark matter particle velocity dispersions. But while a tight correlation is seen between halo mass and the velocity dispersion of simulated dark matter particles $(\sigma_{\mathrm{DM}})$, correlations between the galaxy velocity dispersion ($\sigma_{v}$) and halo mass are more fraught with scatter \citep[e.g.][]{2013ApJ...772...47S}. A $\lesssim 10\%$ bias between $\sigma_{DM}$ and $\sigma_{v}$ is found, though the sign of this bias is not agreed upon \citep[e.g.][]{Diemand:2004aa, Faltenbacher:2005aa, 2006A&A...456...23B, Faltenbacher:2007aa, 2010ApJ...708.1419L}.
{Also c}ontributing to the bias and scatter are halo environment and triaxiality {\citep[e.g.][]{White:2010ab, 2013ApJ...772...47S, 2014arXiv1405.0284S, 2013A&A...559A..89W} and projection effects \citep[e.g.][]{2012MNRAS.419.1017C, 2012MNRAS.426.1829N}, while} \cite{2013MNRAS.434.2606O} find a bias that is dependent on mass and galaxy selection strategy. {Determining cluster parameters such as center and radii is a difficult endeavor; \cite{2011MNRAS.410..417S} find that the central galaxy may not be the brightest cluster galaxy and additionally is not necessarily at rest with respect to the center of the halo potential well. Determining which galaxies are cluster members is difficult, and the inclusion of interlopers also introduces scatter \citep[e.g.][]{2010A&A...520A..30M}.} {\cite{2014MNRAS.441.1513O} compare a variety of cluster mass estimation techniques that rely on galaxy observables, including several virial-theorem-based mass estimates. They find that scatter in predicted mass increases below halo mass of $10^{14} \, \mathrm{M_\odot}$, as the number of cluster members drops.}
The complications of triaxiality, environment, galaxy selection, and mergers limit the accuracy with which halo masses can be directly correlated to velocity dispersion. However, in typical dynamical mass analyses, a wealth of observational information is boiled down in favor of summarizing the halo's dynamics by a summary statistic: $\sigma_v$. This condensation of information is dictated as much by the virial theorem's $M(\sigma_{v})$ power law relationship as it is by simplicity, because taking full advantage of the wealth of information available in the full line-of-sight (LOS) velocity probability distribution function (PDF) manually is difficult. However, the application of nonparametric machine learning (ML) algorithms is a promising resource that may allow cluster masses to be predicted from the myriad data at our disposal.
Machine learning has been applied to astronomy and cosmology problems with mixed results. Object classification is a common application for machine learning in astronomy, for example: distinguishing Mira variables from semiregular and irregular red variables \citep{2004AJ....128.2965W}, classifying transient events \citep{2008AN....329..288M}, determining galaxy morphology \citep{2010MNRAS.406..342B}{, and more recently, choosing clusters from simulated catalogs which resemble observed clusters \citep{2014arXiv1409.1576H}}. Other applications range from predicting solar activity \citep[e.g.][]{2009SoPh..255...91Y, 2009SpWea...7.6001C} to determining photometric redshifts \citep[e.g.][]{2010ApJ...715..823G, 2007ApJ...663..774B}, from cataloging impact craters on Mars \citep{2009Icar..203...77S} to predicting the number of galaxies hosted by a dark matter halo \citep{2013ApJ...772..147X}.
In this work, we focus on improving cluster dynamical mass measurements by moving beyond a simple $M(\sigma_v)$ power law toward more fully utilizing the entire LOS velocity PDF. In Sec.~\ref{sec:simulation}, we discuss our simulations and mock galaxy catalogs. In {Secs.~\ref{sec:methods} and \ref{sec:ML}}, we lay out the methods and results for each of three approaches: first applying a virial-theorem-motivated power law to our mock catalog in Sec.~\ref{sec:PL1}, then using more of the velocity information by taking advantage of higher-order moments in Sec.~\ref{sec:PL2}. Finally, we utilize the full velocity PDF and the information contained therein by implementing Support Distribution Machines (SDMs), a machine learning algorithm that maps a full LOS velocity distribution to a halo mass prediction in Sec.~\ref{sec:ML}. We report a comparison of these approaches and a discussion of the interpretation of the results in Sec.~\ref{sec:discussion} and summarize our conclusions in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusions}. {We use a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology throughout, with cosmological parameters consistent with Planck data \citep{2014A&A...571A..16P}: $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.69$, $\Omega_m = 0.31$, $\Omega_b = 0.048$, $h = 0.68$, ${n=0.96}$, and $\sigma_8 = 0.82$}
\section{Simulation and Mock Catalog}
\label{sec:simulation}
This work is based on massive halos from the publicly-available Multidark MDPL simulation\footnote{http://www.cosmosim.org/} (Hess et al., in prep.).
Multidark is an $N$-body simulation containing $3840^3$ particles in a box of length $1\ h^{-1}\rm{Gpc}$ and run using the L-Gadget2 code. {The mass resolution of this simulation is ${1.51\times10^9\ \mathrm{M_{\odot}} h^{-1}}$, with cosmological parameters consistent with Planck data.} Massive halos were gleaned from the BDMW halo catalog, which employs a bound density maximum (BDM) spherical overdensity halo finder with halo average density equal to 200 times the critical density of the Universe \citep{1997astro.ph.12217K}. {These halo masses will be denoted $M$ throughout this work\textbf{.}}
Halos for our catalog are chosen from the $z=0$ catalog for its large sample of massive halos. To mimic observed clusters in halo mass, observable minimum luminosity of cluster members (via subhalo mass), and richness, halos are chosen to meet the following criteria:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Halo minimum mass: $M \geq 10^{14} \ \mathrm{M_{\odot}} h^{-1}$
\item Subhalo minimum mass: $M_{\mathrm{subhalo}} \geq 10^{12} \ \mathrm{M_{\odot}}h^{-1}$
\item Subhalo minimum number: $N_{\mathrm{subhalo}} \geq 20$
\end{enumerate}
{The subhalo minimum mass of $M_{\mathrm{subhalo}} \geq 10^{12} \ \mathrm{M_{\odot}}h^{-1}$ corresponds to 663 particles in the smallest subhalos\textbf{.}}
Due to problems with subhalos not being matched with their host halo across the periodic boundary, clusters {with centers that lie} within $2.2 \ \mathrm{Mpc} \,h^{-1}$ of the box edge are pared from the sample.
{Each subhalo and primary halo in the catalog is assigned a galaxy. This galaxy is placed at the center of each halo and subhalo, with no galaxy offset considered at this time. Each galaxy is assigned its subhalo host's velocity. This method is intentionally simplistic, and is akin to abundance matching with the assumption of zero scatter, i.e.~all subhalos above the minimum subhalo mass host an observable galaxy. The distribution of galaxies within the cluster is solely determined by the simulated substructure within the primary halo; no assumption about halo mass profiles is made.}
Galaxy line-of-sight velocities are {calculated} with respect to the mean galaxy LOS velocity of cluster members, with no assumption made concerning which of these galaxies is the brightest cluster galaxy. Because halo mass is tightly correlated with halo radius, projected subhalo radii ($R_{\mathrm{sub}}$) are normalized by the halo's $R_{200}$.
We prepare {three} catalogs of these clusters. The {Train C}atalog is used for training and fits, and includes {multiple} line-of-sight views of halos. {The Train Catalog has a flat mass function by design, and the number of projection per halo in 0.1 dex mass bin varies by bin to achieve 1000 training halos for each bin.}
{The default is to view each cluster first from the cardinal $x-$, $y-$, and $z-$directions and when additional LOS views are needed, these are chosen randomly on the surface of the unit sphere. While the catalog of unique halos contains 5,028 halos, the Train Catalog contains 15,000 projections of these halos, with more projections of the rare high-mass halos, creating a representative training sample that catalogs how these halos' velocities and positions might be distributed when viewed from any angle. }
{Smaller catalogs are used to evaluate the methods, containing} only the three cardinal direction LOS views of each halo. A mass cut of $M\geq3\times10^{14}\ {M_{\odot}}\, h^{-1}$ is {applied to the Test Catalog} to account for edge effects due to the hard lower mass cut of the sample and selection effects due to the $N_{\mathrm{subhalo}}$ constraint. {A High-Mass Test Catalog, with a mass cut of ${M\geq7\times10^{14}\ \mathrm{M_{\odot}}\, h^{-1}}$ is also considered. These catalogs are summarized in Table \ref{table:catalog}}.
\begin{table*}[t]
\begin{center}
\caption{{Catalog Summary} \label{table:catalog}}
\begin{tabular}{l r r l r}
\tableline
\tableline
\multicolumn{1}{l}{Name} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{Minimum Halo Mass} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Unique Halos} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{Projections per Unique Halo} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Total Projections} \\
\tableline\\[1ex]
Train Catalog & $1\times 10^{14} \ \mathrm{M_{\odot}}\, h^{-1}$ & 5028 & Mass-dependent \tablenotemark{1} & 15000 \\[1.5ex]
Test Catalog & $3\times 10^{14} \ \mathrm{M_{\odot}}\, h^{-1}$ & 2278 & 3& 6834\\[1.5ex]
High-Mass Test Catalog & $7\times 10^{14} \ \mathrm{M_{\odot}}\, h^{-1}$ & 315 & 3 & 945 \\[1.5ex]
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\tablenotetext{1}{To create a flat mass function with an equal number of training points per 0.1 dex halo mass bin. }
\end{center}
\end{table*}
It should also be noted that, despite the {multiple projections of high-mass halos in the Train Catalog,} there can be challenges at the high-mass end of the training sample. Training and predicting on the halos toward the more massive end of the spectrum is difficult because they are rare, leading to large statistical uncertainties.
\section{{Power Law Methods and Results}}
\label{sec:methods}
In {the next two sections,} we move through successive methods, first describing the method, next reporting the results, then adding a layer of complexity with the subsequent method. Motivated by the virial theorem, we will explore improvements to dynamical mass measurements. The methods will be described in detail in the following {sections}, but are summarized in Table \ref{table:methods} for reference. They include the virial-theorem-motivated $M(\sigma_v)$ power law (PL1), a power law method that includes applying higher-order moments of the LOS velocity data (PL2), and four machine learning methods, each employing the same ML algorithm with different inputs: LOS velocities only (ML1 and ML2), and LOS velocities plus galaxy projected sky position (ML3 and ML4).
\begin{table*}[t]
\begin{center}
\caption{Methods \label{table:methods}}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l}
\\
\tableline
\tableline
Case & Approach & Summary Stats & Distribution Features & Color \\ [0.5ex]
\tableline\\[1ex]
PL1 & Power Law & $\sigma_v$ &---& Red \\
PL2 & Power Law &$\sigma_v$ \& $\kappa$ &---& Blue \\
ML1 & Machine Learning: SDM &---& $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|$ & Green \\
ML2 & Machine Learning: SDM &---& $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|$ \& $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|/\sigma_v$ & Purple \\
ML3 & Machine Learning: SDM &---& $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|$ \& $R_{\mathrm{sub}}/R_{\mathrm{200}}$ & Orange \\
ML4 & Machine Learning: SDM &---& $|L_{\mathrm{eff}}|$ & Brown \\ [2ex]
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\subsection{$M(\sigma_v)$ Power Law}
\label{sec:PL1}
We begin by using the virial theorem as a jumping-off point for dynamical mass measurements. The virial theorem states that, for an object that is stably bound by gravity, $2K+U=0$, where $K$ is the kinetic energy of the system and $U$ is its gravitational potential energy. This can be extended to find a relationship between velocity dispersion, $\sigma_v = \left<v^2\right>^{1/2}$, and mass, $M$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sigma}
\sigma_v^2 = \alpha_R \frac{ G M}{R},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_R$ is a constant of order one that depends on the cutoff definition of halo radius R and the density profile of the dark matter halo. It can be constrained by observation \citep[e.g.][]{1969ApJ...158L.139S}. For a halo population with a known average mass density, $M\propto R^{3}$, and velocity dispersion relates directly to mass as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sigM}
\sigma_v \propto M^{1/3}.
\end{equation}
Studies of $N$-body simulations find that this power law generally holds with slope $\approx 0.33$ \citep[e.g.][]{Evrard:2008aa}. Although there is a tight $M(\sigma_{DM})$ relationship for the velocity dispersion of dark matter, the halo mass is less tightly correlated with $\sigma_v$, the velocity dispersion of galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{2013ApJ...772...47S}.
Halo mass $M$ can be related to galaxy LOS velocity dispersion $\sigma_v$ via the power law
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{v}(M) = \sigma_{15}\left( \frac{ M}{10^{15} \, \mathrm{M_\odot} h^{-1}} \right)^\alpha.
\label{eq:powerlaw}
\end{equation}
We find least-squares fit to $\log(\sigma_v)=\alpha\log(M)+\beta$ for the Train Catalog, binned in 0.1 dex mass bins. The power law best fit parameters {for the Train Catalog} are $\alpha=0.3{82}$ and $\sigma_{15} = 12{44} \ \mathrm{km\, s^{-1}}${; this result is relatively insensitive to the catalog choice, and comparable best fit values are calculated for the Test Catalog. However, w}e caution that these parameters are a fit for a particular simulation and catalog, and should be applied with care to predict cluster masses for observational data.
Figure \ref{fig:Msig} shows the power law best fit and both 68\% and 95\% scatter. The power law is a good fit for median binned $\sigma_v$, albeit with significant scatter at all mass ranges considered.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig1.pdf}
\caption{Line-of-sight galaxy velocity dispersion, $\sigma_v$, {vs}.~halo mass, $M$. The binned halos are fit by a power law relation (thin solid black line). The 68\% (dashed) and 95\% (dotted) scatter show the substantial uncertainty in this $M(\sigma_v)$ relationship.}
\label{fig:Msig}
\end{figure}
It should be noted that the best fit to an $M(\sigma_{DM})$ relationship for this simulation has $\alpha = 0.34$, much closer to the expected value of 0.33. The steepness of our best fit slope can be attributed to both numerical and physical effects. \cite{2013ApJ...772...47S} find that measurements of $\sigma_v$ from small samples (e.g.~$\lesssim 40$ galaxies) of very luminous galaxies tend to be smaller than the $\sigma_v$ calculated with the inclusion of more plentiful, fainter galaxies. Because the halos at the low mass end of our catalog tend to have the fewest galaxies (on the order of $20$ per cluster), this trend would preferentially bias the velocity dispersions down for the smallest-mass clusters. The lower-than-expected dispersions at the low-mass end thus steepen the best fit power law, giving an $\alpha$ greater than the expected value of $0.33$. Additionally, \cite{2013MNRAS.430.2638M} find that dynamical friction and tidal disruption affect subhalo $\sigma_v$, with tidal stripping having a greater effect on higher-mass clusters, creating a velocity bias that changes with cluster mass. Both numerical and physical effects may come into play in our catalog, where a steeper $\alpha$ is evident for low-mass systems and a shallower one for higher-mass clusters.
The distribution of $\sigma_v$ is roughly log-normal for halos of a given mass, and we define the residual, $\delta$, as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:delta}
\delta =\log( \sigma_{v})-\log(\sigma_{v, \, \mathrm{best\,fit}}),
\end{equation}
where $ \sigma_{v}$ is the velocity dispersion calculated from LOS velocities and $\sigma_{v, \,\mathrm{best\,fit}}$ is the expected velocity dispersion for a given halo mass (i.e.~the velocity dispersion that would be calculated by Equation \ref{eq:powerlaw} with the $\alpha$ and $\sigma_{15}$ values given).
The biweight estimator given by \cite{1990AJ....100...32B} was considered for this and subsequent methods. However, {a strength of the biweight estimator is in detecting and omitting interlopers' contribution to the sample variance; these interlopers have already been excluded by the catalog design. This estimator} was found to have a larger range $\delta$ values compared to when the velocity dispersion was defined as the standard deviation.
{In order to provide a comparison to the most idealized power law method}, the standard deviation was chosen as a measure of velocity dispersion, $\sigma_v$, for this catalog.
\subsection{$M(\sigma_v)$ Power Law with Kurtosis}
\label{sec:PL2}
In the simple $M(\sigma_v)$ power law applied in Sec.~\ref{sec:PL1}, the full information of the LOS velocity PDF is summarized by a single statistic. But this PDF contains more information than is used. In the upcoming section, we will explore using higher-order moments of the PDF to improve dynamical mass measurements of galaxy clusters.
Figure \ref{fig:stacked} shows that stacked halos from differing populations---the full Test Catalog, large positive $\delta$, and large negative $\delta$---exhibit strikingly different shapes. While the full Test Catalog's shape is approximately Gaussian, the halos with a large negative $\delta$ are more sharply peaked near $v_{\mathrm{los}}/ \sigma_v=0$ and the halos with large positive $\delta$ have a flatter distribution.
This difference in shape---the sharply peaked compared to the overly-flat curves---can be quantified by the excess kurtosis, $\kappa$, defined as:
\begin{equation}
\kappa=\frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^N (v_i-\overline{v})^4}{N \sigma_{v}^4}-3,
\end{equation}
where $v_i$ is the line-of-sight velocity of the $i^{th}$ galaxy, $\overline{v}$ is the mean line-of-sight velocity of galaxies in the cluster, $N$ is the number of galaxies in the cluster, and $\sigma_{v}$ is the standard deviation of a cluster's galaxy line-of-sight velocities. The subtraction of 3 sets this value such that a standard normal distribution has an excess kurtosis of 0. Throughout this work, we refer to excess kurtosis simply as ``kurtosis.''
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig2.pdf}
\caption{PDFs of normalized galaxy LOS velocities from stacked halos. The {Test Catalog} halo population (gray solid) is roughly Gaussian. However, halos with a large negative $\delta$ and underpredicted masses exhibit a sharply peaked PDF (blue solid), while those with a large positive $\delta$ and overpredicted masses have a flatter PDF (blue dashed). In the most extreme large positive $\delta$ (blue dotted), a flat, wide PDF emerges. The shape of the velocity PDF, quantified by the kurtosis, can be used to predict $\delta$.
}
\label{fig:stacked}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig3.pdf}
\caption{The kurtosis, $\kappa$, of the LOS velocity PDF is a predictor of $\delta$ (the residual from the $M(\sigma_v)$ power law, given by Equation \ref{eq:delta}). Individual clusters are binned, and the binned mean $\delta$ (blue points) are fitted to a decaying exponential (solid black curve). {Dashed} lines show binned 68\% scatter; {dotted} show 95\% scatter. Exploiting this relationship allows us to predict $\delta$ based on the kurtosis of the LOS velocity PDF and produce a $\kappa$-corrected $\sigma_v$ to improve halo mass predictions.}
\label{fig:kurtosis}
\end{figure}
Expanding on the illustration in Figure \ref{fig:stacked}, Figure \ref{fig:kurtosis} shows the relation between $\delta$ and $\kappa$. Halos with wide, flat velocity PDFs (i.e.~those with negative $\kappa$) tend to have larger $\delta$ values, while halos with sharply-peaked, high-$\kappa$ PDF's have moderate-to-low $\delta$ values. The simplest reasonable fit for median $\delta$ as a function of binned mean kurtosis is a decaying exponential,
\begin{equation}
\delta(\kappa)= a\exp(-b*\kappa)+c,
\label{eq:deltakappa}
\end{equation}
with best fit parameters $a=0.04{6}$, $b=0.9{3}$, and $c=-0.07{9}$. Using this fit as a predictor for residual $\delta$ in equation \ref{eq:delta} allows us to calculate a $\kappa$-corrected velocity dispersion ($\sigma_{v,\,\mathrm{\kappa\mbox{-}corrected}}$),
\begin{equation}
\log(\sigma_{v,\, \mathrm{\kappa\mbox{-}corrected}}) = \log(\sigma_{v})-\delta(\kappa),
\label{eq:sigkap}
\end{equation}
from the measured velocity dispersion, $\sigma_v$, and the residual, $\delta(\kappa)$.
We now find a power law relating $M$ and $\sigma_{v,\, \mathrm{\kappa\mbox{-}corrected}}$ for the Train Catalog.
Correcting the $\log(\sigma_v)$ values linearly with $\delta(\kappa)$ (as in equation \ref{eq:sigkap}) does not significantly alter the power law fit, with $\kappa$-corrected best fit values to Equation \ref{eq:powerlaw} of $\alpha=0.38{4}$ and $\sigma_{15} = 12{41} \ \mathrm{km\, s^{-1}}$.
We next consider the fractional mass error
\begin{equation}
\epsilon=(M_{\textrm{pred}}-M)/M,
\label{eq:fracerror}
\end{equation}
comparing the actual halo mass, $M$, to the predicted halo mass, $M_{\textrm{pred}}$. When applying the $\kappa$-corrected power law to halos in the Test Catalog, the fractional error decreases. The mean $\epsilon$ has moved closer to zero, from ${0.128}$ to $0.07{9}$. The width of the 68\% scatter in fractional mass error decreased as well, from $0.8{7}$ to $0.7{3}$. The inclusion of $\kappa$ as a correction term has allowed us to better predict halo masses from our line-of-sight velocities, reducing both bias and scatter in fractional mass error.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig4.pdf}
\caption{ By adding kurtosis as a predictor of residual, we are able to decrease the scatter in the $M(\sigma_v)$ relationship.
Top panel: predicted halo mass, $M_{\mathrm{pred}}$ vs.~halo mass, $M$.
PL2 mass predictions are improved by the addition of kurtosis to the $M(\sigma_v)$ power law. The PL2 method (thick blue) shows an improvement over the PL1 method (thin red). Binned median (solid), 68\% (dashed) and 95\% (dotted) scatter are shown for both PL1 and PL2.
Middle panel: fractional mass error for PL1 (filled red circles) and PL2 (open blue circles). Points are the median $\epsilon$, and error bars show 68\% scatter. Blue points are displaced horizontally for clarity. The addition of kurtosis as a linear correction term slightly improves the negative bias at high masses, and decreases scatter at all mass scales.
Bottom panel: the width of the 68\% scatter of PL2 ($\Delta\epsilon_{\mathrm{PL2}}$) is compared to that of PL1 ($\Delta\epsilon_{\mathrm{PL1}}$). Kurtosis as a predictor of $\delta$ decreases the width of $\epsilon$ for all mass bins. }
\label{fig:PLplusK}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:PLplusK} shows the overall improvement of halo mass measurement of $\sigma_{v,\ \kappa\mathrm{\mbox{-}corrected}}$ as compared to the measured velocity dispersion, $\sigma_v$. The top panel shows that at all mass ranges, the 68\% and 95\% scatters have decreased. The middle panel shows that the median fractional mass error, $\epsilon$, edges closer to a zero bias for most bins $\geq10^{15}\ \mathrm{M_\odot}h^{-1}$. {Halos with mass $\geq10^{15}\ \mathrm{M_\odot}h^{-1}$ are found to have a more tightly correlated $\kappa-\delta$ relationship, which may explain why this $\kappa$ correction method preferentially improves the prediction of the highest-mass halos.} The bottom panel quantifies the ratio of 68\% scatter of PL2 ($\Delta\epsilon_{\mathrm{PL2}}$) compared to the 68\% scatter of PL1 ($\Delta\epsilon_{\mathrm{PL1}}$), showing that with the inclusion of $\kappa$ in our $M(\sigma_v)$ power law, the scatter in $\epsilon$ decreases.
The application of kurtosis, $\kappa$, as a predictor for $\delta$ results in an improvement of mass measurements across masses considered. This result should not be surprising: kurtosis profiles have been used in conjunction with the Jeans equation to explore mass profiles \citep[e.g.][]{2003MNRAS.343..401L, 2006MNRAS.367.1463L}; we refer to the original papers for details on this approach.
Mergers and infalling matter offer a natural explanation for the correlation between high $\delta$ and negative $\kappa$. A halo undergoing a merger or experiencing infalling matter tends to have a flat-topped or double-peaked velocity distribution \citep[e.g.][]{2011MNRAS.413L..81R}, resulting in a negative velocity PDF kurtosis. This corresponds well with what is found from simulated dark matter particle dispersion, that halos undergoing a merger tend to have masses overpredicted by an $M(\sigma_{\mathrm{DM}})$ relationship \citep{Evrard:2008aa}, leading to a large positive residual, $\delta$. In the case of negative kurtosis, the relationship between $\kappa$ and $\delta$ seems to be driven by the identification of halos undergoing a period of mass growth.
It should be noted that other moments of the LOS velocity PDF may be applied in a similar manner. Skewness, for example, is also a weak predictor of $\delta$ and can also be used as a correction term to the $M(\sigma_v)$ power law. For our catalog, applying skewness as a correction term to the $M(\sigma_v)$ power law decreases the mean fractional mass error by $\approx{22}\%${, reducing the tendency to overpredict halo mass that is seen in PL1. However, the application of skewness as a correction term makes} no significant {decrease} in the 68\% scatter.
Though we have improved dynamical mass measurement by taking more advantage of the information encoded in the LOS velocity PDF, the method we have used here still merely summarizes the full velocity PDF: we have moved from one summary statistic, $\sigma_v$, in PL1, to two, $\sigma_v$ and $\kappa$, in PL2.
\section{{Machine Learning Methods and Results}}
\label{sec:ML}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig5.pdf}
\caption{In their basic form, Support Vector Machine classifiers search for a hyperplane that separates two classes, here shown as red circles and blue triangles. In the two-feature input space (left panel), the two classes are not separable by a hyperplane. But if the inputs are re-cast into an appropriate higher-dimensional space (right panel), the red circles and blue triangles can be divided by a plane. Test examples can now be classified based on the side of the plane on which they lie; a test example lying above the plane would be classified as a red circle, and one below as a blue triangle. The ``decision boundary'' which divides the predicted classes (black plane, right panel) corresponds to a different shape in the original space (solid black curve, left panel). We can find the boundary in the original space without explicitly mapping to the higher-dimensional space using the ``kernel trick.'' Although we wish to predict a continuous-valued label rather than a binary classification, an analogous process applies.}
\label{fig:kernelmachine}
\end{figure*}
Moving beyond summary statistics toward utilizing the full information encapsulated in the velocity PDF cannot easily be done manually. Taking advantage of the full LOS velocity PDF is a good candidate for moving from simple power law relationships to machine learning. The problem at hand is to take samples from a probability distribution (galaxy line-of-sight velocities and projected positions) and map these to a final numerical prediction (halo mass). Support Distribution Machines\footnote{https://github.com/dougalsutherland/py-sdm} (SDMs) \citep{2012arXiv1202.0302S} are chosen as candidates to solve this problem for their virtue of learning from a distribution and predicting a scalar. {In this section, we present the Support Distribution Machines framework, implementation, and the results of this machine learning approach applied to halo mass prediction.}
\subsection{{SDM Theory}}
SDMs are built upon Support Vector Machines (SVMs). SVM is a machine learning method that, in its simplest form, takes a set of training example data, with data vectors from which to learn, and divides them such that training data with similar labels lie on the same side of the boundary. Figure \ref{fig:kernelmachine} gives a simple illustration of how training examples with two features might be separated by a decision boundary. Test examples are then classified according to which side of the decision boundary they fall on. The algorithm we use here differs from an SVM classifier in two key ways. First, rather than simply classifying test examples into a finite number of categories, the output values are real numbers; this is called support vector regression (SVR). Second, SDMs learn from distributions rather than from data vectors.
The formal description of SVR is as follows \citep{Drucker97supportvector,scholkopf2002learning}. In this supervised learning problem we have $\{(X_n,Y_n)\}_{n=1}^N$ (input, output) pairs, where $Y_n\in \mathbb{R}$, $X_i\in\mathbb{R}^d$. The primal form of support vector regression is formulated as a convex optimization problem:
\begin{align}
&\min \|w\|^2 \label{eq:SVR-primal-hard}\\
&\textrm{subject to} \begin{cases}Y_n-w^T\phi(X_n) <\epsilon_{\mathrm{tol}} \\w^T\phi(X_n)-Y_n<\epsilon_{\mathrm{tol}} \end{cases},\nonumber
\end{align}
where $w\in\mathbb{R}^D$, $\phi: \mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}^D$ is a user-defined feature map, and $\epsilon_{\mathrm{tol}}>0$ is a user-defined error tolerance parameter.
The intuition behind these equations is that we want to find a linear map with small weights ($w$) such that, in the training points, the regression error is smaller than the parameter $\epsilon_{\mathrm{tol}}>0$.
Depending on the data and parameters, these constraints can easily be infeasible, therefore, analogously to the ``soft margin'' loss function \cite{bennett1992robust}, which was adapted to SVM by \cite{cortes1995support}, one can introduce slack variables $\xi_n, \xi_n^*$ to relax the equation \eqref{eq:SVR-primal-hard}. After introducing these slack variables, we
arrive at the following primal convex problem stated by \cite{vapnik2000nature}:
\begin{align} \label{eq:SVR-primal}
&\min \bigg( \|w\|^2+C \sum_{n=1}^N (\xi_n+ \xi_n^*) \bigg) \\
&\textrm{subject to} \begin{cases}Y_n-w^T\phi(X_n) <\epsilon_{\mathrm{tol}}+\xi_n \\w^T\phi(X_n)-Y_n<\epsilon_{\mathrm{tol}}+\xi_n^*\\ \xi_n,\xi^*_n \geq 0,\end{cases} \nonumber
\end{align}
where $C>0$ is a parameter. Instead of directly solving the primal quadratic problem \eqref{eq:SVR-primal}, in many applications it is easier to solve its dual problem instead:
\begin{align} \label{eq:SVR-dual}
&\max \bigg( -\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i,j}^N (\alpha_i-\alpha_i^*)(\alpha_j-\alpha_j^*)k(X_i,X_j) \\
&-\epsilon_{\mathrm{tol}}\sum_{n=1}^N (\alpha_n+\alpha_n^*)+\sum_{n=1}^N Y_n(\alpha_n-\alpha_n^*) \bigg) \nonumber \\
&\textrm{subject to} \sum_{n=1}^N (\alpha_n-\alpha_n^*)=0, \textrm{and } 0\leq \alpha_n, \alpha_n^* \leq C. \nonumber
\end{align}
Here, $k(X_i,X_j)\doteq \phi(X_i)^T\phi(X_j)$ is a so-called ``kernel function.'' The predicted value for a new input $X$ is given by
$f(X)=\sum_{n=1}^N(\alpha_n-\alpha_n^*)k(X_n,X)$. A frequently used kernel function is the Gaussian kernel $k(a,b)=\exp(-\|a-b\|^2/\sigma^2)$, for some $\sigma>0$ parameter, but any positive semi-definite (PSD) function can be used as kernel $k(\cdot,\cdot)$.
One crucial difference between SVR and our problem is that, in our case, the input $X_n$ is not a finite-dimensional vector, but a distribution with density function $p_n$. For the kernel value between distributions $p_i$ and $p_j$, we will use $k(p_i,p_j)\doteq \exp(-KL(p_i,p_j)/\sigma^2)$, where $KL(p_i,p_j)=\int p_i(x)\log(p_i(x)/p_j(x))$ is the Kullback\textendash Leibler (KL) divergence.\footnote{To make this kernel $k$ PSD, we project the Gramm matix $G$ of the data ($G_{ij}=k(X_i,X_j)$) to the closest PSD matrix in Frobenius norm.} In our problem, of course, we do not know these densities exactly; only sample sets are available to us. We will use these sample sets to estimate the KL divergence using the estimator given by \cite{4839047}. The KL divergence estimate, $\textrm{KL}_{n, m}(X_A || X_B)$, from the feature-space samples $X_A$ from Cluster $A$ (containing $n$ galaxies) to the $X_B$ samples from Cluster $B$ (containing $m$ galaxies) is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:KL}
\textrm{KL}_{n, m}(X_A || X_B) = \frac{d}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n}\log{\frac{\nu_k(i)}{\rho_k(i)}}+\log\frac{m}{n-1}
\end{equation}
where $d$ is the number of dimensions, i.e.~the number of distribution features considered in the method, $\nu_k(i)$ is the Euclidean distance in input space from the $i^{th}$ galaxy in $X_A$ to its k-nearest neighbor in $X_B$ and $\rho_k(i)$ is the distance from the $i^{th}$ galaxy in $X_A$ to its k-nearest neighbor in $X_A$. We use $k=2$ throughout.
The training catalog is first used to select kernel parameters $C$ and $\sigma$ via 3-fold cross-validation. It is then used to train the regression model with the best-selected kernel, which in turn is used to predict the masses of the clusters in the Test Catalog. For further information on the Support Distribution Machine regressor, see \cite{2012arXiv1202.0302S}.
\subsection{{SDM Implementation}}
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
ML1 & ML2\\
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{fig6a.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{fig6b.pdf} \\ [1.5mm]
ML3 & ML4 \\
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{fig6c.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{fig6d.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{\footnotesize{Summary of the SDM results. Four large panels show the four machine learning approaches: ML1 (top left, green), ML2 (top right, purple), ML3 (bottom left, orange), ML4 (bottom right, brown).
Within each large panel, three sub panels show:
Top panel: Halo predicted mass, $M_{\mathrm{pred}}$, vs.~actual mass, $M$. The binned predicted mass median, 68\%, and 95\% scatter (solid, dashed, and dotted, respectively) are also shown.
Middle panel: Fractional mass error as a function of halo mass. Points are the median $\epsilon$ and error bars show 68\% scatter.
Bottom panel: Error width, $\Delta\epsilon_{\mathrm{ML}}$ relative to that of PL1 (virial-theorem-motivated power law).
Three methods---ML1, ML2, and ML4---show pronounced improvements over the $M(\sigma_v)$ power law (PL1).}}
\label{fig:MLsummary}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Before applying the SDM regressor, the {unique halos are} rank-ordered by mass and alternately divided into {ten} data sets{, or folds. The Train Catalog data for nine of these folds is used to train the SDM fit, and the resulting fit is used to predict the Test Catalog halos in the tenth, unused fold. This process is repeated ten times, using multiple projections of 90\% of the unique halos to train, and predicting on three LOS views of the remaining 10\% of unique halos. In this way, each of the three views of each unique halo in the Test Catalog is predicted.}
To explore how both the line-of-sight galaxy velocities as well as their relative positions might affect mass predictions, four sets of training features are considered. Each model uses one or two distribution features, implementing constructs of the sets of $v_{\mathrm{los}}$ and/or $R_{\mathrm{sub}}/R_{200}$ only. See Table \ref{table:methods} for a summary of the features used in each method. The four features considered are: absolute value of the line-of-sight velocity $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|$, line-of-sight velocity normalized by velocity dispersion $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|/\sigma_v$, projected plane-of-sky position relative to halo radius $R_{\mathrm{sub}}/R_{200}$, and normalized effective angular momentum $|\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{eff}}|=(\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{sub}}/R_{200})|\mathrm{v}_{\mathrm{los}}|$.
The first of the four ML feature sets (ML1, with $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|$ only) is chosen to mimic the data used in the $M(\sigma_v)$ power law (PL1), using only line-of-sight velocities to predict halo mass. However, as was shown by \cite{Evrard:2008aa}, $\approx 10\%$ of halos are merger transients. As an example, a line of sight merger of dissimilar-mass halos would exhibit notable skewness in the line-of-sight velocity PDF, with the sign of the skewness being indicative of whether the less massive halo was in the foreground or background of the more massive one. In light of this, $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|$ is chosen as a feature over $v_{\mathrm{los}}$ for its virtue of making positive and negative skewness in the velocity PDF appear as identical systems. ML1 mimics PL1, though going further by now predicting from the full LOS velocity distribution rather than a single summary statistic.
ML2 also uses $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|$, but with the addition of the second feature, $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|/\sigma_v$. The aim of explicitly normalizing the line-of-sight velocity distribution in this second feature is to highlight differences in $v_{\mathrm{los}}$ PDF shapes, mimicking the $\kappa$-corrected power law that was explored in PL2.
The third and fourth ML feature sets employ additional galaxy position information. Knowing that $R_{200}$ correlates with halo mass, we choose $R_{\mathrm{sub}}/R_{200}$ as a way to utilize the relative distribution of galaxies without biasing the results by training on $R_{200}$. ML3 uses $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|$ and $R_{\mathrm{sub}}/R_{200}$ as two separate features, while ML4 combines them into one feature, a normalized effective angular momentum $|\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{eff}}|$.
\subsection{{Results}}
Figure \ref{fig:MLsummary} compares the predicted and actual masses for the clusters in our catalog, as well as an error comparison to PL1, the $M(\sigma_v)$ power law. The bottom subpanel of each method comparison in the figure shows that the 68\% scatter is substantially decreased compared to PL1.
The addition of $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|/\sigma_v$ in PL2 highlight{s} the difference in $v_{\mathrm{los}}$ PDF shape, much like the application of kurtosis did in PL2. This may explain why, for most mass bins, the {mean $\epsilon$ is closer to zero, i.e.~the bias is smaller compared to} ML1 with the addition of this additional feature.
However, comparing ML1 to ML3 with the addition of $R_{\mathrm{sub}}/R_{200}$ as a second feature, the {scatter in $\epsilon$ increases}. To deduce the causes of this, we explore several variations to the ML3 method for comparison.
We find that ML3 performs only {slightly} better than
a feature set that uses $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|$ and a random number in place of the $R_{\mathrm{sub}}/R_{200}$ value ($\epsilon \pm \Delta \epsilon = {-0.04^{+0.45}_{-0.31}}$). From {this}, we conclude that the feature $R_{\mathrm{sub}}/R_{200}$, while containing information about the halo, tends to wash out the more important distribution of $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|$ in feature space.
When the normalized $R_{\mathrm{sub}}/R_{200}$ is replaced with an unnormalized $R_{\mathrm{sub}}$, the result is similar to ML1 and ML2: $\epsilon \pm \Delta \epsilon = {-0.001^{+0.27}_{-0.22}}$.
The quality of this fit is unsurprising because the maximum $R_{\mathrm{sub}}$ value is strongly correlated with $R_{200}$ and, therefore, with halo mass. Despite the apparent failure of ML3, we remain optimistic that this feature could be of use when applied to a very large training catalog, when an appropriate simulation becomes available.
ML methods will tend to underpredict the most massive halo because the training set will include only halos less massive than this one outlier. This effect is plainly evident for {ML2 and} ML3.
Because the mass predictions will tend to lie within the range of the training set masses, one should not overly interpret the
prediction of the largest mass bin in Figure \ref{fig:MLsummary}, as it contains only the single most massive halo.
\section{Method Comparison \& Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
\begin{table*}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\caption{Method Comparison \label{table:methodcomp}}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l r r c c }
\tableline
\tableline
\multicolumn{1}{l}{Case} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{Summary} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{Color} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{Catalog} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\bar{\epsilon}$\,\tablenotemark{1}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\epsilon \pm \Delta \epsilon$\,\tablenotemark{2}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\Delta\epsilon$\,\tablenotemark{3}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$|\epsilon|-|\epsilon_{\textrm{PL1}}|$\,\tablenotemark{4}} \\
\tableline\\[1ex]
PL1 & $M(\sigma_v)$ Power Law& Red & Test &${0.128}$ & ${0.05^{+0.51}_{-0.36}}$ & ${0.871}$ & --- \\[1.5ex]
&& & High-Mass Test & ${0.093}$ & ${0.02^{+0.44}_{-0.29}}$ & ${0.731}$ & --- \\[3.5ex]
PL2 & $M(\sigma_{\mathrm{v,\kappa\mbox{-}corrected}})$ Power Law & Blue & Test & ${0.079}$ &${0.04^{+0.41}_{-0.33}}$ & ${0.735}$ & ${-0.06}$ \\[1.5ex]
&&& High-Mass Test & ${0.058}$ &${0.02^{+0.34}_{-0.27}}$ & ${0.612}$ & ${-0.06}$ \\[3.5ex]
ML1 & SDM with $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|$ & Green & Test & ${-0.055}$ &${-0.07^{+0.25}_{-0.22}}$ & ${0.460}$ & ${-0.17}$ \\[1.5ex]
&&&High-Mass Test &${-0.042}$ &${-0.03^{+0.22}_{-0.18}}$ & ${0.402}$ & ${-0.14}$ \\[3.5ex]
ML2 & SDM with $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|$ \& $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|/\sigma_v$ & Purple & Test & ${-0.038}$ & ${-0.05^{+0.25}_{-0.24}}$ & ${0.484}$ & ${-0.16}$ \\[1.5ex]
&&& High-Mass Test & ${-0.005}$ & ${-0.01^{+0.20}_{-0.19}}$ & ${0.386}$ & ${-0.16}$ \\[3.5ex]
ML3 & SDM with $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|$ \& $R_{\mathrm{sub}}/R_{\mathrm{200}}$ & Orange & Test & ${0.005}$ &${-0.06^{+0.40}_{-0.28}}$ & ${0.679}$ &${-0.08}$ \\ [1.5ex]
&&& High-Mass Test & ${-0.017}$ &${-0.10^{+0.40}_{-0.25}}$ & ${0.651}$ &${-0.02}$ \\ [3.5ex]
ML4 & SDM with $|L_{\mathrm{eff}}|$ & Brown & Test & ${-0.066}$ &${-0.08^{+0.25}_{-0.22}}$ & ${0.468}$ & ${-0.16}$ \\[1.5ex]
&&& High-Mass Test & ${-0.063}$ &${-0.07^{+0.21}_{-0.20}}$ & ${0.410}$ & ${-0.13}$ \\[1.5ex]
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\tablenotetext{1}{Mean fractional mass error.}
\tablenotetext{2}{Median fractional mass error $\pm$ 68\% scatter.}
\tablenotetext{3}{Width of $\epsilon$ 68\% scatter.}
\tablenotetext{4}{Comparison of model to PL1; see equation \ref{eq:deltaepsilon}.}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
In this section, we will compare the six cluster mass prediction methods, using two different measures of comparison: $\epsilon$ averaged across all clusters and $\epsilon$ as a function of mass.
In Figure \ref{fig:fracErr}, which is a PDF of fractional mass errors, improvements in mass predictions are evident as we use more information from the LOS velocity PDF. The addition of $\kappa$ as a predictor for residual $\delta$ in PL2 decreases the number of extreme overpredicted cluster masses and moderately improves mass prediction. But the machine learning methods ML1 and ML2 significantly improve the accuracy of mass predictions. With machine learning, the $\epsilon \gtrsim 0.6$ and $\epsilon \lesssim -0.6$ predictions are all but eliminated. Machine learning clearly dominates by this measure: averaged across all halos in the catalog, ML's cluster mass predictions are significantly improved over traditional power law predictions.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\footnotesize{Test Catalog} & \footnotesize{High-Mass Test Catalog}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig7a.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{fig7b.pdf} \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{PDF of the fractional mass error, $\epsilon=(M_{\textrm{pred}}-M)/M$, for four methods: $M(\sigma_v)$ power law ({PL1, red solid}), $\kappa$-corrected power law ({PL2, blue dashed}), machine learning with $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|$ ({ML1, green dotted}), and machine learning with $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|$ and $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|/\sigma_v$ ({ML2, purple dash-dot}). {In addition to the full Test Catalog population (left panel), the High-Mass Test Catalog ($M>7\times10^{14}\mathrm{M_{\odot}}h^{-1}$, right panel) is also shown.}
PL2 shows a moderate improvement over PL1, while both ML methods shown outperform both power law methods, showing significantly smaller fractional mass errors. }
\label{fig:fracErr}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Table \ref{table:methodcomp} summarizes the mean fractional error ($\bar{\epsilon}$), median fractional error with 68\% scatter($\epsilon \pm \Delta \epsilon$), and width of the distributions ($\Delta\epsilon$) {for both the Test and High-Mass Test Catalogs.} In this table, the mean and median $\epsilon$ quantify the bias: whereas the power law methods err on the side of overpredicting cluster masses, the machine learning methods err on the side of underprediction. The $\Delta \epsilon$ value is a measure of the widths of the curves in Figure \ref{fig:fracErr}. While PL1 {for the Test Catalog} has $\Delta\epsilon = 0.8{7}$, {PL2}
decreases the width of the errors to 0.7{4}, a 1{6}\% improvement over the $M(\sigma_v)$ power law method. Machine learning methods improve $\Delta\epsilon$ further: ML3 ($\Delta\epsilon = 0.{68}$) improves {22}\% over the PL methods, while ML1 ($\Delta \epsilon=0.4{6}$), ML2 ($\Delta \epsilon=0.4{8}$), and ML4 ($\Delta \epsilon=0.4{7}$) have an even narrower distribution of $\epsilon$ values. ML1, ML2, and ML4 have {47}\%, {44}\% and {46}\% improvements, respectively. {Defining a fractional $\log$ mass error as ${\epsilon_{\log} = [\log(M_{\mathrm{pred}})-\log(M)]/\log(M)}$ in lieu of the fractional mass error $\epsilon$ produces similar comparitive results.}
Figure \ref{fig:deltErr} is a direct comparison of the methods across mass bins. The comparison is quantified by
\begin{equation}
|\epsilon_{\textrm{row}}|-|\epsilon_{\textrm{column}}|,
\label{eq:deltaepsilon}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_{\textrm{column}}$ is the fractional mass error of the method indicated by the column label and $\epsilon_{\textrm{row}}$ is the fractional mass error of the row. A $|\epsilon_{\textrm{row}}|-|\epsilon_{\textrm{column}}|$ value below zero is indicative of the row method predicting halo mass more accurately than the column method.
The left column of Figure \ref{fig:deltErr} is a comparison to the $M(\sigma_v)$ power law, and the mean values of this comparison to PL1 are summarized in Table \ref{table:methodcomp}. PL2 improves upon PL1 at all masses in the range considered, with an average $|\epsilon_{\textrm{PL2}}|-|\epsilon_{\textrm{PL1}}| = -0.0{6}$. ML1 outperforms PL1 at all masses as well, but with a significantly smaller $|\epsilon_{\textrm{ML1}}|-|\epsilon_{\textrm{PL1}}| = -0.1{7}$. ML2 and ML4 {also improve on PL1 at all masses, while ML3's improvement in mass predictions is the most pronounced at low masses. At the highest masses, ML3 consistently underpredicts. Recall, however,} that with machine learning methods, mass predictions typically lie within the range of the training set masses. {Therefore,} we expect to see an underprediction for the most massive halo. Table \ref{table:methodcomp} summarizes the $|\epsilon_{\textrm{ML}}|-|\epsilon_{\textrm{PL1}}|$ values for each method.
{The ML3 model underperforms at predicting most masses}. This may be attributed to the inclusion of $R/R_{200}$, which washes out the more important $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|$ feature, causing the significant underprediction of mass for {much of the mass range considered}. ML3 presents a cautionary tale: including additional distribution features with the SDM algorithm will not necessarily improve mass predictions, therefore, features should be chosen with care.
Because of its poor predictive power at {most masses}, ML3 is identified as a disfavored method. Both ML1 and ML2, utilizing only constructs of the line-of-sight galaxy velocities, are our preferred machine learning methods. Each has its own strength: ML1 outperforms ML2 {in the measure of ${\Delta\epsilon}$} for the Test Catalog, whereas ML2 {has a smaller ${\Delta\epsilon}$ for the High-Mass Test Catalog, outperforms in median ${\epsilon}$, and also minimizes the tendency to underpredict masses that is seen in the other machine learning methods.}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig8.pdf}
\caption{Method summary comparison: $|\epsilon_{\mathrm{row}}|-|\epsilon_{\mathrm{column}}|$ as a function of mass. Values below 0 indicate that the row method is performing better than the column method for a given mass bin. The left column summarizes a comparison of the five new methods to the $M(\sigma_v)$ power law: PL2 (the $\kappa$-corrected power law) improves mass predictions in all mass bins. While ML3, which includes $R_{\mathrm{sub}}/R_{\mathrm{200}}$, performs poorly compared to the other methods over much of the mass range considered, three machine learning methods---ML1, ML2, and ML4 (green, purple, and brown, respectively)---improve or maintain median accuracy of mass predictions {at all masses considered}. }
\label{fig:deltErr}
\end{figure*}
{As tracers of the most massive dark matter halos, cluster counts as a function of mass and redshift are sensitive to cosmological parameters. Since they contain information about the growth of structure in the low-redshift universe, cluster richness and abundance have been used to constrain constrain $\sigma_8$, $\Omega_m$, $\Omega_{\mathrm{DE}}$, and $w$ \citep[e.g.][]{2003A&A...398..867S, 2009ApJ...691.1307H, 2009ApJ...692.1060V, 2010ApJ...708..645R,2010MNRAS.406.1773M, 2011ARA&A..49..409A, 2014A&A...571A..20P}.
For measurements of these types, cluster mass calculations remain a large source of systematic error. The improved errors, $\epsilon$, accessible using the machine learning technique discussed here could prove to be a powerful tool for addressing this problem. In principle, tighter constraints on scaling relations and the halo mass function could be made with the same number of observed clusters. Alternatively, fewer clusters would be needed in order to have the same amount of constraining power as current techniques. Ultimately, decreasing error in cluster mass measurements should result in more accurate values of cluster properties and cosmological parameters.}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
We have explored dynamical mass measurements of a catalog of simulated galaxy clusters. We present methods for cluster mass measurements that extract information from the line-of-sight velocity PDF, but improve upon the $M(\sigma_v)$ power law in accuracy. All methods are trained on a catalog of simulated galaxy clusters with mass greater than $10^{14} \ \mathrm{M_{\odot}} h^{-1}$ and tested on those with mass greater than $3\times10^{14} \ \mathrm{M_{\odot}} h^{-1}$. The halos used for building the cluster catalog are gleaned from a publicly-available halo catalog of the Multidark Simulation.
Two power law methods are considered: PL1 employs a standard $M(\sigma_v)$ power law, while PL2 takes advantage of the relationship between residual ($\delta$) and LOS velocity PDF kurtosis ($\kappa$), using $\delta(\kappa)$ as a predictor for the amount by which the $M(\sigma_v)$ power law over- or underpredicts halo mass. In addition to the power law method, we explore four machine learning methods, all of which employ Support Distribution Machines, a machine learning algorithm that learns from a distribution and predicts a mass. For the ML methods, four different sets of distribution features are considered; all of these use only line-of-sight velocity, or LOS velocity coupled with normalized galaxy projected sky position, as raw data to construct the distribution features for training.
Our main conclusions can be summarized as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Applying the virial-theorem-motivated $M(\sigma_v)$ power law (method PL1) to our cluster catalog results in a fractional mass error width of $\Delta\epsilon = 0.8{71}$.
\item Kurtosis can be used to calculate a correction term for $\sigma_v$, resulting in a $\kappa$-corrected $M(\sigma_v)$ power law. In some cases, it does so by identifying halos experiencing infalling matter by the negative $\kappa$ signature of the velocity PDF and appropriately lowering the prediction of these halos' masses.
{This method (PL2),} decreases the width of fractional mass error to $\Delta \epsilon = 0.73{5}$, a decrease of 1{6}\% compared to the $M(\sigma_v)$ power law's predictions.
\item Support Distribution Machines trained on one distribution feature, $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|$, (method ML1) results in $\Delta \epsilon = 0.4{60}$, a decrease of {47}\% compared to the $M(\sigma_v)$ power law's predictions. {When SDM is} trained on two distribution features, $|v_{\mathrm{los}}|$ and $|v_{\mathrm{los}}/\sigma_v|$, (method ML2) results in $\Delta \epsilon = 0.4{84}$, a decrease of {44}\% compared to the $M(\sigma_v)$ power law's predictions. Method ML2 is the preferred machine learning method for minimizing mean ${\epsilon}$.
\item Two additional SDM methods are tested, and their fractional error ($\epsilon$) values are summarized in Table \ref{table:methodcomp}. Generally, these methods outperform both the $M(\sigma_v)$ power law method and kurtosis-corrected power law method (PL1 and PL2, respectively) {in terms of the width of fractional mass error $\Delta \epsilon$. }
\end{enumerate}
In subsequent work, we will explore several remaining challenges in applying machine learning for dynamical mass measurements. {As discussed in \cite{2014MNRAS.441.1513O}, mass estimators perform best under the conditions for which they are calibrated; models that are calibrated to predict cluster mass in spite of the presence of interlopers actually tend to do worse when interlopers are entirely excluded from the sample and the true cluster membership is known. Because the ultimate aim is to calibrate on simulations to predict masses of observed clusters, realistic} mock cluster catalogs that include known observational selection effects will have to be constructed and analyzed. Examples of major changes are: (1) including higher-redshift members to more accurately reflect the sample that will be probed by upcoming surveys, (2) assigning galaxy luminosities to subhalos and applying a galaxy luminosity cut rather than a subhalo mass cut, {(3) allowing for galaxies to be offset from the center of the halo or subhalo host, and (4)} incorporating observational selection criteria such as a fixed aperture with a LOS velocity cut that allows for interlopers. Before this method can be applied to observation, there remains a need to train SDM on an observationally-aligned cluster catalog built from a large-volume, high-resolution simulation. Once such a simulation becomes available, Support Distribution Machines will be a powerful tool to predict cluster masses.
\acknowledgments{We thank {our referee\textbf{ Ramin Skibba for his constructive comments and review of this manuscript. We also thank}} Alex Geringer-Sameth, {Shirley Ho,} Paul La Plante, Rachel Mandelbaum{, and Ying Zu} for their valuable feedback.
This work is supported in part by DOE DE-SC0011114 grant.
The CosmoSim database used in this paper is a service by the Leibniz-Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam (AIP).
The MultiDark database was developed in cooperation with the Spanish MultiDark Consolider Project CSD2009-00064.
The Bolshoi and MultiDark simulations have been performed within the Bolshoi project of the University of California High-Performance AstroComputing Center (UC-HiPACC) and were run at the NASA Ames Research Center. The MultiDark-Planck (MDPL) and the BigMD simulation suite have been performed in the Supermuc supercomputer at LRZ using time granted by PRACE.}
|
\section{introduction}
The weak value, proposed earlier by Aharonov et al.~\cite{Aharonov} as a novel measurable quantity for an observable $A$, has been attracting much attention in recent years. It is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
A_w=\frac{\langle \psi|A|\phi\rangle}{\langle \psi| \phi\rangle},
\label{eq1}
\end{eqnarray}
to a given process of transition from the initial (pre-selected) state $|\phi\rangle$ to the final (post-selected) state $|\psi\rangle$.
One of the reasons for the rise of interest is that it may provide a deeper understanding of \lq quantum paradoxes\rq\ and thereby elucidate the foundation of quantum mechanics. The other is that the weak measurement, which is the procedure designed to obtain the weak value under negligible disturbance, can be useful for precision measurement or even for a direct measurement of quantum states (for a recent review, see \cite{Dressel-rev}).
Despite numerous studies motivated by these expectations, the physical meaning of the weak value $A_w$ remains still obscure, partly because it is complex-valued rather than real, and also because it can become \lq anomalous\rq\ exceeding the range of the eigenvalues of $A$ \cite{Aharonov} or even \lq inexplicable\rq\ realizing the separation of physical property from its holder \cite{Cheshire, Denkmayr}.
In this respect, it is argued that the real part of the weak value $A_w$ can be interpreted as the conditional average of $A$ pertinent to the process, while the imaginary part is related to the change of the transition probability \cite{Dressel}. Meanwhile, we have witnessed a further puzzling phenomena involving the time-symmetric interpretation of quantum dynamics \cite{Danan}. Quite recently, the anomalous weak value has been attributed to contextually of physical values \cite{Pusey}.
In this paper, we point out yet another intriguing property of the weak value in connection with the wave-particle duality. Specifically, we show that the wave nature manifests itself in the imaginary part of $A_w$ while the particle nature appears in the real part. This is demonstrated by the double slit (gedanken) experiment, where the momentum weak value $p_w$ is directly related to the interference effect on the screen and similarly the position weak value $x_w$ to the trajectory of the particle. The weak trajectory allows us to infer, without destroying the interference, that the particle takes either of the two classical paths from the slits when it is \lq not measured\rq\ or undisturbed, which is the situation presumed by weak measurement.
Although this does not contradict with complementarity since the weak value is obtained for an ensemble, not for an individual particle, our result suggests the possibility of arguing both the wave and particle-nature simultaneously based on the weak value.
We begin our discussion by showing a direct link between the imaginary part $\text{Im}\, A_w$ and interference, extending the work \cite{Dressel}.
For this, we first consider the transition amplitude
$K(\alpha) =\langle\psi|V_A(\alpha)|\phi\rangle$
between the two states $|\phi\rangle$ and $|\psi\rangle$ intervened by the unitary operator $V_A(\alpha)=\exp\left(-\mathrm{i} \alpha A\right)$.
The weak value is then obtained by
\begin{eqnarray}
A_w&=&
\mathrm{i}\lim_{\alpha\to0}\frac{1}{K(\alpha)}\frac{\partial K(\alpha)}{\partial \alpha}.
\label{eq3}
\end{eqnarray}
We may regard $V^\dagger_A(\alpha)|\psi\rangle$ as a family of post-selected states (ignoring the time evolution momentarily)
and consider the variation of the transition probability. If, during the transition, some interference effect with respect to
a basis set of intermediate states $\{|\chi_k\rangle\}$ arises, it can be argued explicitly
by inserting the completeness relation $\mathbb{I}=\sum_k |\chi_k\rangle\langle \chi_k|$ into the probability as
\begin{eqnarray}
|K(\alpha)|^2
&=&\sum_{k}\left|K_k(\alpha)\right|^2 +\sum_{j\neq k} K_k(\alpha)K_j^\ast(\alpha),
\label{eq5}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$K_k(\alpha) =\langle\psi|V_A(\alpha)|\chi_k\rangle\langle\chi_k|\phi\rangle$
is the transition amplitude via the intermediate process $k$ through the state $|\chi_k\rangle$. It is then recognized that the first \lq diagonal part\rq\ in the r.h.s.~of (\ref{eq5}) corresponds to the classical transition, while the second \lq off-diagonal part\rq\ describes the quantum interference among the intermediate processes.
In the case of the double slit experiment, $A$ is the generator of translation on the screen, {\it i.e.}, the traverse momentum $p$ of the particle that goes through
the slits, and $\alpha$ specifies the translation in the position of the particle along the screen.
Once observed, the particle is ideally in the post-selected state given by the corresponding position eigenstate, and the interference reduces to the usual one, that is, the variation of the transition probability on the screen.
The strength of interference may be evaluated by the \lq index of interference\rq\ defined by the logarithmic derivative of the off-diagonal part of (\ref{eq5}):
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal I} :=\frac{1}{2}
\lim_{\alpha\to0}\frac{1}{|K(\alpha)|^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha} \left(|K(\alpha)|^2- \sum_{k}\left|K_k(\alpha)\right|^2\right).
\label{eq8}
\end{eqnarray}
Using the weak value $A^k_{w}= \langle \psi|A|\chi_k\rangle/\langle \psi|\chi_k\rangle$ associated with the intermediate process
$k$ which admits a formula analogous to (\ref{eq3}) with $K(\alpha)$ replaced by $K_k(\alpha)$, we obtain
{\small
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal I} =
\text{Im}\left(A_w -\sum_{k} \Pi_k\, A^k_{w}\right)
= \sum_{j\neq k}\text{Im}\left( A^k_{w}\frac{K_k(0)K_j^\ast(0)}{|K(0)|^2}\right),
\label{eq10}
\end{eqnarray}
}%
with $\Pi_k := |K_k(0)|^2/|K(0)|^2$ being the relative probability for the intermediate process $k$.
This expresses the strength of interference ${\cal I}$ as the gap in the imaginary part of the weak value between the entire process and the
average of the intermediate processes.
Note that each of the processes through $|\chi_k\rangle$ is counterfactual in the sense that it is not actually measured. In fact, this is the crucial element of the
quantum transition and to be sharply contrasted to the classical counterpart for which all the processes are factual and $\Pi_k$ is a true probability (so that $\sum_k \Pi_k = 1$ holds, unlike the quantum case).
The last expression (\ref{eq10}) shows the rate of change in the interference in terms of quantities associated with the off-diagonal part exclusively, where one finds that
the index ${\cal I}$ diverges for $K(0) \to 0$, that is, when the amplitudes sum up destructively.
We now illustrate our argument by the double slit experiment.
Consider a particle passing through two narrow slits $S_\pm$ and later hits the screen to form an interference pattern (see FIG.\ref{QuantumInterference}).
To make our analysis simpler, we choose our state at $t=0$ by the superposition of two localized states,
\begin{eqnarray}
|\phi\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(|x_i\rangle+|-x_i\rangle\right).
\label{inist}
\end{eqnarray}
Our post-selection at time $t=T$ is then made by the position eigenstate at $x = x_f$,
\begin{eqnarray}
|\psi\rangle=|x_f\rangle,
\label{finst}
\end{eqnarray}
corresponding to the point where the particle is spotted.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{fig1.eps}
\caption{Our simplified double slit (gedanken) experiment.
The orange filled curve describes the transition probability when the slits are point-like, whereas the dotted curve describes the transition probability for the case where the slits are finite in size and the particle distribution is given by a Gaussian distribution around $S_\pm$.
}
\label{QuantumInterference}
\end{figure}
Ignoring the dynamics in the $y$-direction which plays no essential role in the following discussion, we just take account of the dynamics of free motion
in the $x$-direction described by the Hamiltonian,
$H={p^2}/{2 m}$,
where $m$ is the mass of the particle and $p$ the momentum along $x$.
The time evolution is then given by the unitary transformation
$U(t)=\exp\left(-{\mathrm{i} H t}/{\hslash}\right)$, and for the present process the transition probability reads
\begin{eqnarray}
|\langle\psi|U(T)|\phi\rangle|^2=\frac{m}{\pi\hbar T}
\cos^2\left(\frac{m}{\hslash}\frac{x_f x_i}{T}\right).
\label{eq11}
\end{eqnarray}
This picture of interference yields undiminished fringes and is admittedly too simplistic, and perhaps one can render it more realistic by considering a Gaussian distribution for the initial state (see FIG.\ref{QuantumInterference}). However, it will be seen that our picture is sufficient to capture the key feature of the weak value on the wave-particle duality.
To put the present case in the general context, we introduce
$|\phi(T)\rangle := U(T)|\phi\rangle$ and consider the family of post-selected states
$V^\dagger_p(\alpha)|x_f\rangle$ with $V_p(\alpha)=\exp\left[-\mathrm{i} \alpha p\right]$. Since $p$ is the generator of
translation, we have
$V^\dagger_p(\alpha)|x_f\rangle=|x_f-\alpha\rangle$. The probability amplitude is then
$K({\alpha}) =\langle \psi| V_p(\alpha)|\phi(T)\rangle$, and the transition probability (\ref{eq11}) is just $\vert K(0)\vert^2$.
Now, the relevant completeness relation of the intermediate states is
$\mathbb{I}=\int_0^\infty dx|x\rangle\langle x|+\int_{-\infty}^0 dx|x\rangle\langle x|$,
according to which the transition amplitude splits as
$K({\alpha}) = {K_+}(\alpha) + {K_-}(\alpha)$,
where
${K_\pm}(\alpha)={\langle \psi|V_p(\alpha)|\phi_\pm(T)\rangle}/\sqrt{2}$
with $|\phi_\pm(T) \rangle=U(T)|\pm x_i\rangle$.
Under our choice of selections, on the screen at $t = T$ the weak value of the momentum $p_w$ and those for the partial processes $(p_\pm)_w$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
p_w&=&\frac{\langle \psi|\, p\, |\phi(T)\rangle}{\langle \psi|\phi(T)\rangle}
=m\frac{{x_f} +\mathrm{i}\, {x_i} \tan \left(\frac{m}{\hslash}\frac{{x_f} {x_i}}{T}\right)}{T},
\label{eq18}
\\
(p_\pm)_w&=&\frac{\langle \psi|\, p\, |\phi_\pm(T)\rangle}{\langle \psi|\phi_\pm(T)\rangle}
=m\frac{{x_f}\mp x_i}{T}.
\label{eq21}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $(p_\pm)_w$ are both real, the index (\ref{eq10}) turns out to be
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal I} =\text{Im}\, p_w = m\frac{ {x_i} \tan \left(\frac{m}{\hslash}\frac{{x_f} {x_i}}{T}\right)}{T}.
\label{eq22}
\end{eqnarray}
We thus see that the index ${\cal I}$ is just the imaginary part $\textrm{Im} \,p_w$, which diverges when the interference
becomes completely destructive $K(0) \to 0$ and vanishes when it is maximally constructive.
For a one particle system, the most tangible source of physical quantity is arguably the trajectory of the particle, so let us examine how the weak value of the position $x$
varies with time. This is done by setting formally the pre-selected state by the retarded state $|\phi(t)\rangle = U(t)|\phi\rangle$ and the post-selected state by the advanced state
$|\psi(t)\rangle = U(t-T)|\psi\rangle$ for $0 \le t \le T$. The resultant weak value,
\begin{eqnarray}
x_{w}(t) := \frac{\langle \psi(t)| x |\phi(t)\rangle}{\langle \psi(t)|\phi(t)\rangle} = \frac{\langle \psi|U(T-t)xU(t)|\phi\rangle}{\langle \psi|U(T)|\phi\rangle}
\label{eq23}
\end{eqnarray}
is in general complex-valued, but it can be readily seen that, if both $|\phi\rangle$ and $|\psi\rangle$ are position eigenstates, $x_{w}(t)$ becomes real and agrees with the classical trajectory.
Now, if we instead have the superposition state for $| \phi\rangle$ given in (\ref{inist}), we find
\begin{eqnarray}
x_{w}(t) = \frac{{x_f}t}{T}+\mathrm{i}\frac{ x_i(t-T) \tan \left(\frac{m}{\hslash}\frac{{x_f} {x_i}}{T}\right)}{T}.
\label{eq231}
\end{eqnarray}
We then notice that
the real part $\textrm{Re} \, x_w(t)$ corresponds to the average of the two classical trajectories coming from the two slits $S_\pm$ (see FIG. \ref{InterferenceDiagonal}). Although this is consistent with the real part of the momentum $\textrm{Re} \,p_w$ in (\ref{eq18}), being the average ($\textrm{Re} \, x_w(0) = 0$ in particular), it cannot reasonably be regarded as a true trajectory. In fact, this is a common feature that arises when the pre-selected state is formed by superposition, and is caused by the inability of distinction of the individual superposed states by the post-selection. As we see shortly, this pathological behavior can be \lq cured\rq\ by rendering the distinction possible.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=7.3cm]{fig2.eps}
\caption{ (Left) Weak trajectories $x_w(t)$ in the complex plane for various different post-selections with density proportional to the transition probability $\vert K(0)\vert^2 = |\langle\psi|U(T)|\phi\rangle|^2$. The real and imaginary parts are depicted in orange and green lines and projected on the bottom and the left-back planes, respectively.
(Right) The imaginary part $\textrm{Im}\,x_w(0)$ as a function of $x_f$. The curve diverges when the complete destructive interference occurs where $\vert K(0)\vert^2$ vanishes.
}
\label{InterferenceDiagonal}
\end{figure}
\hspace{5mm}
Before doing so, let us briefly discuss the imaginary part $\textrm{Im} \, x_w$, which
becomes large as the transition probability becomes small and eventually diverges when the interference
is completely destructive (see FIG. \ref{InterferenceDiagonal}). Note that although $x$ is not
treated here as a generator for unitary transformations as $p$ is, the connection to interference is still valid, because of the direct dynamical relation between
$\textrm{Im} \, x_w$ and $\textrm{Im} \, p_w$ obtained analogously to the Ehrenfest theorem.
The foregoing result that the real part $\textrm{Re} \, x_w(t)$ gives the average trajectory of the two classical ones
prompts us to ask what happens if we can know which of the slits the particle has gone through.
To answer this, we bring in the spin (qubit) degrees of freedom and let the particle be in the up state $|+\rangle$ when it goes through $S_+$, and likewise in the down state $|-\rangle$ when it goes through $S_-$.
Under this revised setup,
our pre-selected state is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
|\phi\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(|x_i\rangle\otimes|+\rangle+|-x_i\rangle\otimes|-\rangle\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Of course, if we perform the selection at $t = T$ by the state $|+\rangle$ or $|-\rangle$, it destroys the interference and gives nothing different from the previous setup. However, different results arise when
we introduce, along the line of quantum eraser \cite{Scully}, an obscuring element on the \lq which path information\rq\ by adopting
\begin{eqnarray}
|\psi\rangle=|x_f\rangle\otimes\left[\cos(\theta/2)|+\rangle+e^{\mathrm{i} \eta} \sin(\theta/2)|-\rangle\right]
\end{eqnarray}
for the post-selected state, which is achieved by choosing the spin up state by the measurement in the direction $(\sin\theta \cos\eta, \sin\theta \sin\eta, \cos\theta)$.
We then expect that, for $\theta=0,{\pi}$, the post-selection by $|\psi\rangle$ destroys the interference pattern as we gain the complete which path information,
whereas for $\theta=\frac{\pi}{2}$
we recover the interference fringes but lose the which path information altogether.
To see if these expectations are realized, we introduce the spin tagged position operators,
\begin{eqnarray}
x^\pm=x\otimes|\pm\rangle\langle \pm|,
\label{eq28}
\end{eqnarray}
which add up to
${x^++x^-} = x\otimes\mathbb{I}$. Obviously, these operators tell us which of the slits $S_\pm$ the particle comes from.
Then, under the free motion of the particle preserving the spin, the tagged weak values
$x^\pm_{w}(t)=\langle \psi(t)|x^\pm |\phi(t)\rangle/\langle \psi(t)|\phi(t)\rangle$
are found to be
\begin{eqnarray}
x^+_{w}(t)
&=&\frac{\left[x_i + (x_f-x_i)\frac{t}{T}\right]\cos(\theta/2)}{\cos(\theta/2)+e^{\mathrm{i} \chi}\sin(\theta/2)}
\\
x^-_{w}(t)
&=&\frac{\left[-x_i + (x_f+x_i)\frac{t}{T}\right]\sin(\theta/2)}{\sin(\theta/2)+e^{-\mathrm{i} \chi}\cos(\theta/2)},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\chi := \frac{2m}{\hslash}\frac{{x_f} {x_i}}{T} - \eta$.
Since $x^\pm_{w}(t)$ are both proportional to the corresponding classical trajectories,
\begin{eqnarray}
x^\pm_{cl}(t) = \pm x_i + (x_f \mp x_i)\frac{t}{T},
\end{eqnarray}
we may write
$x^\pm_w(t) = \left[ R^\pm(\theta) + \mathrm{i} I^\pm(\theta) \right] x^\pm_{cl}(t)$
in terms of the scale factors, $R^\pm(\theta)$ and $I^\pm(\theta)$, associated with the real and imaginary parts of the weak value, respectively. We then find, for example, the real scale factor,
\begin{eqnarray}
R^+(\theta) = \frac{1 + \cos{\theta} + \sin{\theta}\cos\chi}{2(1+\sin{\theta}\cos\chi)},
\end{eqnarray}
which has $R^+(0) = 1$, $R^+(\pi) = 0$ and $R^+(\pi/2) = 1/2$.
This shows that for $\theta=0$ the real part of the weak trajectory $\textrm{Re} \, x^+_w(t)$ coincides with the classical trajectory $x^+_{cl}(t)$ starting from the slit $S_+$ and that it vanishes for $\theta=\pi$. This is actually expected, since $\theta=0$ ($\theta= \pi$) means that only spin up (down) particles are post-selected and hence they must come from the slit $S_+$ ($S_-$).
Meanwhile, at the midpoint $\theta=\pi/2$ we find that $\textrm{Re} \, x^+_w(t)$ is scaled down from $x^+_{cl}(t)$ by half.
An analogous result can be obtained for $\textrm{Re} \, x^-_w(t)$ which is proportional to the classical trajectory $x^-_{cl}(t)$ coming from the slit $S_-$ with the scaling factor $R^-(\theta)$ having $R^-(0) = 0$, $R^-(\pi) = 1$, $R^-(\pi/2) = 1/2$.
\begin{figure}[t]
{\includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{fig3.eps}}%
\caption{
Tagged weak trajectories for the cases $\theta=0, \frac{\pi}{2}$ and ${\pi}$ with density proportional to the transition probability $|\langle\psi|U(T)|\phi\rangle|^2$. At $\theta=0, \pi$ where we have the perfect which path information, the interference pattern disappears and either of $\textrm{Re} \, \tilde x^\pm_w(t)$ gives one possible trajectory for the post-selection made at $x_f$. At $\theta=\frac{\pi}{2}$ where no information on the path is gained and the interference observed, both $\textrm{Re} \, \tilde x^\pm_w(t)$ are available as trajectories from $\pm x_i$ to $x_f$.
}
\label{RealPartOfWeakValue}
\end{figure}
The discord between the real part of the tagged weak trajectory and the classical one, appearing when the post-selection does not allow the complete which path information, is in fact an artifact arising from the behavior of the transition amplitude contained in the denominator of the weak value. To remove this artifact, one may consider the \lq normalized\rq\ weak trajectory $\tilde x^\pm_{w}(t) := x^\pm_{w}(t)/R^\pm(\theta)$ so that $\textrm{Re} \,\tilde x^\pm_{w}(T) = x_f$ is fulfilled. This simple adjustment at $t = T$ yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\textrm{Re} \, \tilde x^\pm_w(t) = x^\pm_{cl}(t).
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, when we measure $\tilde x^+$ ($\tilde x^-$) weakly under the post-selection at $x_f$, the particle is surely found to have passed through $S_+$ ($S_-$), taking the classical trajectory from $x_+$ ($x_-$) to $x_f$ (see FIG.\ref{RealPartOfWeakValue}).
To summarize, we have shown that the imaginary part $\textrm{Im} \, A_w$ of the weak value signifies the wave nature in terms of the rate of interference. In particular, in the context of double slit experiment the imaginary part $\textrm{Im} \, p_w$ of the momentum gives the index of interference. In the same context, the real part $\textrm{Re} \, x_w$ of the position exhibits the particle nature through the classical trajectory, if an additional device that allows for the which-path information is equipped. Our weak trajectory is defined purely from the position and differs from the one considered in \cite{Wiseman, Kocsis} in which a combination of velocity and position is used to obtain the dynamics of the Bohmian mechanics.
The real part of the normalized weak value of the tagged position $\tilde x_w^\pm(t)$ indicates that the particle comes either of the two slits while still yielding the interference pattern. We emphasize that this is not in conflict with complementarity, as the weak value is obtained for an ensemble, not for an individual particle. Nonetheless, in view of the presumption that the weak measurement causes negligible disturbance for the particle, our result seems to suggest the na\"{\i}ve picture that, even when unseen, each of the particles in the ensemble is following the classical path before producing the interference pattern.
It is our hope that the present study serves to gain a deeper understanding of the role played by the weak value in quantum mechanics.
\hspace{3mm}
I. T. thanks Prof. A. Wipf for useful discussions.
This work was supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C), No.~25400423 of MEXT, and by the Center for the Promotion of Integrated Sciences (CPIS) of Sokendai.
|
\section{Introduction}
In the standard cosmological model of structure formation, galaxy
clusters are the largest collapsing structures located at the nodes of
the cosmic web. Studies of local galaxies have found strong
correlations of galaxy properties with the environment
\citep[e.g.,][]{Dressler80,Hogg04}. However, it is largely
unknown whether and how these correlations would hold up at higher
redshifts of $z\ga2$, when the mean star formation activities of the
universe peaked and clusters were formed
\citep[e.g.,][]{HopkinsAM06,Rettura10}. Studying dense galaxy groups
and clusters at $z\ga2$ provides crucial knowledge of the star
formation history of high-mass galaxies and the hierarchical growth of
massive structures
\citep[e.g.,][]{McCarthy07,Tran10,Brodwin13,Strazzullo13,Henry14}.
Great progress has been made in increasing the number of cluster
candidates at $z\ga 1.6$ \citep[e.g.,][]{Papovich10,Hayashi12,Muzzin13,LeeK14,
Chiang14,Newman14}. To secure the identification of a cluster, and to
further elucidate the star formation history and physical properties
of the galaxy members, spectroscopic follow-up is necessary. Because
of the amount of large telescope time required, it is not surprising
that to date only a handful of spectroscopically-confirmed galaxy
clusters with developed red sequences are known at $z\ga 2$. Existing
studies either do not have accurate cluster velocity dispersion
measurements due to small numbers (${<}10$) resulting in large
uncertainties \citep{Kurk04,Galametz13}, or membership comes from
Hubble Space Telescope (HST) grism redshifts with typical redshift
accuracies of $\pm$ 200 km/s on individual galaxies
\citep{Gobat13}. Non-uniform redshift identifications from different
instruments with limited spectral resolution and sensitivity also
makes it difficult to quantify the errors of cluster velocity dispersion
\citep{Shimakawa14}.
We capitalize on the efficient Multi-Object Spectrometer for InfraRed
Exploration (MOSFIRE; \citealt{McLean10,McLean12}) on KECK-1 to carry
out a uniform spectroscopic survey on a galaxy cluster at $z\sim 2$
\citep{Spitler12} which was first identified using deep medium-band
photometry in the {\sc FourStar}\ \citep{Persson13} Galaxy Evolution Survey
(ZFOURGE\footnote{{\url http://zfourge.tamu.edu}}) as having a
striking overdensity in red galaxies. In this Letter we use MOSFIRE
to spectroscopically confirm 57 cluster members (spectral resolution
$\sim$ 10 km/s) and accurately measure the galaxy cluster's velocity
dispersion. Our study also confirms the robustness of the ZFOURGE
photometric redshifts and ability to detect galaxies at $z\ga 2$.
Throughout the paper, we adopt a flat cosmology with
$\Omega_{M}{=}0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}{=}0.7$ and
H$_{0}{=}70$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$. At the cluster redshift of
$z{=}2.09$, 10 arcmin corresponds to an angular scale of 5 Mpc in
proper coordinates.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 6mm 0mm 2mm 0mm, clip, width=18cm,angle=0]{fig1rev.eps}
\caption{Examples of the flux-calibrated MOSFIRE spectra for cluster members. We select 4 cluster galaxies of different brightness and
and spectral quality that are representative of our whole sample.
Cluster members are observed primarily in the $K$ band; 1/4 of the objects have $H$ band observations.
On each panel, x-axis is the observed wavelength in $\AA$ and y-axis is flux in unit of 10$^{-17}$ ergs~s$^{-1}$~cm$^{2}$~$\AA^{-1}$.
The observed 1-D spectra are presented in black and unsmoothed; the best-fit Gaussian line profiles are superposed in blue;
the 1-$\sigma$ error spectra are over-plotted in green.
Spectroscopic redshifts from the Gaussian centroid fitting and associated
statistical errors are labeled.
Vertical dashed lines show the expected positions of the strong emission lines at spectroscopic redshifts.
The photometric magnitude and stellar mass for each object are also marked.
Embedded are 2\arcsec$\times$2\arcsec three-color HST images (using the F814W, F125W and F160W filters) obtained from the publicly available CANDELS imaging \citep{Koekemoer11,Grogin11}.
}
\label{fig:figzfourge}
\end{figure*}
\section{SPECTROSCOPIC OBSERVATIONS}
\subsection{MOSFIRE sample selection and observations}
We select spectroscopic targets based on the photometric redshifts in
ZFOURGE that were derived from imaging in deep near-infrared
medium-band filters \citep{Spitler12,Spitler14}.
The $z \sim 2$ galaxy cluster candidate was first discovered within
the COSMOS field in a single pointing of
$\sim11\arcmin\times11\arcmin$ targeted by ZFOURGE
\citep{Spitler12}. The median uncertainties for the ZFOURGE
photometry is $\sim$ 0.05 dex \citep{Tomczak14}, sufficient to allow for efficient
cluster member candidates selection.
We obtained the spectroscopic data on MOSFIRE on the KECK 1 telescope
on Mauna Kea. We conducted our observations on December 24-25, 2013
and February 10-13, 2014 with the aim of 1) securing as many redshifts
as possible in the field of the cluster candidate and 2) obtaining
high S/N spectra to study the physical properties (e.g.,
mass-metallicity relation, Kacprzak et al. in prep) of the cluster
members. We configured 8 masks in the $K$-band filter covering
1.93-2.45 \micron\ (sensitive for detecting {H$\alpha$}\ and {[N\,{\sc ii}]}\ lines at
$z\sim$ 2), and 2 masks in the $H$-band filter covering 1.46-1.81
\micron\ (sensitive for detecting {H$\beta$}\ and {[O\,{\sc iii}]}\ lines at $z\sim$ 2).
We use a $0\farcs7$ slit width which yields a spectral resolution of $R{=}3690$ in $K$ and $R{=}3620$ in $H$ band.
Taking advantage of the $6\farcm1\times6\farcm1$ MOSFIRE field of view
we targeted 224 objects in 6 pointings and secured redshifts for 180
objects. The total on-source exposure time for the $K$-band masks is
$\sim$ 2 hours each. For the two $H$-band masks, the exposure is
5.3 and 3.2 hours respectively. The observing conditions were
excellent for most of our masks, with seeing FWHM varying from $\simeq
0\farcs4$ to $\simeq 0\farcs7$. An A0V type standard star was
observed in both the wide-slit mode and the narrow-science-slit
($0\farcs7$ slit width) mode before and after our science
targets. The standard stars are used for telluric and flux
calibration.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 2mm 7mm 6mm 2.mm, clip, width=6.4cm,angle=90]{fig2.eps}
\caption{Histogram of the difference between our MOSFIRE spectroscopic redshifts and ZFOURGE photometric redshifts. Binsize is 0.02.
Objects with Q$_{\rm z}{=}3$ redshift measurements (more than 2 emission lines identified) are shown in red and objects with Q$_{\rm z}{=}2$ redshift measurements (one emission line) are shown in black.
Typical statistical errors for the MOSFIRE spectroscopic redshifts are 0.0001 whereas the median errors for ZFOURGE photometric redshifts are 0.05. The histogram can be well-fit by a Gaussian distribution
(blue dashed line). The 1$\sigma$ scatter in the difference between the spectroscopic and photometric redshifts for Q$_{\rm z}{=}3$ objects is $\sigma$(Gaussian)/(1.+z({=}2)) $\sim$ 2 percent.
}
\label{fig:figphotoz}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Data Reduction and Redshift Measurements}
The raw MOSFIRE data were reduced using the publicly-available data
reduction pipeline (DRP) developed by the instrument team\footnote{See
\href{http://code.google.com/p/mosfire/}{http://code.google.com/p/mosfire/}}
available at the time. The output of the MOSFIRE DRP were
background-subtracted, rectified and wavelength calibrated 2-D
spectra (see Figure~\ref{fig:figzfourge}). All spectra were calibrated to vacuum wavelengths. The
typical residual for the wavelength solution is $\la$ 0.1 $\AA$.
Similar to the procedure used in \citet{Steidel14}, we develop our own
IDL routines to implement the telluric correction and flux calibration
based on the standard stars. The 1-D
spectrum and its associated 1$\sigma$ error spectrum are extracted
using an aperture that corresponds to the FWHM of the spatial profile
of the well detected object (S/N $>$ 5). For objects that are too
faint to fit a Gaussian spatial profile, we use the FWHM of the
stellar profile on the same mask as the extraction aperture.
Gaussian profiles were fit simultaneously to user-defined emission
lines, e.g. {H$\alpha$}\ and {[N\,{\sc ii}]}, with the line center and velocity width
constrained to be the same within a given $K$-band or $H$-band. Most
of our targets can be well-fitted by a single Gaussian component in
the spectral direction. However, some of the galaxies in our sample
have good resolved velocity structures in the emission lines due to
great seeing (e.g, bottom left panel in Figure~\ref{fig:figzfourge}). Those spectra require multiple component fitting and
will be presented in our future kinematic work of the sample. The
output of the code includes redshift, line flux, line width, and the
associated errors. The statistical errors for each parameter are
estimated using the 1$\sigma$ error spectrum of the DRP, which we have
tested to represent the correct level of variation of the spectrum.
Examples of our reduced MOSFIRE spectra are presented in
Figure~\ref{fig:figzfourge}. We show 4 cluster galaxies of different brightness and
and spectral quality that are representative of our whole sample. The $K$ band magnitude (AB) range of our cluster galaxies
is $20.8 \le Ks \le 26.1$, with a median value of 23.86 (Nanayakkara et al., in preparation). The faintest objects that we have detected emission lines (S/N $>$ 5) have $Ks \sim 25$.
We flag the final redshifts in 3
categories based on the reliability of the redshift identification and measurements.
\begin{itemize}
\item For objects with at least 2 emission lines identified at S/N $>5$, we flag them as ``Q$_{\rm z}{=}3$", meaning the quality of the redshift are the highest and we are confident that
the line identification and redshift measurement are correct.
\item For objects that show only 1 emission line with S/N $>5$, we
assign them as ``Q$_{\rm z}{=}2$" redshifts. The general match of the
``Q$_{\rm z}{=}2$" object redshifts with their photometric redshifts suggests
that the single line identification is most likely to be correct (see
Figure~\ref{fig:figphotoz}). The ``Q$_{\rm z}{=}2$" objects also show a spike at the cluster
redshift, further validating the ``Q$_{\rm z}{=}2$" redshifts
(Figure~\ref{fig:figdisz}). The rms scatter between our spectroscopic
redshifts and the ZFOURGE photometric redshifts is about 5\%
(Figure~\ref{fig:figzfourge}).
\item For objects that have no obvious line detection (i.e., S/N $<
5$), we assign them as ``Q$_{\rm z}{=}1$" redshifts and do not include them in
the spec-z sample.
\end{itemize}
In summary, we identify 150 Q$_{\rm z}{=}3$ objects, 30 Q$_{\rm z}{=}2$ objects, and 44
Q$_{\rm z}{=}1$ objects ranging from spectroscopic $z \sim$ 1.9 to 3.0.
The statistical errors determined from the fit to Gaussian centroids for Q$_{\rm z}{=}2$ and Q$_{\rm z}{=}3$
redshifts are in the range of $\Delta z \sim 0.0001-0.0002$ (median{=}0.00008).
To examine the systematic uncertainties, we compare the redshifts of the Q$_{\rm z}{=}3$ objects (N $\sim$ 40) that have redundant observations with S/N $\ge 10$ in
both the $K$ and $H$ band. The agreement between the redundantly detected redshifts
is $\Delta z (\rm median) {=} 0.00005$ and $\Delta z (\rm rms) {=} 0.00078$.
We thus quote $\Delta z (\rm rms) {=} 0.00078/\sqrt{2}{=}0.00055$ as the total uncertainty of our redshift measurement which is
contributed mostly from systematic uncertainties.
At $z{=}2.1$, this error corresponds to a rest-frame velocity uncertainty of
$\Delta {\rm v (rms)} {=} 53$ $\rm km~s\ensuremath{^{-1}\,}$ (spectral resolution $\sim$ 26 $\rm km~s\ensuremath{^{-1}\,}$).
\section{Results}
\subsection{Redshifts and Cluster Velocity Dispersion}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim = 5mm 0mm 10mm 3mm, clip, width=6.3cm,angle=90]{fig3.eps}
\caption{Histogram for the redshift distribution of galaxies in our sample that fall in the range of $2.0 \la z \la 2.3$. The binsize is 0.003.
Q$_{\rm z}{=}3$ objects are shown in red, Q$_{\rm z}{=}2$ in black. A strong Gaussian-shaped spike is seen at redshift z$=$2.095.
There are 57 galaxies that fall within the 3-sigma Gaussian width of the redshift peak. We denote those 57 galaxies as cluster members.
The spectroscopic redshifts for the brightest cluster galaxies (BCG-A, B, C, D) in the over density maps of \citet{Spitler12} are
marked with downward arrows. We have confirmed BCG-A and D to be the most massive red galaxies in the z$=$2.095 cluster, whereas BCG-B and C
are most likely associated with two background structures.
}
\label{fig:figdisz}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We show in Figure~\ref{fig:figdisz} the histogram of the spectroscopic
redshifts for Q$_{\rm z}{=}3$ (red) and Q$_{\rm z}{=}2$ objects (black).
The redshift range of $2.0 < z < 2.3$ are used to exclude obvious interlopers.
A prominent spike at $z{=}2.095$ is clearly revealed. The histogram
distribution around the spike can be well quantified by a Gaussian
profile (blue dashed line) with the center $z_{\rm c}$(Gaussian)${=}2.09578$ and
dispersion $\sigma_{\rm z}$ (Gaussian)${=}0.00544$ or in velocity
space $\sigma_{\rm v}$(Gaussian)${=}572$ km/s. The mean of the
redshift distribution within identical redshift interval is $z_{\rm
c}$(mean)${=}2.09521$ and standard deviation $\sigma_{\rm z}$
(stdev)${=}0.00578$, skewness${=}-0.2318$, and kurtosis${=}-0.1753$ consistent with a Gaussian normal distribution.
We define $z_{\rm c}$ $\pm$ 3*$\sigma$z as the redshift range for the
cluster. There are 57 galaxies that fall in this range, of which 52
are Q$_{\rm z}{=}3$ objects, and 5 are Q$_{\rm z}{=}2$ objects. Whether the Q$_{\rm z}{=}2$
galaxies are included or not does not change our results.
With MOSFIRE's spectral resolution and 57 confirmed members, we are
able to measure for the first time a robust cluster velocity
dispersion at $z\sim2$. To calculate the cluster velocity dispersion
and errors, we bootstrap (with replacement) the 57 galaxies 30000 times and have:
$z_{\rm c}$(boot)${=}2.09521 \pm 0.00076$ and dispersion $\sigma_{\rm z}$(boot)${=}0.00571 \pm 0.00053$ or in velocity units $\sigma_{\rm v1D}$(boot)${=}553 \pm 52$ km/s. To compare with previous sample sizes
(typically $\sim$10 members), we randomly select 10 galaxies from our
57 members and recalculate the bootstrapped (with replacement) velocity dispersion, we
obtain $\sigma_{\rm v1D}$(boot)${=}566 \pm169$ km/s, i.e. the
uncertainty in the velocity dispersion would be $\sim3$ times larger.
Because our spectroscopic catalog is biased towards star-forming galaxies,
we are likely to have missed the quiescent/dusty galaxies or galaxies with faint emission lines below our detection limit ({H$\alpha$}\ 1$\sigma$ flux limit of our MOSFIRE survey is 3.2$\times$ $10^{-18}$ ergs~s$^{-1}$~cm$^{2}$; SFR$\sim$0.8 M$_\odot$ at $z{=}2.1$ without dust correction). It has been shown that blue galaxies
in clusters have a larger velocity dispersion than red galaxies \citep[e.g.,][]{Carlberg97}.
Our velocity dispersion measurement could be
slightly over-estimated due to this bias. We defer the full analysis of this bias to future work.
\subsection{Spatial Distribution}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim = 2mm 18mm 10mm 10mm, clip, width=13.4cm,angle=90]{fig4.eps}
\caption{MOSFIRE spectroscopic redshifts in the cluster candidate field.
Small black dots show the all the 180 galaxies with reliable spectroscopic redshift identifications (``Q$_{\rm z}{=}3$" and ``Q$_{\rm z}{=}2$" objects).
Black crosses show the 44 objects with no detections (``Q$_{\rm z}{=}1$" objects).
Empty blue circles show the spatial distribution of the $z{=}2.095$ cluster members.
The dashed-line rings A, B, C, D denote the four peaks on the seventh nearest-neighbor surface density
maps as labeled in \citet{Spitler12}. We adopt the brightest galaxy as an overdensity's center. The coordinates for ABC centers are the same as \citet{Spitler12}
and for D (10:00:17.739, +02:17:52.68, J2000) (Allen et al., in prep).
The dotted lines marked the median position of the cluster members (10:00:22.646,+02:15:05.91).
The rings have a radius of 1 arcmin which corresponds to a proper scale of 500 kpc at the cluster redshift of 2.09.
}
\label{fig:figspace}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim = 4mm 2mm 3mm 10mm, clip, width=6.8cm,angle=90]{fig5.eps}
\caption{Spectroscopic redshift (all Q$_{\rm z}{=}2,3$ objects, filled black dots) against radial distance to the ``center" of the cluster defined on the median position of the cluster members.
The blue horizontal lines show the
positions of the redshift peak (dotted) of $z=2.095$ and 3-sigma ranges (dashed). 35/57 of the
members are concentrated within 1.3 Mpc of the cluster center. The positions of the two massive red galaxies BCG-A and BCG-D are highlighted in red stars.
The velocities with respect to the cluster redshift $z=2.095$ are labeled on the y-axis on the right.
}
\label{fig:figrad}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The spatial distribution of our MOSFIRE targets are presented in
Figure~\ref{fig:figspace}. As described in \citet{Spitler12}, 3
strong overdensities (A, B, C) in this field are found by computing
surface density maps in narrow $\delta z{=}0.2$ redshift slices between
$z{=}1.5-3.5$ using the 7th nearest-neighbor metric \citep[e.g.,
][]{Papovich10,Gobat13}. We also include another over-density region
D (Figure~\ref{fig:figspace}) using the same algorithm (Allen et al., in prep). In each
over-density region, massive (M $>$ 10$^{11}$ M$_\odot$) galaxies are
selected as candidate brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs). The positions of the
BCGs are taken as the overdensity's centers. We also labeled in Figure~\ref{fig:figspace} Group E and F, which are
groups of confirmed galaxies that are spatially concentrated and separated from the main structure.
Based on our MOSFIRE spectra, BCG-A and BCG-D are confirmed to be
quiescent galaxies that show only continua. Unfortunately, our
$K$-band and $H$-band observations do not cover obvious stellar
features for meaningful spectral template fitting. We obtain the
spectroscopic redshifts for BCG-A (zspec{=}2.104) and BCG-D
(zspec{=}2.092) from \citet{Belli14}. Our MOSFIRE spectra clearly
show that BCG-B and BCG-C are star-forming emission-line galaxies that
lie at redshift $z{=}2.3010 \pm 0.0001$ and 2.1750 $\pm$ 0.0001
respectively. The photometric redshift of BCG-B and C is $2.15^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$
and
$2.19^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$, both are under-estimated, especially for BCG-B.
The number of members with projected radius of 500 kpc for the original \citet{Spitler12} ABC, and D overdensities are 12, 5, 8, and 4 respectively (Figure~\ref{fig:figspace}), though
we note that what we called ``BCGs" B,C are behind the main structure indicating the dangers of studying membership based solely on photometric data.
The 57 cluster members cover a total projected spatial length of
$\sim$ 3.7$\times$5 Mpc$^2$ ($\sim$ 7.4 $\times$ 10 Mpc$^2$ comoving). Taking the median position of the 57 cluster members (dotted
lines in Figure~\ref{fig:figspace}) as the cluster center, we show the
radial distance of members from this defined cluster center in
Figure~\ref{fig:figrad}. Note there are 35 members that fall within
the 1.3 Mpc projected radius over the multiple over-density peaks.
\section{Comparison with simulations}\label{highz}
To help us understand what our observed structure at $z{=}2.095$ should evolve into at $z{=}0$, we employ the $2160^3$ particle Gpc-volume (particle mass $m_p{=}1.1\times10^{10} {\rm M_\odot}$) GiggleZ-main simulation \citep{Poole14}. We have computed 1D velocity dispersions for all the friends-of-friends (FoF) structures of the simulation at $z{=}0$ and $z{=}2.2$ (the closest snapshot to our observed redshift) using substructures exceeding $\rm{M_{vir}}{=}4.3\times10^{11} {\rm M_\odot}$. Merger trees were used to determine what each $z{=}$2.2 FoF structure evolves into at $z{=}0$. We find that systems with velocity dispersions in the range $\sigma_{\rm 1D}{=}552\pm52$ km/s at $z{=}2.2$ have virial masses in the range ${\rm M_{vir}}{=}10^{13.5\pm0.2} {\rm M_\odot}$ and that they evolve into systems with ${\rm M_{vir}}{=}10^{14.4\pm0.3} {\rm M_\odot}$ and $\sigma_{\rm1D}{=}680^{+73}_{-110}$ km/s (all ranges are $68\%$ confidence), in agreement with a Virgo-like cluster \citep{Vaucouleurs61}.
299 such systems are found in the simulation suggesting an incidence of one per 2.5 square degrees over the redshift range $z{=}2.0$ to $2.3$.
This corresponds to a $\sim$ 4\% occurrence of such a cluster in the original ZFOURGE survey area of 0.1 deg$^{2}$.
These results are in good agreement with the $z{=}2$ $\sigma_{sub}{-}{\rm M_{vir}}$ relation of \citet{Munari13} and
with the results of \citet{Chiang13} whose simulations indicate that a $10^{13.5} {\rm M_\odot}$ system should evolve to a mass of ${\sim}10^{14.5} {\rm M_\odot}$ at $z{=}0$.
\section{Conclusions}\label{discussion}
We carry out MOSFIRE spectroscopic observations in the $z\sim 2$
galaxy cluster candidate with a red-sequence that was first discovered from the Magellan/{\sc FourStar}\
Galaxy Evolution Survey (ZFOURGE) \citep{Spitler12}. This galaxy
cluster was identified using rest-frame optical and near-infrared
imaging and is thus an important link between the UV-selected systems
at this epoch \citep[e.g.,][]{Steidel05,Digby-North10} and massive
clusters at lower-redshift \citep[e.g.,][]{Gal04}. Our successful
spectroscopic campaign confirms the accuracy of the photometric
redshifts derived from ZFOURGE's deep medium-bandwidth photometry.
By combining MOSFIRE's spectral capabilities with
our efficient selection of $z\sim2$ targets, we are able to identify
cluster members and accurately measure the cluster's kinematics. We
measure spectral redshifts for 180 objects and identify 57 cluster
members that have a mean redshift of $z{=}2.095$. The redshifts for
cluster members are determined primarily from {H$\alpha$}\ and {[N\,{\sc ii}]}\ emission,
and the cluster velocity dispersion is $\sigma_{\rm v1D}$ {=} 552 $\pm$
52 km/s. Most of the cluster galaxies (35) lie within a region with a
projected radius of 1.3 Mpc.
This is the first study of a galaxy cluster at $z \ge 2.0$ with the
combination of spectral resolution ($\sim$ 26 km/s) and the number of
confirmed members ($>$ 50) needed to study cluster kinematics robustly
and map members over a large field of view (12 $\times$ 12
arcmin$^2$). Our accurate velocity dispersion measurement of this
clustering structure allows us to use simulations to trace the cluster's
likely evolution to $z{=}0$. Our simulation results show that
the ZFOURGE cluster at $z=2.095$ should evolve into a Virgo-like system locally
with ${\rm M_{vir}}{=}10^{14.4\pm0.3} {\rm M_\odot}$.
Our results show that galaxy clusters at $z\sim2$ can now be studied
in the same detailed manner as clusters at $z\la 1$. However, unlike
galaxies in massive clusters at $z\sim0$, the ZFOURGE cluster members
show a wealth of {H$\alpha$}\ emission and other signs of star formation
activity. Our next work will report the mass-metallicity relation,
ionization parameter evolution and other physical properties of the
ZFOURGE cluster at $z=2.095$.
\acknowledgments
We would like to thank the referee for an excellent report and comments that have improved this paper.
We thank Pierluigi Cerulo for useful comments.
KG, LS, TN, acknowledges funding from a Australian Research Council
(ARC) Discovery Program (DP) grant DP1094370 and Access to Major
Research Facilities Program which is supported by the Commonwealth of
Australia under the International Science Linkages program.
L.K. acknowledges a NSF Early CAREER Award AST
0748559 and an ARC Future Fellowship award FT110101052.
GP acknowledges support from the ARC Laureate Fellowship of Stuart Wyithe.
Observations were supported by Swinburne Keck programs 2013B\_W160M
and 2014A\_W168M. Part of this
work was supported by a NASA Keck PI Data Award, administered by the
NASA Exoplanet Science Institute. The authors wish to recognize and
acknowledge the very significant cultural role and reverence that the
summit of Mauna Kea has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian
community. We are most fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct
observations from this mountain.
|
\section{Introduction}
One of the most debated and yet open issues in nuclear physics is whether or not
the deuteron-like proton-neutron pairs of isospin $T=0$ and angular momentum $J=1$
behave coherently in the form of a condensate, analogous in structure to the
condensates of like-particle pairs. For about 50 years the isoscalar proton-neutron
pairing and its competition with the isovector $(T=1,J=0)$ pairing have been commonly studied
in the framework of the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) theory. Most of its developments, starting from the
pioneering works \cite{goswami_kisslinger,chen_goswami, goodman_struble,
wolter} have been reviewed by Goodman \cite{goodman_adv,goodman1990}
(for a recent study, see \cite{gezerlis}). However, as clearly evidenced in applications within exactly solvable models of $T=1$ and $T=0$ pairing \cite{dobes,evans,engel,lerma}, this theory suffers important limitations due to its inherent violations of the particle number and of the isospin. Such violations are, of course, absent in the Shell Model (SM) and various attempts have been made to employ this approach to elucidate the
competition between the isoscalar and isovector pairing correlations \cite{poves,pittel_sandulescu}. However, it is still unclear how
one could identify in the complicated SM wave function the existence of the collective pairs
and their possible coherence in the form of a pair condensate.
In the present study we propose a new approach for treating the isoscalar and isovector
pairing interaction in $N=Z$ nuclei which is based not on pairs, as in the case of the HFB theory,
but on alpha-like quartets. This approach presents the advantage of conserving exactly the
particle number and the isospin and, at the same time, it is simple enough for understanding
the role played by the isoscalar and isovector pairing correlations.
The idea of using quartets for describing proton-neutron pairing in nuclei is rather old \cite{lane} but it
has been mostly employed for treating the isovector interaction
\cite{flowers,zelevinsky,yamamura,talmi,hasegawa}. A consistent quartet formalism for treating the isovector pairing, which
conserves the particle number, the isospin and takes into account exactly the
Pauli blocking, has been proposed in Refs. \cite{qcm1,qcm2} . In this model the ground state
of $N=Z$ nuclei is approximated by a condensate of alpha-type quartets formed by
two isovector pairs coupled to $T=0$. Recently this model has been generalized by allowing
the isovector quartets to be different from one another \cite{sasa_t1}.
In the present letter we extend the quartet model
to the treatment of both the isovector and the isoscalar pairing interactions in
nuclei with an equal number of protons and neutrons outside a self-conjugate core.
The manuscript is structured as follows. In Section 2, the ground state of the isovector plus isoscalar Hamiltonian for $N=Z$ systems is formulated in the formalism of quartets.
In Section 3,
the quartet formalism is applied to nuclei with valence particles outside the $^{16}$O, $^{40}$Ca and $^{100}$Sn.
Finally, in Section 4, we give the conclusions.
\section{The quartet formalism}
The isovector plus isoscalar pairing Hamiltonian in a spherically symmetric mean field has the form
\begin{equation}
H=\sum_i \epsilon_i N_i +
\sum_{i,j} V^{T=1}_{J=0} (i,j) \sum_{T_z}P^+_{i,T_z} P_{j,T_z}+
\sum_{i\leq j,k\leq l} V^{T=0}_{J=1}(ij,kl)
\sum_{J_z}D^+_{ij,J_z} D_{kl,J_z}.
\end{equation}
In the first term, $\epsilon_i$ and $N_i$ are, respectively, the energy and the particle number operator relative to the single-particle state $i$. The symbol $i$ is a short cut notation for
$\{n_i,l_i,j_i,\tau_i\}$, with $\{n_i,l_i,j_i\}$ being the standard orbital quantum numbers and $\tau_i$ denoting the isospin projection. The Coulomb interaction
between the protons is not taken into account so that the single-particle energies of protons
and neutrons are assumed to be equal.
The second term in Eq. (1) is the isovector pairing interaction. This is formulated
in terms of the non-collective pair operators
\begin{equation}
P^+_{i,T_z}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[a^+_i a^+_i ]^{T=1,J=0}_{T_z}
\end{equation}
where $T_z$ denotes the three projections of the isospin $T=1$ corresponding to
neutron-neutron ($T_z=1$), proton-proton ($T_z=-1$) and proton-neutron ($T_z=0$) pairs.
The isoscalar pairing interaction, the third term in Eq. (1), is written in terms of the pair operators
\begin{equation}
D^+_{ij,J_z}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\delta_{ij}}}[a^+_i a^+_j ]^{J=1,T=0}_{J_z}
\end{equation}
where $J_z$ denotes the three projections of the angular momentum $J=1$.
It is worth mentioning that the Hamiltonian (1) is exactly solvable only for
$V^{T=1}_{J=0}(i,j)= V^{T=0}_{J=1}(ij,kl)=g$, where $g$ is a state-independent
pairing strength, and in the absence of the spin-orbit interaction.
In this case, the isovector and isoscalar correlations play a similar role and
contribute to the ground state energy to an equal amount \cite{lerma}.
In this work we investigate to which extent the ground state of the Hamiltonian (1) for an even-even self-conjugate nucleus
can be represented in terms collective alpha-like quartets having total angular momentum $J=0$ and total isospin $T=0$. One can form two types of quartets: isovector quartets, resulting from the coupling of two isovector pairs (2),
\begin{equation}
Q^{+ (iv)}_{\nu} = \sum_{i,j} x^{(\nu )}_{ij} [P^+_i P^+_j]^{T=0}
\end{equation}
and isoscalar quartets, formed instead by two isoscalar
pairs (3)
\begin{equation}
Q^{+ (is)}_{\nu} = \sum_{ij,kl} y^{(\nu )}_{ij,kl} [D^+_{ij} D^+_{kl}]^{J=0}.
\end{equation}
By summing up these quartets one constructs the generalized quartets
\begin{equation}
Q^+_{\nu}=Q^{+ (iv)}_{\nu} + Q^{+(is)}_{\nu}.
\end{equation}
We approximate the ground
state of the Hamiltonian (1) for an even-even $N=Z$ nucleus as a product of such quartets, namely
\begin{equation}
|\Psi_{gs}\rangle \equiv |QM \rangle =\prod^{N_Q}_{\nu =1}Q^\dag_\nu |0\rangle
\end{equation}
where $|0\rangle$ denotes a self-conjugate core of nucleons not affected by the pairing interaction.
Since each quartet has $T=0$ and $J=0$, these also represent the quantum numbers of the ground state (7).
Dealing with $T=0$ and $J=0$ quartets only has the great advantage of
not requiring any angular momentum coupling, but also is simpler to apply than that proposed in Ref. \cite{arima_gillet}
which instead employed general quartets with $J \neq 0$, $T \neq 0$.
The QM state depends on the mixing amplitudes $x^{(\nu)}_{ii'}$ and $y^{(\nu)}_{ii',jj'}$
which define the collective isovector and isoscalar quartets. In order to find them
we employ a generalization of the iterative variational procedure used in the case of the
isovector pairing \cite{sasa_t1} (for details, see also \cite{sasa,samba2}). The procedure
consists of a sequence of diagonalizations of the Hamiltonian (1) in
spaces whose size $N_q$ is given by the total number of non-collective isovector
($[P^+_i P^+_j]^{T=0}$) and
isoscalar ($[D^+_{ij} D^+_{kl}]^{J=0}$) quartets which can be formed in the chosen model space of single-particle
states. For simplicity, we denote all these non-collective quartets as $q^+_{\mu}$
($\mu=1,2 ..{\it N_q}$) and write the collective quartet (6) generically as $Q^+_\nu=\sum_\mu c^{(\nu)}_\mu q^+_{\mu}$. In order to describe a system with $N_Q$ quartets, we
proceed step-by-step starting from the case of one quartet. For $N_Q=1$, the
Hamiltonian (1) is diagonalized in the space $F_1$ spanned by all possible non-collective quartets, i.e.
$
F_1= \Bigl\{ q^+_\mu |0\rangle \Bigr\}.
$
The lowest state in energy which results from this diagonalization
represents the exact ground state for the system with two neutrons and two protons and it has the form
$
|\Psi_1\rangle =Q^+_1 |0\rangle .
$
For the system with $N_Q=2$ quartets, as a first approximation of the ground state, we assume the lowest state in energy resulting from the diagonalization of $H$ in the space
$
F^{(1)}_2=\Bigl\{q_\mu Q^+_1 |0\rangle \Bigr\} ,
$
where $Q^+_1$ is the quartet previously determined.
This state has therefore the form
\begin{equation}
|\Psi^{(1)}_2\rangle = Q^+_2 Q^+_1 |0\rangle \equiv Q^+_2 |\Psi_1\rangle .
\end{equation}
From this point on, a series of diagonalizations starts whose purpose is that of finding the quartets which guarantee the lowest possible energy of the state (8). Each diagonalization is meant to update one quartet while leaving the other unchanged. In the second step, for instance, one proceeds by diagonalizing $H$ in the space
$F^{(2)}_2=\Bigr\{q^+_\mu Q^+_2 |0>\Bigr\}$. This diagonalization
generates the second order approximation for the ground state
\begin{equation}
|\Psi^{(2)}_2\rangle = Q^{+(new)}_1 Q^+_2 |0\rangle .
\end{equation}
This state is expected to be lower (or, at worst, equal) in energy with respect to $|\Psi^{(1)}_2\rangle$ and so each diagonalization, while updating a quartet, drives the two-quartet state toward its minimum in energy. This diagonalization is iterated until the energy converges.
The procedure illustrated in the previous paragraph for the case $N_Q =2$ can be generalized for any value of $N_Q$.
In general, if $Q^\dag_\nu$ $(\nu =1,2,...,N_Q-1)$ are the final quartets generated for the system $N_{Q}-1$,
we start by finding
the lowest order approximation of the ground state for the system with $N_Q$ quartets, which results from the diagonalization of $H$ in the space
\begin{equation}
F^{(1)}_{N_Q}=\Biggl\{ q^+_\mu
\prod^{N_Q-1}_{\nu=1}Q^\dag_\nu |0\rangle
\Biggr\}
\equiv \Biggl\{ q^+_\mu |\Psi_{N_Q-1}\rangle\Biggr\}
\end{equation}
and it has therefore the form
\begin{equation}
|\Psi^{(1)}_{N_Q}\rangle =Q^+_{N_Q} |\Psi_{N_Q-1}\rangle .
\end{equation}
This lowest order approximation is improved by an iterative sequence of diagonalizations which updates the quartets one by one and drives this state towards its minimum in energy.
It is worthy noticing that, owing to this continuous updating, the quartets that populate the final state $|\Psi_{N_Q}\rangle$ are different from those defining $|\Psi_{N_Q-1}\rangle$.
In this sense, quartets are generated dynamically for every $N_Q$.
This fact makes impossible to establish a simple connection between $|\Psi_{N_Q}\rangle$ and
$|\Psi_{N_Q-1}\rangle$. However, as evidenced in Eq. (11), if the iterative procedure is arrested at the lowest order, the ground state at this stage, $|\Psi^{(1)}_{N_Q}\rangle$,
simply results from the action of a quartet creation operator on the ground state for $N_Q-1$. This expression is of particular interest because, provided that $|\Psi^{(1)}_{N_Q}\rangle$
can be proved to be a good approximation of the exact ground state,
it would give a clear evidence of the key role played by $T=0$, $J=0$ quartets in the ground state of the isovector-isoscalar pairing Hamiltonian.
\section{Results}
To test the accuracy of the quartet model we have performed calculations
for three sets of $N=Z$ nuclei with valence nucleons outside the
$^{16}$O, $^{40}$Ca, and $^{100}$Sn cores. The isovector and isoscalar
pairing forces of the Hamiltonian (1) have been extracted, respectively, from the $(T = 1, J = 0)$ and $(T=0,J=1)$ components of standard shell model interactions. More precisely,
for nuclei outside the $^{16}$O core we have used the
USDB interaction \cite{usd}, for those outside the $^{40}$Ca core the monopole-modified Kuo-Brown
interaction KB3G \cite{poves} and, for those outside the $^{100}$Sn core, the
effective G-matrix interaction of Ref. \cite{gmatrix}.
As single-particle energies we have taken those employed with the previous
interactions (e.g., see Ref. \cite{qcm1}).
The results for the pairing correlation energy, defined as the difference
between the ground state energies obtained with and without the
pairing force, are given in Table 1. In order to check the accuracy of the
quartet model, the calculations have been done only for those $N=Z$ nuclei for
which the Hamiltonian (1) could be diagonalized exactly.
As seen in Table 1, the errors relative to the exact solution are very small,
under $1\%$. This shows that the ansatz (7) for the ground state is a very
good approximation for describing the isoscalar-isovector pairing correlations.
In Table 1 we also present the results relative to the lowest order approximation (11).
In addition to the correlation energies, we show the overlaps between
this approximated ground state and the actual QM ground state, i.e. the state at the end of the iterative process. It can be seen that the relative errors remain confined within $1\%$
even in this case and that these overlaps are very close to 1. Therefore the lowest order approximation too emerges as an excellent approximation of the exact ground state.
\begin{table}[hbt]
\caption{Ground state correlation energies (in MeV) calculated for the isovector plus isoscalar
pairing Hamiltonian (1) with strengths extracted from standard shell
model interactions (see text). The results are shown for the exact diagonalization,
the QM state (7) and the lowest order approximation (11), denoted by QM(l.o.).
The errors relative to the exact results are given in brackets.
Overlaps (in absolute values) between
the states QM and QM(l.o.) are reported in the last column.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\hline
& Exact & QM & QM(l.o.) & $\langle QM|QM(l.o.)\rangle$ \\
\hline
\hline
$^{24}$Mg & 28.694 & 28.626 (0.24$\%$) & 28.592 (0.35$\%$) & 0.9993 \\
$^{28}$Si & 35.600 & 35.396 (0.57$\%$) & 35.307 (0.82$\%$) & 0.9980 \\
$^{32}$S & 38.965 & 38.865 (0.25$\%$) & 38.668 (0.76$\%$) & 0.9942 \\
\hline
$^{48}$Cr & 11.649 & 11.624 (0.21$\%$) & 11.614 (0.30$\%$) & 0.9996 \\
$^{52}$Fe & 13.887 & 13.828 (0.43$\%$) & 13.804 (0.60$\%$) & 0.9994 \\
\hline
$^{108}$Xe & 5.505 & 5.495 (0.18$\%$) & 5.490 (0.27$\%$) & 0.9995 \\
$^{112}$Ba & 7.059 & 7.035 (0.34$\%$) & 7.025 (0.48$\%$) & 0.9987 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Having verified that the QM state (7) is able to describe with very high precision the pairing correlation energies of the isovector plus isoscalar Hamiltonian (1), the quartet formalism can be used to analyse the competition between the isovector and isoscalar components of the pairing interaction. Due to the mixed nature of the quartets, Eq. (6), the QM ground state (7) contains an isovector component
\begin{equation}
|iv\rangle =\prod^{N_Q}_{\nu =1}Q^{\dag (iv)}_{\nu} |0\rangle ,
\end{equation}
an isoscalar component
\begin{equation}
|is\rangle =\prod^{N_Q}_{\nu =1}Q^{\dag (is)}_{\nu} |0\rangle
\end{equation}
and, for $N_Q >1$, a mixed component with both isovector and isoscalar quartets.
As all these components are not orthogonal to each other, it is not trivial to analyse their competition in the ground state. Thus in order to explore the relative importance of the isovector and isoscalar correlations, we have carried out two further QM calculations, one by assuming a ground state formed only by isovector quartets, i.e. of the type (12), and the other with a ground state formed only by isoscalar quartets, i.e. of the type (13).
The results of these calculations are presented in Table 2 where we report the ground state correlation energies in the different approximations and the overlaps between the corresponding wave functions. One can see that, for nuclei with valence nucleons outside the $^{40}$Ca and $^{100}$Sn cores, the isovector quartet state (12) is able to account for the largest part of the correlation energy induced by the isovector-isoscalar interaction.
This fact is also supported by the large overlaps with the QM state (7). However, the isoscalar correlation contribution remains non-negligible because, as seen in Table 1, it reduces the errors in the correlation energies by about one order of magnitude.
A different situation is observed instead in the case of $sd$-nuclei where the pairing forces extracted from the USDB shell-model interaction give rise to a prominence of the isoscalar contribution. Still in Table 2 one can notice that the overlap between the isovector-type (12) and isocalar-type (13) ground states can be rather large. This overlap is a measure of the difficulty in disentangling the isovector and isoscalar contributions. It is worth mentioning that in the present symmetry conserving quartet
formalism the isovector and isoscalar pairing correlations always coexist, which is usually not the case in HFB calculations \cite{goodman1990,gezerlis}.
\begin{table}[hbt]
\caption{ Correlation energies (in MeV) calculated with the isovector quartet state (12) and the
isoscalar quartet state (13). In the first column we give, as a reference, the results
corresponding to the full QM state (7). The errors relative to the QM
results are shown in brackets. In the three columns on the right we report the overlaps (in absolute values) between the quartet states just mentioned.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\hline
& QM & iv & is &$ \langle QM|iv\rangle$ & $\langle QM|is\rangle$ & $\langle iv|is\rangle$ \\
\hline
\hline
$^{20}$Ne & 15.985 & 14.402 (9.9$\%$) & 15.130 (5.4$\%$) & 0.884 & 0.953 & 0.843 \\
$^{24}$Mg & 28.626 & 23.269 (18.7$\%$) & 26.925 (5.9$\%$) & 0.650 & 0.911 & 0.336 \\
$^{28}$Si & 35.396 & 28.897 (18.4$\%$) & 33.376 (5.7$\%$) & 0.590 & 0.911 & 0.343 \\
$^{32}$S & 38.865 & 33.959 (12.6$\%$) & 37.884 (2.5$\%$) & 0.638 & 0.973 & 0.595 \\
\hline
$^{44}$Ti & 7.019 & 6.274 (10.6$\%$) & 4.917 (30.0$\%$) & 0.901 & 0.678 & 0.303 \\
$^{48}$Cr & 11.624 & 10.589 (8.9$\%$) & 7.384 (36.5$\%$) & 0.906 & 0.497 & 0.221 \\
$^{52}$Fe & 13.828 & 12.814 (7.3$\%$) & 9.980 (27.8$\%$) & 0.927 & 0.753 & 0.746 \\
\hline
$^{104}$Te & 3.147 & 3.041 (3.4$\%$) & 1.549 (50.8$\%$) & 0.978 & 0.489 & 0.314 \\
$^{108}$Xe & 5.495 & 5.240 (4.6$\%$) & 2.627 (52.2$\%$) & 0.958 & 0.354 & 0.234 \\
$^{112}$Ba & 7.035 & 6.614 (6.0$\%$) & 4.466 (36.5$\%$) & 0.939 & 0.375 & 0.376 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Previous works (e.g., see Refs. \cite{gezerlis,pittel_sandulescu}) have evidenced a strong effect
of the spin-orbit interaction on the interplay between isovector and isoscalar correlations.
We have investigated this effect in the case of $pf$-shell nuclei by repeating
the QM calculations in the absence of the single-particle energy splittings induced
by the spin-orbit interaction. In particular, we have assumed all single particle energies equal to 2.6 MeV (roughly speaking the centroid of the original single particle energies \cite{poves}) and kept unchanged the isovector and isoscalar strengths in the Hamiltonian (1). The new results appear to be reversed with respect to those shown in Table 2, with the isoscalar quartet state (13) accounting for the largest fraction of the correlation energy induced by the isovector-isoscalar interaction (the deviations from the QM values are now confined within 5$\%$ while they become larger than 20$\%$ for the isovector state (12)). Also the overlaps between the corresponding states appear to be reversed with $\langle QM|is\rangle$ being now close to 0.9. Our analysis within the quartet formalism therefore confirms that isoscalar correlations are strongly hindered by the spin-orbit interaction in these nuclei.
\section{Conclusions}
In this work we have described the ground state of the isovector plus isoscalar pairing Hamiltonian in even-even $N=Z$ nuclei in a formalism of alpha-like quartets. Quartets are built by two neutrons and two protons coupled to total isospin $T=0$ and total angular momentum $J=0$. The ground state is represented as a product of quartets and a
procedure to construct them has been described. The formalism does not violate any symmetry of the Hamiltonian. We have carried out a number of numerical tests for systems
with valence nucleons outside the $^{16}$O, $^{40}$Ca and $^{100}$Sn cores and with pairing interactions extracted from realistic shell model Hamiltonians.
We have verified that ground state correlation energies are reproduced with high accuracy
in the quartet formalism.
For the same systems we have shown that, to a very good extent,
the $T=0$, $J=0$ quartets link the pairing ground states of adjacent even-even $N=Z$ nuclei.
Therefore the role played by these quartets in even-even self-conjugate nuclei appears
analogous to that of Cooper pairs in the ground state of a like-particle pairing Hamiltonian.
We have also analyzed the competition between the isovector and isoscalar pairing within the quartet formalism. Isovector pairing
correlations have been found dominant in the ground states of $pf$-shell nuclei and of nuclei outside the $^{100}$Sn core while, in $sd$-shell nuclei, the isoscalar pairing correlations have been found to prevail. A strong mixing between isovector and isoscalar pairing correlations has been observed in most of the cases. Finally, we have analyzed the effect of the spin-orbit interaction on the interplay between isovector and isoscalar correlations in $pf$-shell nuclei. Consistently with previous works, we have found that this interplay is strongly affected by this interaction and that, in his absence, isoscalar correlations become the dominant ones.
\vskip 0.3cm
{\it Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research
through the grant Idei nr 57 and by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics,
under Award Number DE-FG02-96ER40985.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
The nonperturbative solution of quantum field theories in terms of
Fock-state wave functions requires new methods that avoid various
difficulties. Light-front quantization~\cite{DLCQreviews} is critical
for this, because it allows for a well-defined Fock-state expansion of
Hamiltonian eigenstates. The calculation of these wave functions
is usually done in a truncated Fock space, in order to have a finite
number of equations; however, such a truncation brings problems with
uncanceled divergences. An alternate truncation that apparently
avoids such divergences is made within the light-front coupled-cluster
(LFCC) method~\cite{LFCC}.
The LFCC method replaces a Fock-space truncation
with a more sophisticated truncation, one that limits the way in
which higher Fock-state wave functions are related without completely
eliminating any. The light-front Hamiltonian eigenvalue problem is
reduced to a finite set of nonlinear equations, rather than the
finite linear set obtained from a Fock-space truncation.
Here we consider $\phi^4$ theory in 1+1 dimensions as an illustration
of the use of the LFCC method~\cite{LFCCphi4}. We compute the odd-parity massive
eigenstate and compare results with those obtained with a Fock-space
truncation.
Our light-front coordinates~\cite{Dirac} are defined as
$x^+=t+z$ for time and $x^-= t-z$ for space. The corresponding
light-front energy and momentum are $p^-=E-p_z$ and $p^+= E+p_z$.
The mass-shell condition $p^2=m^2$ becomes $p^-=\frac{m^2}{p^+}$.
The light-front Hamiltonian operator is written as ${\cal P}^-$.
\section{LFCC method} \label{sec:LFCC}
To solve the light-front eigenvalue problem
\begin{equation}
{\cal P}^-|\psi(P^+)\rangle=\frac{M^2}{P^+}|\psi(P^+)\rangle
\end{equation}
without making a Fock-space truncation, we
build the eigenstate as
\begin{equation}
|\psi\rangle=\sqrt{Z}e^T|\phi\rangle
\end{equation}
from a valence state $|\phi\rangle$
and an operator $T$ that increases particle number.
The eigenvalue problem can then be written as
\begin{equation}
e^{-T}{\cal P}^- e^T|\phi\rangle=e^{-T}\frac{M^2}{P^+}e^T|\phi\rangle.
\end{equation}
We define an effective Hamiltonian $\ob{{\cal P}^-}=e^{-T}{\cal P}^- e^T$,
and the eigenvalue problem becomes
$\ob{{\cal P}^-}|\phi\rangle=\frac{M^2}{P^+}|\phi\rangle$,
which we project onto the valence and orthogonal sectors
\begin{equation}
P_v\ob{{\cal P}^-}|\phi\rangle=\frac{M^2+P_\perp^2}{P^+}|\phi\rangle, \;\;
(1-P_v)\ob{{\cal P}^-}|\phi\rangle=0.
\end{equation}
with $P_v$ the projection operator.
The second (auxiliary) equation determines $T$.
This formulation is exact; however, in general, $T$ contains an infinite
number of terms, and the auxiliary equation is really an infinite set
of equations. The approximation made is to truncate $T$ and truncate
$1-P_v$. The effective Hamiltonian can then be constructed from a Baker--Hausdorff
expansion $\ob{{\cal P}^-}={\cal P}^-+[{\cal P}^-,T]+\frac12 [[{\cal P}^-,T],T]+\ldots $,
which can be terminated when the increase in particle number matches
the truncation of the projection $1-P_v$.
\section{Application to $\phi^4$ theory} \label{sec:phi4}
The Lagrangian for two-dimensional $\phi^4$ theory is
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}=\frac12(\partial_\mu\phi)^2-\frac12\mu^2\phi^2-\frac{\lambda}{4!}\phi^4,
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is the mass of the boson and $\lambda$ is the coupling constant.
The light-front Hamiltonian density is
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}=\frac12 \mu^2 \phi^2+\frac{\lambda}{4!}\phi^4.
\end{equation}
The mode expansion for the field at zero light-front time is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mode}
\phi=\int \frac{dp^+}{\sqrt{4\pi p^+}}
\left\{ a(p^+)e^{-ip^+x^-/2} + a^\dagger(p^+)e^{ip^+x^-/2}\right\},
\end{equation}
with the modes quantized such that
\begin{equation}
[a(p^+),a^\dagger(p^{\prime +})]=\delta(p^+-p^{\prime +}).
\end{equation}
The light-front Hamiltonian is
${\cal P}^-={\cal P}^-_{11}+{\cal P}^-_{13}+{\cal P}^-_{31}+{\cal P}^-_{22}$,
with
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:Pminus11}
{\cal P}^-_{11}&=&\int dp^+ \frac{\mu^2}{p^+} a^\dagger(p^+)a(p^+), \\
\label{eq:Pminus13}
{\cal P}^-_{13}&=&\frac{\lambda}{6}\int \frac{dp_1^+dp_2^+dp_3^+}
{4\pi \sqrt{p_1^+p_2^+p_3^+(p_1^++p_2^++p_3^+)}}
a^\dagger(p_1^++p_2^++p_3^+)a(p_1^+)a(p_2^+)a(p_3^+), \\
\label{eq:Pminus31}
{\cal P}^-_{31}&=&\frac{\lambda}{6}\int \frac{dp_1^+dp_2^+dp_3^+}
{4\pi \sqrt{p_1^+p_2^+p_3^+(p_1^++p_2^++p_3^+)}}
a^\dagger(p_1^+)a^\dagger(p_2^+)a^\dagger(p_3^+)a(p_1^++p_2^++p_3^+), \\
\label{eq:Pminus22}
{\cal P}^-_{22}&=&\frac{\lambda}{4}\int\frac{dp_1^+ dp_2^+}{4\pi\sqrt{p_1^+p_2^+}}
\int\frac{dp_1^{\prime +}dp_2^{\prime +}}{\sqrt{p_1^{\prime +} p_2^{\prime +}}}
\delta(p_1^+ + p_2^+-p_1^{\prime +}-p_2^{\prime +}) \\
&& \rule{2in}{0mm} \times a^\dagger(p_1^+) a^\dagger(p_2^+) a(p_1^{\prime +}) a(p_2^{\prime +}) .
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The subscripts indicate the number of creation and annihilation operators
in each term. Each term changes the number of particles by two or zero, which
allows the eigenstates to be classified as either odd or even in the number
of constituents.
For simplicity of the illustration, we consider the odd case.
The valence state $|\phi\rangle$ is the one-particle state $a^\dagger(P^+)|0\rangle$.
The leading contribution to the $T$ operator is
\begin{equation}
T_2=\int dp_1^+ dp_2^+ dp_3^+ t_2(p_1^+,p_2^+,p_3^+)
a^\dagger(p_1^+)a^\dagger(p_2^+)a^\dagger(p_3^+)a(p_1^++p_2^++p_3^+);
\end{equation}
the function $t_2$ is symmetric in its arguments. For $T$ truncated to $T_2$, the
projection $1-P_v$ is truncated to projection onto the three-particle state
$a^\dagger(p_1^+)a^\dagger(p_2^+)a^\dagger(p_3^+)|0\rangle$.
Given this truncation, the Baker--Hausdorff expansion for $\ob{{\cal P}^-}$
generates many terms that do not actually contribute to the
valence equation or to the auxiliary equation. A more efficient approach
for the construction of these equations is to compute only those matrix elements
of $\ob{{\cal P}^-}$ that enter into the projections.
The valence and auxiliary equations become
\begin{equation} \label{eq:valenceprojected}
\langle 0|a(Q^+)\left({\cal P}^-_{11}+{\cal P}^-_{13}T_2\right)a^\dagger(P^+)|0\rangle
=\frac{M^2}{P^+}\delta(Q^+-P^+).
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:auxprojected}
\langle 0|a(q_1^+)a(q_2^+)a(q_3^+)\left(\rule{0mm}{0.2in}
{\cal P}^-_{31}+({\cal P}^-_{11}+{\cal P}^-_{22})T_2-T_2{\cal P}^-_{11}
-T_2{\cal P}^-_{13}T_2+\frac12{\cal P}^-_{13}T_2^2\right)a^\dagger(P^+)|0\rangle=0.
\end{equation}
The valence equation can be reduced to~\cite{LFCCphi4}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:LFCCvalence}
1+g\int\frac{dx_1 dx_2}{\sqrt{x_1 x_2 x_3}}\tilde t_2(x_1,x_2,x_3)=M^2/\mu^2,
\end{equation}
where $x_i=p_i^+/P^+$,
$g=\lambda/4\pi\mu^2$ is a dimensionless coupling constant,
and $\tilde t_2$ is a rescaled function of longitudinal momentum fractions,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:tildet2}
\tilde t_2(x_1,x_2,x_3)=P^+t_2(x_1P^+,x_2P^+,x_3P^+).
\end{equation}
We also define a dimensionless mass shift $\Delta$
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Delta}
\Delta\equiv g\int\frac{dx_1 dx_2}{\sqrt{x_1 x_2 x_3}}\tilde t_2(x_1,x_2,x_3),
\end{equation}
such that $M^2=(1+\Delta)\mu^2$.
The reduced auxiliary equation is~\cite{LFCCphi4}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:LFCCaux}
\lefteqn{\frac16\frac{g}{\sqrt{y_1 y_2 y_3}}
+\frac{M^2}{\mu^2}\left(\frac{1}{y_1}+\frac{1}{y_2}+\frac{1}{y_3}-1\right)
\tilde t_2(y_1,y_2,y_3)}&& \\
&& +\frac{g}{2}\left[\int_0^{1-y_1}dx_1
\frac{\tilde t_2(y_1,x_1,1-y_1-x_1)}{\sqrt{x_1 y_2 y_3 (1-y_1-x_1)}}
+ (y_1 \leftrightarrow y_2) + (y_1 \leftrightarrow y_3)\right] \nonumber \\
&& -\frac{\Delta}{2} \left(\frac{1}{y_1}+\frac{1}{y_2}+\frac{1}{y_3}\right) \tilde t_2(y_1,y_2,y_3)
\nonumber \\
&& +\frac{3g}{2}\left\{\int_{y_1/(1-y_2)}^1 d\alpha_1 \int_0^{1-\alpha_1} d\alpha_2
\frac{\tilde t_2(y_1/\alpha_1,y_2,1-y_1/\alpha_1-y_2) \tilde t_2(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3)}
{\sqrt{\alpha_1 \alpha_2 \alpha_3 y_3 (\alpha_1-y_1-\alpha_1 y_2)}}\right. \nonumber \\
&& \rule{2.2in}{0mm} \left. +(y_1\leftrightarrow y_2)+(y_1\leftrightarrow y_3)
\rule{0mm}{0.15in} \right\} \nonumber \\
&& +\frac{3g}{2}\left\{ \left[ \int_{y_1+y_2}^1 d\alpha_1 \int_0^{1-\alpha_1} d\alpha_2
\frac{\tilde t_2(y_1/\alpha_1,y_2/\alpha_1,1-(y_1+y_2)/\alpha_1)\tilde t_2(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3)}
{\alpha_1 \sqrt{\alpha_2 \alpha_3 y_3 (\alpha_1-y_1-y_2)}} \right. \right. \nonumber \\
&& \rule{2.5in}{0mm} \left. + (y_2 \leftrightarrow y_3)
\rule{0mm}{0.15in}\right] \nonumber \\
&& \rule{1in}{0mm} \left. +(y_1\leftrightarrow y_2)+(y_1\leftrightarrow y_3)
\rule{0mm}{0.15in}\right\}=0, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with $y_i=q_i^+/P^+$.
For comparison, we consider a Fock-state truncation that produces the same
number of equations. The truncated eigenstate
\begin{equation}
|\psi(P^+)\rangle=\psi_1 a^\dagger(P^+)|0\rangle
+P^+\int dx_1 dx_2 \psi_3(x_1,x_2,x_3)
a^\dagger(x_1P^+)a^\dagger(x_2P^+)a^\dagger(x_3P^+)|0\rangle
\end{equation}
then contains only one and three-body contributions.
Action of the light-front Hamiltonian ${\cal P}^-$ on this state
yields a coupled system of integral equations, with
$\tilde\psi_3\equiv\psi_3/(\sqrt{6}\psi_1)$:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:tildepsi1}
\lefteqn{1+g\int\frac{dx_1 dx_2}{\sqrt{x_1 x_2 x_3}}\tilde\psi_3(x_1,x_2,x_3)=M^2/\mu^2,} && \\
\label{eq:tildepsi3}
&& \frac16\frac{g}{\sqrt{y_1y_2y_3}}
+\left(\frac{1}{y_1}+\frac{1}{y_2}+\frac{1}{y_3}-\frac{M^2}{\mu^2}\right)\tilde\psi_3(y_1,y_2,y_3) \\
&& +\frac{g}{2}\left[ \int_0^{1-y_1} dx_1
\frac{\tilde\psi_3(x_1,y_1,1-y_1-x_1)}{\sqrt{x_1(1-y_1-x_1)y_2 y_3}}
+ (y_1 \leftrightarrow y_2) + (y_1 \leftrightarrow y_3)\rule{0mm}{0.3in}\right]
=0. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In each case, the first equation, (\ref{eq:LFCCvalence}) or
(\ref{eq:tildepsi1}), is of the same form; it provides for the self-energy
correction of the bare mass to yield the physical mass. The second equations,
however, differ significantly. The LFCC auxiliary equation (\ref{eq:LFCCaux})
includes the physical mass in the three-body kinetic energy; the three-body equation
of the Fock-truncation approach (\ref{eq:tildepsi3}) has only the bare mass and would
require sector-dependent renormalization~\cite{Wilson,hb,Karmanov,SecDep}
to compensate. The fourth LFCC term is the nonperturbative
analog of the wave-function renormalization counterterm. The last
two terms are partial resummations of higher-order loops. These terms
do not appear in the Fock-truncation equation because the loops
have intermediate states that are removed by the truncation.
\section{Numerical methods} \label{sec:numerical}
Our numerical method relies
on expansions of $\tilde t_2$ and $\tilde\psi_3$ in a basis of fully symmetric
polynomials~\cite{SymPoly}, which will convert the three-body
equations to systems of nonlinear algebraic equations:
\begin{equation}
\tilde t_2(x_1,x_2,x_3)=\sqrt{x_1 x_2 x_3}\sum_{n,i}^{n=N} a_{ni}P_{ni}(x_1,x_2).
\end{equation}
The $P_{ni}$ are multivariate polynomials of order $n$
in $x_1$ and $x_2$ that are symmetric with respect
to the interchange of $x_1$, $x_2$, and
$x_3\equiv 1-x_1-x_2$. The index $i$ distinguishes
between linearly independent polynomials of the same
order; for $n\geq6$ there can be two or more. The
expansion is truncated at a finite order $N$ so that
the resulting algebraic system is finite in size.
The polynomials $P_{ni}$ can be constructed~\cite{SymPoly}
from linear combinations of
$C_{ml}(x_1,x_2)=C_2^m(x_1,x_2) C_3^l(x_1,x_2)$, where
$2m+3l\leq n$, and $C_2$ and $C_3$ are given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:basepolys}
C_2(x_1,x_2)=x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2, \;\;
C_3(x_1,x_2)=x_1 x_2 x_3.
\end{equation}
The most convenient linear combinations are those orthonormal
with respect to the norm
\begin{equation}
\int_0^1 dx_1 \int_0^{1-x_1} dx_2\, x_1 x_2 x_3 P_{ni}(x_1,x_2) P_{mj}(x_1,x_2) =\delta_{nm}\delta_{ij}.
\end{equation}
With projection onto the chosen basis functions
$\sqrt{y_1 y_2 y_3}P_n^{(i)}(y_1,y_2)$, the matrix representation
of the auxiliary equation (\ref{eq:LFCCaux}) is found to be
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\sum_{mj} \left[(1+\Delta)A_{ni,mj}
-3\left(1+\frac12\Delta\right)B_{ni,mj}+\frac32 g C_{ni,mj}\right]a_{mj}}&& \\
&& \rule{0.5in}{0mm}
+\sum_{mj}\sum_{lk} \left[9g D_{ni,mj,lk}+\frac92 g F_{ni,mj,lk}\right]a_{mj} a_{lk}
+\frac{g}{6} G_{ni}=0, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with the self-energy $\Delta$ given by
\begin{equation}
\Delta=g\sum_{ni}G_{ni}a_{ni}.
\end{equation}
The matrices are
\begin{eqnarray}
A_{ni,mj}&\equiv & \int_0^1 dy_1 \int_0^{1-y_1} dy_2\, y_1 y_2 y_3 P_{ni}(y_1,y_2)
P_{mj}(y_1,y_2)=\delta_{nm}\delta_{ij}, \\
B_{ni,mj} &\equiv & \int_0^1 dy_1 \int_0^{1-y_1} dy_2 \, y_2 y_3 P_{ni}(y_1,y_2) P_{mj}(y_1,y_2), \\
C_{ni,mj} &\equiv &\int_0^1 dy_1 \int_0^{1-y_1} dy_2 \, y_1 P_{ni}(y_1,y_2)
\int_0^{1-y_1} dx_1 P_{mj}(y_1,x_1), \\
D_{ni,mj,lk}&\equiv & \int_0^1 dy_1 \int_0^{1-y_1} dy_2\, y_1 y_2 P_{ni}(y_1,y_2) \\
&& \rule{0.5in}{0mm} \times
\int_{y_1/(1-y_2)}^1 \frac{d\alpha_1}{\alpha_1} \int_0^{1-\alpha_1} d\alpha_2
P_{mj}(y_1/\alpha_1,y_2) P_{lk}(\alpha_1,\alpha_2), \nonumber \\
F_{ni,mj,lk}&\equiv & \int_0^1 dy_1 \int_0^{1-y_1} dy_2 \, y_1 y_2 P_{ni}(y_1,y_2) \\
&& \rule{0.5in}{0mm} \times
\int_{y_1+y_2}^1 \frac{d\alpha_1}{\alpha_1^2} \int_0^{1-\alpha_1} d\alpha_2
P_{mj}(y_1/\alpha_1,y_2/\alpha_1)P_{lk}(\alpha_1,\alpha_2), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
G_{ni}\equiv \int_0^1 dy_1 \int_0^{1-y_1} dy_2 P_{ni}(y_1,y_2).
\end{equation}
They are computed most efficiently by Gauss--Legendre quadrature~\cite{LFCCphi4}.
The same approach applies to the three-body equation of the Fock-space
truncation.
We have tested our numerical method against an analytically solvable case, that of
a restricted three-body problem where the two-two scattering interaction
is dropped from (\ref{eq:tildepsi3}), and found very rapid convergence.
Convergence for the LFCC auxiliary equation is not as rapid, but the
calculation does converge for a wide range of coupling strengths, using no
more than the 19 polynomials that occur for $N=12$. Details can be seen
in \cite{LFCCphi4}.
\section{Results and summary} \label{sec:results}
The converged results for the mass-squared eigenvalues are
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:M2vsg}. There is a distinct difference
between the LFCC approximation and the Fock-space truncation.
This arises from two factors: the correct kinetic-energy mass
in each sector of the LFCC calculation and contributions from
higher Fock states.
If the Fock-state truncation method is modified with
sector-dependent masses~\cite{Wilson,hb,Karmanov,SecDep},
the resulting mass values are intermediate between the two
sets shown here~\cite{LFCCphi4}.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{0.2in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{M2vsgproc.eps}
\caption{Mass-squared ratios $M^2/\mu^2$ versus
dimensionless coupling strength $g$ for the LFCC approximation (squares) and
the Fock-space truncation (circles).
}
\label{fig:M2vsg}
\end{figure}
To summarize, we have shown an application of the LFCC method to a model theory that
requires numerical techniques. Also, suitable techniques have been developed,
based on expansions in fully symmetric polynomials~\cite{SymPoly}. The results
show important improvements over a Fock-space truncation approach.
This provides a foundation for future work of greater complexity.
Such additional work could include investigation of convergence
with respect to the terms in the truncated $T$ operator and
analysis of symmetry breaking, for both positive and negative $\mu^2$.
One approach to a study of symmetry breaking would be to consider
the even eigenstates and search for degeneracy of the even and
odd ground states. At least one additional term in the $T$ operator
would be required, and the even valence state would have two constituents.
A more complete analysis would include zero modes, for which some
preliminary work has already been done~\cite{LFCCzeromodes}.
\acknowledgments
This work was done in collaboration with B. Elliott and J.R. Hiller
and supported in part by the US Department of Energy and the Minnesota Supercomputing Institute.
|
\section{Introduction}
Bayesian framework provides a theoretically solid and consistent way to
construct models and perform inference. In practice, however, the inference is
usually analytically intractable and is therefore based on approximation methods
such as variational Bayes (VB), expectation propagation (EP) and Markov chain
Monte Carlo (MCMC) \citep{Bishop:2006}. Deriving and implementing the formulas
for an approximation method is often straightforward but tedious, time consuming
and error prone.
BayesPy is a Python 3 package providing tools for constructing conjugate
exponential family models and performing VB inference easily and efficiently.
It is based on the variational message passing (VMP) framework which defines a
simple message passing protocol \citep{Winn:2005}. This enables implementation
of small general nodes that can be used as building blocks for large complex
models. BayesPy offers a comprehensive collection of built-in nodes that can be
used to build a wide range of models and a simple interface for implementing
custom nodes. The package is released under the MIT license.
Several other projects have similar goals for making Bayesian inference easier
and faster to apply. VB inference is available in Bayes Blocks
\citep{Raiko:2007}, VIBES \citep{Bishop:2002} and Infer.NET \citep{Infer.NET}.
Bayes Blocks is an open-source C++/Python package but limited to scalar Gaussian
nodes and a few deterministic functions, thus making it very limited. VIBES is
an old software package for Java, released under the revised BSD license, but it
is no longer actively developed. VIBES has been replaced by Infer.NET, which
is partly closed source and licensed for non-commercial use only. Instead of VB
inference, mainly MCMC is supported by other projects such as PyMC \citep{PyMC},
OpenBUGS \citep{OpenBUGS}, Dimple \citep{Dimple} and Stan \citep{Stan}. Thus,
there is a need for an open-source and maintained VB software package.
\section{Features}
BayesPy can be used to construct conjugate exponential family models. The
documentation provides detailed examples of how to construct a variety of
models, including principal component analysis models, linear state-space
models, mixture models and hidden Markov models. BayesPy has also been used in
two publications about parameter expansion and time-varying dynamics for linear
state-space models \citep{Luttinen:2013,Luttinen:2014}.
Using BayesPy for Bayesian inference consists of four main steps: constructing
the model, providing data, finding the posterior approximation and examining the
results. The user constructs the model from small modular blocks called nodes.
Roughly, each node corresponds to a latent variable, a set of observations or a
deterministic function.
The inference engine is used to run the message passing algorithm in order to
obtain the posterior approximation. The resulting posterior can be examined,
for instance, by using a few built-in plotting functions or printing the
parameters of the posterior distributions.
Nodes are the primary building blocks for models in BayesPy. There are two
types of nodes: stochastic and deterministic. Stochastic nodes correspond to
probability distributions and deterministic nodes correspond to functions.
Built-in stochastic nodes include all common exponential family distributions
(e.g., Gaussian, gamma and Dirichlet distributions), a general mixture
distribution and a few complex nodes for dynamic variables (e.g., discrete and
Gaussian Markov chains). Built-in deterministic nodes include a gating node and
a general sum-product node.
In case a model cannot be constructed using the built-in nodes, the
documentation provides instructions for implementing new nodes.
BayesPy is designed to be simple enough for non-expert users but flexible and
efficient enough for expert users. One goal is to keep the syntax easy and
intuitive to read and write by making it similar to the mathematical formulation
of the model. Missing values are easy to handle and the variables can be
monitored by plotting the posterior distributions during the learning. BayesPy
has also preliminary support for some advanced VB methods such as stochastic
variational inference \citep{Hoffman:2013}, deterministic annealing
\citep{Katahira:2008}, collapsed inference \citep{Hensman:2012}, Riemannian
conjugate gradient learning \citep{Honkela:2010}, parameter expansions
\citep{Qi:2007} and pattern searches \citep{Honkela:2003}. For developers, the
unit testing framework helps in finding bugs, making changes and implementing
new features in a robust manner.
BayesPy can be installed similarly to other Python packages. It requires Python
3 and a few popular packages: NumPy, SciPy, matplotlib and h5py. The latest
release can be installed from Python Package Index (PyPI) and detailed
instructions can be found from the comprehensive online
documentation\footnote{\url{http://bayespy.org}}. The latest development
version is available at
GitHub\footnote{\url{https://github.com/bayespy/bayespy}}, which is also the
platform used for reporting bugs and making pull requests.
\section{Example}
This section demonstrates the key steps in using BayesPy. An artificial
Gaussian mixture dataset is created by drawing 500 samples from two
2-dimensional Gaussian distributions. 200 samples have mean $[2, 2]$ and 300
samples have mean $[0, 0]$:
\begin{lstlisting}
import numpy as np
N = 500; D = 2
data = np.random.randn(N, D)
data[:200,:] += 2*np.ones(D)
\end{lstlisting}
We construct a mixture model for the data and assume that the parameters, the
cluster assignments and the true number of clusters are unknown. The model uses
a maximum number of five clusters but the effective number of clusters will be
determined automatically:
\begin{lstlisting}
K = 5
\end{lstlisting}
The unknown cluster means and precision matrices are given Gaussian and Wishart
prior distributions:
\begin{lstlisting}
from bayespy import nodes
mu = nodes.Gaussian(np.zeros(D), 0.01*np.identity(D), plates=(K,))
Lambda = nodes.Wishart(D, D*np.identity(D), plates=(K,))
\end{lstlisting}
The \texttt{plates} keyword argument is used to define repetitions similarly to
the plate notation in graphical models. The cluster assignments are categorical
variables, and the cluster probabilities are given a Dirichlet prior
distribution:
\begin{lstlisting}
alpha = nodes.Dirichlet(0.01*np.ones(K))
z = nodes.Categorical(alpha, plates=(N,))
\end{lstlisting}
The observations are from a Gaussian mixture distribution:
\begin{lstlisting}
y = nodes.Mixture(z, nodes.Gaussian, mu, Lambda)
\end{lstlisting}
The second argument for the \texttt{Mixture} node defines the type of the
mixture distribution, in this case Gaussian. The variable is marked as observed
by providing the data:
\begin{lstlisting}
y.observe(data)
\end{lstlisting}
Next, we want to find the posterior approximation for our latent variables. We
create the variational Bayesian inference engine:
\begin{lstlisting}
from bayespy.inference import VB
Q = VB(y, mu, z, Lambda, alpha)
\end{lstlisting}
Before running the VMP algorithm, the symmetry in the model is broken by
a random initialization of the cluster assignments:
\begin{lstlisting}
z.initialize_from_random()
\end{lstlisting}
Without the random initialization, the clusters would not be separated. The VMP
algorithm updates the variables in turns and is run for 200 iterations or until
convergence:
\begin{lstlisting}
Q.update(repeat=200)
\end{lstlisting}
The results can be examined visually by using \texttt{bayespy.plot} module:
\begin{lstlisting}
import bayespy.plot as bpplt
bpplt.gaussian_mixture_2d(y, alpha=alpha)
bpplt.pyplot.show()
\end{lstlisting}
It is also possible to print the parameters of the approximate posterior
distributions:
\begin{lstlisting}
print(alpha)
\end{lstlisting}
The \texttt{bayespy.plot} module contains also other functions for visually
examining the distributions.
\section{Comparison with Infer.NET}
This section provides a brief comparison with Infer.NET because it is another
active project implementing the variational message passing algorithm, whereas
the other related active projects implement MCMC. The main advantages of
Infer.NET over BayesPy are its support for non-conjugate models (e.g., logistic
regression) and other inference engines (EP and Gibbs sampling). On the other
hand, BayesPy is open-source software and supports several advanced VB methods
(e.g., stochastic variational inference and collapsed inference).
The speed of the packages were compared by using two widely used models: a
Gaussian mixture model (GMM) and principal component analysis
(PCA).\footnote{The scripts for running the experiments are available as
supplementary material.} Both models were run for small and large artificial
datasets. For GMM, the small model used 10 clusters for 200 observations with 2
dimensions, and the large model used 40 clusters for 2000 observations with 10
dimensions. For PCA, the small model used 10-dimensional latent space for 500
observations with 20 dimensions, and the large model used 40-dimensional latent
space for 2000 observations with 100 dimensions. For the PCA model, Infer.NET
used both a fully factorizing approximation and also the same approximation as
in BayesPy which did not factorize with respect to the latent space dimensions.
The experiments were run on a quad-core (i7-4702MQ) Linux computer.
Because the packages run practically identical algorithms and thus
converged to similar solutions in a similar number of iterations (50--100
iterations depending on the dataset), we compared the average CPU time per
iteration.
The results are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:speed}. For all datasets, BayesPy
is faster probably because it uses highly optimized numerical libraries (BLAS
and LAPACK). For PCA, BayesPy also automatically avoids redundant computations
which arise because latent variables have equal posterior covariance matrices.
However, such broadcasting is not always possible (e.g., if there are missing
values in the PCA data). Thus, the table also presents the results when BayesPy
is forced to not use broadcasting: BayesPy is slower than Infer.NET on the
smaller PCA dataset but faster on the larger PCA dataset.
If Infer.NET used the same factorization for PCA as BayesPy, Infer.NET may be
orders of magnitude slower.
\begin{table}[tb]
\centering
\caption{
The average CPU time in milliseconds per iteration for each
dataset. The results in parentheses have the following meanings: a) BayesPy without using
broadcasting. b) Infer.NET using the same factorization as in
BayesPy.
}
\small
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
&
Small GMM
&
Large GMM
&
Small PCA
&
Large PCA
\\
\hline
BayesPy & 6 & 90 & 7 (60) & 400 (1\,500)
\\
Infer.NET & 25 & 4\,600 & 37 (350) & 2\,200 (210\,000)
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:speed}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}
BayesPy provides a simple and efficient way to construct conjugate exponential
family models and to find the variational Bayesian posterior approximation in
Python.
In addition to the standard variational message passing, it supports several
advanced methods such as stochastic and collapsed variational inference. Future
plans include support for non-conjugate models and non-parametric models (e.g.,
Gaussian and Dirichlet processes).
\vskip 0.2in
\small
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{section:intro}
The remarkable capabilities of Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) on {\it Hubble Space
Telescope} (HST) have transformed infrared extragalactic surveys
of the distant universe. The Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep
Extragalactic Legacy Survey
\citep[CANDELS:][]{grogin2011a,koekemoer2011a}, the
Cluster Lensing And Supernova survey with Hubble \citep[CLASH:][]{postman2012a}, and
the Ultra Deep Field surveys
\citep[UDF:][]{beckwith2006a,ellis2013a,koekemoer2013a,illingworth2013a}
have provided critical new information about the
rest-frame ultraviolet properties of early galaxies, their redshift-dependent abundance,
and the development of morphological structures over time
\citep[e.g.,][]{mclure2010a,oesch2010a,bouwens2011a,finkelstein2012a,schenker2013a,mclure2013a,dunlop2013a,ono2013a,curtis-lake2014a}.
The deepest HST observations to date in the UDF have reached multi-band sensitivities of
$m_{\mathrm{AB}}\approx29.5-30$ \citep[e.g.,][]{ellis2013a} after a total exposure
of hundreds of hours in a ``blank'' (i.e., devoid of strong lensing) field.
To supplement the high-redshift galaxy populations discovered
in the UDF and its parallel fields, the currently on-going Frontier Fields program
(Program ID 13495; PI Lotz, Co-PI Mountain) utilizes carefully selected
strong gravitational lens clusters to probe intrinsically fainter limits
through high magnifications. With the ability to detect galaxies
with intrinsic magnitudes as faint as $m_{\mathrm{AB}}\sim32$, the Frontier Fields program has
the potential to constrain the galaxy luminosity function faint-end
slope at redshifts $z>6$ and probe the UV luminosity density out to $z\sim12$.
Such constraints can provide vital clues to the process of cosmic reionization \citep{robertson2010a},
as previous analyses have suggested that the ionizing photon budget at
$z\sim7$ is dominated by faint galaxies below the current UDF limits
\citep[e.g.,][]{robertson2013a}. Indeed, the first Frontier Fields observations of
the cluster Abell 2744 (A2744) have already been used to identify galaxy candidates in the
reionization epoch \citep{atek2014a,atek2014b,zheng2014a,zitrin2014a,ishigaki2014a}
and to constrain the luminosity density at redshift $z\sim10$ \citep{oesch2014a}. These results
complement discoveries of strongly-lensed high-redshift galaxies in the CLASH survey
\citep{zheng2012a,coe2013a,bradley2014a}.
Utilizing lensed observations to infer constraints on the early galaxy
populations requires careful considerations of the volumes probed and the
associated uncertainties. This {\it Letter} presents the first estimates of the
{\it cosmic variance} of high-redshift galaxy samples in the Frontier Fields (FF) survey. Using
the publicly-available magnification maps for the first FF cluster, Abell 2744, we estimate
the effective survey volume as a function of magnification and calculate
the associated cosmic variance uncertainty. Since the magnification varies significantly
across a given cluster lens, we use the connection between
magnification, effective survey volume, and cosmic variance uncertainty to produce a ``cosmic
variance map''. Importantly, in regions of extreme magnification, where the gain of
lensing is most valuable, the cosmic variance uncertainty is increased relative
to that for comparable blank-field surveys. This uncertainty
has important implications for the
benefits of the FF program in its stated goals, as we attempt to quantify.
\begin{figure*}
\figurenum{1}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7.15in]{maps.png}
\caption{\label{fig:maps}
Estimating the cosmic variance uncertainty for the Frontier Fields. The CATS Abell 2744 (A2744)
magnification map \citep[left panel; $z\sim9$;][]{richard2014a} shows the image plane
amplification of flux from background sources caused by deflection from A2744.
The corresponding deflection maps provided by \citet{richard2014a} can be used to
recover the source plane magnification and effective survey area (middle panel, reconstructed
for the observed A2744
WFC3 field-of-view shown as a dotted line). The
cosmic variance uncertainty can then be estimated. This comparison provides the ``excess''
cosmic variance map of this lensed field over a blank field with the a same image area,
assuming a constant bias population (right panel, evaluated for a $z\sim9$ sample). The
cosmic variance in this Frontier Field is $\sim10-30\%$ higher than for an equivalent blank
field high-redshift survey.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Throughout this {\it Letter} we adopt the flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmology
($\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$, $h=0.7$) used to produce the
\citet{richard2014a} lensing maps of A2744.
We further adopt the normalization of the linear power spectrum
$\sigma_8 = 0.829$, spectral index $n=0.96$, and baryon density
$\Omega_b = 0.0487$ measured by \citet{planck2013a}.
\section{Luminosity-Dependent Cosmic Variance}
\label{section:cv}
The cosmic variance (CV) uncertainty of an observed galaxy population
reflects fluctuations in the matter density about the mean cosmic density, as sampled by
the survey volume. In linear theory, the galaxy number density $n$ in a volume will
differ from the mean number density $\bar{n}$ as $n = \bar{n}(1+b\delta)$,
where $\delta$ is the matter overdensity in the survey volume, and
$b$ is the clustering bias of the galaxy population.
The bias $b$ and survey volume probed will in general depend on the
galaxy luminosity, which is important in the context of a strong lens survey
where the effective volume varies strongly with intrinsic source flux.
In an unlensed blank field, the sample covariance matrix
$S_{ij} = \langle(n_i - \bar{n}_i)(n_j-\bar{n}_j)\rangle$ of the number of
galaxies $n_i$ and $n_j$ in luminosity or magnitude bins $i$ and $j$ depends
on the bias of the galaxy populations $b_i$ and $b_j$, and the average numbers of
galaxies $\bar{n}_i$ and $\bar{n}_j$ expected in the survey \citep[for details see, e.g.,][]{robertson2010b,robertson2010c}.
The diagonal terms $S_{ii}$ of this matrix provide the
cosmic variance $\sigma_{\mathrm{CV}}^2$ of the total galaxy number counts
typically expressed as a fractional uncertainty
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{CV} = \langle \sqrt{S_{ii}}/\bar{n}_i \rangle_{i} = \ave{b} \sigma_{DM} D(z),
\end{equation}
where $\langle\ldots\rangle_{i}$ denotes a suitable averaging of the luminosity-dependent
bias of the observed sample, and
results in the product of an average bias $\ave{b}$, the growth factor $D(z)$,
and the rms matter density fluctuations $\sigma_{DM}$ in the survey volume at $z=0$ assuming
the effective survey geometry is luminosity-independent \citep[see Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of][]{robertson2010c}.
In the absence of direct clustering constraints, we estimate the bias $b$ by using abundance matching
\citep{kravtsov2004a,conroy2006a} to assign dark matter masses to galaxies based on the
\citet{tinker2008a} halo mass function and then applying the bias model of
\citet{tinker2010a}.
\section{Estimating Cosmic Variance in a Strongly-Lensed Survey}
\label{section:cv_lensed}
For a field with strongly varying magnification, the preceding calculation does not
account for spatial variations in the range of intrinsic luminosities probed or the
survey geometry as a function of magnification. To model the covariance matrix in the
strong lensing case, we consider a covariance matrix with a spatial dependence
on the local magnification $\mu$ of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:lensed_covariance}
S_{ij}(\mu) = b_i b_j \bar{n}_i \bar{n}_j D^2(z) \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3} P(k) \hat{W}_i(\mathbf{k},\mu) \hat{W}_i^{\star}(\mathbf{k},\mu),
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $\hat{W}_i(\mathbf{k},\mu)$ describes the Fourier transform of the
subvolume of the survey with magnification $\mu$ as reconstructed in the source plane, and $P(k)$ is the
matter power spectrum \citep[e.g.,][]{eisenstein1998a}.
To estimate the sample variance $S_{ii}$ of a galaxy population with a range of
magnifications, some averaging is needed. For any intrinsic
luminosity bin $i$, there exists a minimum magnification $\mu_{i}$ below which
the source flux will not be sufficiently amplified to be detected by the survey.
When the luminosity bin $i$ corresponds to a flux brighter than the
nominal blank-field sensitivity of the survey, then sources of that intrinsic
brightness amplified by any magnification should be detected (i.e., $\mu_{i}=1$).
For intrinsically fainter objects, we have $\mu_{i}>1$. To estimate the CV
of objects in a luminosity bin $i$, we reconstruct the
source plane from a lens model and compute the effective source plane area of the survey
$A(\mu>\mu_{i})$ with magnifications $\mu$ greater than $\mu_{i}$.
The integral over the power spectrum required to estimate the rms density fluctuations
$\sigma_{\mathrm{V}}$ in such an area can be evaluated using the window $\hat{W}(\mathbf{k})$
as in the blank-field case, but with an effective area $A(\mu>\mu_{i})$.
Regions within a survey with a given magnification $\mu$ can display a complicated topology, such that
evaluating $\hat{W}(\mathbf{k},\mu>\mu_{i})$ would prove difficult.
Instead, we model the source
plane area as a square. This choice has little impact since the line-of-sight
extent of the survey volume is much larger than its transverse size.
The remainder of the CV
calculation then proceeds as described in
Section \ref{section:cv}, with the bias and rms density fluctuations probed by the
luminosity-dependent effective survey volume averaged over luminosity and
magnification to compute a characteristic CV
$\ave{\sigma_{\mathrm{CV}}} \approx \ave{b} \ave{\sigma_{\mathrm{V}}}D(z)$.
\begin{figure}
\figurenum{2}
\includegraphics[width=3.3in]{cv_vs_mag.png}
\caption{\label{fig:cv} Fractional cosmic variance uncertainty in galaxy counts.
Cosmic variance in blank field surveys (dashed lines) can be estimated by computing
the rms density fluctuations in the survey volume using linear theory and the luminosity-dependent
clustering bias of galaxies from abundance matching (see Section
\ref{section:cv}). Cosmic variance estimates for single WFC3 pointings are plotted at
$z\sim7$ (magenta), $z\sim8$ (blue), and $z\sim10$ (red), along with the corresponding values
for the UDF12 survey \citep[][points]{ellis2013a,schenker2013a,mclure2013a}. For strong gravitational
lens surveys, the source plane area as a function of magnification can be used to determine a
similar linear theory estimate of the cosmic variance in a lensed sample. The corresponding
cosmic variance uncertainty for A2744
is computed (solid lines) and indicated for the
$z\sim7-8$ \citet[][diamonds]{atek2014b} and \citet[][squares]{ishigaki2014a} samples
and $z\sim10$ \citet[][triangle]{zitrin2014a} object.
}
\end{figure}
\section{Cosmic Variance Uncertainties for the Frontier Fields}
\label{section:cv_ff}
Applying the methods presented in Sections \ref{section:cv} and \ref{section:cv_lensed}
to the Frontier Fields (FF) requires using magnification and deflection maps of individual cluster
lenses to reconstruct the effective area of the {\it HST} survey in the source plane.
Figure \ref{fig:maps} illustrates our methodology applied to A2744.
We use the Clusters As TelescopeS (CATS) lens models presented in \citet{richard2014a}
that provide a map of the spatially-dependent
magnification (left panel of Figure \ref{fig:maps}, shown for the $z\sim9$ model).
The public \citet{richard2014a} models also include a matrix of deflections that allows for a
reconstruction of a source plane magnification map. We use the {\it HST} WFC3
weight map from the public FF data (Program ID 13495; PI Lotz, Co-PI Mountain)
to determine the area of A2744 covered by WFC3 imaging, and then reconstruct the
source plane magnification map of this region (our method is similar to that presented by
\citealt{coe2014a} and produces similar results to their Figure 5). The
reconstructed source plane magnification map is shown in the middle panel of Figure \ref{fig:maps},
and enables us to compute the area $A(\mu>\mu_i)$ that defines the intrinsic luminosity-dependent
window function used in Equation \ref{eqn:lensed_covariance} to calculate the sample variance.
The connection between magnification, source plane effective area, and CV can then
be used to produce a ``cosmic variance map'' of A2744.
The right panel of Figure \ref{fig:maps}
shows the estimated excess CV
in the A2744 field relative to a
blank field of the same imaging area, as a function of the local magnification. The CV
in A2744 is estimated to be
$10-30\%$ higher than in an equivalent blank field survey, assuming a constant bias
population.
Applying the same methodology to the other FF lens models suggests
similarly increased uncertainties.
The luminosity-dependent CV
uncertainty of the A2744 lens galaxy
population can be estimated as a function of intrinsic source flux. Figure \ref{fig:cv}
shows the fractional CV uncertainty of the high-redshift
galaxy population statistics for unlensed surveys the size of a single
WFC3 field-of-view (dashed lines) and for a lensed population behind A2744 (solid
lines), calculated assuming the redshift-dependent luminosity function parameters
presented in \citet{bouwens2014a}.
The CV
uncertainty is computed for $z\sim7$ (magenta), $z\sim8$
(blue), and $z\sim10$ (red) populations. We have additionally indicated the
CV estimates
for the UDF 2012 survey \citep{ellis2013a, schenker2013a, mclure2013a}, the \citet{atek2014b}
and \citet{ishigaki2014a}
A2744 samples, and the \citet{zitrin2014a} $z\sim10$ object identified in the A2744
data. The A2744 samples have CV uncertainties
comparable to blank field surveys with depths $\sim2$ magnitudes
brighter. Since the CV of the lensed fields
depends mostly on the source plane
effective area as a function of
magnification, Figure \ref{fig:cv} should
provide a useful CV estimate for any FF
high-redshift sample.
\begin{figure}
\figurenum{3}
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{lf_projection.png}
\caption{\label{fig:lf} Revised $z\sim7$ luminosity function (LF) constraints from the
Abell 2744 (A2744) sample accounting for cosmic variance, and projections for constraints
from the full Frontier Fields program. Shown are the multi-field $z\sim7$ LF measurements
from \citet[][gray points]{bouwens2014a}, and the A2744 measurements
from \citet[][black points]{atek2014b} with amplified error bars reflecting the newly
estimated cosmic variance uncertainty. The light blue region shows the 90\% credibility
intervals for the LF when constrained by the \citet{bouwens2014a} and modified
\citet{atek2014b} data. The \citet[][red points]{mclure2013a} and
\citet[][orange points]{schenker2013a} data are shown for
comparison.
Assuming our best-fit LF parameters (white line)
are accurate and A2744 is a representative lens, data from five additional clusters are
simulated and used to project the constraints from the complete Frontier Fields program (dark blue area).
When completed, we estimate that the full Frontier Fields program will deliver an uncertainty in the $z\sim7$
faint-end slope of $|\sigma_{\alpha}| \lesssim 0.05$.
}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
\label{section:discussion}
{\it HST} Frontier Fields (FF) observations began in Cycle 21, and the program data has already
identified distant galaxies behind A2744
\citep{atek2014a, atek2014b, zheng2014a, zitrin2014a, oesch2014a}.
Several FF analyses have referred to the blank-field calculations of
\citet{trenti2008a} to determine the CV of A2744 samples
\citep[e.g.,][]{atek2014a,coe2014a,yue2014a}, but this model (and that discussed by \citealt{robertson2010c})
underestimates the CV
uncertainty of gravitationally lensed populations.
\citet{zheng2014a} comment on the possibility of an increased
CV for their sample owing
to lensing but provide no estimates.
The new calculations presented in this
{\it Letter} account for the increased CV in the FF relative
to blank fields owing to the reduced effective volume
of lensed surveys.\footnote{During the publication process, \citet{atek2014b} was revised to reflect our CV estimates.}
Understanding the CV of the FF
samples is critical for interpreting highly-magnified faint objects in the
broader context of the cosmic reionization process.
The robust identification of a handful of
extremely faint $z\sim7-8$ objects in the FF
could substantially improve the determination of the faint-end slope of the
high-$z$ luminosity function, as indicated by the sample of \citet{atek2014b} that
reaches down to $M_{UV}\sim-15$. The ionizing photon luminosity density provided by
high-$z$ galaxies identified above the limiting magnitude of the UDF ($M_{UV}\sim-17$ at $z\sim7$)
does not appear sufficient to
reionize the universe fully by $z\sim6$ under standard assumptions for the escape fraction and
ionizing photon production per unit UV luminosity \citep{robertson2013a}.
We infer that yet fainter
galaxies must provide a significant contribution to the UV luminosity density, and therefore
our understanding of the
role of star-forming galaxies in reionization depends critically on
uncertainties in the faint-end slope of the UV LF determination
\citep{bolton2007a,robertson2010a,robertson2013a,kuhlen2012a}.
Among
the most precise determinations of the LF faint-end slope $\alpha$
at $z\sim7,8$ that fully accounts for the CV
uncertainty of these
faint, distant galaxy samples was provided by \citet{schenker2013a} using the
UDF and CANDELS Deep data, who found $\alpha(z\sim7) = -1.87^{+0.18}_{-0.17}$
and $\alpha(z\sim8) = -1.94^{+0.21}_{-0.24}$ \citep[see also][]{mclure2013a}.
Similar faint-end slopes and uncertainties have been measured
independently
\citep{oesch2012a,bouwens2014a} including using the
A2744 sample
\citep{atek2014b}. As the lensed samples probe further down the luminosity function
with highly magnified objects, abundance matching suggests that
the clustering bias of the galaxy population is expected to decrease faster than the
reduced source plane effective volume causes the rms density fluctuations to increase.
Reaching substantially fainter galaxies therefore
improves the CV statistics.
With an estimated CV uncertainty for the
A2744 sample, we can revisit the analysis
presented by \citet{atek2014b}
accounting for CV
and estimate the additional constraints that might be provided
by the complete FF program assuming A2744 is representative.
Figure \ref{fig:lf} shows the multi-field luminosity function
data from \citet{schenker2013a}, \citet{mclure2013a},
and \citet{bouwens2014a}, and
the A2744 data from \citet{atek2014b}. We have increased the uncertainties
of the A2744 luminosity function data by adding the luminosity-dependent
CV uncertainty shown in Figure \ref{fig:cv} in
quadrature with the errors reported by \citet{atek2014b}.
Performing Bayesian parameter estimation based on the {\it Multinest} sampling
algorithm \citep{feroz2009a} and the \citet{bouwens2014a}
and \citet{atek2014b} data,
we constrain the 90\% credibility interval for the $z\sim7$
luminosity function as shown in Figure \ref{fig:lf} (light blue area). Assuming
our best-fit
luminosity function parameters ($\phi_{\star} = 3.28\times 10^{-4}~\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}~\mathrm{Mag}^{-1}$,
$M_{\star}=-20.79$, $\alpha=-1.99$) are accurate and A2744
is a representative lens, we then perform
Monte Carlo realizations of the galaxy population in five additional FF
including the expected CV.
Repeating our parameter estimation on these bootstrapped models of the complete
six-cluster FF program (including the \citealt{bouwens2014a} data
as before) we find that the 90\% credibility interval on the luminosity function
shrinks considerably (dark area in Figure \ref{fig:lf}). Importantly, this result
suggests the complete FF program can provide critical
information on the cosmic production rate of Lyman continuum photons by faint galaxies
required to reionize the intergalactic medium by $z\sim6$. We forecast that the complete
FF program may reduce the uncertainty on the $z\sim7$ faint-end slope
to $\sigma_{\alpha} \lesssim0.05$ and the fractional uncertainty in
UV luminosity density extrapolated to $M_{UV}=-13$ by a factor of $2\times$
to $\sim30\%$. The FF program may therefore help
resolve whether star-forming galaxies were primarily responsible for completing the
cosmic reionization process. The FF may also help
constrain the evolution of the global star formation history at $z\sim7-10$, but
such an analysis will require a careful treatment of the CV
of lensed
populations.
We conclude by highlighting some features and limitations of our CV calculations for the FF
program. The computation of the source plane area requires the use of a lens
model and, while we use the CATS model of A2744 presented by \citet{richard2014a},
picking a different public lens model \citep[e.g.,][]{johnson2014a} can change the source plane
effective volume by $>10\%$ \citep[see Figure 5 of][]{coe2014a}. The range of source plane effective
areas among the FF clusters is about a factor of 3, with A2744 being among the
largest. The typical CV uncertainty of the high-redshift samples in the
other FF will be comparable to or slightly greater than that of A2744, provided
the intrinsic luminosity distributions of the sources are comparable.
The typical CV
uncertainty is of order unity, suggesting that our quasilinear model may underestimate
the true sample variance. The highly-lensed volumes are extremely small ($V\lesssim100$Mpc$^3$ for
magnifications $\mu\geq10$; see, e.g., Figure 5 of \citealt{coe2014a}), so nonlinear halo bias
may complicate the clustering statistics
\citep[e.g.,][]{fernandez2012a,kitaura2014a}.
Precise applications of the FF samples for constraining
the luminosity function or high-redshift star formation rate
density may therefore require more detailed modeling.
\section{Summary}
\label{section:summary}
The large
clustering bias of early galaxy populations and small
volumes probed by distant surveys make cosmic
variance an important source of uncertainty for high-redshift
observations. These concerns are intensified for strongly-lensed
surveys like the Frontier Fields, as the amplification of source
fluxes through gravitational magnification comes at the cost of
a decreased effective survey volume. We present the first estimates of
the cosmic variance uncertainty associated with distant galaxy populations identified in the
Frontier Fields, using Abell 2744 as a representative example. By our
estimates, the cosmic variance uncertainty increases from $\sim35\%$ for
the redshift $z\sim7$ sample of \citet{atek2014a,atek2014b} to $\gtrsim65\%$
for inferences drawn from the $z\sim10$ object examined by \citet{zitrin2014a}
and \citet{oesch2014a}. While these cosmic variance uncertainties are amplified
relative to blank-field surveys like the Ultra Deep Field \citep{beckwith2006a,ellis2013a},
they provide an independent sample to improve
luminosity function and star formation rate density estimates at high-redshift, provided
that their statistical properties are handled appropriately \citep{mcleod2014a}.
\acknowledgments
We thank Hakim Atek for providing tabulated data.
BER is supported in part by the National Science
Foundation under Grant No. 1228509,
Grant No. NSF PHY11-25915 that funds the Kavli
Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara,
and by Space Telescope Science Institute under award HST-GO-12498.01-A.
JSD acknowledges the support of the European Research
Council via the award of an Advanced Grant, and the
contribution of the EC FP7 SPACE project ASTRODEEP (Ref.No: 312725). RJM acknowledges ERC funding via the award of a consolidator grant (PI McLure).
|
\section{Introduction}
The recent progress and development of infrared modified theories of gravity such as massive gravity has been partially motivated and fuelled by their implications for late-time cosmology \cite{deRham:2014zqa}. While a great deal of work has been done in understanding consistency issues, the exploration of their cosmological solutions has been difficult due on the one hand to the existence of many candidate cosmological solutions, and, on the other, to technical difficulties. This is particularly pertinent to the case of Massive Gravity with a Minkowski metric \cite{deRham:2010ik,deRham:2010kj}. There it can be easily shown that the constraints of massive gravity forbid the existence of FLRW solutions \cite{D'Amico:2011jj}\footnote{Although technically a background open universe solutions exists \cite{Gumrukcuoglu:2011ew}, these solutions are unstable \cite{Vakili:2012tm}.}. The absence of FLRW solutions is not, as is often claimed, a problem for massive gravity since the Vainshtein mechanism guarantees the existence of inhomogeneous/anisotropic solutions which look arbitrarily close to homogeneous over a range of scales comparable to the inverse mass of the graviton. The existence or absence of exact FLRW solutions has nothing to do with cosmological viability, observations only require the existence of solutions which are approximately homogeneous and isotropic over scales comparable to the Hubble scale today, $H_{\rm today}^{-1}$.
Since the mass of the graviton is usually assumed to be comparable, to within a few orders of magnitude, to the Dark Energy scale, i.e.~$H_{\rm today}^{-1}$, it is possible to find solutions which are consistent with homogeneity and isotropy over most of the cosmic history \cite{Volkov:2012cf,Volkov:2012zb,Khosravi:2013axa,Gumrukcuoglu:2011zh,Gumrukcuoglu:2012aa,Gratia:2012wt,Wyman:2012iw,Kobayashi:2012fz,DeFelice:2013awa,DeFelice:2012mx,DeFelice:2013bxa,Tasinato:2013rza,Gratia:2013gka,Gratia:2013uza}. A related observation that seems to be less well appreciated is that bi-gravity models \cite{Hassan:2011zd} also admit inhomogeneous/anisotropic solutions which will look arbitrarily close to FLRW and yet have a significantly different dynamical history than the exact FLRW solutions that have been considered in the literature \cite{vonStrauss:2011mq,Comelli:2011zm,Comelli:2012db,Volkov:2011an,Akrami:2012vf,Khosravi:2012rk,Berg:2012kn,Fasiello:2013woa,DeFelice:2014nja,Comelli:2014bqa,Lagos:2014lca}. These bi-gravity solutions are the `uplift' of the associated inhomogeneous massive gravity solutions \cite{AJT:bigravity101}.
As in the case of massive gravity, it is likely that these inhomogeneous solutions are the correct solutions to look for cosmologically viable bi-gravity models. Indeed we expect by causality arguments, which are at the origin of the horizon problem, that the Universe is in fact inhomogeneous at scales larger than the current Hubble radius.
\\
The additional degrees of freedom in massive gravity and bi-gravity, relative to General Relativity (GR), mean that many such solutions exist and so there are many candidate cosmologies. Unfortunately it is difficult to explore the space of possibilities analytically. The majority of these solutions will be ghost-free and stable and exhibit the correct number of propagating degrees of freedom \cite{deRham:2010tw,Motloch:2014nwa}. A number of exact solutions are known \cite{Volkov:2013roa}, but most of these are in branches leading to ghostly pathologies and therefore do not lie in the regime of validity of the EFT (for a recent discussion that resolves a number of these issues see \cite{Motloch:2014nwa}). The existence of most of the exact solutions found so far can be traced to choosing non-standard branches in the equations of motion, which are typically easier to solve, and which is also the underlying reason for the instabilities.
\\
From a calculational point of view alone, it is simpler if exact FLRW solutions can be found, since perturbations can then be analyzed in the usual way based on the representations of the group of isometries. With this in mind, many authors have looked at extensions to massive gravity which introduce additional degrees of freedom, beyond the five of the standard massive graviton. These examples include bi-gravity \cite{Hassan:2011zd,vonStrauss:2011mq,Comelli:2011zm,Comelli:2012db,Volkov:2011an,Akrami:2012vf,Khosravi:2012rk,Berg:2012kn,Fasiello:2013woa,DeFelice:2014nja,Lagos:2014lca}, the Quasi-Dilaton model \cite{D'Amico:2012zv,D'Amico:2013kya} and its generalizations \cite{Mukohyama:2013raa,DeFelice:2013dua,Comelli:2014bqa,DeFelice:2013tsa}, mass varying gravity \cite{Huang:2012pe,Leon:2013qh,Wu:2013ii,Motohashi:2014una}, multi-vierbein gravity \cite{Hinterbichler:2012cn}, extended massive gravity \cite{Hinterbichler:2013dv,Andrews:2013uca}. A recent approach makes use of the non-minimal coupling of matter which although leads to a ghost, the mass of the ghost is above the strong coupling scale \cite{deRham:2014naa,Gumrukcuoglu:2014xba,deRham:2014fha}. This requires the existence of a field which couples non-minimally to the metric (this field could be a `dark sector' degree of freedom or the inflaton, etc\ldots, or would require that matter and radiation couple differently). This possibility is logically distinct from the approach we follow here. \\
While these are certainly worthwhile avenues to explore, a genuine concern arises that the predictions of the model will then dependent strongly on the new degrees of freedom one introduces, and have little to do with the properties of the massive graviton itself.
With this in mind, it is interesting to explore a modification of massive gravity that admits FLRW solutions but does not introduce any new dynamical degrees of freedom. One such approach is to consider massive gravity on an FLRW reference metric, for instance de Sitter \cite{deRham:2012kf,Fasiello:2012rw}. However this model was shown to exhibit problems simultaneously satisfying stability and observational viability. This result was unfortunate since massive gravity on de Sitter has the same number of symmetries and aesthetic appeal as massive gravity on Minkowski. It would be interesting to look for simple alternatives that have the character of maintaining a large degree of symmetry, without introducing new degrees of freedom. \\
In this article we will explore the cosmology of precisely such a model that was recently proposed in \cite{deRham:2014lqa} within the context of Galileon dualities \cite{deRham:2013hsa}. This model preserves the global Lorentz symmetry of the original massive gravity Lagrangian and introduces no new degrees of freedom. Massive gravity on Minkowski, when written in `St\"uckelberg--ised' form, admits a local ${\rm Diff}(M)$ gauge symmetry, and a global Poincar\'e symmetry. The latter global symmetry is the isometry group of the reference metric. This isometry group is preserved by the vacuum of the theory which was inherent in its construction as a theory of an interacting massive spin-2 representation of the Poincar\'e group. Since the latter symmetry is global, a natural way to modify the theory that does not run afoul of new degrees of freedom is to break the Poincar\'e symmetry down to a subgroup. There are a number of ways to do this leading to substantively different theories. One possibility is to retain translation invariance, but break Lorentz invariance. This gives rise to Lorentz violating massive gravity theories which have been considered at length in the past \cite{Rubakov:2004eb,Dubovsky:2004sg} (for a review see \cite{Rubakov:2008nh}) and in the context of more recent developments as ghost-free models still propagating 5 degrees of freedom in \cite{Comelli:2013txa,Comelli:2013tja,Lin:2013aha,Langlois:2014jba,Comelli:2014xga}). The other logical extreme is to maintain Lorentz invariance but break translation invariance. This is achieved simply by allowing the parameters in the massive gravity Lagrangian to become dependent on the Lorentz invariant combination of St\"uckelberg fields $\phi^a \phi_a$. It is this later extension that we will refer to as `Generalized Massive Gravity'\footnote{For the context of this paper we refer to `Generalized Massive Gravity', a theory of massive gravity where the mass parameters are promoted to the Lorentz invariant combination of the St\"uckelberg fields. This is distinct from promoting the mass parameters to a function of another external scalar field with its own kinetic term as considered in \cite{Huang:2013mha}. The theory considered in this paper is also distinct from the theory proposed in Ref.~\cite{Bergshoeff:2009hq} which is also sometimes referred to as Generalized Massive Gravity. } in what follows. In \cite{deRham:2014lqa} it was argued that this theory would necessarily propagate only the 5 original degrees of freedom of the massive graviton. Subsequently closely related generalizations that preserve SO(3) but allow the mass parameters to depend arbitrarily on $\phi^0$ were considered in \cite{Langlois:2014jba,Comelli:2014xga}. We will see that in fact by taking an appropriately defined `zero curvature scaling limit' our cosmological solutions will be related to the ones considered in \cite{Langlois:2014jba}.
\\
The Lorentz invariant `Generalized Massive Gravity' theory considered in \cite{deRham:2014lqa} was arrived at by a rather different means. Although it has been known for some time that the Galileon Lagrangians \cite{Nicolis:2008in} have a natural origin in the decoupling limit of massive gravity \cite{deRham:2009rm,deRham:2010gu,deRham:2012az}, the so-called generalized Galileons \cite{Deffayet:2009mn} did not. The `Generalized Massive Gravity' theories are precisely those theories which provide a gravitational embedding of the generalized Galileon\footnote{Although it is possible to covariantize the generalized Galileon Lagrangian, an operation which results in the Horndeski models, this covariantization treats $\phi$ as a spin-0 field which is disconnected from the graviton multiplet.} in which the Galileon field $\pi$ continues to play its role as the helicity-0 mode of the graviton. These models are then in a sense natural covariantizations, or more precisely IR completions of the Minkowski space generalized Galileons. \\
In what follows we will show that these Generalized Massive Gravity theories admit fully stable cosmological solutions (no ghosts, or gradient instabilities in the tensor, vector or scalar sector). Furthermore we show that these theories admit self-accelerating solutions. We shall perform the analysis of perturbations in the decoupling limit (DL) of the theory, however the FLRW background solutions are exact and therefore there is no difficulty in extending the stable DL solutions to stable exact solutions of the theory. The decoupling limit analysis also allows us to see that there is an active Vainshtein mechanism in place, whose role will be important in the growth of non-linear perturbations and the observational viability of this theory. We also take care to include the contribution from the non-zero background for vectors in the DL which had been overlooked in most previous related analyses.\\
{\it Outline:} The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In section~\ref{sec:FLRW sol} we give a brief overview of the Generalized theory of massive gravity. We show how to obtain cosmological solutions out of this manifestly Lorentz invariant theory and present a class of exact FLRW solutions. We also show the existence of self-accelerating solutions which could {\it a priori} have a viable cosmic history. In section~\ref{sec:DL} we then derive the decoupling limit of the theory and recover the exact FLRW solutions found in the full theory. This illustrates the power of the decoupling limit. We then use this decoupling limit to analyze the stability of these FLRW solutions in section~\ref{dec:stability}. In doing so we take great care of the background contributions from all the modes including the vector ones. A peculiarity of this generalized theory is a linear mixing between the helicity-1 and -0 modes which has to be diagonalized. We find that all the helicity-2,-1 and -0 modes can be stable (free of ghosts and gradient instabilities) for all cosmic time, provided the parameters and functions of the generalized theory satisfy an acceptable set of conditions. We summarize our results in section~\ref{sec:Discussion} and present open avenues. Appendix~\ref{Appendix} provides a vierbein derivation of the decoupling limit.
\section{Exact FLRW solutions in Generalized Massive Gravity}
\label{sec:FLRW sol}
We begin with the Generalized Massive Gravity Lagrangian considered in \cite{deRham:2014lqa}. To reiterate this Lagrangian preserves the global Lorentz invariance of the original massive gravity Lagrangian \cite{deRham:2010kj} but breaks the translation invariance $\tilde \phi^a \rightarrow \tilde \phi^a +c^a$. This breaking is seen explicitly through the mass terms becoming dependent on the Lorentz invariant combination $\tilde \phi^a \tilde \phi_a=\eta_{ab}\tilde \phi^a \tilde \phi^b$.
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:GMG}
S=\frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2}{2} \int \mathrm{d}^4 x \sqrt{-g}\left[
R[g]+\frac{m^2}{2} \sum_{n=0}^4 \tilde \alpha_n (\tilde \phi^a \tilde \phi_a)\, \mathcal{U}_n[\mathcal{K}]
\right]+\mathcal{L}_{\rm matter}[g, \psi^{(i)}]\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where we use the same convention as in \cite{deRham:2014zqa} where the potential terms are given symbolically by $\mathcal{U}_n[\mathcal{K}]= \mathcal{E}\mathcal{E}\mathcal{K}^n = (4-n)! [\mathcal{K}]^n+ \cdots$.
The $\tilde\phi^a$ are the St\"uckelberg fields and we work with the flat reference metric so that
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \tilde \phi^a \tilde \phi_a = \eta_{ab} \tilde \phi^a \tilde \phi^b \, ,\\
&& \mathcal{K}^\mu_{\ \nu} = \delta^\mu_{\ \nu}- \(\sqrt{g^{-1}f}\)^\mu_{\ \nu} \, ,\\
&& f_{\mu \nu} = \partial_\mu \tilde \phi^a \partial_\nu \tilde \phi^b \eta_{ab}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
and the global Lorentz symmetry is manifest through contractions with the Minkowski metric $\eta_{ab}$. We will also use the equivalent representation \cite{Hassan:2011vm}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:GMGa}
S=\frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2}{2} \int \mathrm{d}^4 x \sqrt{-g}\left[ R[g]-\frac{m^2}{2} \sum_{n=0}^4 \frac{\tilde \beta_n(\tilde \phi^a \tilde \phi_a)}{n!} \, \mathcal{U}_n[\sqrt{g^{-1}f}] \right]+\mathcal{L}_{\rm matter}[g, \psi^{(i)}] \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
for which
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:betatilde}
\tilde \beta_k (\tilde \phi^a\tilde \phi_a)= (-1)^{k+1}\sum_{n=0}^4 \frac{n!}{(n-k)!} \tilde \alpha_n(\tilde \phi^a\tilde \phi_a)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{From manifest Lorentz invariance to Cosmology}
The cosmological solutions we look for will preserve the global Lorentz symmetry of the original theory. This is achieved by looking at open universe solutions, for which the Lorentz symmetry $SO(1,3) $ acts as the isometry group of the open spatial slices $H^3$. We can make this manifest by choosing a version of `unitary gauge' in which the St\"uckelberg fields describe the open slicing $k=-|k|$ of Minkowski space-time (see for instance \cite{Gumrukcuoglu:2011ew})
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde \phi^0 = f(t) \sqrt{1+ |k| \vec x\, ^2} \, , \quad \tilde \phi^i = \sqrt{|k|} f(t) x^i \, .
\end{eqnarray}
A short calculation shows that in `almost' unitary gauge
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde \phi^a \tilde \phi_a = -f(t)^2 \, , \quad f_{\mu \nu} \mathrm{d} x^{\mu} \mathrm{d} x^{\nu} = - \dot f(t)^2 \mathrm{d} t^2 + |k| f^2 \, \mathrm{d} \Omega^2_{H^3}\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have defined the metric on $H^3$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{d} \Omega^2_{H^3} = (\mathrm{d} \vec x)^2 - \frac{|k| }{1+|k| \vec x\, ^2} (\vec x .\mathrm{d} \vec x)^2 \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
which makes manifest the FLRW open slices of Minkowski. Although there is no difficulty is maintaining the spatial curvature $k$, the calculations of perturbations in the decoupling limit are more easily performed by first taking a scaling limit $|k| \rightarrow 0$, (holding $\sqrt{|k|}f$ fixed). We will refer to this as the {\it zero spatial curvature scaling limit}. The action remains finite in this scaling limit, and no degrees of freedom are lost. Furthermore we shall see that the perturbations can remain stable in this limit and so the curvature $k$ is largely irrelevant to the dynamics of the system. In order to take the limit we first perform a redefinition of the function $f(t)$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
f(t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{|k|}} + \chi(t) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
so that the limits may be take as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \lim_{|k| \rightarrow 0} \frac{\sqrt{|k|}}{2}\left( \tilde \phi^a \tilde \phi_a + \frac{1}{|k|} \right) \rightarrow -\chi(t) \, , \\
&& \lim_{|k| \rightarrow 0} f_{\mu \nu} \mathrm{d} x^{\mu} \mathrm{d} x^{\nu} \rightarrow - \dot \chi(t)^2 \mathrm{d} t^2 + (\mathrm{d} \vec x)^2 \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Finally we make the following redefinition of the mass function parameters
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde \alpha_n ( \tilde \phi^a \tilde \phi_a) = \alpha_n\left(- \frac{ \sqrt{|k|}}{2}\left(\tilde \phi^a \tilde \phi_a + \frac{1}{|k|} \right) \right) \, .
\end{eqnarray}
This redefinition, which may always be performed, is such that in unitary gauge and in the zero spatial curvature scaling limit we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{|k| \rightarrow 0} \tilde \alpha_n ( \tilde \phi^a \tilde \phi_a) = \alpha_n ( \chi(t)) \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Given these simplifications, we shall find it convenient to work with the $\alpha_n(\chi)$ and define a new set of St\"uckelberg fields $\phi^a$ for which in this gauge $\phi^0 = \chi(t)$ and $\phi^i = x^i$.
\subsection{Zero spatial curvature scaling limit and Decoupling limit}
The `zero spatial curvature scaling limit' may be performed at the level of the action and results in the following effective theory
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:GMG2}
S=\frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2}{2} \int \mathrm{d}^4 x \sqrt{-g}\left[
R[g]+\frac{m^2}{2} \sum_{n=0}^4 \alpha_n (\phi^0)\, \mathcal{U}_n[\mathcal{K}]
\right]+\mathcal{L}_{\rm matter}[g, \psi^{(i)}]\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The $\phi^a$ are the redefined St\"uckelberg fields associated with the `almost' unitary gauge $ \phi^0 = \chi(t)$ and $\phi^i = x^i$ (in which we maintain time reparameterization invariance through $\chi(t) $). $\mathcal{K}$ has the same definition as before
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{K}^\mu_{\ \nu} = \delta^\mu_{\ \nu}- \(\sqrt{g^{-1}f}\)^\mu_{\ \nu} \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
whereas now the reference metric is Minkowski in flat slicing
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\mu \nu} = \partial_\mu \phi^a \partial_\nu \phi^b \eta_{ab} = -\dot \chi(t)^2 \mathrm{d} t^2 + \mathrm{d} \vec x^2 \quad \text{(in `almost' unitary gauge)}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
This is simply standard massive gravity for Minkowski space-time with time-dependent mass parameters. This effective action and its generalizations have been considered in two works \cite{Langlois:2014jba,Comelli:2014xga} and shown to be free of the BD ghost independently of the Generalized Massive Gravity analysis performed in \cite{deRham:2014lqa}. These results are of course consistent as guaranteed by the scaling limit argument. The authors of \cite{Langlois:2014jba,Comelli:2014xga} allow a somewhat more general form since their models explicitly break SO(3,1) invariance. By contrast our starting Lagrangian is manifestly SO(3,1) invariant and this provides a stronger restriction on the form of the Lagrangian.
To reiterate, in this form, it may appear as if we had broken Lorentz invariance by picking a preferred time direction, however as emphasized earlier, it is crucial for our analysis that this is obtained as a scaling limit of a {\bf Lorentz invariant theory}. This is consistent since the Lorentz symmetry acts on the spatial hyperboloid and leaves $t$ invariant. In the $k \rightarrow 0$ limit the Lorentz symmetry degenerates into the $ISO(3)$ isometry group of $R^3$ via a In\"on\"u-Wigner contraction.\\
Alternatively, one could also view the effective theory \eqref{eq:GMG2} as a small distance limit of large distance inhomogeneities and this effective action would therefore nicely fit in the greater picture of massive gravity where we expect all the solutions to be inhomogeneous at large distances (compared to the size of the current observable Universe). This is of course also what is expected from a cosmological viewpoint. \\
Our analysis of perturbations will be done in the standard massive gravity decoupling limit. This analysis will thus be complementary to the discussion in \cite{Langlois:2014jba} with the distinction being that the decoupling limit maintains the most important non-linearities which are important for demonstrating the existence of a Vainshtein mechanism. On the other hand the decoupling limit analysis is valid only at sub-horizon scales and so is immune to super-horizon instabilities. However super-horizon instabilities at the Hubble scalar are harmless and so these do not pose a serious concern\footnote{In a local field theory, the stability of a super-horizon mode for which $|\vec k| \ll a H$ is essentially equivalent to the stability of the zero mode since locality requires that no terms blow up as inverse powers of $| \vec k|$. This is the essence of the {\it Separate Universe} idea. This may be analyzed by working with the mini-superspace Lagrangian and analyzing the stability of the general aniostropic, spatially curved cosmology. }.\\
The decoupling limit is introduced as usual by writing the $ \phi^a $ St\"uckelberg fields (not the $\tilde \phi^a$) in a vector/scalar decomposition about unitary gauge $\chi(t)=t$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi^a = x^a - \frac{V^a}{m M_{\rm Pl}} - \frac{\eta^{ab} \partial_b \pi}{\Lambda^3} = x^a - m \frac{V^a}{\Lambda^3} - \frac{\eta^{ab} \partial_b \pi}{\Lambda^3} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
In particular we see that at leading order in the decoupling limit $\phi^0 = t+ \frac{\dot \pi}{\Lambda^3}$ and so the mass parameters may be taken to be of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde \alpha_n (\tilde \phi^a \tilde \phi_a)\to \alpha_n(t+\frac{\dot \pi}{\Lambda^3})\,.
\end{eqnarray}
At a pragmatic level this means that the new feature of the DL derivation will be new interactions coming from additional $\dot \pi$ terms which do not normally arise. These new interactions will break Lorentz invariance (from the perspective of transformations on $(x,t)$ - not the original Lorentz invariance of the theory), but not rotational invariance. We will also find additional mixing terms coming from the scalar and vector which do not normally arise.
\subsection{Exact FLRW solutions and alleviating the FLRW constraint}
\subsubsection{Open-slicing FLRW solutions}
We now come to the central point which is the demonstration of the existence of exact FLRW solutions.
We start with the dynamical and reference metric in the open slicing FLRW form
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{d} s_g^2 &=& - N(t)^2 \mathrm{d} t^2 + a(t)^2 \, \mathrm{d} \Omega^2_{H^3} \, , \\
\mathrm{d} s_f^2 &=& - \dot f(t)^2 \mathrm{d} t^2 + |k| f(t)^2 \, \mathrm{d} \Omega^2_{H^3} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Including the energy density $\rho(a(t))$ of a minimally coupled matter field, the mini-superspace action takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:mini1a}
&& S_{\text{mini-superspace}}= \int \mathrm{d} t \,\Bigg\{ - 3 M_{\rm Pl}^2 \frac{a \dot a^2}{N} + 3 M_{\rm Pl}^2 a^3 N \frac{k}{a^2} -\rho(a) N a^3 \\
&& +\frac 32 m^2 M_{\rm Pl}^2 N a^3
\sum_{n=0}^4 \left[ (4-n)\(1-\sqrt{|k|} \frac{f}{a}\)^n + n \(1-\sqrt{|k|} \frac{f}{a}\)^{n-1}\(1-\frac{\dot f}{N} \)\right] \tilde \alpha_n(-f^2) \Bigg\} \,.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In this form the action preserves time reparameterization invariance from which it follows that the $\ddot a$ `Raychaudhuri' equation is not independent of the $\dot a$ Friedmann constraint equation, and so may be ignored.
As usual, varying with respect to the lapse leads to the Friedmann equation for the Hubble parameter $H=\dot a /(a N)$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Friedmann1a}
3M_{\rm Pl}^2 \( H^2+ \frac{k}{a^2} \) &=& \rho-\frac 32 m^2 M_{\rm Pl}^2 \sum_{n=0}^4\left[(4-n) \(1-\sqrt{|k|} \frac{f}{a} \)^n+n \(1-\sqrt{|k|} \frac{f}{a} \)^{n-1}\right] \tilde \alpha_n(-f^2) \nonumber \\
&=& \rho+\frac{m^2M_{\rm Pl}^2}{4}\left[24 \tilde \beta_0+18 \frac{\tilde \beta_1 \sqrt{|k|} f}{a}+6 \frac{\tilde \beta_2 |k| f^2}{a^2}+\frac{\tilde \beta_3 |k|^{3/2} f^3 }{a^3}\right]
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
remembering that the $\tilde \beta_n$ functions are defined as in \eqref{eq:betatilde}.
To close the Friedmann equation we need to determine $f(t)$, which is fixed by the following non-dynamical equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:constraint1a}
&& m^2 H \left[\frac 32 \sqrt{|k|} \tilde \beta_1 a^2+ \tilde \beta_2a |k| f +\frac 14 \tilde \beta_3 |k|^{3/2} f^2 \right]
= \nonumber\\
&& \frac{m^2 }{2 a}\left[4 \frac{\partial \tilde \beta_0}{\partial f} a^3+3 f \frac{\partial \tilde \beta_1}{\partial f} \sqrt{|k|} a^2+f ^2\frac{\partial \tilde \beta_2}{\partial f} |k| a+\frac 16 f^3 \frac{\partial \tilde \beta_3}{\partial f} |k|^{3/2} \right]\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Despite its cumbersome appearance, this is a formally straightforward equation to solve which determines $f$ in terms of $H$ and $a$. The solution may then be substituted back into (\ref{eq:Friedmann1a}) to give a closed solvable Friedmann equation\footnote{The system is closed since we may use time-reparameterization invariance to gauge fix the lapse $N$, e.g. as $N=1$.}.
\subsubsection{Zero-curvature FLRW solutions}
In what remains we shall for simplicity work in the zero spatial curvature scaling limit theory defined by the action (\ref{eq:GMG2}), bearing in mind that these solutions are in one to one correspondence with exact open universe FLRW solutions in the full theory (\ref{eq:GMG}) as we demonstrate below. In taking this limit our subsequent decoupling limit analysis will also apply for specific cases considered in \cite{Langlois:2014jba,Comelli:2014xga}.
To reiterate the steps in this limit we start with the dynamical metric in the FLRW form and maintain the time reparameterization invariance implied by the choice of St\"uckelberg fields $ \phi^0 (t) =\chi(t)$ and $\phi^i = x^i$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{d} s_g^2&=& -N^2(t) \mathrm{d} t^2+ a^2(t)\mathrm{d} \vec x\, ^2 \, ,\\
\mathrm{d} s_f^2 &=& -\dot \chi^2(t) \mathrm{d} t^2+ \mathrm{d} \vec x\, ^2\,,
\end{eqnarray}
and similarly defining the linear combinations of the mass functions
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:beta}
\beta_k(\chi)= (-1)^{k+1}\sum_{n=0}^4 \frac{n!}{(n-k)!} \alpha_n(\chi)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
We obtain the mini-superspace action
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{\text{mini-superspace}}&=& \int \mathrm{d} t \,\Bigg\{ - 3 M_{\rm Pl}^2 \frac{a \dot a^2}{N}-\rho(a) N a^3 \\
&+&\frac 32 m^2 M_{\rm Pl}^2 N a^3
\sum_{n=0}^4 \left[ (4-n)(1-a^{-1})^n + n(1-a^{-1})^{n-1}\(1-\frac{\dot \chi}{N} \)\right] \alpha_n(\chi) \Bigg\} \,.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The resulting Friedmann equation takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Friedmann1}
3M_{\rm Pl}^2 H^2 &=& \rho-\frac 32 m^2 M_{\rm Pl}^2 \sum_{n=0}^4\left[(4-n)(1-a^{-1})^n+n (1-a^{-1})^{n-1}\right] \alpha_n(\chi)\\
&=& \rho+\frac{m^2M_{\rm Pl}^2}{4}\left[24 \beta_0(\chi)+18 \frac{\beta_1(\chi)}{a}+6 \frac{\beta_2(\chi)}{a^2}+\frac{\beta_3(\chi)}{a^3}\right]
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
and the constraint equation that determines $\chi$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:ConstraintH}
m^2 H \left[\frac 32 \beta_1 a^2+\beta_2a +\frac 14 \beta_3 \right]
= \frac{m^2 }{2 a}\left[4\beta_0'a^3+3 \beta_1'a^2+\beta_2'a+\frac 16 \beta_3'\right]\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where it is implicit that all the functions $\beta_n$ depend on $\chi(t)$ and $\beta_n' = \partial \beta_n/\partial \chi$.
These equations are equivalently obtained as the $k \rightarrow 0$ scaling limit of the previous set (\ref{eq:mini1a}), (\ref{eq:Friedmann1a}), (\ref{eq:constraint1a}), remembering that
\begin{eqnarray}
\sqrt{|k|} f \rightarrow 1 \, , \quad \, f \frac{\partial \tilde \beta_n}{\partial f} \rightarrow \frac{\partial \beta_n }{\partial \chi} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\chi$ enters as an auxiliary variable, then as before this equation determines the evolution of the St\"uckelberg field in terms of $H$ and $a$.
\subsubsection{Constraint in standard massive gravity}
In standard massive gravity \cite{deRham:2010kj} the $\alpha_n$ are constant and so are the $\beta_n$. So in the standard massive gravity case, \eqref{eq:ConstraintH} reduces to
$m^2 \left[\frac 32 \beta_1 a^2+\beta_2a +\frac 14 \beta_3 \right]\dot a = 0$,
which is nothing other than the well-known constraint which forbids the existence of exact (spatially flat or closed) FLRW solutions in massive gravity\footnote{Note however that this does not forbid this existence of solutions which are arbitrarily close to FLRW within our horizon and only start exhibiting inhomogeneities or anisotropies on scales larger than the observable Universe \cite{D'Amico:2011jj}.} \cite{D'Amico:2011jj}. For generalized massive gravity \eqref{eq:GMG}, as soon as the coefficients $\alpha_n$ are promoted to functions of the St\"uckelberg fields, we see that this constraint no longer forbids the existence of exact FLRW in massive gravity. Rather one can read this equation~\eqref{eq:ConstraintH} as an implicit relation for the St\"uckelberg field $\chi(t)$ in terms of $H$ which can then be substituted into the Friedmann equation \eqref{eq:Friedmann1}. This is consistent with how the equation is obtained in the full theory as the equation of motion for the $\phi^0$ St\"uckelberg field. As we shall in the decoupling limit Eq.~\eqref{eq:ConstraintH} corresponds to the equation of motion for $\pi$.
\subsection{Self-accelerating solutions}
\label{sec:SA}
The above Friedmann equation \eqref{eq:Friedmann1} contains a rich family of solutions given the specification of the free functions $\beta_n(\chi)$. However the stability analysis we perform later will be restricted to the massive gravity decoupling limit. For this reason we shall concentrate on the form of the solutions which remain well defined in the decoupling limit. We shall see later that the functions that are well defined in this limit take the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_n(\chi) = \bar \beta_{n} + \bar \beta_{n,1}\ m \chi +\frac{m^2}{\Lambda^2} \beta_{n,2}(\chi) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the bar quantities $\bar \beta_n$ and $\bar{\beta}_{n,1}$ are constant. The
$\beta_{n,2}(\chi)$ are arbitrary functions of $\chi$ which are assumed to remain finite in the DL.
We recall that $\chi$ has dimension $[{\rm mass}]^{-1}$ and so the parameters $\bar \beta_n$, $\bar \beta_{n,1}$ and the functions $\beta_{n,2}$ are all dimensionless.
As we shall see later, this ansatz arises from the fact that in the DL the terms $ \bar \beta_{n} $ and $ \bar \beta_{n,1}$ lead to total derivatives at leading order and so may be taken as finite, whereas the $\beta_{n,2}$ function gives rise to an interaction which would diverge were it not for the $m^2$ in front. Given this in the DL $m\rightarrow 0$, the $\beta_{n,2}$ do not enter the Friedmann equation, although they do enter the stability analysis. As we shall see in section \ref{sec:DL}, in the DL the Hubble parameter scales as $m$. \\
For convenience we also define the following functions of the scale factor,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Sigma}
\Sigma_{k,i} (a) =\sum_{n=0}^4 \frac{(4-n)}{(n-k)!}\beta_{n}^{(i)}(\chi)\ a^{3-n}\qquad
{\rm and}\qquad
S_{k,i} (a) =\sum_{n=0}^4 \frac{(4-k)}{(n-k)!}\beta_{n}^{(i)}(\chi)\ a^{3-n}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where we use the notation $\beta_{n}^{(0)}(\chi)=\bar \beta_n$, $\beta_{n}^{(1)}(\chi)=\bar \beta_{n,1}$
and $\beta_{n}^{(2)}(\chi)=\beta_{n,2}''(\chi)$. All the $\Sigma_{k,i}(a)$ and $S_{k,i}(a)$ are manifestly positive for any $k=0,\cdots,4$ if all the $\beta_{n,i}$ are positive for $n=0,\cdots, 4$.
With this in mind let us consider the cosmology of the special case $\beta_n(\chi) = \bar \beta_{n} + \bar \beta_{n,1} \ m \chi $. We should first solve the constraint equation (\ref{eq:ConstraintH}) to determine $\chi$. The equation is
\begin{eqnarray}
m^2 H \left[\Sigma_{1,0} + m \chi \Sigma_{1,1} \right] =\frac{m^3 }{a}\Sigma_{0,1}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
which gives on rearrangement
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi=\frac{m \Sigma_{0,1}- a H \Sigma_{1,0}}{m a H \Sigma_{1,1}}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The analogue to this equation in the DL is the equation for $\pi$. Since $\chi = t+ \dot \pi/\Lambda^3$ we obtain not this equation but its time-derivative. Although the equation for $\chi $ appears to blow up as $m\rightarrow 0$, the relevant equation is that for $\dot \chi = 1+ \ddot \pi/\Lambda^3$ and since the time derivative gives an extra factor of $H$ which scales as $m$ in the DL, $H\sim m$, it follows that this equation remains indeed finite in the DL. \\
Substituting the solution for $\chi$ back into the Friedmann equation we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Friedmann2}
3M_{\rm Pl}^2 H^2= \rho+\frac{3}{2}\frac{m^2M_{\rm Pl}^2}{a^3}\Bigg[
\Sigma_{0,0}+\frac{\Sigma_{0,1}}{\Sigma_{1,1}}\(\frac{m}{aH}\Sigma_{0,1}-\frac 12 \Sigma_{1,0}\) \Bigg]\,. \qquad
\end{eqnarray}
The usual cosmological constant term is contained in $\bar \beta_{0}$ that enters in $\Sigma_{0,0}$. Let us consider this to be zero to see if there are self-accelerating solutions. To simplify the problem let us further assume $\bar \beta_{n} \approx 0$, except for $\bar \beta_2$ but the remaining coefficients are non-zero (it is necessary to keep one of the $\bar \beta_n$ nonzero to have well-defined perturbations). With this assumption at late times, i.e. large $a(t)$, the dominant contribution to the Friedmann equation is
\begin{eqnarray}
3M_{\rm Pl}^2 H^2 \approx \rho +8 m^2M_{\rm Pl}^2 \frac{ \bar \beta_{0,1}^2}{\bar \beta_{1,1}} \frac{m}{ H }+ \dots \, .
\end{eqnarray}
The qualitative form of this equation is that at early times $\rho$ dominates and we recover the usual GR expansion (with additional `dark' curvature components), whereas at late times the second term kicks in and leads to a period of self-acceleration for which $H \rightarrow $ constant, which corresponds to an effective dark energy equation of state $w \rightarrow -1$. The general case will be more subtle and will lead to an effectively dynamical dark energy.
Notice that these types of theories typically enjoy a technically natural mass parameter $m$ and coefficients $\bar \beta_{n,1}$ \cite{deRham:2012ew,deRham:2013qqa} (see also \cite{deRham:2014wfa} for related discussions). This type of theories therefore represent potentially good candidates to tackle the new Cosmological Constant problem. \\
To make this more explicit let us consider the case where the only non-zero coefficients are $\bar \beta_{0,1}$ and $\bar \beta_{1,1}$ and $\bar \beta_2$. Then the exact Friedmann equation (in the $k=0$ limit) is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Friedmann2}
3M_{\rm Pl}^2 H^2 = \rho+ \frac{m^3M_{\rm Pl}^2}{2 H }\left[ \frac{\left(4\bar \beta_{0,1}+3 \bar \beta_{1,1}a^{-1} \right)^2 }{ \bar \beta_{1,1} } \right] - 2 m^2 M_{\rm Pl}^2 \frac{\bar \beta_{0,1} \bar \beta_2}{a \bar \beta_{1,1}}
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Although we have tuned to a special set of parameters, this form nicely illustrates the fact that the Generalized massive gravity model can happily accommodate plausible self-accelerating solutions.
Furthermore by rearranging this equation in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Friedmann2a}
3\frac{ H^2}{m^2} = \frac{\rho}{m^2 M_{\rm Pl}^2} +\frac{m}{2 H }\left[ \frac{\left(4\bar \beta_{0,1}+3 \bar \beta_{1,1}a^{-1} \right)^2 }{ \bar \beta_{1,1} } \right]- 2 \frac{\bar \beta_{0,1} \bar \beta_2}{a \bar \beta_{1,1}}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
and remembering that in the DL both $H/m$, and $\rho/(m^2 M_{\rm Pl}^2)$ are kept fixed in the scaling limit (they still depend on time, the assumption is that the magnitude of $H$ is reduced at the same rate as $m$ at all times), we see that this Friedmann equation remains finite in the decoupling limit. This means that the stability analysis we perform will be valid for these cosmological solutions.
\section{Derivation of Decoupling Limit}
\label{sec:DL}
The standard DL of massive gravity is defined by taking the limit $m \rightarrow 0$ and $M_{\rm Pl} \rightarrow \infty$ keeping the strong coupling scale $(m^2M_{\rm Pl})^{1/3}\equiv \Lambda $ constant. This limit is designed to focus on the scale of the leading gravitation interactions of the theory which arise principally from the helicity-zero mode. There are also additionally interactions between the vectors and the helicity-zero mode which were first given in full form in \cite{Ondo:2013wka} (see also \cite{Gabadadze:2013ria}). In the usual case the mass parameters (which are defined with an overall $m^2$ in front) are kept finite in the decoupling limit. Since curvature scales as $R \sim M_{\rm Pl}^{-1} \sim m^2$ in this limit, then the Hubble parameter $H$ scales as $m$, i.e. the DL can be taken on the Friedmann equation maintaining $H/m$ fixed. A minor rearrangement of the Friedmann equation shows that all the terms survive in this limit
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Friedmann}
3 \frac{H^2}{m^2}= \frac{\rho}{m^2 M_{\rm Pl}^2}
+\frac 3{2a^3} \Sigma_{0,0}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
since we scale $\rho/m^2 M_{\rm Pl}^2$ as fixed. This is consistent with all known previous cases where it was possible to see the form of the Friedmann equation already in the decoupling limit (see for instance \cite{Fasiello:2013woa} where the DL is derived for massive gravity with general reference metrics and for bi-gravity).
\subsection{Scaling of the parameters}
In the present case we must also specify the scaling of the $\chi$ dependence of the functions $\alpha_n(\chi)$, or $\beta(\chi)$ which determines the rate of variation of the mass parameters. Inspection of the action shows that the mass terms have a pre-factor $M_{\rm Pl}^2 m^2 = \Lambda^3 M_{\rm Pl} = \Lambda^6/m^2$. This looks like it is blowing up as $m\rightarrow 0$, however we are saved by the fact that the characteristic polynomial structure ${\cal U}_n[K]$ are at leading order total derivatives in the DL. When the mass parameters are functions of space and time this is no longer true, to see what happens suppose we perform an expansion in powers of the argument
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde \alpha_n (\phi^a \phi_a)\to \alpha_n(t+\frac{\dot \pi}{\Lambda^3})= \sum_{k\ge 0} \frac{1 }{k!}\(t+\frac{\dot \pi}{\Lambda^3}\)^k \alpha^{(k)}_n(0) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
Consistent with the usual case we find that the leading $\alpha_n^{0}(0)$ terms are total derivatives and so $\alpha_n^{0}(0)$ may be kept finite in the DL. Remarkably we also find that the terms coming from $\alpha_n^{1}(0)$ are also total derivatives at leading order for the pure $\pi$ interactions. However the $\alpha_n^{1}(0)$ do lead to a mixing between the vectors and scalars which only remains finite if we assume $\alpha_n^{1}(0)$ scales as $m$.
Finally for $n\ge 2$ the leading terms are not total derivatives and so for the action to remain finite in the decoupling limit we must assume that all these terms scale as $m^2$ to cancel the $1/m^2$ in the $M_{\rm Pl}^2 m^2 = \Lambda^3 M_{\rm Pl} = \Lambda^6/m^2$ prefactor. \\
In summary the full DL scaling which we shall use in the following is
\begin{eqnarray}
m \to 0\,, \qquad M_{\rm Pl} \to \infty\,, \quad {\rm keeping}\quad (m^2M_{\rm Pl})^{1/3}\equiv \Lambda \to {\rm fixed}\,, \quad T^{\mu\nu}/M_{\rm Pl} \to {\rm fixed},
\end{eqnarray}
combined with the assumption that the mass parameter functions have the generic form
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_n(\chi) = \bar \alpha_n + \bar \alpha_{n,1} \ m \chi +\frac{m^2}{\Lambda^2} \alpha_{n,2}(\chi) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
$\bar \alpha_n$ and $\bar \alpha_{n,1}$ are constants, whereas $\alpha_{n,2}(\chi)$ remain arbitrary functions. We will make use of the relations \eqref{eq:Sigma} for the functions $\Sigma_{n,i}$ given in terms of the $\beta_n$'s
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_n(\chi) = \bar \beta_n + \bar \beta_{n,1}\ m \chi + \frac{m^2}{\Lambda^2} \beta_{n,2}(\chi) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
remembering that
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_k= (-1)^{k+1}\sum_{n=0}^4 \frac{n!}{(n-k)!} \alpha_n\,.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Decoupling limit}
The decoupling limit for this theory is thus the standard one derived in (see Ref.~\cite{deRham:2010ik} for the contribution from the helicity-0 and -2 modes and Ref.~\cite{Ondo:2013wka} for the contributions from the helicity-1 modes and their mixing with the helicity-0 mode) with the addition of some extra terms. We sketch the vierbein derivation of this DL in the Appendix.
In what follows we keep the same notation as in \cite{deRham:2014zqa} where the full decoupling limit for massive gravity is given in Eq.~(8.52). We may thus write
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:DL_all}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm DL}=\mathcal{L}^{(0)}_{\rm DL}+\mathcal{L}^{\rm (New\ Terms)}_{\rm DL}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{L}^{(0)}_{\rm DL}$ are the usual decoupling limit terms and is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:DL_0}
\mathcal{L}^{(0)}_{\rm DL}& =& -\frac 14 h^{\mu\nu}\hat{\mathcal{E}}^{\alpha\beta}_{\mu \nu} h_{\alpha \beta}
+\frac{\Lambda^3}{8}\sum_{n=0}^4 \bar{\alpha}_n h^{\mu\nu}
\((4-n)X^{(n)}_{\mu \nu}+n X^{(n-1)}_{\mu \nu}\) \\
&+&\mathcal{L}_{\rm DL}^{\rm Vectors, (0)}+\frac{h_{\mu \nu}}{2M_{\rm Pl}}T^{\mu\nu}\,,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with $X^{(n)}_{\mu \nu}= \mathcal{E}\mathcal{E} \Pi^n$, $\Pi_{\mu \nu}=\partial_\mu \partial_\nu \pi /\Lambda^3$, where $\pi$ is the helicity-0 mode. $T^{\mu\nu}$ is the stress-energy tensor for the matter field and $\mathcal{L}_{\rm DL}^{\rm Vectors, (0)}$ is the usual helicity-1 contribution \cite{Ondo:2013wka}. \\
The new contributions to the decoupling limit are given by two parts. One are purely $\pi$ interactions, and the second are helicity-0/helicity-1 interactions
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}^{\rm (New\ Terms)}_{\rm DL}=\mathcal{L}^{\rm (New\ Scalar\ Terms)}_{\rm DL}+\mathcal{L}^{\rm (New\ Scalar- Vector\ Terms)}_{\rm DL} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
The new scalar interactions are
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:DL_new}
\hspace{-15pt}\mathcal{L}^{\rm (New\ Scalar\ Terms)}_{\rm DL} &=& \frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2 m^4 }{4 \Lambda^2}\sum_{n=0}^4 \alpha_{n,2}(t + \dot \pi/\Lambda^3) \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \Pi^n \\
&=& \frac{\Lambda^4 }{4 }\sum_{n=0}^4 \alpha_{n,2}(t + \dot \pi/\Lambda^3) \left[ (4-n) {\cal L}_n^{\rm (3d) } + n {\cal L}_{n-1}^{\rm (3d) } \right]\\
&=&\frac{\Lambda^4 }{4 }\sum_{n=0}^4 \left[ (4-n) \alpha_{n,2}(t + \dot \pi/\Lambda^3) + (n+1) \alpha_{n+1,2}(t + \dot \pi/\Lambda^3) \right] {\cal L}_{n}^{\rm (3d) } \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
and the $\mathcal{L}_n^{\rm (3d)}$ are the 3d counterparts of the $\mathcal{U}_n$. More precisely,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}_n^{\rm (3d)}=\mathcal{E}^{i_1\cdots i_n j_1 \cdots j_{3-n}}\mathcal{E}^{i_1'\cdots i_n'}{}_{j_1\cdots j_{3-n}} \Pi_{i_1i_1'}\cdots \Pi_{i_ni_n'}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where the indices are summed over the spatial directions. The new scalar-vector interactions are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:newVScoupling}
\mathcal{L}^{\rm (New\ Scalar- Vector\ Terms)}_{\rm DL} = \frac{\Lambda^3}{4} \sum_{n=0}^4 \left[ n \bar \alpha_{n,1}(t+ \dot \pi/\Lambda^3) \partial^{\mu} V^{\nu} X^{(n-1)}_{\mu\nu}\right]\,,
\end{eqnarray}
as derived in Appendix~\ref{Appendix}.
\subsection{Families of DL theories}
Before proceeding to the stability analysis, it is worth discussing the meaning of the DL and its relation to the full exact solution. It is central to the definition of any space-time manifold that it can be split up into open charts for which in the vicinity of any point $x^{\mu}$ the metric looks as close to Minkowski as desired by reducing the size of the charts. Given a geometry whose typical curvature scale $\sqrt{R_{abcd}R^{abcd}}$ is $H^2$, and the manifold is smooth, then if we choose the charts to be of size $L \lesssim H^{-1}$, the metric inside each chart can be written as $g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu}+ h_{\mu\nu}/M_{\rm Pl}$ where $h_{\mu\nu}/M_{\rm Pl} \lesssim 1$. Each of these charts centered on a given point $x^{\mu}$ can be viewed as the locally inertial frame of an observer located at $x^{\mu}$. The DL gives the leading contributions to an effective field theory which describes physics within a given chart of size $L \lesssim H^{-1}$.
\\
In the previous section, we have derived not one but actually a family of DL theories, each centered about a specific point in space and time $x^{\mu}$, see Fig.~\ref{FIG:DL_families}.
Every single one of these DL theories is valid for one chart of size $\lesssim H^{-1}$ about the point where there are defined. At a given time, all the DL theories look identical at any point in space, which is a simple consequence of the homogeneity assumption. The theories do however behave differently for different times. \\
This family of DL theories can therefore capture the whole history of the cosmic expansion of the Universe giving a good description of the evolution of short wavelength modes. The DL only fails to account for long wavelength modes which are bigger than their respective $H^{-1}$ because such modes are sensitive to how the different charts are patched together. The exact FLRW solutions found in these DL theories are thus valid for all time (as can be checked by comparing directly with the exact solutions of the full theory). The stability analysis that will be presented below captures all the modes within the respective horizon of the DL theories but fails to account for the long-wavelength modes. However upon reaching these distance scales any instability which arises at the horizon scale is harmless.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 3cm 0cm 4cm, clip=true, width=9cm]{DL_families_2.pdf}
\caption{Families of DL theories centered around different times.}
\label{FIG:DL_families}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\section{Stability Analysis}
\label{dec:stability}
As we emphasized in section~\ref{sec:SA}, the Friedmann equation that describes the exact FLRW solutions remains finite in the DL derived in \eqref{eq:DL_all}. This means that it should be possible to find a solution in the DL which describes the DL form of the exact FLRW solutions.
A first guess might suggest that these solutions would correspond to taking the ansatz $\pi= \pi(t)$. However this is not the case because the DL form of the metric assumes that the metric is of the form $g_{\mu \nu} = \eta_{\mu \nu} + h_{\mu \nu}/M_{\rm Pl}$ where $h_{\mu\nu}$ is the canonically normalized field. Thus as we have discussed above, the decoupling limit should always be taken in a gauge in which the metric is locally Minkowski. In other words the DL describes the approximate description of physics in a locally inertial frame in the vicinity of a given space-time point $x^{\mu}$ and will break down at a distance of order the curvature radius in the IR (see Fig.~\ref{FIG:DL_families}). Since any metric may be put in the locally inertial form $g_{\mu \nu} = \eta_{\mu \nu} + h_{\mu \nu}/M_{\rm Pl}$ by means of a diffeomorphism, there is no difficulty in describing the DL of any solution of the full theory. To make contact with the exact FLRW solutions we must then perform a coordinate transformation that takes us away from the global cosmic time slicing, to the Fermi normal coordinate system appropriate to an observer.
\subsection{From the unitary to the local Fermi normal gauge}
In this section we show how the FLRW metric in unitary gauge can be mapped onto the local Fermi normal system of coordinates and the expression for the St\"uckelberg fields in that frame.
Starting with FLRW in unitary gauge appropriate to cosmic time slices (we now use capital coordinates $T,\vec X$ for cosmic time system and $t,x$ for the Fermi coordinates)
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{d} s^2_g = -N^2(T)\mathrm{d} T^2+a^2(T)\mathrm{d} \vec X^2\qquad{\rm and}\qquad
\mathrm{d} s^2_{f} = -\mathrm{d} T^2+\mathrm{d} \vec X^2\,.
\end{eqnarray}
In order to go into the Fermi normal system of coordinate, we follow the same procedure as in \cite{Nicolis:2008in,deRham:2010tw} and define the new set of coordinates $\{t, x^i\}$ with
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Xi}
X^i&=&\frac{1}{a(T)}x^i
\equiv\phi_{\rm FN}^i(t,x)\\
T&=&\chi(t)-\frac 12 \frac{H(\chi(t))}{N(\chi(t))}x_i x^i\equiv \phi_{\rm FN}^0(t,x^i)\,,
\label{eq:T}
\end{eqnarray}
where the FN subscript is there as a reminder that the St\"uckelberg fields $\phi^a_{\rm FN}$ are in the Fermi normal system of coordinates. The function $\chi$ is defined implicitly as $\chi'(t)N(\chi(t))=1$. \\
In the FN frame, the dynamical FLRW metric and the Minkowski reference metrics take the form (locally, i.e. up to quadratic order in $x^i x_i=r^2$),
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{d} s_g^2 &=& -\(1-\(\frac{\dot{H}}{N}+H^2\)r^2\)\mathrm{d} t^2+\(1+H^2 r^2\)\mathrm{d} r^2+r ^2 \mathrm{d} \Omega_2^2\,\\
\mathrm{d} s^2_f&=&\partial_\mu \phi_{\rm FN}^a\partial_\nu \phi_{\rm FN}^b \eta_{ab} \mathrm{d} x^\mu \mathrm{d} x^\nu\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Performing the change of radial variable, $r\to R$ with $r= R\(1-H^2 R^2 + \mathcal{O}(H^4 R^4)\) $, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{d} s_g^2 &=& -\(1-\(\frac{\dot{H}}{N}+H^2\)R^2\)\mathrm{d} t^2+\(1-\frac 12 H^2 R^2\)\(\mathrm{d} R^2+R ^2 \mathrm{d} \Omega_2^2\)\\
\label{eq:h_FN}
&=& \(\eta_{\mu \nu}+ h_{\mu \nu}^{\rm (FN)}\)\mathrm{d} x^\mu \mathrm{d} x^\nu
\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Notice however that in the DL we will scale $H\to 0$ keeping the ratio $H/m$ fixed, so that there is no difference between the coordinate $r$ and $R$ at leading order.
The St\"uckelberg fields $\phi^a_{\rm FN}$ may be split into a scalar $\pi_{\rm FN}$ and vector mode $V^\mu_{\rm FN}$. We are free to fix a gauge for the vector modes and work with $V_{\rm FN}^\mu=\(V_{\rm FN}^0,0\)^T$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi^a_{\rm FN}=x^a-\frac{V_{\rm FN}^a}{m M_{\rm Pl}}-\frac{\eta^{ab}\partial_b \pi_{\rm FN}}{\Lambda^3}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
From the expressions \eqref{eq:Xi} and \eqref{eq:T} for the change of coordinates, we immediately infer the expression for the scalar and vector parts of the St\"uckelberg fields in the Fermi normal system of coordinate,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:pi_FN}
\pi_{\rm FN}&=&\bar\pi_0(t)+\frac{\Lambda^3}{2}\(1- \frac{1}{a(\chi(t))}\)R^2 \\
\label{eq:V_FN}
V^\mu_{\rm FN} &=& \frac 12 H(\chi(t)) m M_{\rm Pl} \(\frac{1}{N(\chi(t))}+\frac{1}{a(\chi(t))}\) R^2 \ \delta^\mu_0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The contribution from $\bar \pi_0(t)$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:ddotpi0}
\frac{\ddot{\bar \pi}_0(t)}{\Lambda^3}=-1+\frac{1}{N(\chi(t))}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
In the decoupling limit, the Hubble parameter scales as the mass $m$, so $H m M_{\rm Pl}$ scales as $\Lambda^3$ and remains constant in that limit.
We see that the vectors are present already for a background FLRW metric. However they do not contribute to the modified Einstein equation in the decoupling limit since the vectors do not couple to the helicity-2 mode in that limit. Moreover we shall see later, if the parameters $\alpha_n$ or $\beta_n$ were constant, this background profile for the vector would not affect the vectors or scalars fluctuations {\it in the decoupling limit}. However in the present case where the $\alpha_n$ or $\beta_n$ are promoted to functions of the St\"uckelberg fields, one needs to take care of the contribution from the background vectors to the scalar fluctuations.
\subsection{Friedmann equation in the Decoupling Limit}
Having obtained the form of the FLRW solutions in the DL, we may now verify our assertion that the exact Friedmann equation may be recovered from the DL equations of motion. Specifically, in the DL limit the Friedmann equation is obtained by varying the action \eqref{eq:DL_all} with respect to the $(00)$-component of the helicity-2 mode $h_{\mu\nu}$. The modified Einstein equation is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{\rm Pl} \delta G_{\mu \nu}=\frac 1M_{\rm Pl} T_{\mu \nu}+\frac{\Lambda^3}{4}\sum_{n=0}^8 \bar{\alpha}_n \left[
(4-n)X^{(n)}_{\mu \nu}+n X^{(n-1)}_{\mu \nu}\right]\,.
\end{eqnarray}
For the FLRW background in the Fermi normal system of coordinate, the $(00)$-component of $X^{(n)}_{\mu \nu}$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
X^{(n)}_{00}=-\mathcal{L}_n^{\rm (3d)} [\Pi_{\rm FN}]= -3 ! \(1-a^{-1}\)^n\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The modified Friedmann equation is thus given by
\begin{eqnarray}
3M_{\rm Pl} H^2 = \frac{\rho}{M_{\rm Pl}}-\frac 32 \Lambda^3\sum_{n=0}^4
\bar{\alpha}_n \left[(4-n)\(1-a^{-1}\)^n+n\(1-a^{-1}\)^{n-1} \right]\,.
\end{eqnarray}
This is precisely the Friedmann equation derived in the full theory \eqref{eq:Friedmann}, with $\alpha_n(\chi)\to \bar{\alpha}_n$ in the DL.
So even though the DL metric is expressed locally as Minkowski plus a small correction, it is fully capable of keeping track of the physics of other backgrounds such as FLRW in this case. \\
\subsection{SVT Decomposition}
Having established that the decoupling limit successfully captures aspects of the full theory and in particular its exact FLRW solutions, we now use the DL to establish the stability of this background. We therefore consider the decoupling limit derived in section~\ref{sec:DL} with the following background and perturbation split for the helicity-2,1 and 0 modes,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& h_{\mu \nu}=h_{\mu \nu}^{\rm (FN)}+v_{\mu \nu} \, ,\\
&& \pi= \pi_{\rm FN} +\delta \pi \, ,\\
&& V^\mu = V^\mu_{\rm FN}+\delta V^\mu\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\pi_{\rm FN}$ and $V^\mu_{\rm FN}$ are given in \eqref{eq:pi_FN} and \eqref{eq:V_FN} and $h_{\mu \nu}^{\rm (FN)}$ is given in \eqref{eq:h_FN}.\\
Despite the presence of a vector background, in the decoupling limit the latter only affects the stability analysis through the terms derived in \eqref{eq:newVScoupling}.
To be more precise, in the DL the vectors can only enter at most quadratically. Terms that involve more than two vectors enter at a scale higher than $\Lambda$ and do not survive the DL. This means that the background vector $V^0_{\rm FN}$ could only enter the DL stability analysis through these three (symbolic) types of operators,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}^{\rm (DL)}_{V^0_{\rm FN}}\supset \bar \beta_n V^0_{\rm FN} \partial \delta V \partial \delta \pi F_1(\partial^2 \pi_{\rm FN})
+\bar \beta_n (V^0_{\rm FN})^2 (\partial \delta \pi)^2 F_2(\partial^2 \pi_{\rm FN})
+ \bar \beta_{n,1} V^0_{\rm FN} (\partial \delta \pi)^2 F_3(\partial^2 \pi_{\rm FN})\,.\qquad
\end{eqnarray}
An explicit calculation shows that neither of the two first types of operators going as $F_{1,2}$ are present for the background considered. So the background vector only affects the DL stability analysis through terms of the form $\bar \beta_{n,1} V^0 (\partial \delta \pi)^2 F_3(\partial^2 \pi_{\rm FN})$, arising from \eqref{eq:newVScoupling}. Moreover these only affect the scalar fluctuations and not the vector fluctuations. This makes the stability analysis much simpler.
\subsection{Vector fluctuations}
The new mixing between the vector and the scalar arising from \eqref{eq:newVScoupling} leads to a piece linear in the vector fluctuation $\delta V^\mu$ going symbolically as $\partial \delta V\, \partial \delta \pi F(\partial^2 \pi_{\rm FN})$. This new contribution can be diagonalized via the field redefinition $\delta V^\mu = \delta \tilde V^\mu + \lambda^\mu \delta \pi $ as will be performed in \eqref{eq:vecShift}. This field redefinition affects the scalar fluctuations but not the vector ones, and is thus irrelevant for the stability analysis of the vectors.
Next, the vector fluctuations enter quadratically through the terms in $\mathcal{L}_{\rm DL}^{\rm Vectors, (0)}$ (since we have established that the background vector $V^0_{\rm FN}$ does not contribute at second order in perturbations in the DL).
Making use of the relations (\ref{eq:pi_FN}-\ref{eq:ddotpi0}), this give
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}_{\delta V}^{(\rm DL)}= -\frac{1}{16}\left[c_1 F_{ij}F^{ij}+2 c_2 F_{0i}F^{0i}\right]\,,\quad
\end{eqnarray}
with $F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu \delta \tilde V_\nu - \partial_\nu \delta \tilde V_\nu$ and
where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are functions of the scale factor and the lapse,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:c1}
c_1 & = & \frac1a \left[\Sigma_{1,0}(a)+\frac{(a-N)}{2N}\Sigma_{2,0}(a)\right] \, , \\
\label{eq:c2}
c_2 & =& \frac{2N}{a(a+N)} \left[ \Sigma_{1,0}(a)+\frac{(a-N)}{2N}\bar \beta_3 \right] \, .
\end{eqnarray}
As a consistency check, we see that in the case where $a=N$ we recover a Lorentz invariant result, and the previous Lagrangian is proportional to $F_{\mu \nu}^2$ as it should be. \\
The vectors are manifestly stable for all time (i.e. for all values of the scale factor and the lapse, $a,N>0$) as long as $c_1, c_2>0$. This is automatically satisfied if the parameters $\bar \beta_{1,2,3}$ are positive
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:CONs1}
\bar{\beta}_{1,2,3}\ge 0\,,
\end{eqnarray}
and as long as not all three $\bar{\beta}_k$ vanish simultaneously. By themselves these conditions are easy to satisfy from the outset.
The conditions \eqref{eq:CONs1} are stronger than necessary.
\subsection{Scalar fluctuations}
\label{sec:ScalarFluctuations}
Next we turn to the scalar fluctuations. As usual we need to diagonalize the helicity-2 and -0 modes. In the present case we also need to diagonalize the helicity-1 and -0 modes. We perform these diagonalizations one after the other.
\subsubsection{Diagonalizing the helicity-2 and -0 modes}
This diagonalization is performed using the following field redefinition
\begin{eqnarray}
v _{\mu \nu} \mathrm{d} x^\mu \mathrm{d} x^\nu = \tilde v _{\mu \nu} \mathrm{d} x^\mu \mathrm{d} x^\nu
+ \frac{1}{2a^2} \delta \pi \left[
-\(\Sigma_{1,0}+\frac{a-N}{N}\Sigma_{2,0}\)\mathrm{d} t^2
+\Sigma_{1,0}\mathrm{d} \vec{x}\,{}^2
\right]\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where the $\Sigma_{n,i}$ are given in \eqref{eq:Sigma}.
Once again we recover the standard Lorentz-invariant diagonalization expected about flat space when $a=N=1$. \\
This diagonalization induces the following coupling to matter,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm matter}= \frac{1}{2 M_{\rm Pl}}\tilde v _{\mu \nu} T^{\mu\nu}
+\frac{1}{4 a^2 M_{\rm Pl}}\delta \pi \left[-\(\Sigma_{1,0}+\frac{a-N}{N}\Sigma_{2,0}\) \rho
+3\Sigma_{1,0} \ p \right]\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The field $\delta \pi$ couples the correct way to matter at all times (i.e. for any $a$ and $N$) if
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\beta}_{1,2}\ge 0 \quad {\rm and} \quad \bar{\beta}_3=0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
These are sufficient conditions, but of course there may be cases where these are violated and the theory is stable.
\subsubsection{Diagonalizing the helicity-1 and -0 modes}
A new feature relative to the standard analysis is that we must also diagonalize the helicity-1/helicity-0 couplings that appear from \eqref{eq:newVScoupling}. This is most easily achieved by making use of the $U(1)$ symmetry that mixes $\partial^a \pi$ and $V^a$. We first choose the following gauge for the vector fields
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Gauge}
\partial_i V^i = -\frac{2}{a^2 c_2} S_{1,1}(a) \dot \pi \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $c_2>0$ is defined in \eqref{eq:c2} and $S_{n,i}$ is defined in \eqref{eq:Sigma}.
In this gauge the de-mixing of the helicity-1 and helicity-0 modes can be achieved with the field redefinition
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:vecShift}
\delta V^0 &=& \delta \tilde V^0 + \frac{S_{2,1}(a)}{a N c_2} \pi \\
\delta V^i & = & \delta \tilde V^i \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
which preserves the choice of gauge \eqref{eq:Gauge}.
\subsubsection{Scalar effective metric}
Having diagonalized the different modes, we can now focus on the stability of the scalar fluctuations. Their Lagrangian is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}^{\rm (DL)}_{\delta \pi}= -\frac 12 Z^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \delta \pi \partial_\nu \delta \pi\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where the effective metric $Z^{\mu\nu}$ is diagonal with $Z^{0i}=0$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
Z^{00} = - \Bigg[ \frac 3{8a^2} \Sigma_{1,0}^2-\frac{3}{2a^3}\Sigma_{0,2}
+\frac 3{4a} \frac{H^2}{m^2}\Sigma_{2,0}
-\frac{3 H}{4 m}\frac{a+N}{a^2N^2} S_{2,1}
-\frac{2}{a^4 c_2}\Sigma_{1,1}S_{1,1} +\frac{c_1}{c_2^2 a^4}S_{1,1}^2 \Bigg] \, ,\qquad
\end{eqnarray}
together with
\begin{eqnarray}
Z^{ij}= \Bigg[\frac{3}{8a^4}\Sigma_{1,0}\(\Sigma_{1,0}+\frac 23 \frac{a-N}{N}\Sigma_{2,0}\)
-\frac{1}{2a^2N }\Sigma_{1,2} + \frac{3}{4a}\frac{H^2}{m^2}\(\Sigma_{2,0}+\frac{a-N}{3N}\Sigma_{3,0}\) \\
+\frac{\dot H}{2m^2aN }\Sigma_{2,0}
+ \frac{1}{4 a^2 N^2 c_2} S_{2,1}^2 - \frac{H }{2m a N^2 }(a+N) S_{3,1}
\Bigg]\delta^{ij}\,.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The absence of ghosts requires $Z^{00}<0$ and the absence of gradient instability requires $Z^{ij}>0$. Bearing in mind the (sufficient) condition \eqref{eq:CONs1} from the vector stability the theory is free from the Higuchi ghost as long as the functions of the St\"uckelberg fields satisfy the following condition
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac14\left[24 \beta_{0,2}''+18 \frac{\beta_{1,2}''}{a}+6 \frac{\beta_{2,2}''}{a^2}+ \frac{\beta_{3,2}''}{a^3}\right]
+\frac 34 \frac H m \frac{a+N}{a^2 N^2}S_{2,1}+\frac{2}{a^4 c_2}\Sigma_{1,1}S_{1,1}
<0\,,
\label{eq:NoGhost}
\end{eqnarray}
once again this is a sufficient condition, (configurations which do not satisfy that condition may still be free of the Higuchi ghost).
The absence of gradient instability further restrain the range of possibilities. A sufficient condition for the absence of such instabilities is
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{4 }\left[6 \beta_{1,2}''+4\frac{\beta_{2,2}''}{a}+ \frac{\beta_{3,2}''}{a^2}\right]
+\frac{H (a+N)}{2m aN^2}S_{3,1}
< \frac{\dot H}{2 m^2 a N}\Sigma_{2,0}\,.\qquad
\label{eq:NoGradientInst}
\end{eqnarray}
Since the conditions \eqref{eq:NoGhost} and \eqref{eq:NoGradientInst} involve different combinations of the $\beta_{n,2}''$, they can be simultaneously satisfied for appropriate choices of functions. Notice as well that the Friedmann equation in the DL does not involve these functions $\beta_{n,2}$, so there is therefore a wide range of possibilities which do not affect the background evolution.
\subsection{Tensor fluctuations}
Once the field redefinition that diagonalizes the helicity-2 and helicity-0 sectors has been performed then the action for the tensor fluctuations is
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}^{(\rm DL)}_{\tilde v }=-\frac 14 \tilde v ^{\mu\nu}\hat{\mathcal{E}}^{\alpha\beta}_{\mu \nu} \tilde v_{\alpha \beta}+ \frac{\tilde v _{\mu \nu}}{2 M_{\rm Pl}}T^{\mu\nu}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
which is just the usual action for gravitational waves in GR. In particular the $\alpha_n$ or $\beta_n$ functions do not enter and so the tensors are automatically stable, with no additional constraints on the parameters $\bar \beta_n$ and the functions $\beta_{n,2}$.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:Discussion}
In this article we have considered the existence and stability of cosmological solutions in a simple class of `Generalized Massive Gravity' theories that have the virtue that they introduce no new degrees of freedom beyond the usual 5 of the massive graviton. Our analysis indicates that
\begin{itemize}
\item The `Generalized Massive Gravity' theories straightforwardly admit exact FLRW solutions without the need to introduce additional dark sector degrees of freedom or additional dynamical metrics.
\item The effective Friedmann equation admits self-accelerating solutions that asymptote to de Sitter, i.e. $w=-1$.
\item These solutions can easily be chosen to be completely stable, i.e. free of ghost and gradient instabilities, with a relatively mild choice on the form of the mass parameter functions which enter in the Lagrangian.
\item The Decoupling Limit consistently describes the background cosmology and the non-linear Friedmann equation can be obtained from the DL equations of motion.
\item The Decoupling Limit theory is a generalization of the usual Galileon type DL theory and allows non-Lorentz invariant Galileon interactions due to the spontaneous breaking of time translation invariance.
\end{itemize}
Although it is certainly true that the DL analysis does not capture the full stability of the entire theory, it does capture the stability correctly in the regime of validity of the DL theory. Specifically the DL ignores terms which are suppressed by higher powers of $M_{\rm Pl}$, so as long as these are small, they cannot affect the stability of these solutions. The fact that the Friedmann equation remains finite in the DL shows that the background evolution can be consistently described by this limit. The DL is known to break down in the IR, i.e. at large distances, however it is likely that any instability in the IR is harmless since in a local theory any such instability would arise at the scale of the Hubble radius and therefore just becomes part of the background evolution. \\
In Section \ref{sec:DL} we derived the complete form of the decoupling limit theory and demonstrated that it was equivalent to the usual DL for massive gravity with the addition of a finite number of extra terms which are dependent on the rate of change of the mass parameter functions which enter in the original Lagrangian. These additional terms are rotationally invariant but not Lorentz invariant, consistent with the breaking of time translation symmetry from the background expansion. Nevertheless they preserve the global Galileon symmetry $\pi \rightarrow \pi +v_{\mu} x^{\mu}$ which is characteristic of the DL theory. From the existence of these terms in combination with the usual Galileon interactions that arise we can infer that there is an active Vainshtein mechanism at play. Incidently the condition $\bar \beta_3=0$ and $\bar \beta_2>0$ was precisely was what derived in \cite{Berezhiani:2013dw,Berezhiani:2013dca} to ensure a stable Vainshtein mechanism. So the choice of parameters selected earlier are fully compatible with a healthy Vainshtein mechanism. As well as ensuring consistency with standard solar system and astrophysical tests of gravity, the nonlinear interactions that arise in the DL limit will play a crucial role in the growth of nonlinear structure in the Universe.
\acknowledgments
We would like to thank Gregory Gabadadze, Andrew Matas, David Pirtskhalava and Shuang--Yong Zhou for useful discussions. CdR is supported by Department of Energy grant DE-SC0009946. MF and AJT are supported by a Department of Energy Early Career Award DE-SC0010600. MF is also supported by NSF grant PHY-1068380.
The authors would like to thank the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics for hospitality and support during the early stages of this work.
|
\section{Introduction}
Deep CNNs are well suited for large-scale learning based visual recognition tasks because of its highly scalable training algorithm, which only needs to cache a small chunk (mini-batch) of the potentially huge volume of training data during sequential scans (epochs). They have achieved increasingly better performance in recent years.
As datasets become bigger and the number of object categories becomes larger, one of the complications that come along is that visual separability between different object categories is highly uneven. Some categories are much harder to distinguish than others. Take the categories in CIFAR100 as an example. It is easy to tell an \textit{Apple} from a \textit{Bus}, but harder to tell an \textit{Apple} from an \textit{Orange}. In fact, both \textit{Apples} and \textit{Oranges} belong to the same coarse category \textit{fruit and vegetables} while \textit{Buses} belong to another coarse category \textit{vehicles 1}, as defined within CIFAR100.
Nonetheless, most deep CNN models nowadays are flat N-way classifiers, which share a set of fully connected layers. This makes us wonder whether such a flat structure is adequate for distinguishing all the difficult categories. A very natural and intuitive alternative organizes classifiers in a hierarchical manner according to the divide-and-conquer strategy. Although hierarchical classification has been proven effective for conventional linear classifiers \cite{zweig2007exploiting,fergus2010semantic,zhao2011large,liu2013probabilistic}, few attempts have been made to exploit category hierarchies \cite{deng2014large,srivastava2013discriminative} in deep CNN models.
Since deep CNN models are large models themselves, organizing them hierarchically imposes the following challenges. First, instead of a handcrafted category hierarchy, how can we learn such a category hierarchy from the training data itself so that cascaded inferences in a hierarchical classifier will not degrade the overall accuracy while dedicated fine category classifiers exist for hard-to-distinguish categories? Second, a hierarchical CNN classifier consists of multiple CNN models at different levels. How can we leverage the commonalities among these models and effectively train them all? Third, it would also be slower and more memory-consuming to run a hierarchical CNN classifier on a novel testing image. How can we alleviate such limitations?
In this paper, we propose a generic and principled hierarchical architecture, \textit{Hierarchical Deep Convolutional Neural Network} (HD-CNN), that decomposes an image classification task into two steps. An HD-CNN first uses a coarse category CNN classifier to separate easy classes from one another. More challenging classes are routed downstream to fine category classifiers that focus on confusing classes. We adopt a module design principle and every HD-CNN is built upon a building block CNN. The building block can be chosen to be any of the currently top ranked single CNNs. Thus HD-CNNs can always benefit from the progress of single CNN design. An HD-CNN follows the coarse-to-fine classification paradigm and probabilistically integrates predictions from the fine category classifiers. Compared with the building block CNN, the corresponding HD-CNN can achieve lower error at the cost of a manageable increase in memory footprint and classification time.
In summary, this paper has the following contributions. First, we introduce a novel hierarchical architecture, called HD-CNN, for image classification. Second, we develop a scheme for learning the two-level organization of coarse and fine categories, and demonstrate various components of an HD-CNN can be independently pretrained. The complete HD-CNN is further fine-tuned using a multinomial logistic loss regularized by a coarse category consistency term. Third, we make the HD-CNN scalable by compressing the layer parameters and conditionally executing the fine category classifiers. We have performed evaluations on the medium-scale CIFAR100 dataset and the large-scale ImageNet 1000-class dataset, and our method has achieved state-of-the-art performance on both of them.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related}
Our work is inspired by progresses in CNN design and efforts on integrating a category hierarchy with linear classifiers. The main novelty of our method is a new scalable HD-CNN architecture that integrates a category hierarchy with deep CNNs.
\subsection{Convolutional Neural Networks}
CNN-based models hold state-of-the-art performance in various computer vision tasks, including image classifcation~\cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet}, object detection~\cite{girshick2014rcnn,he2014spatial}, and image parsing~\cite{farabet2013learning}.
Recently, there has been considerable interest in enhancing CNN components, including pooling layers~\cite{zeiler2013stochastic}, activation units~\cite{goodfellow2013maxout,springenberg2013improving}, and nonlinear layers~\cite{LinCY13}. These enhancements either improve CNN training~\cite{zeiler2013stochastic}, or expand the network learning capacity. This work boosts CNN performance from an orthogonal angle and does not redesign a specific part within any existing CNN model. Instead, we design a novel generic hierarchical architecture that uses an existing CNN model as a building block. We embed multiple building blocks into a larger hierarchical deep CNN.
\subsection{Category Hierarchy for Visual Recognition}
In visual recognition, there is a vast literature exploiting category hierarchical structures \cite{tousch2012semantic}. For classification with a large number of classes using linear classifiers, a common strategy is to build a hierarchy or taxonomy of classifiers so that the number of classifiers evaluated given a testing image scales sub-linearly in the number of classes~\cite{bengio2010label,gao2011discriminative}. The hierarchy can be either predefined\cite{marszalek2007semantic,verma2012learning,jia2013visual} or learnt by top-down and bottom-up approaches~\cite{salakhutdinov2011learning, griffin2008learning,marszalek2008constructing,li2010building,bannour2012hierarchical,deng2011fast,sivic2008unsupervised}. In \cite{deng2012hedging}, the predefined category hierarchy of ImageNet dataset is utilized to achieve the trade-offs between classification accuracy and specificity. In \cite{liu2013probabilistic}, a hierarchical label tree is constructed to probabilistically combine predictions from leaf nodes. Such hierarchical classifier achieves significant speedup at the cost of certain accuracy loss.
One of the earliest attempts to introduce a category hierarchy in CNN-based methods is reported in \cite{srivastava2013discriminative} but their main goal is transferring knowledge between classes to improve the results for classes with insufficient training examples. In \cite{deng2014large}, various label relations are encoded in a hierarchy. Improved accuracy is achieved only when a subset of training images are relabeled with internal nodes in the hierarchical class tree. They are not able to improve the accuracy in the original setting where all training images are labeled with leaf nodes. In~\cite{xiao2014error}, a hierarchy of CNNs is introduced but they experimented with only two coarse categories mainly due to scalability constraints. HD-CNN exploits the category hierarchy in a novel way that we embed deep CNNs into the hierarchy in a scalable manner and achieves superior classification results over the standard CNN.
\section{Overview of HD-CNN}
\label{sec:overview}
\subsection{Notations}
The following notations are used below. A dataset consists of images $\{\mathbf{x}_i,y_i\}_{i}$. $\mathbf{x}_i$ and $y_i$ denote the image data and label, respectively. There are $C$ fine categories of images in the dataset $ \{S^f_j\}_{j=1}^C$. We will learn a category hierarchy with $K$ coarse categories $ \{S^c_{k}\}_{k=1}^{K} $.
\subsection{HD-CNN Architecture}
HD-CNN is designed to mimic the structure of category hierarchy where fine categories are divided into coarse categories as in Fig~\ref{fig:architecture}(a). It performs end-to-end classification as illustrated in Fig~\ref{fig:architecture}(b). It mainly comprises four parts, namely shared layers, a single coarse category component $B$, multiple fine category components $\{F^{k}\}_{k=1}^{K} $ and a single probabilistic averaging layer. On the left side of Fig~\ref{fig:architecture} (b) are the shared layers. They receive raw image pixel as input and extract low-level features. The configuration of shared layers are set to be the same as the preceding layers in the building block net.
On the top of Fig~\ref{fig:architecture}(b) are independent layers of coarse category component $B$ which reuses the configuration of rear layers from the building block CNN and produces a fine prediction $\{B^{f}_{ij}\}_{j=1}^{C}$ for an image $\mathbf{x_i}$. To produce a prediction $\{B_{ik}\}_{k=1}^{K}$ over coarse categories, we append a fine-to-coarse aggregation layer which aggregates fine predictions into coarse ones when a mapping from fine categories to coarse ones $P: [1,C] \mapsto [1,K]$ is given. The coarse category probabilities serve two purposes. First, they are used as weights for combining the predictions made by fine category components. Second, when thresholded, they enable conditional executions of fine category components whose corresponding coarse probabilities are sufficiently large.
In the bottom-right of Fig~\ref{fig:architecture} (b) are independent layers of a set of fine category classifiers $\{F^{k}\}_{k=1}^{K} $, each of which makes fine category predictions. As each fine component only excels in classifying a small set of categories, they produce a fine prediction over a partial set of categories. The probabilities of other fine categories absent in the partial set are implicitly set to zero. The layer configurations are mostly copied from the building block CNN except that in the final classification layer the number of filters is set to be the size of partial set instead of the full categories.
Both coarse category component and fine category components share common layers. The reason is three-fold. First, it is shown in ~\cite{zeiler2014visualizing} that preceding layers in deep networks response to class-agnostic low-level features such as corners and edges, while rear layers extract more class-specific features such as dog face and bird's legs. Since low-level features are useful for both coarse and fine classification tasks, we allow the preceding layers to be shared by both coarse and fine components. Second, it reduces both the total floating point operations and the memory footprint of network execution. Both are of practical significance to deploy HD-CNN in real applications. Last but not the least, it can decrease the number of HD-CNN parameters which is critical to the success of HD-CNN training.
On the right side of Fig~\ref{fig:architecture} (b) is the probabilistic averaging layer which receives fine category predictions as well as coarse category prediction and produces a weighted average as the final prediction.
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:final_pred}
p(\mathbf{x}_i)=\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{K}B_{ik}p_{k}(\mathbf{x}_i)}{\sum_{k=1}^{K}B_{ik}}
\end{equation}
where $B_{ik}$ is the probability of coarse category $k$ for the image $\mathbf{x}_i$ predicted by the coarse category component $B$. $p_{k}(\mathbf{x}_i)$ is the fine category prediction made by the fine category component $F^{k}$.
We stress that both coarse and fine category components reuse the layer configurations from the building block CNN. This flexible modular design allows us to choose the best module CNN as the building block, depending on the task at hand.
\section{Learning a Category Hierarchy}
\label{sec:coarse_category}
Our goal of building a category hierarchy is grouping confusing fine categories into the same coarse category for which a dedicated fine category classifier will be trained. We employ a top-down approach to learn the hierarchy from the training data.
We randomly sample a held-out set of images with balanced class distribution from the training set. The rest of the training set is used to train a building block net.
We obtain a confusion matrix $\mathbf{F}$ by evaluating the net on the held-out set.
A distance matrix $\mathbf{D}$ is derived as $\mathbf{D}=1 - \mathbf{F}$ and its diagonal entries are set to be zero. $\mathbf{D}$ is further transformed by $\mathbf{D}=0.5 * (\mathbf{D} + \mathbf{D}^T)$ to be symmetric. The entry $\mathbf{D}_{ij}$ measures how easy it is to discriminate categories $i$ and $j$.
Spectral clustering is performed on $\mathbf{D}$ to cluster fine categories into $K$ coarse categories.
The result is a two-level category hierarchy representing a many-to-one mapping $P^d: [1,C] \mapsto [1,K] $ from fine to coarse categories. Here, the coarse categories are disjoint.
\noindent \textbf{Overlapping Coarse Categories}
With disjoint coarse categories, the overall classification depends heavily on the coarse category classifier. If an image is routed to an incorrect fine category classifier, then the mistake can not be corrected as the probability of ground truth label is implicitly set to zero there. Removing the separability constraint between coarse categories can make the HD-CNN less dependent on the coarse category classifier.
Therefore, we add more fine categories to the coarse categories. For a certain fine classifier $F^{k}$, we prefer to add those fine categories $\{j\}$ that are likely to be misclassfied into the coarse category $k$. Therefore, we estimate the likelihood $u^{k}(j)$ that an image in fine category $j$ is misclassified into a coarse category $k$ on the held-out set.
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:misclassification_prob}
u^{k}(j)=\frac{1}{\left | S^f_j \right |} \sum_{i\in S^f_j} B^d_{ik}
\end{equation}
$B^d_{ik}$ is the coarse category probability which is obtained by aggregating fine category probabilities $\{B^f_{ij}\}_j$ according to the mapping $P^d$: $B^{d}_{ik}=\sum_{j | P^d(j)=k} B^f_{ij}$. We threshold the likelihood $u^{k}(j)$
using a parametric variable $ u_t=(\gamma K)^{-1} $
and add to the partial set $S^{c}_{k}$ all fine categories $\{j\}$ such that $u^{k}(j)\geq u_t$.
Note that each branching component gives a full set prediction when $u_t = 0$ and a disjoint set prediction when $u_t = 1.0$. With overlapping coarse categories, the category hierarchy mapping $P^d$ is extended to be a many-to-many mapping $P^o$ and the coarse category predictions are updated accordingly $B^o_{ik}=\sum_{j | k \in P^o(j)} B_{ij}$. Note the sum of $\{B^o_{ik}\}_{k=1}^{K}$ exceeds $1$ and hence we perform $L_1$ normalization. The use of overlapping coarse categories was also shown to be useful for hierarchical linear classifiers~\cite{marszalek2008constructing}.
\section{HD-CNN Training}
\label{sec:training}
As we embed fine category components into HD-CNN, the number of parameters in rear layers grows linearly in the number of coarse categories. Given the same amount of training data, this increases the training complexity and the risk of over-fitting. On the other hand, the training images within the stochastic gradient descent mini-batch are probabilistically routed to different fine category components. It requires larger mini-batch to ensure parameter gradients in the fine category components are estimated by a sufficiently large number of training samples. Large training mini-batch both increases the training memory footprint and slows down the training process. Therefore, we decompose the HD-CNN training into multiple steps instead of training the complete HD-CNN from scratch as outlined in Algorithm~\ref{alg:hdcnn_training}.
\subsection{Pretraining HD-CNN}
We sequentially pretrain the coarse category component and fine category components.
\subsubsection{Initializing the Coarse Category Component}
\label{sec:pretrain_coarse}
We first pretrain a building block CNN $F^p$ using the training set. As both the preceding and rear layers in coarse category component resemble the layers in the building block CNN, we copy the weights of $F^p$ into coarse category component for initialization purpose.
\subsubsection{Pretraining the Rear Layers of Fine Category Components}
\label{sec:pretrain_fine}
Fine category components $\{F^{k}\}_k$ can be independently pretrained in parallel. Each $F^k$ should specialize in classifying fine categories within the coarse category $S^{c}_{k}$. Therefore, the pretraining of each $F^{k}$ only uses images $\{\mathbf{x_i} | i\in S^{c}_{k} \} $ from the coarse category $S^{c}_{k}$.
The shared preceding layers are already initialized and kept fixed in this stage. For each $F^{k}$, we initialize all the rear layers except the last convolutional layer by copying the learned parameters from the pretrained model $F^p$.
\begin{algorithm}[!t]
\label{alg:hdcnn_train}
\caption{HD-CNN training algorithm}\label{euclid}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Procedure{HD-CNN Training}{}
\State \textbf{Step 1:} Pretrain HD-CNN
\State \hspace{\algorithmicindent} \textbf{Step 1.1:} Initialize coarse category component
\State \hspace{\algorithmicindent} \textbf{Step 1.2:} Pretrain fine category components
\State \textbf{Step 2:} Fine-tune the complete HD-CNN
\EndProcedure
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg:hdcnn_training}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Fine-tuning HD-CNN}
\label{sec:finetune_hdcnn}
After both coarse category component and fine category components are properly pretrained, we fine-tune the complete HD-CNN. Once the category hierarchy as well as the associated mapping $P^o$ is learnt, each fine category component focuses on classifying a fixed subset of fine categories. During fine-tuning, the semantics of coarse categories predicted by the coarse category component should be kept consistent with those associated with fine category components. Thus we add a coarse category consistency term to regularize the conventional multinomial logistic loss.
\noindent \textbf{Coarse category consistency} The learnt fine-to-coarse category mapping $P:[1,C] \mapsto [1,K]$ provides a way to specify the target coarse category distribution $\{t_{k}\}$. Specifically, $t_{k}$ is set to be the fraction of all the training images within the coarse category $S^c_k$ under the assumption the distribution over coarse categories across the training dataset is close to that within a training mini-batch.
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{equation}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\label{eqn:target_sparsity}
t_{k}=\frac{\sum_{j| k \in P(j)} \left | S_j \right | }{\sum_{k' =1}^{K} \sum_{j| k' \in P(j)} \left | S_j \right | } \quad \forall k \in [1,K]
\end{equation}
The final loss function we use for fine-tuning the HD-CNN is shown below.
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{equation}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\label{eqn:loss_function}
E=-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}log(p_{y_i})+ \frac{\lambda}{2}\sum_{k=1}^{K}(t_{k}-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}B_{ik})^2
\end{equation}
where $n$ is the size of training mini-batch. $\lambda$ is a regularization constant and is set to $\lambda=20$.
\section{HD-CNN Testing}
\label{sec:hdcnn_testing}
As we add fine category components into the HD-CNN, the number of parameters, memory footprint and execution time in rear layers, all scale linearly in the number of coarse categories.
To ensure HD-CNN is scalable for large-scale visual recognition, we develop conditional execution and layer parameter compression techniques.
\noindent \textbf{Conditional Execution}. At test time, for a given image, it is not necessary to evaluate all fine category classifiers as most of them have insignificant weights $B_{ik}$ as in Eqn~\ref{eqn:final_pred}. Their contributions to the final prediction are negligible. Conditional executions of the top weighted fine components can accelerate the HD-CNN classification. Therefore, we threshold $B_{ik}$ using a parametric variable $B_t=(\beta K)^{-1}$ and reset $B_{ik}$ to zero when $B_{ik}<B_t$. Those fine category classifiers with $B_{ik}=0$ are not evaluated.
\noindent \textbf{Parameter Compression}. In HD-CNN, the number of parameters in rear layers of fine category classifiers grows linearly in the number of coarse categories. Thus we compress the layer parameters at test time to reduce memory footprint. Specifically, we choose the Product Quantization approach~\cite{jegou2011product} to compress the parameter matrix $W \in R^{m\times n}$ by first partitioning it horizontally into segments of width $s$. $W=[W^1, ..., W^{(n/s)}]$. Then $k$-means clustering is used to cluster the rows in $W^i, \forall i\in [1,(n/s)]$. By only storing the nearest cluster indices in a 8-bit integer matrix $I \in R^{m\times (n/s)}$ and cluster centers in a single-precision floating number matrix $C \in R^{k\times n}$, we can achieve a compression factor $(32mn)/(32kn+8mn/s)$. The hyperparameters for parameter compression are $(s,k)$.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}
\subsection{Overview}
We evaluate HD-CNN on the benchmark datasets CIFAR100~\cite{krizhevsky2009learning} and ImageNet~\cite{deng2009imagenet}. HD-CNN is implemented on the widely deployed \textit{Caffe}~\cite{Jia13caffe} software. The network is trained by back propagation \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet}. We run all the testing experiments on a single NVIDIA Tesla K40c card.
\subsection{CIFAR100 Dataset}
\label{sec:cifar100_nin}
The CIFAR100 dataset consists of 100 classes of natural images. There are 50K training images and 10K testing images. We follow ~\cite{goodfellow2013maxout} to preprocess the datasets (e.g. global contrast normalization and ZCA whitening). Randomly cropped and flipped image patches of size $26 \times 26$ are used for training. We adopt a \textit{NIN} network \footnote{\url{https://github.com/mavenlin/cuda-convnet/blob/master/NIN/cifar-100_def}} with three stacked layers~\cite{LinCY13}.
We denote it as CIFAR100-NIN which will be the HD-CNN building block. Fine category components share preceding layers from \textit{conv1} to \textit{pool1} which accounts for $6\%$ of the total parameters and $29\%$ of the total floating point operations. The remaining layers are used as independent layers.
For building the category hierarchy, we randomly choose 10K images from the training set as held-out set. Fine categories within the same coarse categories are visually more similar. We pretrain the rear layers of fine category components. The initial learning rate is $0.01$ and it is decreased by a factor of 10 every 6K iterations. Fine-tuning is performed for 20K iterations with large mini-batches of size 256. The initial learning rate is $0.001$ and is reduced by a factor of 10 once after 10K iterations.
For evaluation, we use 10-view testing \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet}. We extract five $26 \times 26$ patches (the 4 corner patches and the center patch) as well as their horizontal reflections and average their predictions. The CIFAR100-NIN net obtains $35.27\%$ testing error. Our HD-CNN achieves testing error of $32.62\%$ which improves the building block net by $2.65\%$.
\noindent \textbf{Category hierarchy}.
During the construction of the category hierarchy, the number of coarse categories can be adjusted by the clustering algorithm. We can also make the coarse categories either disjoint or overlapping by varying the hyperparameter $\gamma$. Thus we investigate their impacts on the classification error. We experiment with 5, 9, 14 and 19 coarse categories and vary the value of $\gamma$. The best results are obtained with 9 overlapping coarse categories and $\gamma = 5$ as shown in Fig~\ref{fig:cifar100_internal_comp} left. A histogram of fine category occurrences in 9 overlapping coarse categories is shown in Fig \ref{fig:cifar100_internal_comp} right.
The optimal value of coarse category number and hyperparameter $\gamma$ are dataset dependent, mainly affected by the inherent hierarchy within the categories.
\begin{figure}[h]
\vspace{-1em}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.30\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{n_cluster_vs_accu}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.18\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fine_category_occurrence_cifar100_9clusters}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\textbf{Left}: HD-CNN 10-view testing error against the number of coarse categories on CIFAR100 dataset. \textbf{Right}: Histogram of fine category occurrences in 9 overlapping coarse categories.}
\vspace{-1em}
\label{fig:cifar100_internal_comp}
\end{figure}
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}%
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{10-view testing errors on CIFAR100 dataset. Notation \textbf{CCC}=coarse category consistency. }
\label{tab: cifar_results}
\vspace{-2em}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ p{6.4cm} | p{1.1cm}}
Method & Error \\
\hline \hline
Model averaging ($2$ CIFAR100-NIN nets) & $35.13$ \\ \hline
DSN ~\cite{lee2014deeply} & $34.68$ \\ \hline
CIFAR100-NIN-double & $34.26$ \\ \hline
dasNet~\cite{stollenga2014deep} & $33.78$ \\ \hline
\hline
Base: CIFAR100-NIN & $35.27$ \\ \hline
HD-CNN, no finetuning & $33.33$ \\ \hline
HD-CNN, finetuning w/o CCC & $33.21$ \\ \hline
\textbf{HD-CNN, finetuning w/ CCC} & $\mathbf{32.62}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{table}
}
\noindent \textbf{Shared layers}. The use of shared layers makes both computational complexity and memory footprint of HD-CNN sublinear in the number of fine category classifiers when compared to the building block net. Our HD-CNN with 9 fine category classifiers based on CIFAR100-NIN consumes less than three times as much memory as the building block net without parameter compression. We also want to investigate the impact of the use of shared layers on the classification error, memory footprint and the net execution time (Table~\ref{tab: internal_comp}). We build another HD-CNN where coarse category component and all fine category components use independent preceding layers initialized from a pretrained building block net. Under the single-view testing where only a central cropping is used, we observe a minor error increase from $34.36\%$ to $34.50\%$. But using shared layers dramatically reduces the memory footprint from $1356$ MB to $459$ MB and testing time from $2.43$ seconds to $0.28$ seconds.
\noindent \textbf{Conditional executions}. By varying the hyperparameter $\beta$, we can effectively affect the number of fine category components that will be executed. There is a trade-off between execution time and classification error. A larger value of $\beta$ leads to higher accuracy at the cost of executing more components for fine categorization. By enabling conditional executions with hyperparameter $\beta=6$, we obtain a substantial $2.8$X speed up with merely a minor increase in error from $34.36\%$ to $34.57\%$ (Table ~\ref{tab: internal_comp}). The testing time of HD-CNN is about $2.5$ times as much as that of the building block net.
\noindent \textbf{Parameter compression}. As fine category CNNs have independent layers from \textit{conv2} to \textit{cccp6}, we compress them and reduce the memory footprint from $447$MB to $286$MB with a minor increase in error from $34.57\%$ to $34.73\%$.
\noindent \textbf{Comparison with a strong baseline.}
As our HD-CNN memory footprint is about two times as much as the building block model (Table~\ref{tab: internal_comp}), it is necessary to compare a stronger baseline of similar complexity with HD-CNN. We adapt CIFAR100-NIN and double the number of filters in all convolutional layers which accordingly increases the memory footprint by three times. We denote it as CIFAR100-NIN-double and obtain error $34.26\%$ which is $1.01\%$ lower than that of the building block net but is $1.64\%$ higher than that of HD-CNN.
\noindent \textbf{Comparison with model averaging}. HD-CNN is fundamentally different from model averaging~\cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet}. In model averaging, all models are capable of classifying the full set of the categories and each one is trained independently. The main sources of their prediction differences are different initializations. In HD-CNN, each fine category classifier only excels at classifying a partial set of categories.
To compare HD-CNN with model averaging, we independently train two CIFAR100-NIN networks and take their averaged prediction as the final prediction. We obtain an error of $35.13\%$, which is about $2.51\%$ higher than that of HD-CNN (Table \ref{tab: cifar_results}).
Note that HD-CNN is orthogonal to the model averaging and an ensemble of HD-CNN networks can further improve the performance.
\noindent \textbf{Coarse category consistency}. To verify the effectiveness of coarse category consistency term in our loss function (\ref{eqn:loss_function}), we fine-tune a HD-CNN using the traditional multinomial logistic loss function. The testing error is $33.21\%$, which is $0.59\%$ higher than that of a HD-CNN fine-tuned with coarse category consistency (Table \ref{tab: cifar_results}).
\noindent \textbf{Comparison with state-of-the-art.} Our HD-CNN improves on the current two best methods ~\cite{lee2014deeply} and ~\cite{stollenga2014deep} by $2.06\%$ and $1.16\%$ respectively and sets new state-of-the-art results on CIFAR100 (Table \ref{tab: cifar_results}).
\subsection{ImageNet 1000-class Dataset}
\label{sec:imagenet_nin}
The ILSVRC-2012 ImageNet dataset consists of about $1.2$ million training images, $50,000$ validation images. To demonstrate the generality of HD-CNN, we experiment with two different building block nets. In both cases, HD-CNNs achieve significantly lower testing errors than the building block nets.
\subsubsection{Network-In-Network Building Block Net}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{case_study_4case}
\centerline{(a) \hfill (b) \hfill (c) \hfill (d)\hfill (e) \hfill (f) \hfill (g)}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1em}
\caption{Case studies on ImageNet dataset. Each row represents a testing case. \textbf{Column (a)}: test image with ground truth label. \textbf{Column (b)}: top 5 guesses from the building block net ImageNet-NIN. \textbf{Column (c)}: top 5 Coarse Category (\textbf{CC}) probabilities. \textbf{Column (d)-(f)}: top 5 guesses made by the top 3 fine category CNN components. \textbf{Column (g)}: final top 5 guesses made by the HD-CNN. See text for details.
}
\vspace{-2.5em}
\label{fig:case study}
\end{figure*}
We choose a public 4-layer NIN net \footnote{\url{https://gist.github.com/mavenlin/d802a5849de39225bcc6}} as our first building block as it has greatly reduced number of parameters compared to AlexNet~\cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet} but similar error rates. It is denoted as ImageNet-NIN. In HD-CNN, various components share preceding layers from \textit{conv1} to \textit{pool3} which account for $26\%$ of the total parameters and $82\%$ of the total floating point operations.
We follow the training and testing protocols as in~\cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet}. Original images are resized to $256\times 256$. Randomly cropped and horizontally reflected $224\times 224$ patches are used for training. At test time, the net makes a 10-view averaged prediction. We train ImageNet-NIN for 45 epochs.
The top-1 and top-5 errors are $39.76\%$ and $17.71\%$.
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}%
\begin{table}[ht]
\vspace{-1em}
\caption{Comparison of testing errors, memory footprint and testing time between building block nets and HD-CNNs on CIFAR100 and ImageNet datasets. Statistics are collected under \textit{single-view} testing. Three building block nets CIFAR100-NIN, ImageNet-NIN and ImageNet-VGG-16-layer are used. The testing mini-batch size is 50. Notations: \textbf{SL}=Shared layers, \textbf{CE}=Conditional executions, \textbf{PC}=Parameter compression.}
\label{tab: internal_comp}
\vspace{-1em}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ p{3.3cm} | p{2.0cm} | p{1.0cm} |p{0.6cm} }
Model & top-1, top-5 & Memory (MB) & Time (sec.) \\
\hline \hline
Base:CIFAR100-NIN & $37.29$ & 188 & 0.04 \\ \hline
HD-CNN w/o SL & $34.50$ & 1356 & 2.43 \\ \hline
\textbf{HD-CNN} & $\mathbf{34.36}$ & 459 & 0.28 \\ \hline
HD-CNN+CE & $34.57$ & 447 & 0.10 \\ \hline
HD-CNN+CE+PC & $34.73$ & 286 & 0.10 \\ \hline
\hline
Base:ImageNet-NIN & $41.52,18.98$ & 535 & 0.19 \\ \hline
\textbf{HD-CNN} & $\mathbf{37.92},\mathbf{16.62}$ & 3544 & 3.25 \\ \hline
HD-CNN+CE& $38.16,16.75$ & 3508 & 0.52 \\ \hline
HD-CNN+CE+PC& $38.39,16.89$ & 1712 & 0.53 \\ \hline
\hline
Base:ImageNet-VGG-16-layer & $32.30,12.74$ & 4134 & 1.04 \\ \hline
\textbf{HD-CNN+CE+PC}& $\mathbf{31.34},\mathbf{12.26}$ & 6863 & 5.28 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\end{table}
}
To build the category hierarchy, we take 100K training images as the held-out set and find 89 overlapping coarse categories.
Each fine category CNN is fine-tuned for 40K iterations while the initial learning rate $0.01$ is decreased by a factor of $10$ every 15K iterations. Fine-tuning the complete HD-CNN is not performed as the required mini-batch size is significantly higher than that for the building block net. Nevertheless, we still achieve top-1 and top-5 errors of $36.66\%$ and $15.80\%$ and improve the building block net by $3.1\%$ and $1.91\%$, respectively (Table~\ref{tab: imagenet_accuracy_imagenet_nin}). The class-wise top-5 error improvement over the building block net is shown in Fig \ref{fig:coarse_category_nin_imagenet_conditional_exe} left.
\noindent \textbf{Case studies} We want to investigate how HD-CNN corrects the mistakes made by the building block net. In Fig \ref{fig:case study}, we collect four testing cases. In the first case, the building block net fails to predict the label of the tiny \textit{hermit crab} in the top 5 guesses. In HD-CNN, two coarse categories $\#6$ and $\#11$ receive most of the coarse probability mass. The fine category component $\#6$ specializes in classifying crab breeds and strongly suggests the ground truth label. By combining the predictions from the top fine category classifiers, the HD-CNN predicts \textit{hermit crab} as the most probable label. In the second case, the ImageNet-NIN confuses the ground truth \textit{hand blower} with other objects of close shapes and appearances, such as \textit{plunger} and \textit{barbell}. For HD-CNN, the coarse category component is also not confident about which coarse category the object belongs to and thus assigns even probability mass to the top coarse categories. For the top 3 fine category classifiers, $\#74$ strongly predicts ground truth label while the other two $\#49$ and $\#40$ rank the ground truth label at the 2nd and 4th place respectively. Overall, the HD-CNN ranks the ground truth label at the 1st place. This demonstrates HD-CNN needs to rely on multiple fine category classifiers to make correct predictions for difficult cases.
\noindent \textbf{Overlapping coarse categories}.To investigate the impact of overlapping coarse categories on the classification, we train another HD-CNN with 89 fine category classifiers using disjoint coarse categories. It achieves top-1 and top-5 errors of $38.44\%$ and $17.03\%$ respectively, which is higher than those of the HD-CNN using overlapping coarse category hierarchy by $1.78\%$ and $1.23\%$ (Table~\ref{tab: imagenet_accuracy_imagenet_nin}).
\noindent \textbf{Conditional executions}. By varying the hyperparameter $\beta$, we can control the number of fine category components that will be executed. There is a trade-off between execution time and classification error as shown in Fig \ref{fig:coarse_category_nin_imagenet_conditional_exe} right. A larger value of $\beta$ leads to lower error at the cost of more executed fine category components. By enabling conditional executions with hyperparameter $\beta=8$, we obtain a substantial $6.3$X speed up with merely a minor increase of single-view testing top-5 error from $16.62\%$ to $16.75\%$ (Table~\ref{tab: internal_comp}). With such speedup, the HD-CNN testing time is less than $3$ times as much as that of the building block net.
\noindent \textbf{Parameter compression}. We compress independent layers \textit{conv4} and \textit{cccp7} as they account for $60\%$ of the parameters in ImageNet-NIN. Their parameter matrices are of size $1024\times 3456$ and $1024\times 1024$ and we use compression hyperparameters $(s,k)=(3,128)$ and $(s,k)=(2,256)$. The compression factors are $4.8$ and $2.7$. The compression decreases the memory footprint from $3508$MB to $1712$MB and merely increases the top-5 error from $16.75\%$ to $16.89\%$ under single-view testing (Table~\ref{tab: internal_comp}).
\begin{figure}[h]
\vspace{-0.5em}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{imagenet_imagenet-NIN_hdcnn_error_diff}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.27\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{conditional_execution}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\textbf{Left}: Class-wise HD-CNN top-5 error improvement over the building block net. \textbf{Right}: Mean number of executed fine category classifiers and top-5 error against hyperparameter $\beta$ on the ImageNet validation dataset.}
\vspace{-1em}
\label{fig:coarse_category_nin_imagenet_conditional_exe}
\end{figure}
\noindent \textbf{Comparison with model averaging}. As the HD-CNN memory footprint is about three times as much as the building block net, we independently train three ImageNet-NIN nets and average their predictions. We obtain top-5 error $17.11\%$ which is $0.6\%$ lower than the building block but is $1.31\%$ higher than that of HD-CNN (Table~\ref{tab: imagenet_accuracy_imagenet_nin}).
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}%
\begin{table}[t]
\vspace{-1.0em}
\caption{Comparisons of 10-view testing errors between ImageNet-NIN and HD-CNN. Notation \textbf{CC}=Coarse category.}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\label{tab: imagenet_accuracy_imagenet_nin}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ p{4.3cm} |p{2.8cm}}
Method & top-1, top-5 \\
\hline\hline
Base:ImageNet-NIN & $39.76$, $17.71$ \\ \hline
Model averaging ($3$ base nets) & $38.54$, $17.11$ \\ \hline
HD-CNN, disjoint CC & $38.44, 17.03$ \\ \hline
\textbf{HD-CNN} & $\mathbf{36.66}$, $\mathbf{15.80}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\end{table}
}
\subsubsection{VGG-16-layer Building Block Net}
The second building block net we use is a 16-layer CNN from \cite{simonyan2014very}. We denote it as ImageNet-VGG-16-layer\footnote{\url{https://github.com/BVLC/caffe/wiki/Model-Zoo}}. The layers from \textit{conv1\_1} to \textit{pool4} are shared and they account for $5.6\%$ of the total parameters and $90\%$ of the total floating number operations. The remaining layers are used as independent layers in coarse and fine category classifiers. We follow the training and testing protocols as in \cite{simonyan2014very}. For training, we first sample a size $S$ from the range $[256,512]$ and resize the image so that the length of short edge is $S$. Then a randomly cropped and flipped patch of size $224\times224$ is used for training. For testing, dense evaluation is performed on three scales $\{256,384,512\}$ and the averaged prediction is used as the final prediction. Please refer to \cite{simonyan2014very} for more training and testing details. On ImageNet validation set, ImageNet-VGG-16-layer achieves top-1 and top-5 errors $24.79\%$ and $7.50\%$ respectively.
We build a category hierarchy with 84 overlapping coarse categories. We implement multi-GPU training on Caffe by exploiting data parallelism~\cite{simonyan2014very} and train the fine category classifiers on two NVIDIA Tesla K40c cards. The initial learning rate is $0.001$ and it is decreased by a factor of 10 every 4K iterations. HD-CNN fine-tuning is not performed. Due to large memory footprint of the building block net (Table~\ref{tab: internal_comp}), the HD-CNN with 84 fine category classifiers cannot fit into the memory directly. Therefore, we compress the parameters in layers \textit{fc6} and \textit{fc7} as they account for over $85\%$ of the parameters. Parameter matrices in \textit{fc6} and \textit{fc7} are of size $4096\times 25088$ and $4096\times 4096$. Their compression hyperparameters are $(s,k)=(14,64)$ and $(s,k)=(4,256)$. The compression factors are $29.9$ and $8$ respectively.
The HD-CNN obtains top-1 and top-5 errors $23.69\%$ and $6.76\%$ on ImageNet validation set and improves over ImageNet-VGG-16-layer by $1.1\%$ and $0.74\%$ respectively.
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}%
\begin{table}[h]
\vspace{-1.5em}
\caption{Errors on ImageNet validation set.}
\label{tab: imagenet_accuracy}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ p{5.7cm} |p{1.8cm}}
Method & top-1, top-5 \\
\hline \hline
GoogLeNet,multi-crop~\cite{szegedy2014going} & N/A,$7.9$\\ \hline
VGG-19-layer, dense~\cite{simonyan2014very} & $24.8$,$7.5$ \\ \hline
VGG-16-layer+VGG-19-layer,dense & $24.0$,$7.1$ \\ \hline
\hline
Base:ImageNet-VGG-16-layer,dense & $24.79$,$7.50$ \\ \hline
\textbf{HD-CNN,dense} & $\mathbf{23.69}$,$\mathbf{6.76}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\end{table}
}
\noindent \textbf{Comparison with state-of-the-art}. Currently, the two best nets on ImageNet dataset are GoogLeNet~\cite{szegedy2014going} (Table~\ref{tab: imagenet_accuracy}) and VGG 19-layer network~\cite{simonyan2014very}. Using multi-scale multi-crop testing, a single GoogLeNet net achieves top-5 error $7.9\%$.
With multi-scale dense evaluation, a single VGG 19-layer net obtains top-1 and top-5 errors $24.8\%$ and $7.5\%$ and improves top-5 error of GoogLeNet by $0.4\%$. Our HD-CNN decreases top-1 and top-5 errors of VGG 19-layer net by $1.11\%$ and $0.74\%$ respectively. Furthermore, HD-CNN slightly outperforms the results of averaging the predictions from
VGG-16-layer and VGG-19-layer nets.
\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
\label{ref:conclusion}
We demonstrated that HD-CNN is a flexible deep CNN architecture to improve over existing deep CNN models. We showed this empirically on both CIFAR-100 and Image-Net datasets using three different building block nets. As part of future work, we plan to extend HD-CNN architectures to those with more than 2 hierarchical levels and also verify our empirical results in a theoretical framework.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee}
|
\section{Introduction}
Studying the eigenvalues of the Circular Unitary Ensemble (CUE) - that is Haar distributed random unitary matrices - is a classical problem in random matrix theory \cite{dyson}. More recently it has gotten a lot of attention due to the conjectured relationship between the Riemann $\zeta$-function on the critical line $t\mapsto \frac{1}{2}+it$ and characteristic polynomials of large random matrices - namely it is believed that statistical properties of the $\zeta$ function evaluated at a random point on the critical line are related to the corresponding properties of the characteristic polynomial of a large random matrix, see e.g. \cite{ks}. The goal of this note is to describe the asymptotic behavior of the characteristic polynomial of a large Haar distributed unitary matrix when the characteristic polynomial is evaluated on the unit circle (where the eigenvalues lie).
\vspace{0.3cm}
There are of course existing results on the asymptotic behavior of the characteristic polynomial. For example, in \cite{ks}, it is shown that after normalizing by the variance, the logarithm of the characteristic polynomial at a single point is asymptotically Gaussian. This was refined in \cite{bhny}, where an exact decomposition for the law of the characteristic polynomial at a single point was given. On the other hand, in \cite{cnn}, it was shown that on the microscopic scale, the characteristic polynomial behaves like a random analytic function up to a normalization. The results that are closest to ours, and also the strongest motivation for this work, are those of Diaconis and Shahshahani \cite{ds} as well as Hughes, Keating, and O'Connell \cite{hko}, who proved among other things, that the real and imaginary parts of the logarithm of the characteristic polynomial restricted to the unit circle converge in law to a pair of Gaussian fields which can be represented as random generalized functions whose covariance kernel has a logarithmic singularity.
\vspace{0.3cm}
In the 80s, Kahane constructed a theory for exponentiating such fields and understanding this exponential as a random multifractal measure \cite{kahane}. The theory is known as Gaussian Multiplicative Chaos (GMC). For a comprehensive review, see \cite{gmcrev}. Recently these measures have been of great interest due to their role in the mathematical study of two-dimensional quantum gravity (see e.g. \cite{kpz} for the physical motivation and \cite{dupshef,dkrv} for mathematical results). Thus conjecturally, these measures also play a role in the study of random planar maps (see e.g. \cite{dupshef,dkrv} for mathematical conjectures, and \cite{de} for a physical and historical point of view). Other applications of multiplicative chaos are construction of random planar curves through conformal welding \cite{ajks,shefweld}, Quantum Loewner Evolution \cite{qle}, studying properties of Gibbs measures of disordered systems \cite{cld}, energy dissipation in turbulence \cite{kol,obu}, and models for asset returns in mathematical finance \cite{bm}.
\vspace{0.3cm}
In \cite{fk}, Fyodorov and Keating essentially conjectured that as the size of the matrix tends to infinity, real powers of the absolute value of the characteristic polynomial of a CUE matrix converges to a GMC measure once suitably normalized. They then used this conjecture to make further conjectures about the absolute value of the characteristic polynomial and the $\zeta$-function on the critical line. Our main result will be that indeed, for small enough real powers, powers of the absolute value of the characteristic polynomial on the unit circle (as well as powers of the exponential of the argument of the characteristic polynomial) will converge in law to a GMC measure.
\vspace{0.3cm}
In addition to perhaps describing some properties of the $\zeta$-function, another motivation for this work is that this type of result can be seen as a new type of geometric limit theorem in the framework of random matrices. These types of results are likely to be rather universal in random matrix theory (see the discussion at the end of this paper), though to our knowledge it is the first of its kind. As mentioned, limit theorems concern often a single point or the microscopic scale (or perhaps the mesoscopic scale). The global results of \cite{ds,hko} describe convergence to a rough object whose geometry is not easy to study. In fact, it seems that these measures are the correct way to study the geometry of the underlying Gaussian field. For example, these measures play a critical role in understanding the extrema of the field \cite{bdz,mad,drz}. Also the measures can be used to study the field's fractal properties (e.g. thick points of the field and a geometrical KPZ relation \cite{kahane,dupshef,kpzrv,gmcrev}). In \cite{bss} it was shown in the particular case of the Gaussian Free Field that this exponentiation does not lose any information about the field so all of the geometric properties of the field should be visible in the measure.
\vspace{0.3cm}
On the other hand, from the point of view of the theory of Gaussian Multiplicative Chaos itself, our result gives a very different type of construction of the measure than those common in the literature. Usually one uses Gaussian or even martingale approximations to the field which are essentially tailored to ensure convergence of the approximating measure. Here we have an approximation arising from a completely different model and one has no martingale property or Gaussianity until one passes to the limit. Thus the results here suggest that perhaps the measures are quite universal objects, or that this procedure of exponentiating a distribution is continuous in some sense, namely any "reasonable" approximation to the field should give a way to construct a GMC measure.
\vspace{0.3cm}
As the methods used in this paper are not that original (we use a natural approximation for the characteristic polynomial and a rather elementary approach to proving convergence coupled with powerful recent results on Toeplitz determinants in \cite{deift,claeyskrasovsky}), the main goal of this article is pointing out this connection between two important areas in modern probability theory and some of the interesting questions that this connection implies for both random matrix theory as well as the theory of Gaussian multiplicative chaos.
\vspace{0.3cm}
The outline of this paper is the following. We begin with recalling some facts and results about the CUE, describe our object of interest and state our main theorem and sketch the strategy of our proof. Next we discuss the relationship between the characteristic polynomial and Toeplitz determinants with Fisher-Hartwig singularities. We then review recent results from \cite{claeyskrasovsky,deift} on asymptotics of such Toeplitz determinants. Using these results we prove convergence to a GMC measure. Finally we discuss some open questions this result implies. For the convenience of the reader, we also have an appendix on Gaussian Multiplicative Chaos measures and Sobolev Spaces.
\section{The Circular Unitary Ensemble, the Main Result, and the Strategy of the Proof}
In this section, we will describe our basic model, object of interest, and main theorem as well as sketch the strategy for proving it.
\vspace{0.3cm}
As noted in the introduction, we are interested in $n\times n$-dimensional random matrices distributed according to the (unique) Haar probability measure on the unitary group $U(n)$. Let us denote such a matrix by $U_n$. By the Weyl integration formula applied to $U(n)$, the eigenvalues of $U_n$, which we denote by $(e^{i\theta_1},...,e^{i\theta_n})$ (with $\theta_i\in[0,2\pi)$), are distributed according to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cuelaw}
\frac{1}{n!}\prod_{k<j}|e^{i\theta_k}-e^{i\theta_j}|^{2}\prod_{k=1}^{n}\frac{d\theta_k}{2\pi}.
\end{equation}
We are interested in the characteristic polynomial of $U_n$, namely we evaluate it on the unit circle (where all of its zeros lie) and define
\begin{equation}
p_n(\theta)=\det(1-e^{-i\theta}U_n)=\prod_{k=1}^{n}(1-e^{i(\theta_k-\theta)}).
\end{equation}
To describe the asymptotic properties of $p_n(\theta)$, we study its absolute value and phase. It will turn out to be natural to consider suitable powers of these. More precisely, we introduce the following object, which will be the main object of interest in the rest of this article.
\begin{definition}\label{def:main}
For $\alpha,\beta\in \mathbb{R}$, $n\in \mathbb{Z}_+$ and $\theta\in[0,2\pi)$, let
\begin{equation}
f_{n,\alpha,\beta}(\theta)=|p_n(\theta)|^{\alpha}e^{\beta \mathrm{Im}\log p_n(\theta)},
\end{equation}
\noindent where by $\mathrm{Im}\log p_n(\theta)$ we mean the branch of the logarithm where
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Im}\log p_n(\theta)=\sum_{k=1}^{n}\mathrm{Im}\log (1-e^{i(\theta_k-\theta)})
\end{equation}
\noindent and
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Im}\log (1-e^{i(\theta_k-\theta)})\in\left(-\frac{\pi}{2},\frac{\pi}{2}\right].
\end{equation}
We also consider the random Radon measure on the unit circle defined by
\begin{equation}
\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}(d\theta)=\frac{f_{n,\alpha,\beta}(\theta)}{\mathbb{E}(f_{n,\alpha,\beta}(\theta))}d\theta.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
We then recall a result from \cite{ds} concerning traces of powers of $U_n$.
\begin{theorem}[Diaconis and Shahshahani]\label{th:ds}
Let $(Z_i)_{i=1}^{\infty}$ be i.i.d. standard complex Gaussians, i.e. complex random variables whose real and imaginary parts are independent centered real Gaussians with variance $\frac{1}{2}$. Then for any fixed $k$,
\begin{equation}
\left(\mathrm{Tr}U_n,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{Tr}U_n^{2}...,\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\mathrm{Tr}U_n^{k}\right)\stackrel{d}{\to}(Z_1,...,Z_k)
\end{equation}
\noindent as $n\to\infty$.
\end{theorem}
We also recall the following result from \cite{hko} where it was noted that Theorem \ref{th:ds} can be used to describe the asymptotic behavior of the logarithm of the characteristic polynomial. For the definition of the Sobolev space $\mathcal{H}^{-\epsilon}_0$, see the appendix.
\begin{theorem}[Hughes, Keating, and O'Connell]\label{th:hko}
For any $\epsilon>0$, the pair $(\log |p_n(\theta)|,\mathrm{Im}\log p_n(\theta))$ (where $\mathrm{Im}\log p_n(\theta)$ is interpreted as in Definition \ref{def:main}) converges in law in $\mathcal{H}_0^{-\epsilon}\times \mathcal{H}_0^{-\epsilon}$ to the pair of Gaussian fields $(X(\theta),\widehat{X}(\theta))$, where
\begin{equation}
X(\theta)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}(Z_k e^{ik\theta}+Z_k^{*}e^{-ik\theta}),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\widehat{X}(\theta)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}(i Z_k e^{ik\theta}-iZ_k^{*}e^{-ik\theta}),
\end{equation}
\noindent and $(Z_k)_{k=1}^{\infty}$ are i.i.d. standard complex Gaussians.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Note that as $iZ_k\stackrel{d}{=}Z_k$, we have $X\stackrel{d}{=}\widehat{X}$. Moreover, for real $\alpha,\beta$, the rotation invariance of the law of $Z_k$ implies that
\begin{equation}
\alpha X+\beta \widehat{X}\stackrel{d}{=}\sqrt{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}X.
\end{equation}
This does not imply that $X$ and $\widehat{X}$ are independent - they are not. For example, formally (one can make this precise if one wishes)
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}(X(\theta)\widehat{X}(\theta'))=\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k}\sin(k(\theta-\theta'))
\end{equation}
\noindent which is non-zero unless $|\theta-\theta'|=k\pi$ for some integer $k$. We also point out that (again formally though one can make this too precise with little effort)
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}(X(\theta)X(\theta'))=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{k}\cos(k(\theta-\theta'))=-\frac{1}{2}\log|e^{i\theta}-e^{i\theta'}|.
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
Motivated by these remarks and Theorem \ref{th:hko}, we expect that in distribution, $f_{n,\alpha,\beta}$ should asymptotically behave like $e^{\sqrt{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}X}$. The following theorem is our main result and makes this statement precise. For a proper definition of the measure $\mu_{\sqrt{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}}(d\theta)$, see the appendix.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:main}
For $\alpha>-\frac{1}{2}$ and $\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}<2$, the measure $\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}(d\theta)$ converges in distribution in the space of Radon measures on the unit circle equipped with the topology of weak convergence to the (non-trivial) Gaussian multiplicative chaos measure $\mu_{\sqrt{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}}(d\theta)$ which can be formally written as
\begin{equation}
\mu_{\sqrt{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}}(d\theta)=e^{\sqrt{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}X(\theta)-\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}\mathbb{E}(X(\theta)^{2})}d\theta.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\bf Strategy of proof: \rm Our starting point for the proof is the remark that the convergence of $\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}$ in distribution to $\mu_{\sqrt{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}}$ in the space of Radon measures on the unit circle with the topology of weak convergence is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}(d\theta)\stackrel{d}{\to}\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{\sqrt{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}}(d\theta),
\end{equation}
\noindent as $n\to \infty$ for each continuous non-negative function $g$ defined on the unit circle. For details on this, see e.g. Chapter 4 in \cite{kallenberg2}. We prove this by approximating $\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}$ by truncating the Fourier series of the logarithm of $f_{n,\alpha,\beta}$. More precisely, we note that using the expansion of $\log (1-z)$, we have
\begin{equation}
\log f_{n,\alpha,\beta}(\theta)\sim -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{j}\left((\alpha-\beta i)\mathrm{Tr}U_n^{j}e^{-ij\theta}+(\alpha+\beta i)\mathrm{Tr} U_n^{-j}e^{ij\theta}\right).
\end{equation}
We then approximate $\log f_{n,\alpha,\beta}$ by truncating this series.
\begin{definition}
For $k,n\in \mathbb{Z}_+$, $\alpha,\beta\in \mathbb{R}$ and $\theta\in [0,2\pi)$, let
\begin{equation}
f_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(\theta)=e^{ -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}\left((\alpha-\beta i)\mathrm{Tr}U_n^{j}e^{-ij\theta}+(\alpha+\beta i)\mathrm{Tr} U_n^{-j}e^{ij\theta}\right)}
\end{equation}
\noindent and
\begin{equation}
\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(d\theta)=\frac{f_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(\theta)}{\mathbb{E}(f_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(\theta))}d\theta.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
The idea now is to show that for any fixed continuous function $g$, as we let $n\to\infty$ and then $k\to \infty$,
\begin{equation}
\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(d\theta)-\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}(d\theta)
\end{equation}
\noindent tends to zero in distribution while in the same limit, $\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(d\theta)$ tends to $\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{\sqrt{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}}(d\theta)$ in distribution. The first fact will be established through a variance estimate in the next section, where we make use of a Toeplitz determinant representation and results of \cite{deift,claeyskrasovsky}. The second fact follows from Theorem \ref{th:ds} and the definition of $\mu_{\sqrt{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}}$.
\vspace{0.3cm}
Finally we note that it is reasonable to expect that the restriction in the values of the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ is simply due to the method of our proof and convergence will hold for a larger set of values. For further discussion, see the last section of this paper.
\section{Variance estimates and asymptotics of Toeplitz determinants with Fisher-Hartwig singularities}
The goal of this section is to prove the following result:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:var}
For $\alpha>-\frac{1}{2}$ and $\beta\in \mathbb{R}$ such that $\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}<2$,
\begin{equation}
\lim_{k\to\infty}\limsup_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{E}\left(\left(\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(d\theta)-\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}(d\theta)\right)^{2}\right)=0
\end{equation}
\noindent for any given continuous non-negative function $g$ defined on the unit circle.
\end{proposition}
Much of this section will be well known to experts of random matrix theory, but we give a detailed presentation for the benefit of readers less familiar with it.
\vspace{0.3cm}
Expanding the square in the expectation and using Fubini, we see that what is relevant is obtaining uniform asymptotics for $\mathbb{E}(f_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(\theta)f_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(\theta'))$, $\mathbb{E}(f_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(\theta)f_{n,\alpha,\beta}(\theta'))$, and $\mathbb{E}(f_{n,\alpha,\beta}(\theta)f_{n,\alpha,\beta}(\theta'))$, as well as $\mathbb{E}(f_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(\theta))$ and $\mathbb{E}(f_{n,\alpha,\beta}(\theta))$ for all values of $\theta$ and $\theta'$ (even as $\theta\to\theta'$). As we will see, all of these quantities can be represented as Toeplitz determinants and their asymptotic behavior follows from existing work. To see the Toeplitz determinant representation, let us first recall the Heine-Szeg\"o identity (see e.g. \cite{bd}).
\begin{theorem}[Heine-Szeg\"o identity]\label{th:hs}
Consider a function defined on the unit circle: $f(\phi)=\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}f_n e^{in\phi}$ which is in $L^{1}(d\phi)$. Then if $(e^{i\theta_k})_{k=1}^{n}$ are the eigenvalues of a Haar distributed $n\times n$ unitary matrix, then
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left(\prod_{k=1}^{n}f\left(\theta_k\right)\right)=D_{n-1}(f),
\end{equation}
\noindent where the Toeplitz determinant $D_{n-1}(f)$ is the determinant of the matrix
\begin{equation}
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
f_0 & f_1 & \cdots & f_{n-1}\\
f_{-1} & f_0 & \cdots & f_{n-2}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
f_{-n+1} & f_{-n+2} & \cdots & f_0
\end{array}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:ti}
It follows for example from the translation invariance of the law of $(\theta_i)_{i=1}^{n}$, that for any fixed $\theta$, one also has
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left(\prod_{k=1}^{n}f\left(\theta+\theta_k\right)\right)=D_{n-1}(f)
\end{equation}
\noindent or if we denote by $f_\theta$, the translation of $f$ by $\theta$: $f_\theta(\phi)=f(\theta+\phi)$, then $D_{n-1}(f_\theta)=D_{n-1}(f)$.
\end{remark}
The following fact is a direct consequence of Theorem \ref{th:hs}:
\begin{lemma}\label{le:var}
\begin{align}
\notag \mathbb{E}&\left(\left(\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(d\theta)-\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}(d\theta)\right)^{2}\right)\\
&= \frac{1}{\left(\mathbb{E}(f_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(0))\right)^{2}}\int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)g(\theta')D_{n-1}(\sigma_{1,\theta,\theta'})d\theta d\theta'\\
&\qquad -2\frac{1}{\mathbb{E}(f_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(0))\mathbb{E}(f_{n,\alpha,\beta}(0))} \int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)g(\theta')D_{n-1}(\sigma_{2,\theta,\theta'})d\theta d\theta'\notag\\
&\qquad +\frac{1}{\left(\mathbb{E}(f_{n,\alpha,\beta}(0))\right)^{2}}\int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)g(\theta')D_{n-1}(\sigma_{3,\theta,\theta'})d\theta d\theta',\notag
\end{align}
\noindent where
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{1,\theta,\theta'}(\phi)=e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}\left((\alpha-\beta i)(e^{-ij\theta}+e^{-ij\theta'})e^{ij\phi}+(\alpha+\beta i)(e^{ij\theta}+e^{ij\theta'})e^{-ij\phi}\right)},
\end{equation}
\begin{align}
\notag \sigma_{2,\theta,\theta'}(\phi)&=e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}\left((\alpha-\beta i)e^{-ij\theta}e^{ij\phi}+(\alpha+\beta i)e^{ij\theta}e^{-ij\phi}\right)}\\
&\qquad\times|e^{i\theta'}-e^{i\phi}|^{\alpha}e^{\beta \mathrm{Im}\log (1-e^{i(\phi-\theta')})}
\end{align}
\noindent and
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{3,\theta,\theta'}(\phi)=|e^{i\theta}-e^{i\phi}|^{\alpha}e^{\beta \mathrm{Im}\log (1-e^{i(\phi-\theta)})}|e^{i\theta'}-e^{i\phi}|^{\alpha}e^{\beta \mathrm{Im}\log (1-e^{i(\phi-\theta')})},
\end{equation}
\noindent where the branch of the logarithm is such that $\mathrm{Im}\log (1-e^{i(\phi-\theta')})\in(-\frac{\pi}{2},\frac{\pi}{2}]$ and similarly for $\theta$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This follows from applying Theorem \ref{th:hs} to the remark that for any $\theta,\theta'\in[0,2\pi)$
\begin{equation}
f_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(\theta)f_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(\theta')=\prod_{p=1}^{n}\sigma_{1,\theta,\theta'}(\theta_p)
\end{equation}
\noindent and similar arguments for $f_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(\theta)f_{n,\alpha,\beta}(\theta')$ and $f_{n,\alpha,\beta}(\theta)f_{n,\alpha,\beta}(\theta')$. Remark \ref{rem:ti} implies that the denominators $\mathbb{E}(f_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(\theta))$ are independent of $\theta$ and can be taken outside of the integrals.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Due to our choice of the branch of the logarithm, we have
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Im}\log (1-e^{i(\phi-\theta)})=\begin{cases}
-\frac{\pi}{2}+\frac{\phi-\theta}{2}, & 0\leq \theta\leq \phi<2\pi\\
\frac{\pi}{2}+\frac{\phi-\theta}{2}, & 0\leq \phi<\theta<2\pi
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\noindent implying that we can write
\begin{align}
\notag\sigma_{2,\theta,\theta'}(\phi)&=e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}\left((\alpha-\beta i)e^{-ij\theta}e^{ij\phi}+(\alpha+\beta i)e^{ij\theta}e^{-ij\phi}\right)}\\
&\qquad\times|e^{i\theta'}-e^{i\phi}|^{\alpha}e^{\beta\frac{\phi-\theta'}{2}}g_{e^{i\theta'},-i\frac{\beta}{2}}(e^{i\phi})
\end{align}
\noindent and
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{3,\theta,\theta'}(\phi)=|e^{i\theta}-e^{i\phi}|^{\alpha}e^{\beta\frac{\phi-\theta}{2}}g_{e^{i\theta},-i\frac{\beta}{2}}(e^{i\phi})|e^{i\theta'}-e^{i\phi}|^{\alpha}e^{\beta\frac{\phi-\theta'}{2}}g_{e^{i\theta'},-i\frac{\beta}{2}}(e^{i\phi}),
\end{equation}
\noindent where
\begin{equation}\label{def:g}
g_{e^{i\theta},\beta}(e^{i\phi})=\begin{cases}
e^{i\pi \beta}, & 0\leq \phi<\theta\\
e^{-i\pi \beta}, &\theta\leq \phi< 2\pi
\end{cases}.
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
\noindent In the definition of $g_{e^{i\theta},\beta}$ we have followed the notation of \cite{deift} to avoid confusion when referring to their results.
\vspace{0.3cm}
The asymptotics of such Toeplitz determinants have been studied extensively. The pointwise asymptotics of $D_{n-1}(\sigma_{1,\theta,\theta'})$ go back to Szeg\"o \cite{sze}. $D_{n-1}(\sigma_{2,\theta,\theta'})$ and $D_{n-1}(\sigma_{3,\theta,\theta'})$ are special cases of Toeplitz determinants with Fisher-Hartwig singularities. Conjectures about their asymptotic behavior go back to Fisher and Hartwig \cite{fh} as well as Lenard \cite{lenard}. The first rigorous results are due to Widom \cite{widom} though there is still a lot of research activity related to the problem (see e.g. \cite{ehrhardt1,deift,deift2,claeyskrasovsky}). Let us now discuss the asymptotics of the different terms.
\subsection{Asymptotics of $D_{n-1}(\sigma_1)$}
As noted, the pointwise asymptotics of such a determinant go back to Szeg\"o:
\begin{theorem}[Strong Szeg\"o theorem]\label{th:sz}
Let $L$ be a real valued function on the unit circle such that $L\in L^{1}$, $e^{L}\in L^{1}$ and let $\widehat{L}_k$ denote the Fourier coefficients of $L$: $\widehat{L}_n=\int_0^{2\pi}e^{-in\phi}L(\phi)\frac{d\phi}{2\pi}$. Then
\begin{equation}
\log D_{n-1}(e^{L})= n \widehat{L}_0+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k|\widehat{L}_k|^{2}+\mathit{o}(1).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
As it is, this is not quite enough for us. In our case, $L$ depends on the variables $\theta$ and $\theta'$ which we wish to integrate over so we need a uniform version for this. Actually as $\sigma_{1,\theta,\theta'}$ is real and $\int_0^{2\pi}\log \sigma_{1,\theta,\theta'}(\phi)d\phi=0$, $D_{n-1}(\sigma_1)$ is increasing in $n$:
\begin{theorem}
Let $L$ be as in the previous theorem with the extra condition that $\widehat{L}_0=0$. Then for any $n\in \mathbb{Z}_+$,
\begin{equation}
D_{n-1}(e^{L})\leq D_{n}(e^{L}).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
This is proven for example in \cite{simon}. More precisely, in Section 2 (Theorems 2.1-2.4) of \cite{simon} it is proven that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(D_{n-1}(e^{L})\right)^{\frac{1}{n}}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{D_{n}(e^{L})}{D_{n-1}(e^{L})}
\end{equation}
\noindent and that if this limit (which following \cite{simon} we denote by $F$) is positive, then for some increasing sequence $(G_n)$,
\begin{equation}
D_{n-1}(e^{L})=G_{n-1}F^{n}
\end{equation}
As noted in Theorem 5.1 of \cite{simon}, it then follows from these results and Szeg\"o's theorem (the "weaker" one i.e. that $\frac{1}{n}\log D_{n-1}(e^{L})=\widehat{L}_0+\mathit{o}(1)$ - Theorem 4.1 of \cite{simon}) that $F=e^{\widehat{L}_0}=1$ and $D_{n-1}(e^{L})=G_{n-1}$ is increasing.
\end{proof}
Thus these two theorems and the dominated convergence theorem imply the following asymptotic behavior:
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:sigma1}
For any $\alpha,\beta\in \mathbb{R}$, and continuous $g$
\begin{align}
\notag &\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)g(\theta')D_{n-1}(\sigma_{1,\theta,\theta'})d\theta d\theta'\\
&\qquad=\int_{0}^{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)g(\theta')e^{\frac{1}{4}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})|e^{ij\theta}+e^{ij\theta'}|^{2}}d\theta d\theta'\\
\notag &\qquad =e^{\frac{1}{2}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)g(\theta')e^{\frac{(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}\cos (j(\theta-\theta'))}d\theta d\theta'.
\end{align}
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Asymptotics of $D_{n-1}(\sigma_2)$} The asymptotic behavior of determinants of the form of $D_{n-1}(\sigma_2)$ was already analyzed in \cite{widom} and generalized in \cite{basor} and \cite{ehrhardt}. Nevertheless, we shall formulate the results in terms of those of \cite{deift} as similar notations are used in \cite{claeyskrasovsky} which we shall rely on for the asymptotics of $D_{n-1}(\sigma_3)$.
\vspace{0.3cm}
As noted, $\sigma_2$ and $\sigma_3$ have Fisher-Hartwig singularities, namely they are both of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fh}
f(z)=e^{V(z)}z^{\sum_{j=0}^{m}\beta_j}\prod_{j=0}^{m}|z-z_j|^{2\alpha_j}g_{z_j,\beta_j}(z)z_j^{-\beta_j},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $z=e^{i\phi}$ and $z_j$ are some fixed distinct points on the unit circle, in our notation they correspond to $e^{i\theta}$ and $e^{i\theta'}$, and $g_{z_j,\beta_j}$ was defined in \eqref{def:g}.
\vspace{0.3cm}
For $\sigma_2$ the exact correspondence is the following: $m=0$, $\alpha_0=\frac{\alpha}{2}$, $z_0=e^{i\theta'}$, $\beta_0=-i\frac{\beta}{2}$, and
\begin{equation}
V(z)=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}(\alpha-\beta i)e^{-ij\theta} z^{j}-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}(\alpha+\beta i)e^{ij\theta} \overline{z}^{j}.
\end{equation}
In \cite{deift} a normalization is chosen where $z_0=1$, but making use of Remark \ref{rem:ti}, we can recover this by shifting $\theta\mapsto \theta-\theta'$, $\phi-\theta'\to \phi$, and $\theta'\to 0$.
\vspace{0.3cm}
The main result of \cite{deift} (proven in \cite{ehrhardt1} in the case where $V\in C^{\infty}$ - that is infinitely differentiable) is
\begin{theorem}[Ehrhardt; Deift, Its, and Krasovsky]\label{th:fh}
Let $f$ be of the form \eqref{eq:fh} and let $|||\beta|||:=\max_{j,k}|\mathrm{Re}\beta_j-\mathrm{Re}\beta_k|<1$, $\mathrm{Re}\alpha_j>-\frac{1}{2}$, $\alpha_j\pm \beta_j\neq -1,-2,...$ for $j=0,...,m$ and let $V(z)=\sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}} V_k z^{k}$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}}|k|^{s}|V_k|<\infty
\end{equation}
\noindent for
\begin{equation}
s>\frac{1+\sum_{j=0}^{m}((\mathrm{Im}\alpha_j)^{2}+(\mathrm{Re}\beta_j)^{2})}{1-|||\beta|||}.
\end{equation}
Then as $n\to\infty$, for $z_i\neq z_j$ for all $i\neq j$,
\begin{align}
\notag D_n(f)&=e^{nV_0+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}kV_kV_{-k}}\prod_{j=0}^{m}e^{(\beta_j-\alpha_j)\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}V_k z_j^{k}}e^{-(\alpha_j+\beta_j)\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}V_{-k}z_j^{-k}}\\
&\qquad\times n^{\sum_{j=0}^{m}(\alpha_j^{2}-\beta_j^{2})}\prod_{0\leq j<k\leq m}|z_j-z_k|^{2(\beta_j\beta_k-\alpha_j\alpha_k)}\left(\frac{z_k}{z_j e^{i\pi}}\right)^{\alpha_j\beta_k-\alpha_k\beta_j}\\
&\qquad\notag\times \prod_{j=0}^{m}\frac{G(1+\alpha_j+\beta_j)G(1+\alpha_j-\beta_j)}{G(1+2\alpha_j)}(1+\mathit{o}(1)),
\end{align}
\noindent where $G$ is the Barnes $G$-function and the product $\prod_{0\leq j<k\leq m}$ is set to $1$ if $m=0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:unif}
One can show that the error term is uniform in compact subsets of $\lbrace z_i\neq z_j\rbrace$: see e.g. \cite[Remark 1.4]{deift}. For $\sigma_2$ and $\sigma_3$ this can be seen also from the proofs of \cite{ehrhardt,widom}. More precisely, looking at the proof in \cite{ehrhardt} for the asymptotics corresponding to $\sigma_2$, one sees from the end of the proof (\cite[p. 254]{ehrhardt}) that the crucial estimate for uniformity is a uniform bound on the trace norm of the operator $A$ (defined on \cite[p. 249]{ehrhardt}). This then translates (through \cite[propositions 4.2 and 4.5]{ehrhardt}) into regularity conditions on the potential $V$ which in our case is uniformly bounded and all of its derivatives are uniformly bounded and one is able to prove uniform bounds on the trace norm of $A$. For $\sigma_3$, one can trace through the proof of \cite{widom} and uniform estimates boil down to the partial sums of $\sum_{l}(\frac{z_i}{z_j})^{l}$ are uniformly bounded in say $|z_i-z_j|\geq \epsilon$ - see \cite[p. 345]{widom} for the relevance of this estimate.
\end{remark}
\vspace{0.3cm}
Plugging in the values corresponding to $\sigma_2$ and shifting $\theta'\to 0$, $\theta\to\theta-\theta'$ (i.e. setting $\beta_0=-i\frac{\beta}{2}$, $\alpha_0=\frac{\alpha}{2}$, $V_j=-\frac{1}{2}(\alpha-\beta i)e^{-ij(\theta-\theta')}$, $V_{-j}=\overline{V_j}$), we see that
\begin{align}
\notag D_{n-1}(\sigma_{2,\theta,\theta'})&=e^{\frac{1}{4}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}}e^{\frac{1}{2}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}\cos j(\theta-\theta')}n^{\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{4}}\\
&\qquad\times \frac{G\left(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}-i\frac{\beta}{2}\right)G\left(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}+i\frac{\beta}{2}\right)}{G(1+\alpha)}(1+\mathit{o}(1)).
\end{align}
As, there is only one Fisher-Hartwig singularity in $\sigma_2$, we see by Remark \ref{rem:unif} that the error is uniform in $\theta,\theta'$. Thus we have
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:sigma2}
For any continuous function $g$ defined on the unit circle, $\alpha>-1$, and $\beta\in \mathbb{R}$, as $n\to\infty$
\begin{align}
\notag\int_0^{2\pi}&\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)g(\theta')D_{n-1}(\sigma_{2,\theta,\theta'})d\theta d\theta'&\\
&=n^{\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{4}}\frac{G\left(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}-i\frac{\beta}{2}\right)G\left(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}+i\frac{\beta}{2}\right)}{G(1+\alpha)}e^{\frac{1}{4}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}}\\
\notag &\qquad \times\left(\int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)g(\theta')e^{\frac{1}{2}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}\cos j(\theta-\theta')}d\theta d\theta'+\mathit{o}(1)\right).
\end{align}
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Asymptotics of $D_{n-1}(\sigma_3)$} We again have a Toeplitz determinant with Fisher-Hartwig singularities. Compared to \eqref{eq:fh}, the relationship is $V=0$, $m=1$, $z_0=e^{i\theta}$, $z_1=e^{i\theta'}$, $\alpha_0=\alpha_1=\frac{\alpha}{2}$, and $\beta_0=\beta_1=-i\frac{\beta}{2}$, or shifting to the normalization of Theorem \ref{th:fh}, $z_0=1$ and $z_1=e^{i(\theta'-\theta)}$. Theorem \ref{th:fh} and Remark \ref{rem:unif} then imply that for any $\epsilon>0$,
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{D_{n-1}(\sigma_{3,\theta,\theta'})}{n^{\frac{1}{2}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})}}=\left|e^{i\theta}-e^{i\theta'}\right|^{-\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}}\frac{G\left(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}-\frac{\beta}{2}i\right)^{2}G\left(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}+\frac{\beta}{2}i\right)^{2}}{G(1+\alpha)^{2}}
\end{equation}
\noindent uniformly in $|\theta-\theta'|\geq \epsilon$.
\vspace{0.3cm}
Compared to $D_{n-1}(\sigma_2)$ we have here the important difference that we must also consider the situation $\theta\to \theta'$ and we can't simply rely on Theorem \ref{th:fh}.
\vspace{0.3cm}
Luckily the situation where $\theta\to \theta'$ has recently been analyzed in \cite{claeyskrasovsky}. In fact, the following is essentially their proof of Theorem 1.8 in \cite{claeyskrasovsky}, but as on a superficial level, our setting looks slightly more general, we write down the details. Specifying their Theorem 1.5 into our setting ($\alpha_1=\alpha_2=\frac{\alpha}{2}$, $\beta_1=\beta_2=-i\frac{\beta}{2}$) and ignoring the finer asymptotics that aren't needed for our result, we have the following
\begin{theorem}[Claeys and Krasovsky]\label{th:ck1}
There exists a $t_0>0$ such that for $\alpha>-\frac{1}{2}$ and $0<|\theta-\theta'|<2t_0$,
\begin{align}
\log D_{n-1}(\sigma_{3,\theta,\theta'})&=\log D_{n-1}(\sigma_{3,0,0})+\int_0^{-in|\theta-\theta'|}\frac{1}{s}\left(\sigma(s)-\frac{1}{2}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})\right)ds\notag\\
&\qquad -\frac{1}{2}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})\log \frac{2\sin \frac{|\theta-\theta'|}{2}}{|\theta-\theta'|}+\mathit{o}(1),
\end{align}
\noindent where the integral is along the negative imaginary axis, $\mathit{o}(1)$ is uniform in $0<|\theta-\theta'|<2t_0$, and
\begin{equation}
\log D_{n-1}(\sigma_{3,0,0})=(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})\log n+\log \frac{G(1+\alpha-i\beta)G(1+\alpha+i\beta)}{G(1+2\alpha)}+\mathit{o}(1).
\end{equation}
Moreover $\sigma$ is a continuous function (depending only on $\alpha$ and $\beta$ - not $\theta,\theta',$ or $n$) whose asymptotic behavior is the following: there is some $\delta>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\sigma(s)=\frac{1}{2}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})+\mathcal{O}(|s|^{\delta}),
\end{equation}
\noindent as $s\to 0$ along the negative imaginary axis, and
\begin{equation}
\sigma(s)=\mathcal{O}(|s|^{-\delta})
\end{equation}
\noindent as $s\to\infty$ along the negative imaginary axis.
\end{theorem}
We shall also make use of their Theorem 1.11 which in our situation simplifies to the following.
\begin{theorem}[Claeys and Krasovsky]\label{th:ck2}
Let $\alpha>-1$. Then there exists a sufficiently small $t_0$ such that for $\frac{\log n}{n}\leq |\theta-\theta'|<2t_0$
\begin{align}
\notag \log D_{n-1}(\sigma_{3,\theta,\theta'})&=\frac{1}{2}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})\log n-\frac{1}{2}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})\log \left(2\sin\frac{|\theta-\theta'|}{2}\right)\\
&\qquad +\log \frac{G(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}-i\frac{\beta}{2})^{2}G(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}+i\frac{\beta}{2})^{2}}{G(1+\alpha)^{2}}+\mathit{o}(1)
\end{align}
\noindent and the error term is uniform in $\frac{\log n}{n}\leq |\theta-\theta'|<t_0$.
\end{theorem}
Combining these results we have the following asymptotics (essentially Theorem 1.15 of \cite{claeyskrasovsky}):
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:sigma3}
For any continuous function $g$ defined on the unit circle, $\alpha>-\frac{1}{2}$, and $\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}<2$
\begin{align}
\notag\lim_{n\to\infty}&n^{-\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}}\int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)g(\theta')D_{n-1}(\sigma_{3,\theta,\theta'})d\theta d\theta'\\
&=\frac{G(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}-i\frac{\beta}{2})^{2}G(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}+i\frac{\beta}{2})^{2}}{G(1+\alpha)^{2}}\\
\notag &\qquad \times\int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)g(\theta')|e^{i\theta}-e^{i\theta'}|^{-\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}}d\theta d\theta'.
\end{align}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let us split the $\theta,\theta'$ integrals into four parts: $I_1$, being the integral over $0<|\theta'-\theta|\leq \frac{1}{n}$, $I_2$ corresponding to $\frac{1}{n}<|\theta'-\theta|<\frac{\log n}{n}$, $I_3$ corresponding to $\frac{\log n}{n}\leq |\theta'-\theta|<2t_0$, and $I_4$ corresponding to $2t_0\leq |\theta'-\theta|$.
\vspace{0.3cm}
By Theorem \ref{th:fh} and Remark \ref{rem:unif}, we have
\begin{align}
\notag\lim_{n\to\infty}n^{-\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}}I_4&=\frac{G(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}-i\frac{\beta}{2})^{2}G(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}+i\frac{\beta}{2})^{2}}{G(1+\alpha)^{2}}\\
&\qquad \times\int_{|\theta-\theta'|\geq 2t_0}g(\theta)g(\theta')|e^{i\theta}-e^{i\theta'}|^{-\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}}d\theta d\theta'.
\end{align}
For $I_1$, we note that Theorem \ref{th:ck1} implies that
\begin{align}
&\notag I_1=n^{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}\frac{G(1+\alpha-i\beta)G(1+\alpha+i\beta)}{G(1+2\alpha)}\\
&\qquad \times\int_{|\theta-\theta'|\leq \frac{1}{n}}g(\theta)g(\theta')e^{\int_0^{-in|\theta-\theta'|}\frac{1}{s}\left(\sigma(s)-\frac{1}{2}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})\right)ds}\\
\notag &\qquad \times e^{-\frac{1}{2}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})\log \frac{2\sin \frac{|\theta-\theta'|}{2}}{|\theta-\theta'|}+\mathit{o}(1)}d\theta d\theta'.
\end{align}
Moreover, the asymptotics of $\sigma$ near zero on the negative imaginary axis, imply that the integrand in the exponential converges and the integrand in the $\theta,\theta'$-integral is bounded, so we see that $I_1=\mathcal{O}(n^{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}-1})$ and as $\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}<1$, this implies that $n^{-\frac{1}{2}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})}I_1\to 0$ as $n\to \infty$.
\vspace{0.3cm}
For $I_2$, using Theorem \ref{th:ck1} we write for $\frac{1}{n}< |\theta-\theta'|<\frac{\log n}{n}$
\begin{align}
\notag\log &D_{n-1}(\sigma_{3,\theta,\theta'})\\
\notag &=(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})\log n+\log \frac{G(1+\alpha-i\beta)G(1+\alpha+i\beta)}{G(1+2\alpha)}\\
&\qquad +\int_0^{-i}\frac{\sigma(s)-\frac{1}{2}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})}{s}ds-\frac{1}{2}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})\log n\\
\notag &\qquad+\int_{-i}^{-in|\theta-\theta'|}\frac{\sigma(s)}{s}ds-\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}\log \left(2 \sin\frac{|\theta-\theta'|}{2}\right)+\mathit{o}(1)\notag
\end{align}
\noindent and we have
\begin{align}
\notag I_2&=n^{\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}}\frac{G(1+\alpha-i\beta)G(1+\alpha+i\beta)}{G(1+2\alpha)}e^{\int_0^{-i}\frac{\sigma(s)-\frac{1}{2}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})}{s}ds}\\
&\qquad \times \int_{\frac{1}{n}\leq |\theta-\theta'|\leq\frac{\log n}{n}}g(\theta)g(\theta')\left(2\sin\frac{|\theta-\theta'|}{2}\right)^{-\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}}\\
\notag &\qquad \times e^{\int_{-i}^{-in|\theta-\theta'|}\frac{\sigma(s)}{s}ds+\mathit{o}(1)}d\theta d\theta'.
\end{align}
The asymptotics of $\sigma(s)$ as $s\to\infty$ along the negative imaginary axis imply that the integrand can be bounded by a constant times $|\theta-\theta'|^{-\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}}$ which is an integrable singularity as $\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}<1$. We conclude that as $n\to\infty$, $n^{-\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}}I_2\to 0$.
\vspace{0.3cm}
For $I_3$, we make use of Theorem \ref{th:ck2}. This yields immediately that
\begin{align}
\notag n^{-\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}}I_3&=\frac{G(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}-i\frac{\beta}{2})^{2}G(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}+i\frac{\beta}{2})^{2}}{G(1+\alpha)^{2}}\\
&\qquad\times \int_{\frac{\log n}{n}\leq |\theta-\theta'|< 2t_0}g(\theta)g(\theta')|e^{i\theta}-e^{i\theta'}|^{-\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}}e^{\mathit{o}(1)}d\theta d\theta'.
\end{align}
As the singularity $|e^{i\theta}-e^{i\theta'}|^{-\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}}=(2\sin\frac{|\theta-\theta'|}{2})^{-\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}}$ is integrable as $\theta\to \theta'$, and the error is uniform, we find
\begin{align}
\notag n^{-\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}}I_3&\to\frac{G(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}-i\frac{\beta}{2})^{2}G(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}+i\frac{\beta}{2})^{2}}{G(1+\alpha)^{2}}\\
&\qquad \times \int_{0\leq |\theta-\theta'|< 2t_0}g(\theta)g(\theta')|e^{i\theta}-e^{i\theta'}|^{-\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}}d\theta d\theta'.
\end{align}
Putting things together yields the claim.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Asymptotics of the normalization constants} To prove Proposition \ref{prop:var}, we only need to calculate the asymptotics of the normalizing constants, i.e. $\mathbb{E}(f_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(0))$ and $\mathbb{E}(f_{n,\alpha,\beta}(0))$.
\begin{lemma}\label{le:const}
For any fixed $k$,
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{E}(f_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(0))=e^{\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{4}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}}
\end{equation}
\noindent and
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\to\infty}n^{-\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{4}}\mathbb{E}(f_{n,\alpha,\beta}(0))=\frac{G(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}-i\frac{\beta}{2})G(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}+i\frac{\beta}{2})}{G(1+\alpha)}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Heine-Szeg\"o (Theorem \ref{th:hs}),
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}(f_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(0))=D_{n-1}\left(e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}\left((\alpha-\beta i)e^{ij\phi}+(\alpha+i\beta)e^{-ij\phi}\right)}\right)
\end{equation}
\noindent and by the Strong Szeg\"o theorem (Theorem \ref{th:sz})
\begin{equation}
D_{n-1}\left(e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}\left((\alpha-\beta i)e^{ij\phi}+(\alpha+i\beta)e^{-ij\phi}\right)}\right)=e^{\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{4}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}+\mathit{o}(1)}.
\end{equation}
For the second normalizing constant, one could note that it is a Selberg-Morris integral and can be written explicitly as a product of ratios of $\Gamma$-functions, but to avoid computations, we make use of Theorem \ref{th:fh}. We have $\mathbb{E}(f_{n,\alpha,\beta}(0))=D_{n-1}(|1-e^{i\phi}|^{\alpha}e^{\beta \mathrm{Im}\log(1-e^{i\phi})})$ which in the framework of Theorem \ref{th:fh} corresponds to $m=0$, $V=0$, $\alpha_0=\frac{\alpha}{2}$, and $\beta_0=-i\frac{\beta}{2}$ so that the theorem implies that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\to\infty}n^{-\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{4}}\mathbb{E}(f_{n,\alpha,\beta}(0))=\frac{G(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}-i\frac{\beta}{2})G(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}+i\frac{\beta}{2})}{G(1+\alpha)}.
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:var}}
Putting together Corollaries \ref{cor:sigma1}, \ref{cor:sigma2}, and \ref{cor:sigma3} as well as Lemma \ref{le:const} with Lemma \ref{le:var}, we find
\begin{align}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\notag &\mathbb{E}\left(\left(\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(d\theta)-\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}(d\theta)\right)^{2}\right)\\
\notag &=\frac{e^{\frac{1}{2}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)g(\theta')e^{\frac{(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}\cos (j(\theta-\theta'))}d\theta d\theta'}{\left(e^{\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{4}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}}\right)^{2}}\\
\notag &\qquad -2\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{n^{\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{4}}\frac{G\left(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}-i\frac{\beta}{2}\right)G\left(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}+i\frac{\beta}{2}\right)}{G(1+\alpha)}e^{\frac{1}{4}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}}}{ n^{\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{4}}\frac{G(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}-i\frac{\beta}{2})G(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}+i\frac{\beta}{2})}{G(1+\alpha)}e^{\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{4}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}}}\\
\notag &\qquad \times\int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)g(\theta')e^{\frac{1}{2}(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2})\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}\cos j(\theta-\theta')}d\theta d\theta'\\
&\qquad +\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{n^{\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}}\frac{G(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}-i\frac{\beta}{2})^{2}G(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}+i\frac{\beta}{2})^{2}}{G(1+\alpha)^{2}}}{\left(n^{\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{4}}\frac{G(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}-i\frac{\beta}{2})G(1+\frac{\alpha}{2}+i\frac{\beta}{2})}{G(1+\alpha)}\right)^{2}}\\
\notag &\qquad \times \int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)g(\theta')|e^{i\theta}-e^{i\theta'}|^{-\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}}d\theta d\theta'\\
\notag&=\int_{[0,2\pi]^2}g(\theta)g(\theta')\left(|e^{i\theta}-e^{i\theta'}|^{-\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}}-e^{\frac{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{1}{j}\cos j(\theta-\theta')}\right)d\theta d\theta'.
\end{align}
As this quantity is non-negative for all $k$ (it is a limit of variances), it tends to zero as $k\to\infty$ due to Fatou's lemma once we write the integral as a difference of two integrals.
\section{Proof of the main result}
We are now in a position to prove our main theorem. In the previous section, we proved that for a non-negative continuous function $g$
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left(\left(\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(d\theta)-\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}(d\theta)\right)^{2}\right)\to 0
\end{equation}
\noindent as we first let $n\to\infty$ and then $k\to\infty$, so in particular,
\begin{equation}
\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(d\theta)-\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}(d\theta)\stackrel{d}{\to}0
\end{equation}
\noindent in the same limit. Thus if we are able to prove that
\begin{equation}
\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(d\theta)\stackrel{d}{\to }\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{\sqrt{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}}(d\theta)
\end{equation}
\noindent in the same limit, we will be done (for a detailed formulation of this type of argument see e.g. Theorem 4.28 in \cite{kallenberg}). To do this, we first prove the following lemma, which is just a corollary of the results of Diaconis and Shahshahani - (ie. Theorem \ref{th:ds} in this paper).
\begin{lemma}
For any fixed $k$, any $\alpha,\beta\in \mathbb{R}$, and any continuous function $g$ defined on the unit circle
\begin{equation}
\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(d\theta)\stackrel{d}{\to }\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{\sqrt{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}}^{(k)}(d\theta)
\end{equation}
\noindent as $n\to\infty$ (for the definition of $\mu_{\sqrt{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}}^{(k)}(d\theta)$ see the appendix).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider the function $F:\mathbb{C}^k\to \mathbb{C}$,
\begin{equation}
F(z_1,...,z_k)=\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^k\frac{1}{\sqrt{j}}\left((\alpha-i\beta)z_j e^{-ij\theta}+(\alpha+i\beta)\overline{z_j}e^{ij\theta}\right)}d\theta.
\end{equation}
This is continuous as $g$ is bounded, so we see (by \cite[Theorem 4.27]{kallenberg}) that Theorem \ref{th:ds} implies that
\begin{align}
\notag F\left(\mathrm{Tr}U_n,...,\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\mathrm{Tr}U_n^k\right)=&\int_0^{2\pi}f_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(\theta)g(\theta)\frac{d\theta}{2\pi}\\
&\stackrel{d}{\to}\int_0^{2\pi} e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^k\frac{1}{\sqrt{j}}\left((\alpha-i\beta)Z_j e^{-ij\theta}+(\alpha+i\beta)Z_j^*e^{ij\theta}\right)}d\theta\\
\notag &\stackrel{d}{=}\int_0^{2\pi} e^{\frac{\sqrt{\alpha^2+\beta^2}}{2}\sum_{j=1}^k\frac{1}{\sqrt{j}}\left(Z_j e^{ij\theta}+Z_j^*e^{-ij\theta}\right)}d\theta
\end{align}
\noindent as $n\to \infty$. Here $(Z_j)_j$ are i.i.d. standard complex Gaussians and we used again the fact that for any $\phi\in \mathbb{R}$, $(e^{i\phi}Z_j)_j\stackrel{d}{=}(-Z_j)_j$ as well as the fact that $(Z_j)_j\stackrel{d}{=}(Z_j^*)_j$. Now combining this with Lemma \ref{le:const} gives the desired result.
\end{proof}
As $\mu_{\sqrt{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}}$ is defined to be the limit of $\mu_{\sqrt{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}}^{(k)}$, this immediately implies that for continuous functions $g$, as we first let $n\to\infty$ and then $k\to\infty$,
\begin{equation}
\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(d\theta)\stackrel{d}{\to}\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{\sqrt{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}}(d\theta)
\end{equation}
Putting things together, we conclude that
\begin{equation}
\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{n,\alpha,\beta}(d\theta)\stackrel{d}{\to}\int_0^{2\pi}g(\theta)\mu_{\sqrt{\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}}}(d\theta)
\end{equation}
\noindent which was what we wanted to prove.
\section{Discussion and open problems}
The main goal of this article was to prove a new type of geometric limit theorem describing the asymptotic behavior of the characteristic polynomial of a large random unitary matrix and thus linking random matrix theory to the theory of Gaussian multiplicative chaos. As noted in the introduction, to the author's knowledge, this is the first rigorous proof of such a link. From the point of view of random matrix theory, this connection sheds light on the global multifractal structure of the eigenvalues of a CUE matrix, and gives one new tools for studying some asymptotic properties of the eigenvalues. From the point of view of Gaussian multiplicative chaos, this is - to the author's knowledge - the first non-trivial model where Gaussian multiplicative chaos appears naturally. By non-trivial we mean here an approximation of a Gaussian field that is neither Gaussian nor a martingale, and appears naturally from other considerations. From either point of view, this connection suggests exciting new questions to explore and we discuss some of them here.
\subsection{Other values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$}
Non-trivial multiplicative chaos measures $e^{\gamma X(\theta)-\frac{\gamma^{2}}{2}\mathbb{E}(X(\theta)^{2})}d\theta$ can be constructed for all values of $\gamma$. Our restriction to the $L^{2}$-phase i.e. $\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}<2$ was due to the fact that we estimated variances. For $\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}\geq 2$, these variances will blow up and the estimates would no longer be good. Moreover, the condition that $\alpha>-\frac{1}{2}$ was due to asymptotic analysis of the Toeplitz determinant being valid in this regime.
\vspace{0.3cm}
A natural question to ask is then can one go beyond these values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. In the $L^{1}$-phase, namely where the martingale defining the multiplicative chaos measure is uniformly integrable (in our setting this means $\alpha^2+\beta^2<4$), one could expect that perhaps instead of estimating variances one could estimate moments of order $p$ with $1<p<2$. While this would seem to make the Toeplitz determinant approach impossible, perhaps there is a way to rely on variance estimates as is common in multiplicative chaos theory (there moments of order $p$ are often estimated using variance estimates in a clever way).
\vspace{0.3cm}
Going out of the $L^{1}$-phase, the construction of multiplicative chaos measures becomes much more challenging (it is no longer enough to normalize by the mean - see \cite{drsv1,drsv2,rvm} - and presumably one will need a different kind of approach in this regime. A related question is studying the maximum of $\log |p_n(\theta)|$. The conjecture of Fyodorov and Keating is that this should behave like the maximum of a log-correlated field (see \cite{mad,bdz,drz}). In the case of a log-correlated field, the multiplicative chaos measures play a role in understanding the behavior of the maximum. Again, analyzing this in the case of $\log |p_n(\theta)|$ will presumably require some other kind of approach.
\vspace{0.3cm}
It might also be possible to relax the $\alpha>-\frac{1}{2}$ condition to some degree. For example, in the case of a single Fisher-Hartwig singularity, the condition that $\mathrm{Re}(\alpha_0)>-\frac{1}{2}$ in Theorem \ref{th:fh} can be significantly relaxed - see \cite{ehrhardt}.
\vspace{0.3cm}
Another natural extension is to the case of complex $\alpha$ and $\beta$ (for simplicity, let us discuss the $L^{2}$ phase). Indeed as remarked in the appendix (see Remark \ref{rem:cplx}) complex Gaussian multiplicative chaos can be considered. Also asymptotics of Toeplitz determinants with complex parameters are known. The issue here is that for complex parameters, $\log D_{n-1}(\sigma_{3,\theta,\theta'})$ may have singularities for some values of $\theta,\theta'$ - see Theorem 1.8 in \cite{claeyskrasovsky}. That being said, these singularities should correspond to zeros in the asymptotics of $D_{n-1}(\sigma_{3,\theta,\theta'})$ (see Remark 1.9 in \cite{claeyskrasovsky}) so they should not be problematic.
\subsection{Other random matrix models}
Another natural question is what depends on the special structure of the CUE here. The author's guess is that perhaps this connection between multiplicative chaos and random matrix theory is quite universal. There are many random matrix models where the fluctuations of the characteristic polynomial are log-correlated Gaussian fields: the GUE, one-dimensional $\beta$-ensembles, the Ginibre ensemble, and random normal matrices\cite{fs,johansson,rv,ahm}. Moreover, for the GUE, there are results in \cite{krasovsky} corresponding to Theorem \ref{th:fh} here and one essentially needs to modify the results in \cite{claeyskrasovsky} to the GUE setting to prove a result as ours in the GUE case. Again in the GUE case presumably the $L^{2}$-phase is the simplest one and extending beyond that may be difficult. For conjectures regarding for example the maximum of the characteristic polynomial, see \cite{fs2}.
\vspace{0.3cm}
What is common for all of these mentioned models is that they are $\beta$-ensembles. Indeed, for when the Dyson index $\beta$ equals 2 in a one-dimensional model (on the real axis or the unit circle), our approach will lead to a Toeplitz or Hankel determinant whose analysis is presumably possible under suitable regularity conditions. In fact, generalizing our result to the case with a non-trivial potential on the unit circle (say analytic in a neighborhood of the unit circle) should not require much. The much more complicated question is what can one do in the two-dimensional case or when $\beta\neq 2$ and a Riemann-Hilbert approach might not exist.
\subsection{Limiting distribution of the total mass}
We also point out a conjecture of Fyodorov and Bouchaud \cite{fb} on the total mass of the measure $\mu_\beta$. Combining this with our results suggests a conjecture on the asymptotic distribution of powers of the absolute value of the characteristic polynomial. There they provide an analytic continuation of the positive integer moments of the total mass and conjecture that the law of the total mass can be given in terms of negative powers of an exponentially distributed random variable. Such an analytic continuation is not unique (only finitely many positive integer moments exist so they can't determine the distribution) so this result is still an open question.
\section*{Appendix: Gaussian Multiplicative Chaos and Sobolev Spaces}
As mentioned in the introduction, Gaussian Multiplicative Chaos is a theory due to Kahane \cite{kahane}. One of the consequences of the theory is that it provides a method for exponentiating Gaussian fields with a logarithmic singularity in their covariance. More precisely, assume that one has a centered Gaussian field $(X(x))_{x\in A}$, where $A$ is say some open subset of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and the covariance kernel $C(x,y)=\mathbb{E}(X(x)X(y))$ has a logarithmic singularity: $C(x,y)\sim -\log |x-y|$ as $x\to y$. The goal is to construct a random measure of the form $e^{X(x)-\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}(X(x)^{2})}dx$.
\vspace{0.3cm}
Due to the logarithmic singularity in the covariance of $X$, the field can not be realized as a random function, though it can be understood as a random distribution. In any event, the exponentiation can not be performed directly. The most natural way to do it is to regularize $X$ into a function say $X_n$ (where $X_n\to X$ in some suitable sense as $n\to\infty$), construct the measure $e^{X_n(x)-\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}(X_n(x)^{2})}dx$, and if this converges to some limiting measure, interpret the limit as $e^{X(x)-\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}(X(x)^{2})}dx$.
\vspace{0.3cm}
One then is posed with the question of how should the field be regularized. One would naturally want the regularization to behave nicely with respect to a limiting procedure. One of the simplest random objects with rich limit theory is a martingale. This was Kahane's approach and his fundamental theorem is the following (see \cite{kahane,gmcrev}).
\begin{theorem}[Kahane]
Assume that for $x,y\in A$, $T>0$ and a continuous and bounded function $g$,
\begin{equation}
C(x,y)=\log \frac{T}{|x-y|}+g(x,y),
\end{equation}
\noindent and assume that we have a decomposition
\begin{equation}
C(x,y)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}K_k(x,y),
\end{equation}
\noindent where $K_k$ are continuous and positive definite covariance kernels. Then if one defines on the same probability space the centered Gaussian random fields $(Y_k)_{k=1}^{\infty}$ , where $Y_k$ is independent of $Y_{k'}$ for $k\neq k'$ and $Y_k$ has covariance $K_k$, as well as the fields $X_n=\sum_{k=1}^{n}Y_k$ then for $\beta\in \mathbb{R}$, the measures
\begin{equation}
M_{\beta,n}(dx)=e^{\beta X_n(x)-\frac{\beta^{2}}{2}\sum_{k=1}^{n}K_k(x,x)}dx
\end{equation}
\noindent converge almost surely in the space of Radon measures (with respect to the topology of weak convergence) to some random measure $M_\beta(dx)$. This measure is non-trivial for $\beta^{2}<2d$ and the zero measure for $\beta^{2}\geq 2d$. If all of the $K_k$ in the decomposition of $C$ are non-negative, the law of $M_\beta$ is independent of the specific decomposition.
\end{theorem}
Our interest will be in the field $X$ which can be viewed as the restriction of the whole plane Gaussian Free Field restricted to the unit circle, namely it has covariance $\mathbb{E}(X(\theta)X(\theta'))=-\frac{1}{2}\log |e^{i\theta}-e^{i\theta'}|$ (we choose the normalizing constant $\frac{1}{2}$ simply to be consistent in notation). To make precise sense of this object, we interpret it as an element of a Sobolev space.
\begin{definition}
For $s\in \mathbb{R}$, consider the space of formal Fourier series
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}^{s}=\left.\left\lbrace f\sim \sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}}f_k e^{ik\theta}\right|\sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}}(1+k^{2})^{s}|f_k|^{2}<\infty\right\rbrace
\end{equation}
\noindent with inner product
\begin{equation}
\langle f,g\rangle_s=\sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}}(1+k^{2})^{s}f_k g_k^{*}.
\end{equation}
The subspace $\lbrace f\in \mathcal{H}^{s}|f_0=0\rbrace$ is denoted by $\mathcal{H}_0^{s}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
These are Hilbert spaces for all values of $s\in \mathbb{R}$. Moreover, for $s\geq 0$, they can be interpreted as subspaces of square integrable functions on the unit circle while for $s<0$ they are dual spaces of these and can be interpreted as spaces of generalized functions.
\end{remark}
One can then check that if $(Z_k)_{k=1}^{\infty}$ are i.i.d. standard complex Gaussians, then
\begin{equation}
X:=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\left(Z_k e^{ik\theta}+Z_k^{*}e^{-ik\theta}\right)
\end{equation}
\noindent is almost surely an element of $\mathcal{H}_0^{-s}$ for any $s>0$ and it has covariance kernel $-\frac{1}{2}\log |e^{i\theta}-e^{i\theta'}|$. Moreover, being a sum of i.i.d. Gaussian terms, this fits immediately into Kahane's theorem. Let us make the following definition:
\begin{definition}
Let $(Z_i)_{i=1}^{\infty}$ be i.i.d. standard complex Gaussians and
\begin{equation}
X_n(\theta)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}(Z_ke^{ik\theta}+Z_k^{*}e^{-ik\theta}).
\end{equation}
Moreover, let
\begin{equation}
\mu_\beta^{(k)}(d\theta)=e^{\beta X_k(\theta)-\frac{\beta^{2}}{2}\mathbb{E}(X_k(\theta)^{2})}d\theta
\end{equation}
\noindent and
\begin{equation}
\mu_\beta(d\theta)=\lim_{k\to\infty}\mu_\beta^{(k)}(d\theta)
\end{equation}
\noindent which exists for all $\beta\in \mathbb{R}$ (when the limit is in the topology of weak convergence) and is non-trivial for $|\beta|<2$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Note that the measures appearing in our case are $\mu_\beta$ for $|\beta|<\sqrt{2}$. This corresponds to the situation where $\mathbb{E}(\mu_\beta([0,2\pi))^{2})<\infty$ or "the $L^{2}$-phase".
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Note that we don't have the positivity of the covariances required for the uniqueness in Kahane's theorem, so it is not immediately clear that this measure is the same one gets through other constructions such as the one in \cite{ajks}. There have recently been generalizations to the construction of Kahane, see e.g. \cite{gmcrevisited,ongmc}. In particular, uniqueness questions relevant to our situation have been addressed in \cite{ongmc}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:cplx}
We point out that it is natural to consider such objects also for a complex parameter $\beta$. In this case, these objects might not be complex measures: the total variation of the measure $e^{\beta X_n(\theta)-\frac{\beta^{2}}{2}\mathbb{E}(X_n(\theta)^{2})}d\theta$ is $e^{\mathrm{Re}(\beta) X_n(\theta)-\frac{\mathrm{Re}(\beta)^{2}-\mathrm{Im}(\beta)^{2}}{2}\mathbb{E}(X_n(\theta)^{2})}d\theta$. As $e^{\mathrm{Re}(\beta) X_n(\theta)-\frac{\mathrm{Re}(\beta)^{2}}{2}\mathbb{E}(X_n(\theta)^{2})}d\theta$ will converge to a non-trivial chaos measure (for small enough $\mathrm{Re}(\beta)$) it is reasonable to expect that for any $\beta$ with $\mathrm{Im}(\beta)\neq 0$, the $e^{\frac{\mathrm{Im}(\beta)^2}{2}\mathbb{E}(X_n(\theta)^2)}$-term will cause the total variation of the limit $e^{\beta X(\theta)-\frac{\beta^2}{2}\mathbb{E}(X(\theta)^2)}d\theta/2\pi$ to be almost surely infinite, so perhaps it can't be understood as a complex measure. One possibility for a natural interpretation of $e^{\beta X(\theta)-\frac{\beta^{2}}{2}\mathbb{E}(X(\theta)^{2})}$ is as a random distribution, for example an element of $\mathcal{H}^{-s}$ for large enough $s>0$. Much of the reasoning goes through here too - one can use martingale arguments etc. For further results on complex Gaussian multiplicative chaos, see for example \cite{bmj,gmccomplex}.
\end{remark}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The author wishes to thank Antti Kupiainen, Eero Saksman, Yan Fyodorov, and Nicholas Simm for useful discussions. This work was partly supported by the Academy of Finland. The author also wishes to thank two anonymous referees for their careful reading of the manuscript and helpful remarks.
|
\section{Introduction}
In 1970, Codd \cite{Codd1970} introduced the relational model as an alternative to the graph and network models (such as file systems) in order to provide a more suitable interface to users, and to protect them from internal representations (``data independence'').
The relational model's first implementation was made public in 1976 by IBM \cite{Astrahan1976}.
In the last four decades, the relational model has been enjoying undisputed popularity and has been widely used in enterprise environments. This is probably because it is both very simple to understand and universal. Furthermore, it is accessible to business users without IT knowledge, to whom tabular structures are very natural --- as demonstrated by the strong usage of spreadsheet software \cite{Mattessich1958} \cite{Mattessich1961} (such as Microsoft Excel, Apple Numbers, Lotus 1-2-3, OpenOffice Calc) as well as user-friendly front-ends (such as Microsoft Access).
However, in the years 2000s, the exponential explosion of the quantity of data to deal with increasingly showed the limitations of this model. Several companies, such as Google, Facebook or Twitter needed scaling up and out beyond the capabilities of any RDBMS, both because of the \emph{quantity} of data (rows), and because of the \emph{high dimensionality} of this data (columns). Each of them built their own, ad-hoc data management system (Big Table \cite{Chang2008}, Cassandra \cite{Lakshman2010}, ...). These technologies often share the same design ideas (scale out through clustering and replication, high dimensionality handling through data heterogeneity and tree structures), which led to the popular common denomination of NoSQL, a common roof for:
\begin{description}
\item[Key-value stores,] which store big collections of key-value pairs. Example: DynamoDB.
\item[Document stores,] which are document-oriented, typically supporting XML \cite{XML} or JSON \cite{JSON}. Example: MongoDB.
\item[Column stores,] which keep the table abstraction while allowing some sparseness. Example: Cassandra.
\item[Graph databases,] which work at the lower triple level. Example: Neo4j.
\end{description}
NoSQL solves the scale-up issue, but at a two-fold cost:
\begin{description}
\item[For developers,] the level of abstraction provided by NoSQL stores is much lower than that of the relational model. These data stores often provide limited querying capability such as point or range queries, insert, delete and update (CRUD). Higher-level operations such as joins must be implemented in a host language, on a case by case basis.
\item[For business users,] these data models are much less natural than tabular data. Reading and editing data formats such as XML, JSON requires at least basic IT knowledge. Furthermore, business users should not have to deal with indexes at all.
\end{description}
This is a major step back from Codd's intentions back in the 1970s, as the very representations he wanted to protect users from (tree-like data structures, storage, ...) are pushed back to the user.
Reluctance can be observed amongst non-technical users, and this might explain why the ``big three'' (Oracle, Microsoft, IBM) are heavily pushing towards using of the SQL language \cite{Chamberlin1974} on top of these data stores.
This paper introduces the cell store data paradigm, whose goal is to (i) leverage the technological advancements made in the last decade, while (ii) bringing back to business users control and understanding over their data. The cell store paradigm was vastly inspired by and abstracted from the XBRL standard \cite{XBRL}, which defines a serialization format for exchanging facts. Historically, cell stores were precisely designed in order to efficiently store and retrieve XBRL data. With time, this paradigm was decoupled from XBRL in such a way that it could also accommodate for data beyond business reporting. In particular, relational data can also be dropped into a cell store.
Cell stores are at a sweet spot between on the one hand key-value stores, in that they scale up seamlessly and gracefully in the quantity of data as well as the dimensionality of the data, and on the other hand the relational model, in that business users access the data in tabular views via familiar, spreadsheet-like interfaces.
Section \ref{section-state-of-the-art} gives an overview of state of the art technologies for storing large quantities of highly dimensional data and their shortcomings. Section \ref{section-why} motivates the need for the cell stores paradigm. Section \ref{section-data-model} introduces the data model behind cell stores. Section \ref{section-relational-mapping} shows how a relational database can be stored naturally in a cell store. Section \ref{section-xbrl-standard} points out that there is a standard format, XBRL, for exchanging data between cell stores as well as other databases. Section \ref{section-implementation} gives implementation-level details. Section \ref{section-performance} explores performance.
\section{State of the art}
Before introducing the cell store paradigm in details, we quickly survey the current database/datastore landscape.
\label{section-state-of-the-art}
\subsection{Relational databases}
Relational databases are a very mature and stable technology, used everywhere in the world. It is based on the entity-relationship model and the powerful relational algebra, relying on the functional and declarative SQL language \cite{Chamberlin1974}. It has the advantage that tables are very business friendly and easy to understand.
However, relational databases showed their limits in the last decade, because they are monolithic and hard to scale up and out when the amount of data reaches the Terabyte to Petabyte range. It is very hard and expensive to make a relational schema evolve when the data is spread across multiple machines.
Also, it is very challenging to maintain ACID properties \cite{Haerder1983} beyond one machine, which is why a newer generation of databases was designed, dubbed as NoSQL even though they are diverse (key-value stores, document stores, column stores, etc.). ACID got replaced with the idea induced by the CAP theorem \cite{Gilbert2002} that consistency must be relaxed in order to ensure availability and partition tolerance.
\subsection{Key-value stores}
Key-value stores provide a very simple level of abstraction, organizing the data as collections of key-value pairs. A collection can be partitioned across several machines, as well as replicated. Indexes allow very efficient data retrieval. Key-value stores are very friendly to powerful parallelism frameworks such as MapReduce, as stateless mappings can be performed in parallel in each location where the data lies.
Key-value stores offer a very low-level interface that requires programmatic abilities to interact with.
An example of popular key-value store is Amazon DynamoDB \cite{DeCandia2007}.
\subsection{Document stores}
Document stores are centered on the concept of document. It can be seen as a key-value store where values are not black boxes, but instead are XML \cite{XML}, JSON \cite{JSON}, YAML \cite{YAML} or protocol buffers \cite{ProtocolBuffers} (or even word processor, spreadsheet, files, ...) documents. Documents are often arborescent and organized in heterogeneous collections. Secondary indexes can be built based on the content of these documents.
Document stores often offer a very basic query language that allows filtering and projecting documents. They require a host language on top to implement more elaborate functionality such as joins.
Popular document stores include MongoDB \cite{MongoDB}, Cloudant \cite{Cloudant}, CouchDB \cite{CouchDB}, ElasticSearch \cite{ElasticSearch}.
\subsection{Column stores}
Column stores, like relational databases, are table centric, but offer much more flexibility. In particular, they can be very sparse, because each row (specifically, a sequence of columns) may have several absent columns (heterogeneity). Column store typically denormalize the data, optimizing projection and selection, avoiding the need for joins as much as possible.
However, private key columns are rigid, and all rows within a table must have exactly the private keys required by the schema. Tables must be created for each different private key topology.
Popular column stores include BigTable \cite{Chang2008}, HBase \cite{HBase}, Cassandra \cite{Lakshman2010}.
\subsection{OLAP}
OLAP \cite{Codd1993} stands for OnLine Analytical Processing and targets dimensional data (data cubes). Data can be sliced and diced, aggregated (roll ups). OLAP is compatible with spreadsheet front ends using pivot table to visualize the data in a business-friendly way. The MDX language \cite{Nolan1999} is a standard way of querying for data cubes. There are two main flavors of OLAP:
\begin{description}
\item[ROLAP] Data cubes are stored in tables organized in a star or snowflake setting: a central table with the data, and one additional table for each dimension. ROLAP is very rigid, and tables must be created for each data cube.
\item[MOLAP] Data cubes are stored in an efficient proprietary format in memory. Data cubes that are queried often are precomputed and pre-aggregated. MOLAP reaches its limits as soon as data cube queries are more diverse and hard to predict in advance.
\end{description}
A third flavor, HOLAP, is a hybrid of the two. OLAP does not scale up well beyond a few hundred dimensions.
The main vendors (IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP) offer an OLAP implementation.
\subsection{Graph databases}
Graph databases manipulate graphs, mostly implemented as collections of triples (subject, attribute, object). The most used query language is SPARQL \cite{SPARQL}.
Graph databases are very useful when dealing with semantic data, ontologies and AI. However, when dealing with structured data, they become inefficient, because each single structured query needs to join multiple triples and aggregate them back into a meaningful format.
Graph database implementations include ArangoDB \cite{ArangoDB}, Neo4j \cite{Neo4j}.
\subsection{Spreadsheet software}
Surprisingly, the biggest database in the world might well be all those spreadsheet files lying around in mail boxes. This illustrates an impedance mismatch between business use cases and database solutions.
Creating a database or a table on the servers often requires interacting with IT administrators. Many business users end up filling in their data into a spreadsheet and sending it to their colleagues. The data is copied -- sometimes even rekeyed from printed paper -- and sent again. This leads to:
\begin{description}
\item[Data duplication] There exists several versions of the same data.
\item [Inconsistencies] It is not clear where the latest data is, and people might not agree or not know which values are correct among multiple files.
\item[Mistakes] Upon copying or rekeying, mistakes can be introduced by humans that could have been avoided with a database.
\item[High HR costs] People copying, rekeying and sending e-mails has a concrete cost.
\item[Information leak] E-mails can be sent, by mistake or not, outside of the company.
\end{description}
Cell stores aim at keeping the excellent and proven spreadsheet interface, while fixing these issues by seamlessly integrating the spreadsheet with a database backend.
\section{Why cell stores}
\label{section-why}
Cell stores leverage the advantage of the aforementioned state-of-the-art technologies:
\begin{itemize}
\item Like key-value stores and document stores, they scale out with heterogeneous data. The data can be distributed across a cluster, replicated, and efficiently retrieved. They are also compatible with MapReduce-like parallelism paradigms.
\item Like the relational model, cell stores expose the table abstraction.
\item Like column stores, cell stores focus on projection and selection, and denormalize the data.
\item Like document stores, schemas are not needed upfront and can be provided at will at query time.
\item Like OLAP, cell stores expose the data cube abstraction to the user.
\item Cell stores can handle highly dimensional data, because storage works at the cell level.
\item Cell stores expose the data via a familiar spreadsheet-like interface to the business users, who are in complete control of their taxonomies (schemas) and rules.
\end{itemize}
\section{The Cell Store Data Model}
\label{section-data-model}
We now introduce the data model behind cell stores. All examples are fictitious (names, numbers).
\subsection{Gas of cells}
As the name ``cell store'' indicates, the first class citizen in this paradigm is the cell. In the OLAP and XBRL \cite{XBRL} universes, it is also called fact, or measure. In the spreadsheet universe, it really corresponds to a cell. In the relational database universe, it corresponds to a single value on a row.
The cell can be seen as an atom of data, in that it represents the smallest possibly reportable unit of data. It has a single value, and this value is associated with dimensional coordinates that are string-value pairs. These dimensional coordinates are also called aspects, or properties, or characteristics. They uniquely identify a cell, and a consistent cell store should not contain any two cells with the exact same dimensional pairs. Nevertheless, cell stores are able to handle collisions elegantly, that is, no fatal error is thrown if or when this happens.
There are no limits to the number of dimension names and their value space. Cell stores scale up seamlessly with the total number of dimensions. There is only one required dimension called \emph{concept}, which describes \emph{what} the value represents. All other dimensions are left to the user's imagination, although typically a validity period (instant or duration: when), an entity (who), a unit (of what), a transaction time, etc, are to be commonly found as well.
Figure \ref{fig-cell} shows an example of a single cell.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\caption{A cell. Each dimension is associated with a value. The value of the cell is shown at the bottom.}
\label{fig-cell}
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
Dimension & Value \\
\hline
Concept & Assets \\
Period & Sept. 30th, 2012 \\
Entity & Visto \\
Unit & US Dollars \\
Region & United States \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{3,000,000,000}} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{figure}
The main idea of the cell store paradigm is that there is a single one, big collection of cells. All the data is in this collection, and on a logical level, this collection is not partitioned or ordered in any (logical) way. An analogy can be made with a gas of molecules, where the molecules fly around without any particular order or structure.
In the same way as gas can be stored in containers, the cell gas can (should) be clustered and replicated to enhance the performance of the cell store. Whether clustering is done randomly or following a pattern based on dimension values is mostly driven by optimization and performance based on the use case.
\subsection{Hypercubes}
After cells, the next most important construct is the hypercube. In the cell store paradigm, hypercubes are queries that correspond to both selection and projection in the relational algebra. Unlike in the relational algebra though, selection and projection are the same.
\subsubsection{Point queries and indices}
Now that we have a gas of cells available, we can begin to play with it. The first idea that comes to mind is how to retrieve a cell from the gas (point query).
Point queries leverage the index capabilities of the underlying storage layer. If the cell gas is small and contains many concepts, a single hash index on the \emph{concept} dimension will be enough. For bigger cell gases, other techniques allow scaling up, such as:
\begin{itemize}
\item compound keys: a single index on several dimensions such as \emph{concept}, \emph{period} and \emph{entity}.
\item separate hash keys: use single indices separately, and compute their intersection.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{Hypercube queries}
In technologies such as OLAP, the first class citizen is the hypercube, which can be seen as the \emph{schema}. In cell stores, the hypercube can be seen as the \emph{query}.
A hypercube is a dimensional range (as opposed to dimensional coordinates). It is made of a set of dimensions, and each dimension is associated with a range, which is a set of values. The range can be either an explicit enumeration (for example, for strings), or an interval (like the integers between 10 and 20), or also more complex multi-dimensional ranges (consider Geographic Information Systems (GIS)).
Figure \ref{fig-hypercube} shows an example of hypercube. It looks a bit like a cell, except that there is no value, and dimensions are associated with ranges rather than single values.
A cell belongs to a hypercube if:
\begin{itemize}
\item it has exactly the same dimensions
\item for each dimension, the value belongs to the domain of that dimension as specified in the hypercube
\end{itemize}
Hypercubes may (and will typically) have missing cells or even be sparse.
Figure \ref{fig-hypercube} also shows two cells satisfying the above criterion.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\caption{A hypercube containing 18 cells. Each dimension is associated with a range or set of values. Below it, two cells within this hypercube are shown.}
\label{fig-hypercube}
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
Dimension & Value \\
\hline
Concept & Assets, Equity, Liabilities \\
Period & Sept. 30th, 2012, Dec. 31st, 2012 \\
Entity & Visto, Championcard, American Rapid \\
Unit & US Dollars \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
Dimension & Value \\
\hline
Concept & Equity \\
Period & Dec. 31st, 2012 \\
Entity & Championcard \\
Unit & US Dollars \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{5,000,000,000}} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
Dimension & Value \\
\hline
Concept & Liabilities \\
Period & Dec. 31st, 2012 \\
Entity & American Rapid \\
Unit & US Dollars \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{3,000,000,000}} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{figure}
Like point queries, hypercube queries also leverage indices. Range indices, in addition to, or as an alternative to hash indices, prove particularly useful in the case of numeric or date dimension values. Domain-specific indices like GIS also fit well in this picture.
\subsubsection{Default dimension values}
In cell stores, the number of dimensions and their names vary across cells. Hypercube queries accommodate for this flexibility with the notion of a default dimension value.
Figure \ref{fig-default} shows a hypercube that defines a default value of ``[World]'' for the ``Region'' dimension.
If a hypercube specifies a default value for a given dimension, then the condition that a cell must have that dimension to be included in the hypercube is relaxed. In particular, a cell will also be included if it does not have a ``Region'' dimension. When this happens, an additional dimensional pair is added to the cell on the fly, using the default value as value. This implies that in the end, the set of cells that gets returned for the hypercube query always has exactly the dimensions specified in the hypercube.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\caption{A hypercube using a default dimension value (shown in square brackets). Below it, two cells within this hypercube are shown. In the second cell, the default value was automatically inserted, although it does not appear in the original cell.}
\vspace{3mm}
\label{fig-default}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
Dimension & Value \\
\hline
Concept & Assets, Equity, Liabilities \\
Period & Sept. 30th, 2012 \\
Entity & Visto, Championcard, American Rapid \\
Unit & US Dollars \\
Region & United States, [World] \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
Dimension & Value \\
\hline
Concept & Assets \\
Period & Sept. 30th, 2012 \\
Entity & Visto \\
Unit & US Dollars \\
Region & United States \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{3,000,000,000}} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
Dimension & Value \\
\hline
Concept & Assets \\
Period & Sept. 30th, 2012 \\
Entity & Visto \\
Unit & US Dollars \\
\emph{Region} & \emph{[World]} \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{4,000,000,000}} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{figure}
In particular, a hypercube is highly structured.
\subsubsection{The ``Big Cube''}
Theoretically, it would be feasible to build a hypercube with all dimensions used in the gas of cells, allowing default values for all of these. Then all cells would belong to this hypercube. However, this is an extremely sparse hypercube, and the size of this hypercube would typically be orders of magnitude greater than the entire visible universe.
\subsubsection{Materialized hypercube}
The answer to a hypercube query can be showed in a consolidated way, resembling a relational table. Each column corresponds to a dimension, and the last column to the value. Figure \ref{fig-materialized} shows the materialized hypercube corresponding to the hypercube shown in Figure \ref{fig-default}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\caption{A materialized hypercube. Each row corresponds to one cell. The last column contains the value of the cell, other columns correspond to the dimensions. Default values are automatically inserted, so that this is a highly structured data cube.}
\vspace{3mm}
\label{fig-materialized}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c||c|}
\hline
Concept & Period & Entity & Unit & Region & Value \\
\hline
Assets & Sept. 30th, 2012 & Visto & USD & United States & 3,000,000,000 \\
Assets & Sept. 30th, 2012 & Visto & USD & [World] & 4,000,000,000 \\
Assets & Sept. 30th, 2012 & Championcard & USD & United States & 6,000,000,000 \\
Assets & Sept. 30th, 2012 & Championcard & USD & [World] & 8,000,000,000 \\
Assets & Sept. 30th, 2012 & American Rapid & USD & United States & 5,000,000,000 \\
Assets & Sept. 30th, 2012 & American Rapid & USD & [World] & 9,000,000,000 \\
Equity & Sept. 30th, 2012 & Visto & USD & United States & 2,000,000,000 \\
Equity & Sept. 30th, 2012 & Visto &USD & [World] & 3,000,000,000 \\
Equity & Sept. 30th, 2012 & Championcard & USD & United States & 4,000,000,000 \\
Equity & Sept. 30th, 2012 & Championcard & USD & [World] & 5,000,000,000 \\
Equity & Sept. 30th, 2012 & American Rapid & USD & United States & 3,000,000,000 \\
Equity & Sept. 30th, 2012 & American Rapid & USD & [World] & 6,000,000,000 \\
Liabilities & Sept. 30th, 2012 & Visto & USD & United States & 1,000,000,000 \\
Liabilities & Sept. 30th, 2012 & Visto & USD & [World] & 1,000,000,000 \\
Liabilities & Sept. 30th, 2012 & Championcard & USD & United States & 2,000,000,000 \\
Liabilities & Sept. 30th, 2012 & Championcard & USD & [World] & 3,000,000,000 \\
Liabilities & Sept. 30th, 2012 & American Rapid & USD & United States & 2,000,000,000 \\
Liabilities & Sept. 30th, 2012 & American Rapid & USD & [World] & 3,000,000,000 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Spreadsheet views}
A hypercube can be materialized into a table as shown in the former section. With the state of matter analogy, it can be seen as the solid version of a (very small) subpart of the gas of cells.
From a business viewpoint, tables are very useful because they can be understood without IT knowledge. However, a materialized hypercube displays the multidimensional data under a very raw form. This raw form is actually very common though, so that mainstream spreadsheet software provide a feature that allows interacting with multidimensional data with a better UI. This feature is often called \emph{pivot table} and flattens the data to a two-dimensional sheet.
The dimensions are partitioned amongst:
\begin{description}
\item [Slicers] All the data that does not match the slicers is discarded.
\item [Dicers] They specify, for each row and column, what dimensional constraints the data at their intersection must fulfill.
\item [Values (potentially aggregated)] They specify, for each cell, which property is displayed as well as, if there are several values, how to aggregate them (sum, count, max, min, average, etc).
\end{description}
This functionality is straight-forward to implement on top of a cell store, because the raw data is in exactly the same form. The XBRL specifications also contain a feature called \emph{table link base} that standardizes how to specify such spreadsheet views.
Figure \ref{fig-spreadsheet} shows an example of how the materialized hypercube on Figure \ref{fig-materialized} can be displayed in this more business-oriented manner.
Concretely, the construction of the view can be pushed to the server or the cell store itself:
\begin{itemize}
\item given a hypercube (and possibly the cells it contains, queried from the store), a spreadsheet can be smartly generated. Slicers are taken from all dimensions that only have a single value across the hypercube, concepts can be assigned to the rows and the remaining dimensions to the columns.
\item given a spreadsheet definition (say, table link base), a hypercube can be generated in order to obtain all the relevant cells from the underlying cell store.
\end{itemize}
It is also still possible for a business user to obtain the materialized hypercube from the cell store, and to import it as-is in their spreadsheet software.
As is commonly done in spreadsheets, business users can drag and drop dimensions across the different categories to fine tune their view over the data. Spreadsheet views are not only convenient to read, but also to write data back to the cell store, cell by cell. Compared to the cell gas and the solid materialized hypercube, the spreadsheet view is comparable to a metal that gets melted before the blacksmith can shape it at will.
Hence, because cell stores can use all the experience accumulated over several decades on pivot tables from the spreadsheet industry, they offer a powerful and business friendly interface, shielding users from the underlying dimensional complexity.
To a business user, working with a cell store feels like working on a spreadsheet, except that:
\begin{itemize}
\item the size of the data is orders of magnitude bigger than a spreadsheet file;
\item the data lies on a server and is shared across a department or a company;
\item the latest database technologies are leveraged under the hood to scale up and out, without the need to go through the IT department for each change in the business taxonomy.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\caption{A spreadsheet view over a hypercube, for viewing and editing data without IT knowledge. The display style used here is done in the spirit of XBRL table link bases. In this case, concepts are put on rows and the other dimensions on filters or on columns. The spreadsheet front end can support drag-and-drop, allowing the user to interactively rearrange rows, columns and filters. Note how default values are handled with L-shape cells.}
\label{fig-spreadsheet}
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Unit} & \multicolumn{6}{|l|}{USD} \\
\hline
\textbf{Period} & \multicolumn{6}{|l|}{Sept. 30th, 2012 } \\
\hline
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{Line items} & \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{\textbf{Entity}} \\
\cline{2-7}
& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Visto} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Championcard} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{American Rapid} \\
\cline{2-7}
& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{Region}} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{Region}} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{Region}} \\
\cline{2-2}\cline{4-4}\cline{6-6}
& United States & & United States & & United States & \\
\hline
\hline
Assets & 3,000,000,000 & 4,000,000,000 & 6,000,000,000 & 8,000,000,000 & 5,000,000,000 & 9,000,000,000 \\
\hline
Equity & 2,000,000,000 & 3,000,000,000 & 4,000,000,000 & 5,000,000,000 & 3,000,000,000 & 6,000,000,000 \\
\hline
Liabilities & 1,000,000,000 & 1,000,000,000 & 2,000,000,000 & 3,000,000,000 & 2,000,000,000 & 3,000,000,000 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Maps}
When many people define their own taxonomy, this often ends up in redundant terminology. For example, someone might use the term Equity and somebody else Capital. When either querying cells with a hypercube, or loading cells into a spreadsheet, a mapping can be applied so that this redundant terminology is transparent. This way, when a user asks for Equity, (i) she will also get the cells having the concept Capital, (ii) and it will be transparent to her because the Capital concept is overridden with the expected value Equity.
\subsection{Rules}
One of the reasons spreadsheets are very popular is that formulas can be entered into cells to automatically compute values.
Cell stores support an equivalent capability called \emph{rules}. Like maps, rules are executed in a transparent way during a hypercube query, or when a spreadsheet is requested.
From a high-level perspective, cell stores support two kinds of rules:
\begin{description}
\item[Imputation] rules compute a value for a missing cell (i.e., dimensional coordinates against which no value was reported). When generated, this cell comes along with an audit trail that indicates how the value was computed, and from which other cells.
\item[Validation] rules check that the value for a given cell is consistent with the values reported in other cells (often neighbors in the spreadsheet view). A validation rule typically results in a green tick or a red cross in the corresponding cell on the spreadsheet view.
\end{description}
Rules can be defined according to several metapatterns, as defined by Charles Hoffman. It is most intuitive to think about them having in mind the spreadsheet view.
\begin{description}
\item [Roll Up] Several cells with different concepts (but with the exact same other dimensions) are aggregated (often with a sum) into a roll up value. This corresponds to summing across a column or row in Excel.
\item [Roll Forward] A value for a new instant in time is deduced from the equivalent value at a former time, as well as from the delta value on the corresponding time interval.
\item [Compound Fact] This is the same as a roll up, except that instead of the concept varying, the aggregation is computed against a different dimension.
\item [Adjustment] This is similar to a roll forward, except that the time correspond to transaction time, not valid time, and the delta corresponds to a correction or an amendment.
\item [Variance] This is similar to a compound fact, except that the dimension used has the semantics of two different scenarios.
\item [Complex Computation] This is a generalized roll up.
\item [Grid] This metapattern involves the conjunction of two other metapatterns, for example, in the spreadsheet view, a roll up on the rows and a compound fact on the columns.
\end{description}
To facilitate the definition of rules, concepts and dimension values are organized in hierarchies. For example, a roll up is typically a parent's being the sum of its children. Arborescent formats such as JSON or XML cover this need well.
\section{Canonical mapping to the relational model}
\label{section-relational-mapping}
There is a direct, two-way canonical mapping between hypercubes and relational tables.
A materialized hypercube can be converted to a relational table with equivalent semantics by removing the Concept column, and replacing the Value column with one column for each concept, as shown on Figure \ref{fig-relationalized}. The set of all attributes corresponding to the dimension columns acts as a primary key to the table.
\begin{figure*}
\caption{A relational table corresponding to a hypercube. The \emph{concept} dimension is handled in a special way: all cells that have the same dimensions, but \emph{concept}, are grouped in a business object, and displayed in the same row.}
\centering
\label{fig-relationalized}
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|}
\hline
Period & Entity & Unit & Region & Assets & Equity & Liabilities \\
\hline
Sept. 30th, 2012 & Visto & USD & United States & 3,000,000,000 & 2,000,000,000 & 1,000,000,000 \\
Sept. 30th, 2012 & Visto & USD & [World] & 4,000,000,000 & 3,000,000,000 & 1,000,000,000 \\
Sept. 30th, 2012 & Championcard & USD & United States & 6,000,000,000 & 4,000,000,000 & 2,000,000,000 \\
Sept. 30th, 2012 & Championcard & USD & [World] & 8,000,000,000 & 5,000,000,000 & 3,000,000,000 \\
Sept. 30th, 2012 & American Rapid & USD & United States & 5,000,000,000 & 3,000,000,000 & 2,000,000,000 \\
Sept. 30th, 2012 & American Rapid & USD & [World] & 9,000,000,000 & 6,000,000,000 & 3,000,000,000 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{figure*}
Conversely, any relational table can be converted to a cell gas and its corresponding hypercube as follows: each attribute in the primary key is converted to a dimension. A cell is
then created for each row and for each value on that row that is not a primary key. This cell is associated with the dimensions values corresponding to the primary keys on the same row, plus the \emph{concept} dimension associated with the name of the attribute corresponding to the column.
The consequence of this is that an entire relational database with multiple tables, or even several relational databases, can be converted into a single cell store. Likewise, relational views can be built dynamically on top of a cell store.
A hypercube query corresponds to both a relational algebra projection and selection: a projection is nothing else than a selection done on the \emph{concept} dimension.
\section{Standardized Data Interchange: XBRL}
\label{section-xbrl-standard}
Many ideas behind the cell store paradigm originate from the XBRL standard \cite{XBRL}. There are three main reasons for this:
\begin{itemize}
\item The XBRL standard was designed by a team who is aware of the needs of business users, and of the challenges of business reporting.
\item It is important that the data stored in a cell store is not locked in this cell store, i.e., that it can be exported in such a way that other users, even not cell store users, can understand it and use it without ETL efforts. The XBRL standard makes sure that this is so: cell stores can import XBRL data, and export their content into the XBRL format.
\item Cell stores were designed with the goal of providing efficient storage and retrieving capabilities for XBRL data. They provide an abstract data model on top of XBRL that is a viable and efficient alternative to other implementations, such as storing each XBRL hypercube in ROLAP, or such as importing raw XBRL filings into an XML database.
\end{itemize}
XBRL is complex and involves many different specifications.
XBRL, on the physical level, uses XML technologies: filings are reported with a (flat) XML format, and metadata (called taxonomies) using XML Schema and XLink.
The counterpart of a cell is called a fact. A numeric fact may also be stamped with information on the precision or the number of decimals.
In XBRL, dimensions are called aspects. There are three ``builtin'' aspects in addition to \emph{concept}: \emph{period}, \emph{entity} and \emph{unit}, and taxonomies may define more dimensions.
Taxonomies define concepts, hypercubes, dimensions, dimension values (members), etc. They can be shared at any level (i.e., reporting authority, company, department, etc) and extended at will.
XBRL Link bases provide metadata information in the form of ``networks'', among which:
\begin{description}
\item[Definition networks] They allow, among others, building hypercubes and specifying which concepts are bound to which hypercubes, which hypercubes have which dimensions, and which dimensions have which values. Dimensions may either have a typed value space, or be an explicitly enumerated set.
\item[Presentation networks] They allow the hierarchization of concepts and dimension values in a spreadsheet view (i.e., a table link base in XBRL). For example, a balance sheet may be divided into an Assets hierarchy and an EquityAndLiabilities hierarchy. A presentation network can also contain abstract concepts, i.e., they are only here to organize and partition other concepts.
\item[Table link bases] They define how a spreadsheet view looks like, i.e., which are the slicers, the dicers, how the dicers are organized in rows and columns, etc.
\item[Calculation networks] They are the simplest kind of roll up rules.
\item[Label networks] They associate business-friendly labels to concepts, dimensions and dimension values, because the latter are often stored in a very raw form that is not palatable to non IT-savvy users.
\item[Formula networks] They define rules to automatically impute or validate fact values.
\end{description}
\section{Implementation}
We now give details on the existing implementation on top of MongoDB (NoLAP), as well as hints on how cell stores could also be implemented on top of other kinds of stores (in particular column stores).
\label{section-implementation}
\subsection{On top of a document store: NoLAP}
The first cell store was implemented on top of a document store (MongoDB \cite{MongoDB}), entirely with the JSONiq language \cite{JSONiq}. The in-memory processing is performed by the Zorba engine \cite{Zorba}. The ETL was made with an existing XBRL processor, in Java. It contains fiscal information reported by public US companies to the SEC. The data is available publicly \cite{SECXBRL.info} for Dow 30 companies. Hypercube queries or spreadsheet queries can be made via a REST API.
From a document store metadata perspective, the implementation is very simple, as only two collections are used:
\begin{figure}
\caption{A cell represented as a JSON object (fact). This is a simplified view, as additional fields may be added in order to optimize queries. The value field is typed and the types are mapped to BSON.}
\label{fig-fact}
\begin{lstlisting}
{
"Aspects" : {
"Concept" : "Assets",
"Period" : "2012-09-30",
"Entity" : "Visto",
"Unit" : "USD"
}
"Value" : 4000000000
}
\end{lstlisting}
\end{figure}
\begin{description}
\item[facts] This is where the data lies. The SEC repository \cite{SECXBRL.info} contains the order of magnitude of one hundred million facts (200 GB). Each fact is a JSON object as depicted on Figure \ref{fig-fact}. Several indexes on the fields used most (concept, entity) make sure hypercube queries are efficient. Hypercube queries can directly be translated to MongoDB queries, and hence almost completely pushed to the server backend.
\item[components] The metadata is stored here (ca. 100 GB). Each component contains a hierarchy of concepts, a couple of hypercubes, a spreadsheet definition, business rules, concept metadata such as labels in various languages, and documentation. Given a component, data cubes or spreadsheet views can be built.
\end{description}
Some additional data such as XBRL filings and filer information, mostly structured, is stored in further collections. However, in view of the relational mapping depicted in Section \ref{section-relational-mapping}, it is planned to also push this data to the cell store itself.
Another collection (concepts) is used in order to optimize querying for concepts, including full text search, and finding out which components they appear in.
\subsection{On top of a column store (e.g., Cassandra)}
From a theoretical viewpoint, a cell store could fit in a sparse Cassandra table, but this would not scale up well: this would require as many primary keys as dimensions, as well as the materialization of default dimension values to special primary key values.
Rather, dimensions could be set up as non-primary-key columns, using a UUID primary key instead. Secondary indices on the dimensional columns ensure efficient hypercube retrieval. In order to take advantage of the flexibility of Cassandra with respect to columns, the \emph{concept} dimension could be handled separately, with all cells corresponding to the same business object (that is, all dimensions but \emph{concept} have the same values) on the same row. This corresponds to the relational mapping mentioned in Section \ref{section-relational-mapping}.
\subsection{On top of a key-value store}
The data in a cell store could be stored in a key-value store, possibly in an optimized format for retrieval and for saving space. However, document stores are more suitable for the storage of metadata, as tree structures are still quite useful for modeling business taxonomies.
\subsection{On top of a graph database}
A cell store could be stored in a graph database, by splitting each cell into several triples: the subject is the cell, it has one predicate for each dimension leading to the dimension value (as an object), and a predicate leading to the cell value. However, this would both lead to an increased number of ``atoms'' (on the order of magnitude of ten times more), and to inefficient retrieval, as each cell must be reassembled from the triples.
\section{Performance}
\label{section-performance}
Measurements were performed on top of the first cell store repository, secxbrl.info.
It contains 200 GB of data (75 millions of cells).
Hypercube queries are done via a REST API, implemented in JSONiq and executed with the underlying Zorba engine. The computation is done on Amazon EC2 machines, and the data is hosted by compose.io, also on Amazon machines in the same region (US East).
It can be seen that retrieval is (by one or two orders of magnitude) less efficient than lower level NoSQL stores (because it is run on top of a NoSQL store, with additional processing machinery). The end goal of this first implementation is to show feasibility (proof of concept), and to show that hypercube queries, maps, rules and spreadsheet queries are performed in a time acceptable by a human, that is, not more than a couple of seconds. This goal is achieved for these simple use cases, and for a repository size above the lower end of typical benchmarks (i.e., 100 GB). Future cell store implementations (for example, a native cell store) are likely to improve this performance: as a rule of thumb, we hope to show that it should be feasible to achieve hypercube query performance close to that of a filtering query in a document store.
\begin{figure*}
\caption{Typical execution times. These were obtained on the proof-of-concept implementation on top of MongoDB, on a repository with 75 millions of cells. The queries were executed through a hypercube-building REST API, and an average was taken on 20 executions). All times are below the threshold acceptable for human interaction.}
\centering
\label{fig-measurements}
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
\hline
Type of query & Number of cells & Time \\
\hline
\hline
Point query & 1 & 200 ms \\
\hline
Query across a row&30& 300 ms \\
\hline
Query across two dimensions&124& 400 ms \\
\hline
Query of all (raw) cells in a component &82& 250 ms \\
\hline
Query of all cells in a component, including mapping, rule execution and validation& 96& 1500 ms \\
\hline
Building a spreadsheet out of a component, including mapping, rule execution and validation & 96 & 1900 ms \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{figure*}
\section{Future Work}
A future version of this paper will contain more elaborate comments on performance and more measurements. Also, we are considering populating a database from the TPC-H benchmark with the relational mapping, and executing TPC-H queries on top, in order to compare with other implementations.
The current cell store implementation focuses on hypercube queries, maps, rules and spreadsheet queries. In the future, it will be desirable to integrate cell stores tightly with MDX and SQL, and investigate how well cell stores scale up for more sophisticated operations such as joins. In other words, MDX queries can be translated to hypercube queries, and SQL queries can be translated to hypercube queries and some additional JSONiq machinery using the relational mapping.
Also, we will continue to work on improving performance. In a farther future, we aim at proving that our assumption that a native cell store implementation (rather than the two-layer approached taken for our first implementation) will deliver significantly better performance.
\section{Conclusion}
Cell stores leverage the latest database technologies, but completely give control over their data to business users. The data is stored at the cell level, in a single, big collection (gas of cells) and can be clustered, replicated, and retrieved efficiently. Cells can be assembled into data cubes with hypercube queries, and assembled into spreadsheet views, with which business users can interact (read, write) with the data. Business users can define their own taxonomies, schemas, maps, rules without any interaction with the IT department.
\section{Acknowledgements}
This is joint work. The implementation of the first cell store on top of a document store has been made as a team effort by Matthias Brantner, William Candillon, Federico Cavalieri (also to be thanked for performing several rounds of proof reading), Dennis Knochenwefel, Alexander Kreutz and myself. We received a lot of very useful advice from Charles Hoffman.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
One of the most principal achievements of observational cosmology is the
discovery of the acceleration of cosmological expansion at present epoch. In
order to explain accelerating cosmological expansion in the framework of
General Relativity Theory (GR), the notion of dark energy (or quintessence) as
some hypothetical kind of gravitating matter with negative pressure was
introduced. Then the explanation of cosmological acceleration in the frame of
GR leads to conclusion that approximately 70\% of energy in our Universe is
related to dark energy.
In the frame of standard $\Lambda CDM$-model the dark energy is associated with
cosmological constant $\Lambda$, which is related to the vacuum energy density
of matter fields. In terms of quantum field theory the vacuum energy density
diverges and can be eliminated by means of renormalization procedure. At the
same time the value of cosmological constant $\Lambda$, which is introduced
into gravitational equations of GR manually, is very small and close to average
energy density in the Universe at present epoch.
Another situation takes place in the framework of gravitation theory in the
Riemann-Cartan spacetime $U_4$ - Poincar\'e gauge theory of gravity (PGTG) (see
\cite{mgkJCAP} and Refs herein). At first it should be noted that the PGTG is
natural and in certain sense necessary generalization of metric gravitation
theory by applying the local gauge invariance principle to gravitational
interaction, if the Lorentz group is included into the gauge group which
corresponds to gravitational interaction
\cite{kibble,brodskii,sciama,hehl1,hayashi}. In the frame of PGTG the effective
cosmological constant appears in cosmological equations by virtue of the most
complicated structure of physical spacetime, notably by spacetime torsion
\cite{a12,a19}. As it was shown in \cite{a19}, the physical spacetime in the
vacuum (in absence of gravitating matter) in the frame of PGTG in general case
has the structure of Riemann-Cartan continuum with de Sitter metrics, but not
Minkowski spacetime. Corresponding results were obtained by analyzing isotropic
cosmology built in the frame of PGTG based on general expression of
gravitational Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{\mathrm{g}}$ including both a scalar
curvature and invariants quadratic in the curvature and torsion tensors with
indefinite parameters (see \cite{a19,mgkJCAP} and Refs herein).
\footnote{Similar results were discussed later in \cite{chee1,chee2,qi} by
using the gravitational Lagrangian simplified in comparison with
\cite{a12,a19}.} From the point of view of PGTG the effect of gravitational
repulsion leading to accelerating cosmological expansion at present epoch has
the vacuum origin and it is connected with the change of gravitational
interaction provoked by spacetime torsion without any dark energy.
The principal change of gravitational interaction takes place also in the
beginning of cosmological expansion, when the energy density $\rho$ and
pressure $p$ have extremely high values: by virtue of existence of limiting
energy density, close to which the gravitational interaction in the case of
usual matter satisfying standard energy conditions is repulsive, isotropic
cosmology is regular \cite{a21}. The regularity takes place not only with
respect to energy density and metric characteristics (scale factor of
Robertson-Walker metric, Hubble parameter with its time derivative), but also
with respect to torsion and curvature functions \cite{a22}. It should be noted
that indicated physical results were obtained by certain restrictions on
indefinite parameters of gravitational Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{\mathrm{g}}$ (see
below). Additional restrictions on indefinite parameters can be found by
investigation presented below of cosmological models for accelerating Universe.
The present paper is devoted to analysis of homogeneous isotropic models (HIM)
with two torsion functions with the purpose to obtain asymptotically stable
solutions for accelerating Universe. At first in Section 2 the principal
relations of isotropic cosmology built in the frame of PGTG and using in this
paper are given.
\section{\label{secii}Principal relations of isotropic cosmology in Riemann-Cartan spacetime}
In the framework of PGTG the role of gravitational field variables play the
tetrad $h^i{}_\mu$ and the Lorentz connection $A^{ik}{}_\mu$; corresponding
field strengths are the torsion tensor $S^i{}_{\mu\nu}$ and the curvature
tensor $F^{ik}{}_{\mu\nu}$ defined as
\[
S^i{}_{\mu \,\nu } = \partial _{[\nu } \,h^i{}_{\mu ]} - h_{k[\mu }
A^{ik}{}_{\nu ]}\,,
\]
\[
F^{ik}{}_{\mu\nu } = 2\partial _{[\mu } A^{ik}{}_{\nu ]} + 2A^{il}{}_{[\mu }
A^k{}_{|l\,|\nu ]}\,,
\]
where holonomic and anholonomic space-time coordinates are denoted by means of
greek and latin indices respectively.
We will consider the PGTG based on gravitational Lagrangian given in the
following general form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{lagr
|
\section{Introduction}
Radiation plays an important role in several astrophysical processes at different scales, and it is dynamically coupled to the behavior of the gas. In particular, the far ultraviolet (FUV) radiation influences the physical and chemical properties of molecular clouds, while the cosmic rays (CRs) are the dominant ionizating source in both diffuse and dense media, controlling the chemistry. The UV radiation is the main heating source for the gas by regulating the molecule formation rates on the grain surface, but at the same time dust grains shield the inner regions of clouds favoring low temperatures.
The penetration of FUV radiation into molecular clouds has been studied theoretically and numerically \citep{flannery1980, sandell1975, whitworth1975, goicoechea2007} by modeling the properties of dust grains or by simplifying the geometry of the cloud, but crucial for describing the propagation of radiation is to estimate the column densities. Another example is the cosmic-ray ionization rate, which also depends on the value of the column densities. Indeed, several works show that the CR ionization rate decreases with the increasing value of the column density \citep[see][]{takayanagi1973,padovani2009, indriolo2012}.
The correct treatment of the propagation of radiation and the estimation of ionization rates involve calculating column densities, but this calculation can be numerically challenging in high-resolution multidimensional simulations, hence the interest of developing fast and accurate methods.
Some common approximations include methods based on ray-tracing schemes, such as \cite{razoumov2005}, that define ray domains according to the photon travel direction, or stochastic integration methods, such as \cite{cantalupo2011}, that use a Monte Carlo combined with an adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) strategy for the ray casting. There is a much simpler approach by \cite{inoue2012}, who assume that the gas is shielded well from UV photons except in the colliding direction and have used a `two-ray' approximation for dealing with the shielding for the UV radiation. But most of these approaches have several disadvantages, and in general they are computationally expensive or not accurate enough when the geometry of the problem is more complicated, as in a turbulent medium. In spite of being intuitive, ray-tracing methods are numerically demanding. For a simulation with $N$ resolution elements (cells or particles), the number of operations is at least on the order of $N^2$ and it requires the exchange of large amounts of data between different CPUs when parallelized. In problems where the gas properties are dynamically affected by gravity and radiation, it is desirable to develop adapted numerical strategies that permit calculation of the radiative transfer \emph{on-the-fly}. Recently some efforts have been made in this direction. Using the smoothed particle hydrodynamics code GADGET2, \cite{clark2011} introduce a tree-based scheme, called \emph{TreeCol}. This method uses the information already stored in the tree structure of the code to construct a full $4\pi$ sr map of column densities for each element with a gather approach. Since the column densities are calculated while the tree is walked, its computational cost is also on the order of $N \mathrm{log}N$.
\indent In this work we present a simple scheme for estimate column densities that takes advantage of the tree data structure, implemented for AMR codes. Our tree-based method provides a fast and relatively accurate estimation of column densities that can be used in numerical simulations. We have implemented this method in the AMR code RAMSES \citep{teyssier2002}.
In the following section we present the radiative transfer problem. In section \ref{sec_method} we present an overview of the tree-data structure and introduce our tree-based grid method, as well as our implementation. We also describe a strategy for optimization consisting in precalculation of geometrical contributions, where we introduce further approximations. In section \ref{verification} we present two tests for validation. The first test consists in a uniform spherical cloud and the second one corresponds to a turbulent cloud. At the end of this section, we also include a test for validating the other approximations made during the precalculation of the geometrical contributions. In section \ref{application} we present one application of this method to calculate the UV absorption by dust and its consequences on the dynamics of molecular clouds. Section \ref{conclusions} concludes the paper.
\section{The radiative transfer problem}\label{rtproblem}
The full radiative transfer equation that describes the interplay of radiation and matter reads as
\begin{equation}
\label{radtransfer}
\frac{d I_{\nu}}{ds} = -\alpha_{\nu} I_{\nu} + j_{\nu}.
\end{equation}
\noindent where $I_{\nu}$ is the specific intensity, $\alpha_{\nu}$ the absorption coefficient, and $j_{\nu}$ the emission coefficient at frequency $\nu$. Because we are interested in the early evolution of molecular clouds, when stars have not been formed yet, we can consider that there are no local sources. Then the solution of Eq.~(\ref{radtransfer}) for a case where there is only absorption will be
\begin{equation}
\label{radtransfersol}
I_{\nu}(s) = I_{\nu}(s_0)\exp\left(-\int_{s_0}^s \alpha_{\nu}(s')ds'\right) = I_{\nu}(s_0)\ e^{-\tau_{\nu}}
\end{equation}
This simplified version of the solution lets us solve the problem by just calculating the optical depth $\tau_{\nu}$ along several directions. But even with these simplifications for a simulation with $N$ resolution elements, the cost of solving the radiative transfer problem is on the order of $N^{5/3}$. This can be easily done in postprocessing, but if we are interested in the dynamical interaction between radiation and matter, it is necessary to calculate the optical depths at each time step. This is extremely expensive in terms of CPU time for relatively large simulations and not practical in parallel computing, so that approached methods must be used. In this paper we compare our results to those obtained with a ray-tracing method, which uses $50$ rays, performed in a postprocessing step.
\section{Tree-based method} \label{sec_method}
Astrophysical fluids can be treated numerically by using either $(i)$ a Lagrangian approach, with either $N-$body or SPH codes \citep{benz_1988,springel_et_al_2001, hubber_et_al_2011}, where nodes follow the material particles, or $(ii)$ an Eulerian approach with patch-based codes \citep{fryxell_et_al_2000, almgren_et_al_2010, mignone_et_al_2012, enzo_2013}, where each element is fixed and describes how material flows through the grids.
Several of these astrophysical codes are based on a tree-data structure that consists in a hierarchical structure where the simulation domain is recursively split into smaller units or \emph{nodes}. These nodes can be cut recursively to four (2D) or eight (3D) smaller "daughter" nodes from the largest node, the \emph{root}, which contains the whole simulation, to the \emph{leaves} that do not contain any substucture. Each node knows its parent node and can access all the other nodes by walking the tree. The numerical cost for a simulation with $N$ resolution elements is proportional to $N \mathrm{log} N$ \citep{barneshut1986,barneshut1989}.
Since most astrophysical problems span wide ranges of spatial scales, to correcly describe them, it is necessary to use resolutions comparable to the smallest scales. Adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) techniques allow the resolution to be adapted in different regions. This method was introduced for the first time in \cite{berger1984} as an adaptative finite difference method for solving partial differential equations using nested grids in a patch-based AMR. The fully threaded tree (FTT) was proposed by \cite{khokhlov_1998}, where the tree is threaded at all levels and the refinement is done on a cell-by-cell basis.
The RAMSES code \citep{teyssier2002} is a grid-based solver with AMR. The refinement levels are labeled $\ell$. The coarse level ($\ell =0$) corresponds to the base of the tree data structure and contains the whole simulation box. The refinement is done recursively on a cell-by-cell
basis by splitting the cell into $2^3$ daughter cells that constitute an \emph{oct}, the basic elements in the data structure. The cells in an \emph{oct} are indexed by the \emph{oct index}, and this index is distributed around the center of the \emph{oct} given a specific distribution.
This code has been parallelized using the MPI library and it uses locally essential trees \citep{warren1993}, thus all the information is local. Each CPU knows the full tree up to a given resolution, therefore each cell can recursively access the information from the coarser levels.
\subsection{General Idea}
The tree-based method for estimating column densities is based on the fact that any distant cell substends a small angle and therefore its contribution to the extinction along the line of sight will be diluted. Then it is suitable to approximate the distant structured cells with cells at lower resolution.
For each target cell, column densities can be estimated by summing up all the contributions of cells along each line of sight and decreasing resolution with distance. Because all the information can be accessed by walking the tree and knowing the density, the distance, and the size of a cell at a given resolution level, we can calculate the contribution to the column density as the product of the density and the distance covered through the crossed cell along the line of sight.
\subsection{Implementing and calculating the extinction}
Since molecular clouds are embedded in the interstellar radiation field (ISRF), we are particularly interested in the influence of the far-interstellar radiation field triggered by the radiation of UV photons from OB stars. \cite{habing1968} suggested that this radiation density could be constant throughout space. Here we consider an incident UV field, the Draine field \citep{draine1978}, which is supposed to be monochromatic, that corresponds to $G_0 \approx 1.7$ in Habing units, attenuated by dust \citep{wolfire1995}.
We have implemented the calculation of column densities in order to estimate the attenuation for the UV radiation from the ISRF, described by the parameter $G_0$ \citep{habing1968}. From Eq.~(\ref{radtransfersol}) we can define the \emph{attenuation factor} $\chi$, calculated as the mean value of the extinction seen by a given cell and calculated as
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi &=& \frac{1}{4 \pi} \iint\limits_{4 \pi} \, \mathrm{e}^{-\tau(\theta , \phi ) }\, \mathrm{d}\Omega\,, \label{eq_chi}\\
\tau (\theta , \phi ) &=& \int _0^r K (\theta , \phi ) \mathrm{d} r = \sigma \mathcal{N} (\theta , \phi ) \label{eq_tau}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $\tau$ is the optical depth along the line of sight defined by $\theta$ and $\phi$ in spherical coordinates, $K$ is the extinction coefficient, and $\sigma$ the effective attenuation cross section for the dust grains at $\lambda = 1000 ~\angstrom$. Here we use $\sigma_{\mathrm{d}, 1000} = 2 \times 10^{-21} \mathrm{cm}^2 $ \citep{draine1996}, and $\mathcal{N}$ is the total column density of hydrogen.
\begin{figure} \resizebox{\hsize}{!}
{\includegraphics{Figures/image3020.png}}
\caption{Example of the discretization for $N=4$ and $M=3$. The red lines show the bounds of the solid angles, while the blue arrows show the representative directions $(\theta, \phi)$ for the column densities.}
\label{get_mn}
\end{figure}
To calculate the column density maps and build the extinction maps, there are two different possible approaches. The first one uses the \emph{ray-tracing} approach, where the column densities are defined by a single `ray'. The second one uses a \emph{gather} approach, where all the matter that falls in a given solid angle is gathered and added to the column density. The approach that we have adopted is quite similar to the ray-tracing. However, it permits us to add part of the matter that belong to neighboring cells by diminishing the resolution for distant cells, in such a way that the density corresponds to a mean. This has the advantage of considering the contribution to the screening from neighboring cells that could be missed by using a simple ray-tracing algorithm. This approximation represents a lower computational cost than for an exact gather approach, where we would be required to perform more complex calculations.
We call the \emph{target cell} the cell for which we currently want to estimate column densities, in order to keep the same nomenclature as \cite{clark2011}, and we call \emph{treated cells} those contributing to the column density seen by the \emph{target cell}. For the resolution we use the notation
\[
\begin{array}{lp{0.8\linewidth}}
\ell_{0} & the resolution level of the target cell \\
\ell & the resolution level required for a cell contributing to the column density ($\ell < \ell_{0}$).
\end{array}
\]
For this approach we define directions based on a spherical projection centered on the target cell. We discretize the azimuthal angle in $N$ regular intervals ($\delta\phi = 2 \pi/N$) and the polar angle in $M$ irregular intervals constrained to the $\delta \cos \theta = 2/M$ constant in order to cover equal solid angles. (Fig.~\ref{get_mn} shows how these directions are defined.) Then the directions are labeled by two indices $m$ and $n$, and the representative angles for these directions are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\theta_m & = & \arccos\left( 1 + \frac{(1-2 m)}{M}\right) \\
\label{theta}
\phi_n & = & \frac{2\pi}{N}(n-1)
\label{phi}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $m \in [1, M]$ and $n \in [1, N]$. Since solid angles are equal and cells have uniform densities, we can rewrite Eq.~(\ref{eq_chi}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{chi_discret}
\chi &=& \frac{1}{M\times N}\sum_{m}\sum_{n} \mathrm{e}^{-\sigma \mathcal{N}(m,n) }\\
\label{N_discret1}
\mathcal{N}(m,n) &=& \sum_{i} n_i \Delta x_{i} (m, n)
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where the index $i$ stands for the cell number, $n_i$ and $\Delta x_i (m, n)$ correspond to the number density of the cell $i$ and to the distance crossed through the cell $i$ in direction ($m, n$) with respect to the target cell, respectively.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{Figures/concentricshells}
\caption{ Central region containing the target cell and the cells that belong to its oct (sibling cells) at the resolution level of the target cell $\ell_0$. The subsequent domains are constructed around the grid decreasing the resolution consecutively. In this manner the $i$-th shell will contain cells at level $\ell_0 -i$.
}
\label{Fig_cubicdomain}
\end{figure}
For integrating column densities $\mathcal{N}(m,n)$ along the different directions, we define two main regions. The first region contains the cell itself and its siblings (the cells that belong to the same oct, sharing a common parent node), and the contribution to the column density is calculated at resolution level $\ell_0$. The outer region contains the rest of the cells in the simulation box, and the contribution to the column density is estimated by decreasing the resolution with the distance. For the outer region, we construct cubic concentric domains, where cells are treated at the same resolution. For each level of resolution, starting from $\ell= \ell_0 -1$, we define a cubic shell as
\begin{itemize}
\item We set the new center as the center of the grid that contains the target cell at level $\ell+1$ (or equivalently the center of the unrefined cell at level $\ell$);
\item We set the inner limit as the external limit of the previous shell;
\item We define the outer limits for each cartesian direction by taking two or three neighboring cells into account at level $\ell$ in order to fully cover their parent grid.
\end{itemize}
The procedure is repeated recursively up to the border of the box. These cubic concentric shells define at which resolution the cells are taken into account for the calculation of the column density. Figure~\ref{Fig_cubicdomain} illustrates the construction of these concentric cubic domains.
To integrate the column densities in each direction we define three contributions: the \emph{internal} contribution, corresponding to the \emph{target cell} itself, the \emph{local} contribution, given by the sibling cells, and the \emph{external} contribution, given by the cells in the outer region.
For the \emph{internal} and \emph{local} contributions, directions are defined with respect to the center of the \emph{target cell}. On the other hand, for the \emph{external} contribution, directions are defined with respect to the center of the grid that contains the \emph{target cell} at level $\ell_0$. This \emph{external} contribution will be the same for all the sibling cells that belong to the same oct.
Using Eq.~(\ref{N_discret1}) and rewriting the sum as a sum over concentric shells $C_\ell$, we can use the fact that all the cells that belong to the same shell have the same size $dx_\ell$ to write the external contribution as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{N_discret0}
\mathcal{N}_{ext}(m,n) &=& \sum_{\ell} \sum_{i \in C_\ell} n_i \Delta x_i (m, n, \ell) \\
\label{deltax}
\Delta x_i (m, n, \ell) &=& dx_\ell \times \mathcal{K}_i(m,n,\ell)
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $C_\ell$ stands for the shell at level $\ell$. The size of the cell at level $\ell$ is given by $dx_\ell = 0.5^\ell L$, with $L$ the size of the simulation box. The multiplicative factor $\mathcal{K}_i$ contains the geometrical corrections to the distance crossed through the cell $i$ with respect to the target cell in the direction $(m, n)$ at level $\ell$. Finally, the column densities along each line of sight can be estimated by adding all the contributions.
\subsection{Optimization and precalculation module}\label{optim}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=3.5cm]{Figures/stdcube_old.png}
\caption{Standard cube showing all the possible configurations for the two-level approximation. The size of each cell in the standard cube is considered to be one unit in terms of the local $dx$.}
\label{stdcube}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=3cm]{Figures/2levelcorrection}
\caption{Effect of the two level approximation on estimation of single column densities. The parent grid that contains the target cell is marked in red.}
\label{2levelcorrection}
\end{figure}
The geometrical factor $\mathcal{K}_i(m,n,\ell)$ in Eq.~(\ref{deltax}) is quite expensive to calculate; however, because the oct structure is self-similar this factor can in principle be calculated and stored at the beginning of the simulation. Then, using the fact that octs are self-similar at different resolution levels and knowing by construction that the outer limit for any cubic shell is at most five times the local $dx$ in each cartesian direction ($\pm x$, $\pm y$, $\pm z$), we can define a standard cube of size $11^3$ total cells (Fig.~\ref{stdcube}) of a one unit size. The cell in the center contains the \emph{target cell}, so we can represent all the possible cases by defining its internal configuration, depending on the difference between the target cell level and the shell level, given by $\Delta \ell = \ell_0 - \ell$. Therefore the total number of configurations is given by $\sum\nolimits_{\Delta \ell = 0} ^{\ell_{max}-2} (2^3)^{\Delta \ell}$. For each one of these cases, we need to calculate the correction for any cell in the cubic shell in any direction. This implies $M\times N \times 11^3$ corrections for each case. This leads to a huge matrix that cannot be stored. We can, however, reduce the size of the matrix by restricting the number of cases considered. This is done by requiring that the target center is shifted for high values of $\Delta \ell$.
As a first approximation for a shell at level $\ell$, the center of the target cell can be approximated by the center of the grid that contains the target cell at level $\ell +1$. This is equivalent to replacing it by the target cell center at level $\ell$. This is the exact configuration when $\ell_0 - \ell = 1$, but for other levels, the position of reference can be considerably drifted away, and then more precise corrections are needed. We introduce two correction levels in order to take the configuration of the target cell into account with respect to its coarser octs. The first correction level is used when $\ell_0 - \ell = 2$ and it considers the index of the target cell in its oct at level $\ell-1$, so that there are eight possible positions. The second correction level is used for the case $\ell_0 -\ell \geq 3$, where we consider two oct indices. The first one is the oct index of the cell that contains the target cell at level $\ell+2$, and the second one corresponds to the oct index at level $\ell + 3$, generating $64$ possible configurations. This leads to a total of $73$ possible configurations. The effect of this approximation on the estimation of individual column densities is depicted in Fig.~\ref{2levelcorrection}. Then for each configuration we calculate the distance crossed through every cell in the general cube for each one of the directions ($m$, $n$) in order to obtain the corrective factor $\mathcal{K}$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{N_discret}). Finally the pre-calculation module generates a matrix that contains the corrective factors $\mathcal{K}$ for all the configurations considered and a boolean matrix that permits us to know if the geometrical correction is non-zero. These matrices are calculated just once at the beginning of the simulation.
The external contribution will be calculated as
\begin{equation}
\label{N_discret}
\mathcal{N}_{ext}(m,n) = \sum_{\ell} dx_\ell \sum_{i\ \in \ C_\ell} n_i \times \mathcal{K}(\mathbf{r}_i - \mathbf{r}_{target}, m, n, \Delta \ell),
\end{equation}
\noindent then the corrective factors $\mathcal{K}$ can be found by knowing the indices of the required line of sight $m$ and $n$, the configuration within the octs given by the $\Delta \ell = \ell_0 -\ell$, and the relative position ($\mathbf{r}_i~-~\mathbf{r}_{target}$) of the cells in the oct with respect to the target cell in $dx_\ell$ units. As described later in Sect.~\ref{validationprec}, this speeds up the code by a fair amount without reducing too much the accuracy.
\section{Verification of the method}\label{verification}
In this section we analyze the reliability of our tree-based method by comparing our estimations to a reference. At the end of this section, we analyze the influence of the precalculation of geometrical terms and the approximation introduced in section \ref{optim} on the performance and accuracy.
To validate of our method we considered two test cases. The first one consisted of a uniform spherical cloud, and the second one corresponded to a turbulent cloud. For both cases we present the total column density maps integrated along each one of the main axes $x$, $y$ and $z$ with respect to the midplanes and the extinction maps as seen by the cells in the midplanes calculated with our tree-based method for the following cases: $6$, $12$, $40$, and $84$ directions. To show the error dependence on the position angle, we present column density projections onto $4\pi \ \mathrm{sr}$ maps as seen by a cell for both test cases.
The reference maps were calculated in postprocessing with two different methods. For the column density and extinction maps in a plane, we used a ray-tracing approach that uses $50$ rays and takes all the cells of the simulation into account at the highest resolution. It calculates the exact contribution to the column density for each direction using all the cells that are intersected by the ray. For the $4\pi \ \mathrm{sr}$ maps and for the mean column density maps, the reference was calculated with a gather approach. This method divides the computational domain in angular and radial bins. It finds the closest bin for each cell and calculates the fraction of the mass that falls in this bin and in angular neighboring bins. Because the geometrical corrections for cells are much more complicated than for spherical particles, the fraction was calculated assuming that the cell is seen perpendicular to one of its faces. The column density is calculated as the sum of the mean density in the bin multiplied by the radial thickness of the bin.
These two methods have several inconveniences. They require the information already stored in each CPU, so they are not suitable for parallel computing, and they are extremely expensive in terms of CPU time. In particular, the ray-tracing method has a numerical cost of about $N^{4/3}$ times the number of rays, while the gather method has a numerical cost of about $N^2$, since for each cell all the cells are used for calculating the column densities. The reference maps for the extinction, column density, and mean column density are calculated at the same time. The cost of producing the maps for three slices using the ray-tracing method for a maximum resolution level $\ell = 9$ is $90$ hr of CPU-time, while for the maps done using the gather method, the cost for only one slice is more than $6800$ hr of CPU-time. The enormous cost of the gather approach meant that for the mean column density, we performed only one map at the maximum resolution ($\ell = 9$) for the cut at $z = 25\ \mathrm{pc}$. For the other cuts, we used only $\ell = 8$.
For all the comparisons, the fractional error is defined by Eq.~(\ref{eq1}). Because we were interested in how the UV field is shielded, the extinction maps were normalized to one, and the difference maps were calculated by Eq.~(\ref{eq2}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta \mathcal{N} _i &=& \frac{|\mathcal{N}_i-\bar{\mathcal{N} _i}|}{\bar{\mathcal{N} _i}} \label{eq1} \\
\Delta \chi_i &=& |\chi_i-\bar \chi_i| \label{eq2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $\bar{\mathcal{N}}$ and $\bar \chi$ stand for the reference maps for the column density and extinction, respectively.
\subsection{Spherical uniform cloud}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{Figures/PAPER_PREC_ERR_N7_12SPH_300dpi.png}
\caption{Column density maps integrated along the x, y and z axis for the reference (on the top) and for the tree-based method (center) calculated with respect to the mid planes. The map at the bottom corresponds to the fractional error calculated according to Eq.~(\ref{eq1}). }
\label{Fig_sphereN}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Figures/PAPER_SPHERE_MN_CORR_L9hot600dpi.png}
\caption{Column densities for the $4\pi \ \mathrm{sr}$ as seen by a cell sitting on the edge of the sphere $(12.5, 25, 25)\ \mathrm{[pc]} )$. The abscissa corresponds to the angle $\phi$ (from $0$ to $2\pi$), and the $\cos \theta$ (from $-1$ to $1$) is given in the ordinate. The reference maps (on the left) have been calculated using the gather approach. The panels at the center present the maps calculated using the tree-based method, while on the right we present the error maps calculated according to Eq.~(\ref{eq1}). From top to bottom: using $12$, $40$, $84$, $144$, and $220$ directions.
}
\label{Fig_sph_theta_phi}
\end{figure}
To test our method we first considered the simple case of a spherical cloud of uniform density. The radius of the spherical cloud is $12.5$~pc, and its number density $1000$ cm$^{-3}$. The cloud is located at the center of a $50$~pc cube with a number density of $10$ cm$^{-3}$. We considered two AMR levels with a maximum resolution equivalent to $512^{3}$ cells. The refinement criterion is the density set in such a way that the sphere is refined.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9.3cm]{Figures/PAPER_00001_mapspectral300dpi.png}
\caption{Extinction maps as seen by the cells in the midplanes for $x$, $y$, and $z$. From top to bottom: the reference calculated with a ray-tracing method, then using the tree-based method for $6$, $12$, $40$, and $84$ directions. }
\label{Fig_sphereX}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{Figures/REF_PAPER_00001_mapspectralERRchi_300dpi.png}
\caption{Difference maps for the extinction as seen by cells in the midplanes for $x$, $y$, and $z$. From top to bottom: using the tree-based method for $6$, $12$, $40$, and $84$ directions. }
\label{err_sphereX}
\end{figure}
The column density maps integrated along the main axes (in Fig.~\ref{Fig_sphereN}) show that our approximation can reproduce the main features, and it is able to capture the discontinuity in density at the edge of the cloud. The error maps show that in general the error is lower than $10$\%, but at the edges, the error increases up to more than $100 \%$ in a narrow region. Since most of the volume around the sphere is filled with constant density gas, we calculated the mean error on the sphere alone. This mean error is about $15.2$\% when averaging for the three maps.
Since the error in the column density maps is higher at the edge of the sphere, we calculated the column densities as seen by a cell sitting at $(12.25, 0.5, 0.5)\ \mathrm{pc}$. In Fig.~\ref{Fig_sph_theta_phi} we show the column density projection in every direction as seen by a cell at the border of the sphere for $12$, $40$, $84$, $144$, and $220$ directions, using the gather approach and the tree-based method. In the same figure, we present the relative error. For this cell, the center of the sphere is in direction $(\theta, \phi) = (\pi/2, 0)$ so that one half of the sphere is seen at the beginning, and as the angle $\phi$ increases, the column density seen by the cell decreases. When $\phi = \pi$, the direction points outward, where the density is weaker. As the angle $\phi$ keeps increasing, the direction approaches the sphere again. This figure shows that the highest error happens at the edge of the sphere. A similar effect can be seen in Fig. 7 for TreeCol \citep{clark2011}. In our case this error probably occurs because distant cells are not as well described by the tree-based method.
For the extinction, we present a comparison in Fig.~\ref{Fig_sphereX} of the extinction maps for the cells in the midplanes, as defined above. The reference maps calculated with the ray-tracing method are shown in the top row. Then from top to bottom, we present the extinction maps calculated with the tree-based method for $6$, $12$, $40$, and $84$ directions. In Fig.~\ref{err_sphereX} we present the respective difference maps calculated according to Eq.~(\ref{eq2}). For the case with six directions, the mean difference is about $0.036$, while for the cases at $12$, $40$, and $84$ directions the mean difference is less than $0.02$, but the increasing number of directions does not improve the accuracy considerably (Table \ref{table2}).
This is probably because the resolution is getting coarser as we cross cells located farther away. While the number of directions is increasing, the angular resolution remains constant owing to limitations inherent in the method. In this manner, more intervals oversample the region without increasing the angular resolution.
\subsection{Turbulent cloud test}
\begin{table}
\caption{Mean difference relative to the reference maps for the extinction.}
\label{table2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l }
\hline\hline
Directions & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$\Delta \chi$} \\
$M\times N$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{spherical cloud} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{turbulent cloud} \\
& \textit{mean} & \textit{max} & \textit{mean} & \textit{max} \\
\hline \\
$6$ & $0.036$ & $0.203$ & $0.079$ & $0.280$ \\
$3 \times 4 = 12$ & $0.017$ & $0.094$ & $0.054$ & $0.204$ \\
$5 \times 8 = 40$ & $0.014$ & $0.068$ & $0.048$ & $0.164$ \\
$7 \times 12= 84$ & $0.018$ & $0.090$ & $0.047$ & $0.145$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{Figures/PAPER_PREC_ERR_N_CLOUD_7_12CLOUD_300dpi.png}
\caption{Column density maps for a highly structured cloud, integrated along the $x$, $y$, and $z$ axes (from left to right): using the ray-tracing method (on the top), our tree-based method (middle), and the relative error (on the bottom).}
\label{Fig_cloudN}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Figures/PAPER_CLOUD_MN_NEWhot600dpi.png}
\caption{Column densities for the $4\pi \ \mathrm{sr}$ as seen by a cell sitting at the center of the turbulent cloud. As in Fig. \ref{Fig_sph_theta_phi}, the horizontal axis is the azimuthal angle $\phi$ (from $0$ to $2\pi$), and the vertical axis corresponds to $\cos \theta$. On the left we present the reference maps calculated using the gather approach. The panels in the center present the maps calculated using the tree-based method, and on the right we present the error maps calculated according to Eq.~(\ref{eq1}). From top to bottom: using $12$, $40$, $84$, $144$, and $220$ directions.
}
\label{Fig_cloud_theta_phi}
\end{figure}
The previous test presents a very simple geometry, but in real atrophysical problems the geometry of the medium can be quite complicated. With the purpose of studying the accuracy of the tree-based method in a highly structured medium, we analyze the case of a turbulent molecular cloud. This cloud has been formed through a simulation of colliding flows \citep{audit2005,vazquezsemadeni2007} with a turbulent velocity profile. This simulation produces a cloud that presents filaments and clumpy structures with densities ranging over more than six orders of magnitude. The size of the simulation box is $50$~pc, and we used two AMR levels ($\ell_{min}=7$ and $\ell_{max}=9$), with an equivalent maximal resolution of $512^3$ or, equivalently, a spatial resolution of $0.1$~pc. The criterion for refinement is again the density ($n = 50\ \mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ for the first refinement and $n = 100\ \mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ for the second one).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9.3cm]{Figures/PAPER_00047_mapspectral300dpi.png}
\caption{Extinction maps as seen by the cells in the midplanes. On the top we show the reference, calculated with the ray-tracing method. The other maps (from top to bottom) have been calculated with the tree-based method using $6$, $12$, $40$, and $84$ directions.}
\label{Fig_cloudX}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{Figures/PAPER_00047_mapspectralERRchi_300dpi.png}
\caption{Relative difference maps for the tree-based method. From top to bottom: $6$, $12$, $40$, and $84$ directions.}
\label{err_cloudX}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{Fig_cloudN} presents the column densities integrated along the main cartesian directions as seen by the cells in the midplanes. At the top we show the reference maps, calculated with the ray-tracing method and, in the middle, calculated with our tree-based method. At the bottom we present the relative error maps calculated according to Eq.~(\ref{eq1}). The mean value of the relative error is about $50 \%$, but for many cells it can reach up to more than $100\%$. The reference corresponds to an exact integration along the $x$, $y$, and $z$ axes, so even far structures are taken into account at the highest resolution. With the tree-based method, these far structures are distributed over a larger region. This can be seen by comparing the column density maps obtained with the tree-based method to the reference. The missing structures can be interpreted as structures far from the midplane, while the clumps seen using the tree-based method are structures close to the midplane.
For the turbulent cloud we present a $4\pi\ \mathrm{sr}$ map similar to Fig.~\ref{Fig_sph_theta_phi}. Figure \ref{Fig_cloud_theta_phi} shows the column density projection in every direction as seen by a cell sitting at the center of the turbulent cloud for $12$, $40$, $84$, $144$, and $220$ directions using the gather approach , the tree-based method, and the associated relative error. This map, unlike the case for the spherical cloud, does not show such high errors. Moreover, the errors seem to be distributed evenly throughout the map.
Figure~\ref{Fig_cloudX} presents the extinction maps. At the top we present the reference maps calculated with the exact ray-tracing method, and the rest of the maps correspond to the tree-based method. In Fig.~\ref{err_cloudX} we present the difference maps calculated as defined before. These figures show how the accuracy of the maps can be improved by including directions that are not aligned with the main cartesian directions, because more cells are taken into account. The mean and maximum differences are summarized in Table \ref{table2}. When we use six directions, the mean difference is about $0.079$, while for the rest it is about $0.05$. Beyond the mean difference we see that the `six-ray' method presents large and systematic variations that are absent with the multiray approach.
As we have shown before for the spherical cloud test, the increasing number of directions does not improve the accuracy of the map considerably, particularly between $40$ and $84$ directions.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{Figures/CLOUDREFEREE_00047_Nmeandesc_ZL9_dpi300.png}
\caption{Mean column density as seen by cells in the midplanes. From top to bottom: using the ray-tracing method for $50$ rays, using the gather approach for $220$ directions, and using the tree-based method for $6$, $12$, $40$, and $84$ directions.}
\label{meancoldens}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{meancoldens} we present the mean column density seen by cells in the midplanes. At the top we present the mean colum density maps done with the ray-tracing method. This method present strong shadowing effects for all the cells that are aligned with dense clumps, while for directions that are not aligned, the entire contribution is missed. For this reason we have included reference maps done with the gather method using $220$ angular bins (second row). The prohibitive cost of producing these maps led us to calculate the maps for the cuts at $x = 25 \ \mathrm{pc}$ and $y = 25 \ \mathrm{pc}$ at a lower resolution for a visual comparison. The map for the cut at $z = 25 \ \mathrm{pc}$ was calculated at level $\ell = 9$, and it was used to calculate the relative error. This figure shows how the estimation of the value of the mean column density improves as we increase the number of directions used in the tree-based method. In particular the mean error decreases as the number of directions increases, as shown in Table \ref{tablemean}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Mean error for the mean column density maps.}
\label{tablemean}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l l}
\hline\hline
Directions & Mean error \\
$M\times N$ & $\langle \ |\langle N\rangle -\langle \bar N\rangle | /\langle\bar N\rangle \ \rangle$ \\
\hline \\
$6$ & $0.278$ \\
$3 \times 4 = 12$ & $0.211$ \\
$5 \times 8 = 40$ & $0.135$ \\
$7 \times 12= 84$ & $0.129$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{General remarks}\label{remarks}
That the accuracy does not improve considerably is consistent with the results of \cite{clark2011} for TreeCol, where they show that the efficiency depends on the relative sizes of the opening angle and the angular size of the node. This is true for a pure gather approach. It is important to notice that our implementation of the tree-based method is a hybrid method. The decreasing resolution for far cells mimics a gather approach, but calculation of the contributions to the column densities is done as in a ray-tracing method. With this in mind, we note that the increasing number of directions does not change the angular resolution for a given cell, but it does improve the quality of the description of the density field for calculating the extinction. This can be seen in Fig.~\ref{Fig_cloudX}, where the extinction maps are smoother and the maximum error is reduced as the number of directions is increased. Then the optimal number of directions for the tree-based method will correspond to the best compromise between resolution and numerical cost. Taking this into account and using as a criterium the variation of the error, a good compromise is found for $40$ directions.
The difference maps for the extinction shown in Figs.~\ref{err_sphereX} and \ref{err_cloudX} present very different features. In particular, the highest error happens toward the border of the computational domain for the spherical case, while the error in this region is much smaller for the turbulent cloud. This is probably due to the different distribution of sources. This effect is more evident for the spherical case than for the turbulent cloud owing to the anisotropy of the density field. For the turbulent cloud the distribution of sources is more isotropic, and for each cell it will be easier to cast a source, while for a compact central distribution, especially for cells not aligned with the central source, it will be more difficult to describe the density field. This same effect can be seen in Figs.~\ref{Fig_cloud_theta_phi} and \ref{Fig_sph_theta_phi}.
\subsection{Validation of the precalculation approach}\label{validationprec}
To quantify the influence on the accuracy of estimating the attenuation factor of the two-level approximation and the influence of precalculating geometrical terms on the speed of the code, we compared both implementations of the tree-based method. The first implementation calculates each contribution to the column density for each cell without doing any approximation. This implementation is called \emph{in situ}. The second implementation uses the precalculation of geometrical terms and the two-level approximation. We present a comparison of the column density maps integrated along three different directions. For the extinction we present a comparison of the extinction maps and the difference on the estimated value of the extinction. We also present the calculation CPU times ($t_{sim}$) relative to the standard CPU time ($t_0$). The standard CPU time is the calculation time of a simulation that does not include the extinction. The two-level approximation accelerates the code, but it shifts the point of reference that defines the directions (Fig.~\ref{2levelcorrection}) introducing errors on the calculation.
\begin{table}
\caption{Calculation time relative to the case without screening and the average difference of extinction maps.}
\label{table1}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l l l l }
\hline\hline
Directions & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$t_{sim}/t_{0}$} & $\langle|\chi_{prec} - \chi_{in\ situ}|\rangle$\\
$M\times N$ & {in situ} & {prec} & \\
\hline \\
$6$ & $1.1$ & \textendash & \textendash\ \\
$3 \times 4 = 12$ & $7.9$ & $\textbf{1.6}$ & $0.0028$ \\
$5 \times 8 = 40$ & $15.8$ & $\textbf{2.4}$ & $0.0037$\\
$7 \times 12= 84$ & $26.3$ & $\textbf{3.3}$ & $0.0034$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{Figures/PAPER_PREC_ERR_NZZ_300dpi.png}
\caption{Influence of the precalculation module. Column density maps for three directions not aligned with the cartesian directions for the case of calculation \emph{in situ} (top), using the precalculation module (middle), and the relative difference map (bottom). The azimuthal angle is fixed at $\phi = 0$, and from left to right the polar angle is $\theta = 0.841, 0.644, 0.541 \ \radian$. The mean fractional difference, defined as in Eq.~(\ref{eq1}), are $\Delta N = 6.3, 6.6, 6.8 \%$, respectively.}
\label{Nnoprec_prec}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{Figures/PAPER_PREC_ERR_7_12_300dpi.png}
\caption{Influence of the precalculation module. Extinction maps calculated using $84$ directions ($M=7$, $N=12$). At the top we present the extinction map for the case where all the calculations are done \emph{in situ}, and in the middle using the precalculation module. At the bottom we present difference maps.}
\label{noprec_prec}
\end{figure}
To estimate the gain in performance and the induced errors, we performed eight different calculations. The first one corresponds to the reference, calculated without including the screening for the UV. The second one uses a simple implementation of our method using just
six directions, and it does not need any kind of geometrical correction. The six other simulations use two implementations of our method (calculation \emph{in situ} and precalculation module) for $3\times 4=12$, $5\times 8=40$, and $7\times 12=84$ directions. We use a turbulent cloud as initial condition, which is created by converging flows without any screening, and we compare the calculation time. For the comparison of the column density maps and the extinction maps we use the initial output, in order to use identical clouds. Table \ref{table1} presents the simulation times relative to $t_0$, the calculation time without screening, and the mean value of the difference in the extinction maps. Calculating column densities for the case using six directions does not require geometrical corrections, and the calculation time is very close to the reference case. This means that the geometrical corrections are expensive. The precalculation module significantly reduces the calculation time, and the code can be up to eight times faster when the precalculation module is used.
For estimating of the induced differences related to the two-level correction we calculated column density maps and extinction maps for both implementations.
For the column density maps, we selected three directions that are not aligned with any of the main cartesian directions $\pm x, \pm y, \pm z$, because these directions are not sensitive to this approximation. Figure~\ref{Nnoprec_prec} shows the column density maps for three directions where we fixed the azimuthal angle ($\phi =0$) and we varied the polar angle ($\theta = 0.841, 0.644, 0.541 \ \radian$). The relative difference map was calculated according to Eq.~(\ref{eq1}), and the mean value for all of them is less than $7\%$.
For the extinction we present a comparison between both implementations. We calculated the difference of the extinction maps as seen by the cells in the midplanes according to Eq.~(\ref{eq2}), for the case where we introduce the precalculation module with respect to the case where all the calculations are done \emph{in situ}. This comparison was done using $12$, $40$, and $84$ directions. Table \ref{table1} presents the mean values of the difference, which are better than $0.004$ for all the cases, and it does not depend on the number of directions used. As an example, we present the extinction maps and difference maps for the cells in the midplanes in Fig.~\ref{noprec_prec} as a comparison of both implementations for the case where we use $84$ directions ($7$ intervals for the polar angle and $12$ for the azimuthal angle). Overall we conclude that the method with precalculation is sufficiently accurate and considerably faster than the \emph{in situ} method.
\section{Application} \label{application}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{Figures/fragm_comp2.png}
\caption{Slices cut through the midplane at $t=10$ Myr showing the detail of difference in fragmentation. The left panel shows the case without screening, and the right panel shows the case with screening. The fragments zoomed in have a size of $5$~pc and are centered at $x=15,\ y=2.75$~pc with respect to the center of the box.}
\label{slice}
\end{figure*}
As an application we study the formation and the evolution of a molecular cloud formed from colliding streams of warm atomic gas \citep{audit2005,vazquezsemadeni2007, heitsch_et_al_2005, heitsch_et_al_2006, heitsch_et_al_2008}. The 3D simulations were performed using the AMR code RAMSES.
The set-up and the initial conditions are similar to those of \cite{hennebelleetal2008} \citep[see also][]{vazquezsemadeni2007, heitsch_et_al_2005, heitsch_et_al_2006, heitsch_et_al_2008, inoue2012}. We consider a cubic box of length $L=50$~pc. We allow two AMR levels, with $\ell_{min} = 8$ and $\ell_{max} = 10$, reaching an effective numerical resolution of $1024^3$ cells and a spatial resolution of about $0.05$~pc. The boundary conditions are imposed to mimic the large scale converging flows. The gas is injected from the left and right faces of the simulation box with a weakly turbulent velocity and a density of $2\ \mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ at a temperature of $8000\ \kelvin$. For the remaining faces, we use periodic boundary conditions. The velocity field of the incoming gas $V_{in}$ depends on $y$, with an average velocity $V_0 = 15\ \mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$ and modulated by a function of amplitude $\epsilon = 0.5$, as defined in \cite{audit2005}. Initially the simulation box is filled with warm atomic gas with the same density and temperature as the inflowing gas and is uniformly magnetized with a magnetic field of strength $2.5\ \micro$G parallel to the $x$ axis and therefore aligned with the incoming velocity field. The gas in the simulation box is heated by the background UV field, which corresponds to the Draine field $G_0 = 1.7$ in Habing units. Because this radiation field is assumed to be isotropic and constant, then we can define the effective UV field as
\begin{equation}
\overline{G}_0 = \chi G_0 \label{G0_eff}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\chi$ is the attenuation factor for the UV flux defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq_chi}) and calculated for each \emph{leaf cell} in the simulation.
We use the same cooling and heating functions than \cite{audit2005}, but we have modified the heating by adding the screening for the UV and we included the heating by cosmic rays. The heating rates as implemented in the code are
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_{UV} &=& 1.0\times10^{-24}\ \varepsilon\ \ \overline G_0\ n\ \mathrm{ergs\ cm^{-3} s^{-1}} \label{eq_gamma_uv}\\
\Gamma_{CR} &=& 10^{-27}\ n\ \mathrm{ergs\ cm^{-3} s^{-1}} \label{eq_gamma_cr}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where Eq.~(\ref{eq_gamma_uv}) is the heating rate due to the photoelectric effect on small grains and PAHs due to the FUV radiation \citep{bakestielens1994}, $n$ is the hydrogen density in $\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$, $\varepsilon$ is the heating efficiency, calculated as in \cite{wolfire1995} : \\$
\varepsilon = \frac{4.9\times 10^{-2}}{1.0 + \left [ \left( \overline G_0 T^{1/2}/n_e \right) /1925 \right]^{0.73}} + \frac{3.7\times 10^{-2} \left(T/10^{4}\right)^{0.7}}{1.0 + \left [ \left( \overline G_0 T^{1/2}/n_e \right) /5000 \right]}$, \\
\noindent with $n_e$, the electron density, given by the approximation proposed by \cite{wolfire2003}. Equation~(\ref{eq_gamma_cr}) is the heating rate due to cosmic rays according to the intermediate value given by \cite{goldsmith2001}.
Our aim is to understand how the screening caused by the surrounding matter can affect the gas distribution and the distribution of structures formed by diminishing the amount of radiation that arrives at the cells. Then we present two simulations in order to compare the influence of the screening for the UV. The first simulation does not include this effect, which is equivalent to considering the gas as optically thin and having an attenuation factor $\chi = 1$. This means that the radiation reaches the cells unchanged. On the other hand, the second simulation takes the absorption due to the surrounding material into account. In this case the estimation is done using the tree-based method, as described in section \ref{sec_method}. Just for the sake of simplicity and time, we used $12$ directions ($M=3$ intervals for the polar angle and $N=4$ for the azimuthal angle) for calculating the attenuation factor for the UV field (but see the Appendix~\ref{app_lowres} for a comparison between simulations at lower resolution using different number of directions to calculate the extinction for the UV field).
\subsection{General structure of the cloud}
To understand how the screening for the UV affects the structure of molecular clouds, we present a comparison between both simulations in Fig.~\ref{slice} by presenting the local density in a slice cut through the middle of the simulation box at $t=10$ Myr. This figure shows that the large scale structure of the molecular cloud seems to be barely affected by the UV screening, but the detail of the fragmentation of dense structures is substantially influenced by the extinction. In the case where the extinction is not taken into account, the structures formed tend to be bigger, while when the screening is included, the same region seems to be torn up, presenting smaller structures. This seems to indicate that the extinction mainly affects the dense parts of the gas. To go beyond this qualitative impression, we now turn to more quantitative studies.
\subsection{Probability distribution function}
The density probability distribution function (PDF) corresponds to the distribution of mass as a function of density and is one of the simplest statistical tools for understanding how the gas is distributed. In Fig.~\ref{pdf} we present a comparison of the PDFs and the mass-averaged temperature for each density bin. For both cases we can see that starting with only warm gas, which is caused by the cooling processes present in the simulation, the gas is able to transit from the WNM phase to the CNM phase \citep{audit2005}. As the gas enters the box, the CNM phase develops. The PDF of the gas density and the temperature distribution show the bistable nature of the medium \citep{field1969, wolfire1995, wolfire2003}. The panel on the right shows how the screening affects mainly the dense medium, while the warm gas is almost not altered. Initially the distribution is not significantly affected. However the difference can be seen as dense gas forms. The bottom left hand panel shows that a part of the gas in the CNM phase presents higher density and lower temperature. Consequently, part of the gas has a lower density owing to the rarefaction caused by the development of more compact structures, and this explains why there is more gas with $n\sim 300 ~ \mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ in the case without screening.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{Figures/mPOSTER_PDF_600dpi.png}
\caption{Comparison of the probability distribution function (PDF) of gas (left panel) and the corresponding temperature per density bin (right panel) at $t = 5$ Myr (top) and at $t = 10$ Myr (bottom) for the cases with and without screening. }
\label{pdf}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Mass spectra}
To investigate the influence of the UV screening on the statistical properties of the structures formed within the clouds, we analyzed the mass spectra of the clumps for both cases. The mass spectrum presents the number of structures per logarithmic mass interval for a given density threshold. For the clump extraction, we selected all the cells with a density higher than a given density threshold $n_{th}$, and using a friend-of-friend algorithm, we identified the spatially connected regions that constitute a clump, rejecting isolated cells. In Fig.~\ref{mspec} we present the evolution of the clump distribution for $t = 5,\ 7.5$, and $10$ Myr for different density thresholds. We show that the mass spectrum for low density thresholds does not vary significantly when we include the UV screening. On the other hand, the differences in the mass spectrum are more pronounced for more compact structures ($n_{th} \ge 2500\ \mathrm{cm^{-1}}$). The number of compact clumps found is systematically larger in the simulation that includes the UV screening.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=17cm]{Figures/mPAPER_mspec_all.png}
\caption{Comparison of the mass spectra. From top to bottom at $t = 5, 7.5, 10$ Myr. From left to right for the density thresholds: $n_{th}~=~500, 1000, 2500, 5000~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$. }
\label{mspec}
\end{figure*}
\section{Conclusions} \label{conclusions}
We have introduced a tree-based method for a fast estimation of column densities in astrophysical simulations. The general idea of this method can be implemented in any code with a tree-based data structure, and the implementation strategy is not unique. We presented a simple implementation on the AMR code RAMSES. In particular, we used a precalculation module that speeds up the calculation considerably without changing the accuracy of the estimation significantly (better than $7\%$ for the column density maps and about $0.3 \%$ for the extinction maps).
Since the cells that contribute to the column density are taken into account at lower resolution as the distance increases, and if the tree is fully threaded, the tree-based method only needs the information stored locally in the essential tree and does not need any communication between different CPUs, making the method suitable for parallel computing. Finally, the errors on the column density maps are generally about $50 \%$, while the extinction maps calculated from the estimated column densities have errors lower than $10\%$.
We found that the UV screening does not have a strong influence on the general structure of molecular clouds, but it has a significant impact on the details of fragments. Most notably, the extinction for the UV mainly affects the dense gas. The temperature for the WNM phase remains almost unchanged, while for the CNM it is lower by a factor up to $50 \%$ when the shielding effect of dust is included. Consequently, the local value of the Jeans mass is reduced, favoring the gravitational collapse of smaller structures. This is evident in the comparison of the mass spectra, where for low-density thresholds there are no noticeable differences; however, the number of compact structures for higher density thresholds is greater for the case that includes the screening.
Because an important part of the chemistry in the ISM depends on the UV radiation and on temperature, this method can be applied to the interstellar chemistry to more realistically estimate these parameters. Estimates of column densities can also be used to give a better value for the CR ionization rate.
\begin{acknowledgements}
V.V. acknowledges support from a CNRS-CONICYT scholarship. This research has been partially funded by CONICYT and CNRS, according to the December 11, 2007 agreement.\\
P.H. acknowledges the finantial support of the Agence National pour la Recherche through the COSMIS project. This research has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013 Grant Agreement No. 306483).
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{bibtex/aa}
|
\section{Introduction}
The quantum walk (QW)~\cite{ADZ93,TM02,NK03,JK03,VA12} was primarily devised as the quantum-mechanical version of the classical random walk, the stochastic process modeling the trajectory of a particle that at each time step moves, either leftward or rightward, a fixed distance in accordance with the outcome of a coin toss. In the quantum version, the coin is related to some intrinsic degree of freedom in the system with a quantum nature and two exclusive values, a qubit: e.g., the spin, the polarization or the chirality.
It soon became clear that, beyond the formal resemblance, random and quantum walks show very different properties~\cite{CFG03}, being perhaps the most striking of them the ability of QWs to spread over the line, not as a diffusive process, but linearly in time~\cite{ABNVW01}. This speed-up makes feasible the development of quantum algorithms that can solve problems in a more efficient way than their classic counterparts~\cite{PS97,FG98}. In particular, QWs are promising tools in the optimal resolution of search problems~\cite{SKW03,AMB10,MNRS11}. Nowadays, QWs have exceeded the scope of quantum computation and attracted the attention of many researchers from other fields as, for example, game theory~\cite{FAJ04,BFT08,CB11,RH11}.
In fact, Refs.~\cite{FAJ04,BFT08,CB11,RH11} are paradigmatic instances that show how, fruit of this broad interest, diverse extensions of the discrete-time QW on the line have been considered in the past. Most of these variations are related with the properties of the unitary coin operator, cornerstone of the new physical features of the system. Thus, one can find in the literature QWs whose evolution depends on more than one coin~\cite{BCA03a,TFMK03,VBBB05}, QWs that suffer from decoherence~\cite{BCA03b,KT03}, or QWs driven by inhomogeneous, site-dependent coins~\cite{WLKGB04,RASAD05,SK10,KLS13,ZXT14,XQTS14}, just to name a few.
These all are examples of modified QWs in which the coin changes with time in an implicit way. But there are also precedents where the temporal inhomogeneity of the QW is made absolutely explicit: in the form of a recursive rule for the coin selection, as in the so-called Fibonacci QWs~\cite{RMM04,AR09a}, though a given function that determines the value of the coin parameters~\cite{AR09b,RS14,BNPRS06}, or by means of a random process that controls the coin properties~\cite{AVWW11}.
From all of these previous works, it is in Ref.~\cite{BNPRS06} where one can find more similarities with respect to the path we are going to follow in this paper. Here we consider the evolution of a discrete-time QW on the line with a general, time-dependent coin. The generality in our analysis stems from the inclusion of the two phase factors that the unitary coin operator can incorporate, a caution that may become superfluous depending on the circumstances~\cite{TFMK03}. In the present case, this generalization is essential: as the authors of Ref.~\cite{BNPRS06} rightly pointed out, these phase factors can be used to induce new features in the QW (like quasiperiodic behavior or dynamic localization) but also as a control mechanism for compensating externally-induced decoherence. Our contribution shares these two qualities as well: we show how the space evolution of the system remains unaltered from the probabilistic point of view if the phase factors are well tuned. Thus, this nontrivial invariance is added to other known symmetries of the problem~\cite{CSB07}.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{Sec_Process} we review the formalism used in the construction of the discrete-time quantum walk on the line with a time-dependent coin operator. In Sec.~\ref{Sec_Initial} we provide explicit expressions for the initial stages of the evolution of the quantum state of the system. We analyze the mathematical structure of these formulas in Sec.~\ref{Sec_Changing_phases}, and infer that invariant behavior can be obtained with the proper selection of the values of the parameters. We prove the general validity of this conjecture in Sec.~\ref{Sec_Invariance}, and discuss the role of the two key magnitudes that appear along our study. The paper ends with Sec.~\ref{Sec_Conclusion} where conclusions are drawn.
\section{QW with a time-dependent coin operator}
\label{Sec_Process}
We begin by introducing the building blocks of the time-dependent quantum walk on the line. We denote by $\HH_P$ the Hilbert space of discrete particle positions in one dimension, spanned by the basis $\left\{| n\rangle : n \in \ZZ\right\}$, and by $\HH_C$ the Hilbert space of the coin states, spanned by the basis $\left\{|+\rangle, |-\rangle\right\}$. In its most ubiquitous form, the discrete-time, discrete-space quantum walk on the Hilbert space $\HH\equiv\HH_C\otimes \HH_P$ is the result of the action of the evolution operator $\hat{T}$, $\hat{T}\equiv \hat{S}\, \hat{U}$, which consists of some unitary operator $\hat{U}$ that affects only the internal degree of freedom, the throw of the quantum dice, and a shift operator $\hat{S}$ that {\it moves\/} the walker depending on the respective coin state:
\begin{equation}
\hat{S} \left(|\pm\rangle\otimes| n\rangle \right)= |\pm\rangle\otimes| {n\pm 1}\rangle.
\end{equation}
In our scheme, however, we break the temporal homogeneity of the process by assuming that the coin operator changes with time, $\hat{T}_t$, i.e., $\hat{T}_t\equiv \hat{S}\, \hat{U}_t$. The most general form that operator $\hat{U}_t$ can take according to its unitary nature reads~\cite{CSL08}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{U}_t
&\equiv& \big[e^{i \alpha_t} \cos \theta_t |+\rangle \langle +| +e^{-i \beta_t} \sin \theta_t |+\rangle \langle -| \nonumber \\
&+& e^{i \beta_t} \sin \theta_t |-\rangle \langle +| - e^{-i \alpha_t} \cos \theta_t |-\rangle \langle -|\big]\otimes\hat{I}_P,
\label{U_coin_gen}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat{I}_P$ is the identity operator defined in the position space $\HH_P$, and $\alpha_t$, $\beta_t$ and $\theta_t$ are real magnitudes. In fact, as we consider that the time increases in discrete steps, one can always choose the time units so that the time variable $t$ is just an integer index. Then the state of the system at a later time, $|\psi\rangle_t$, is recovered after the application of $\hat{T}_t$ to the previous state:
\begin{equation}
|\psi\rangle_t =\hat{T}_t|\psi\rangle_{t-1},
\label{evol_t}
\end{equation}
and the evolution of the system is fully determined once $|\psi\rangle_{0}\equiv|\psi\rangle_{t=0}$ is set. Here we assume that, at the beginning, the quantum walker is located at the origin but that the initial coin state is a general superposition:
\begin{equation}
|\psi\rangle_{0} =\left(\cos \eta |+\rangle + e^{i \gamma}\sin \eta |-\rangle\right) \otimes | 0\rangle.
\label{psi_zero_gen}
\end{equation}
Let us finally introduce two probabilistic magnitudes which will appear repeatedly along this paper. The first one is the probability mass function (PMF) of the process, $\rho(n,t)$, the probability that the walker is in a particular position $n$ at a given time $t$:
\begin{equation}
\rho(n,t)=\langle \psi|\hat{N}_n|\psi\rangle_t,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\hat{N}_n\equiv \hat{I}_C\otimes | {n}\rangle\langle n|,
\label{N_def}
\end{equation}
and $\hat{I}_C$ is the identity operator of the coin space $\HH_C$. The second one is the probability of obtaining the {\it plus\/} or {\it minus\/} value when measuring the coin state of the walker:
\begin{equation}
P_{\pm}(t)\equiv\langle \psi|\hat{Q}_{\pm}|\psi\rangle_t,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\hat{Q}_{\pm}\equiv | \pm\rangle\langle \pm| \otimes\hat{I}_P.
\label{S_def}
\end{equation}
\section{Initial evolution}
\label{Sec_Initial}
We are now ready to determine the state of the system $|\psi\rangle_{t}$, for any value of $t$, by means of Eqs.~\eqref{evol_t} and~\eqref{psi_zero_gen}. We might give specific values to $\eta$ and $\gamma$, and a rule for $\alpha_t$, $\beta_t$ and $\theta_t$, and thus $|\psi\rangle_{t}$ could be computed numerically. Instead of proceeding in this way, we are going to introduce the explicit expressions of $|\psi\rangle_{t}$ for the lowest values of $t$. As we will see, beyond the obvious limitations, this approach is very illustrative.
Thus, after the first time step the system is in the state given by
\begin{eqnarray}
|\psi\rangle_{1} &=& e^{i\alpha_1}\left[\cos \eta\cos \theta_1+e^{-i \varphi}\sin \eta\sin\theta_1 \right] |+\rangle\otimes | 1\rangle \nonumber\\
&+&e^{i\beta_1}\left[\cos \eta\sin \theta_1-e^{-i \varphi}\sin \eta\cos\theta_1 \right] |-\rangle\otimes | {-1}\rangle, \nonumber\\
&=&e^{i\alpha_1} a \, |+\rangle\otimes | 1\rangle+e^{i\beta_1} b\, |-\rangle\otimes | {-1}\rangle,
\label{psi_one}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
a&\equiv&\cos \eta\cos \theta_1+e^{-i \varphi}\sin \eta\sin\theta_1, \\
b&\equiv&\cos \eta\sin \theta_1-e^{-i \varphi}\sin \eta\cos\theta_1,
\end{eqnarray}
with $\left|a\right|^2+\left|b\right|^2=1$, and
\begin{equation}
\varphi\equiv\alpha_1+\beta_1-\gamma.
\label{phi_def}
\end{equation}
In this case, only two sites in the line are accessible to the walker, i.e., $n=\pm1$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(1,1)&=&\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\cos 2\eta\cos 2\theta_1 +\sin 2\eta\sin2\theta_1\cos \varphi\right)\nonumber\\
&=&\left|a\right|^2,\\
\rho(-1,1)&=&\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\cos 2\eta\cos 2\theta_1 -\sin 2\eta\sin2\theta_1\cos \varphi\right)\nonumber\\
&=&\left|b\right|^2,
\label{rho_one}
\end{eqnarray}
which is nothing but the consequence of a well-known property of quantum walks of this kind: $\rho(n,t)=0$ if
$n\neq t-2 m$, $m\in\{0,\ldots,t\}$. The same expressions are obtained for the probabilities of the two possible outputs after a measure of the coin state of the system:
\begin{equation}
P_{\pm}(t=1)=\rho(\pm1,1).
\end{equation}
The state of the system after the second time step is
\begin{eqnarray}
|\psi\rangle_{2} &=&e^{i(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)}\cos\theta_2 \,a |+\rangle\otimes | {2}\rangle \nonumber\\
&+&\sin\theta_2\left[e^{i(\beta_1 - \beta_2)} b |+\rangle +e^{i (\alpha_1+\beta_2)}\,a |-\rangle\right] \otimes | {0}\rangle\nonumber\\
&-&e^{i(\beta_1-\alpha_2)}\cos\theta_2\,b |-\rangle\otimes | {-2}\rangle,
\label{psi_two}
\end{eqnarray}
and depends on $\alpha_2$, $\beta_2$ and $\theta_2$. Nonetheless, the PMF is independent of $\alpha_2$ and $\beta_2$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(2,2)&=&\cos^2\theta_2\, \left|a\right|^2,\\%=\cos^2\theta_2\, \rho(1,1),\\
\rho(0,2)&=&\sin^2\theta_2,\\
\rho(-2,2)&=&\cos^2\theta_2\, \left|b\right|^2
\label{rho_two}
\end{eqnarray}
and the same applies for the probabilities of measuring any of the two possible values of the coin:
\begin{equation}
P_{\pm}(t=2)=\cos^2\theta_2\,\rho(\pm1,1)+\sin^2\theta_2\,\rho(\mp1,1).
\end{equation}
This fact could lead to the impression that $\alpha_t$ and $\beta_t$ bear no physical information and thus to concluding that one can freely set $\alpha_t=\beta_t=0$. Note that with this convention the values of $\rho(\pm1,1)$ can be kept unchanged with a suitable redefinition of $\gamma$. This is one of the most standard approaches used in the literature when $\hat{U}$ does not change~\cite{TFMK03}. As we will see, one has to proceed with more caution when the coin operator evolves~\cite{CSB07}.
After the third iteration, the state of the system is
\begin{eqnarray}
|\psi\rangle_{3} &=&e^{i(\alpha_1+\alpha_2+\alpha_3)}\cos\theta_3\cos\theta_2\,a |+\rangle\otimes | {3}\rangle \nonumber\\
&+&\Big\{\Big[e^{i(\beta_1-\beta_2+\alpha_3)}\cos\theta_3\sin\theta_2\,b\nonumber\\
&+&e^{i(\alpha_1+\beta_2-\beta_3)}\sin\theta_3\sin\theta_2 \,a\Big]|+\rangle \nonumber\\
&+&e^{i(\alpha_1+\alpha_2+\beta_3)}\sin\theta_3\cos\theta_2\, a |-\rangle \Big\}\otimes| {1}\rangle \nonumber\\
&-&\Big\{e^{i(\beta_1-\alpha_2-\beta_3)}\sin \theta_3\cos\theta_2\,b|+\rangle \nonumber\\
&+&\Big[e^{i(\alpha_1+\beta_2-\alpha_3)}\cos\theta_3\sin\theta_2\,a\nonumber\\
&-&e^{i(\beta_1-\beta_2+\beta_3)}\sin\theta_3\sin\theta_2 \,b\Big]|-\rangle \Big\}\otimes| {-1}\rangle\nonumber\\
&+&e^{i(\beta_1-\alpha_2-\alpha_3)}\cos\theta_3\cos\theta_2 \,b |-\rangle\otimes | {-3}\rangle,
\label{psi_three}
\end{eqnarray}
where, as before, every introduced magnitude appears in some point of the expression. We have to check $\rho(n,t)$ and $P_{\pm}(t)$ in order to decide which of them are really relevant to the problem:
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(3,3)&=&\cos^2\theta_3\cos^2\theta_2\left|a\right|^2,\\
\rho(1,3)&=&\sin^2\theta_3 \left|a\right|^2+
\cos^2\theta_3\sin^2\theta_2 \left|b\right|^2\nonumber\\
&+&\sin 2\theta_3\sin^2\theta_2\, c,\\
\rho(-1,3)&=&\cos^2\theta_3\sin^2\theta_2\left|a\right|^2 +\sin^2\theta_3 \left|b\right|^2\nonumber\\
&-&\sin 2\theta_3\sin^2\theta_2\, c,\\
\rho(-3,3)&=&\cos^2\theta_3\cos^2\theta_2\left|b\right|^2,
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{\pm}(t=3)&=&\frac{1}{2}\left[1\pm\cos 2\theta_3\cos 2\theta_2\left(\left|a\right|^2-\left|b\right|^2\right)\right]\nonumber\\
&\pm&\sin 2\theta_3\sin^2\theta_2\, c,
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{equation}
c\equiv{\rm Re}\left[ e^{i(\alpha_1-\alpha_3)}e^{-i(\beta_1-2\beta_2+\beta_3)}b^*a\right],
\label{c_def}
\end{equation}
an interference term. Note that $c$ depends on $\alpha_3$ and $\beta_3$, but also on $\beta_2$, which has reappeared, and observe how $\alpha_2$ is still missing.
The complexity of the explicit expressions for $|\psi\rangle_{t}$ and the derived magnitudes when $t>3$ is so high that we are not going to reproduce them here. However, as we will show below, Eq.~\eqref{c_def} contains enough clues to understanding the main features of the process.
\section{Changing phases}
\label{Sec_Changing_phases}
A first conclusion that one can obtain from the previous Section is that $\alpha_t$, $\beta_t$ and $\theta_t$ are significant magnitudes. The importance of a time-dependent $\theta_t$ in the evolution of the quantum walker was beyond any doubt, as this has been the target of many previous studies~\cite{RMM04,AR09a,AR09b,RS14}, so we will fix its value constant $\theta_t=\theta$, and concentrate our attention in the effects in $\hat{U}_t$ of evolving phases~\cite{BNPRS06}.
Another outstanding fact, shown by Eq.~\eqref{c_def}, is that the roles played by $\alpha_t$ and $\beta_t$ are not interchangeable, so we are going to consider them separately. Note that in Ref.~\cite{BNPRS06} the restriction $\alpha_t=-\beta_t$ was imposed. We will discuss some consequences of this constraint later on.
If $\alpha_t$ and $\beta_t$ can be chosen independently, further simplification can be obtained by dropping $\gamma$. This parameter appears in all the previous expressions only through $\varphi$, cf. Eq.~\eqref{phi_def},
so we can set $\gamma=0$ hereafter, without any loss of generality
as long as we do not set $\alpha_1=-\beta_1$.
The fact that $\alpha_t$ and $\beta_t$ affect the evolution of the quantum walker in a distinctive way does not imply, however, that we cannot obtain similar results with both of them. For instance, a source of randomness in any of the two phases will distort the coherence of the evolution of the walker~\cite{AVWW11}, which shifts from a ballistic movement to a diffusive spreading~\cite{BCA03b}.
We show this in Fig.~\ref{Fig_Random}. In the upper panel we set $\beta_t=0$ and choose $\alpha_t$ at random, whereas the lower one is the outcome of the complementary experiment, we keep $\alpha_t=0$ and change $\beta_t$. The rest of the parameters were fixed to $\theta=\eta=\pi/4$. As we can see, in both cases the quantum walk reaches the classical limit, in the classical way: the PMF presents the archetypal hairy aspect, with sharp spikes above and below the Gaussian bell~\cite{RMM04}. As usual, we have plotted only the non-zero values of PMF, since Eq.~\eqref{evol_t} implies that if the initial state is located at the origin, cf. Eq.~\eqref{psi_zero_gen}, at any later time only odd or even sites are occupied with non-zero probabilities.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{tabular}{rc}(a)&\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth,keepaspectratio=true]{Fig1a.eps}\\(b)&\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth,keepaspectratio=true]{Fig1b.eps}\end{tabular}
\caption{(Color online)
Probability mass function of the process after $t=100\,000$ time steps. The red solid line connects the points obtained by direct application of the evolution operator on the initial state when we pick at random: (a) $\alpha_t$; (b) $\beta_t$. Only probabilities corresponding to even values of $n$ are represented, as odd values have probability equal to zero.
The blue dotted line corresponds to the limiting Gaussian probability density function.}
\label{Fig_Random}
\end{figure}
Another effect that can be induced with any of the two phases is the breaking of the space symmetry. We can illustrate this easily if we recall the explicit expressions introduced in the previous section. Let us assume again that $\theta=\eta=\pi/4$, and consider that either $\alpha=\pi/2$ and $\beta=0$, or $\alpha=0$ and $\beta=\pi/2$, i.e., $\varphi=\pi/2$. It is well-known that these values lead to a symmetric PMF around the center of the line, whenever the phases are constant. In such a case one has:
\begin{equation*}
\rho(1,1)=\rho(-1,1)=\frac{1}{2},
\end{equation*}
at $t=1$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\rho(2,2)&=&\rho(-2,2)=\frac{1}{4},\\
\rho(0,2)&=&\frac{1}{2},
\end{eqnarray*}
at $t=2$, but
\begin{eqnarray*}
\rho(3,3)&=&\rho(-3,3)=\frac{1}{8},\\
\rho(1,3)&=&\frac{3}{8}+\frac{c}{2}\\
\rho(-1,3)&=&\frac{3}{8}-\frac{c}{2},
\end{eqnarray*}
with
\begin{equation*}
c=\frac{1}{2}\sin \left[(\alpha_1-\alpha_3)-(\beta_1-2\beta_2+\beta_3)\right].
\end{equation*}
When $c\neq0$ we depart from a symmetric PMF, and the maximal skewness is attained when
\begin{equation*}
|c|=\frac{1}{2},
\end{equation*}
that can be obtained, for instance, if set $\alpha_t=\beta_t=0$, for $t>1$.
Just on the opposite side, we could question if $\alpha_t$ and $\beta_t$ can be tuned so that one recovers the {\it same\/} evolution of a time-independent quantum walker.
Obviously, we are looking for a nontrivial response, and this response cannot stem from the restricted example analyzed in the previous paragraph: $c\neq0$ destroys the symmetry but $c=0$ does not ensures the desired invariance. However, we can re-examine Eq.~\eqref{c_def} in a search for inspiration. Let us focus on the evolution of $\beta_t$, and consider for the moment that $\alpha_t=0$. It is clear that the two choices,
$\beta_{3}=2\beta_{2}-\beta_{1}$ and $\beta_{3}=\beta_{2}=\beta_{1}$, are equivalents, in the sense that both rules lead to the same values of $\rho(n,t)$ and $P_{\pm}(n,t)$, for $t\leq3$. Therefore, Eq.~\eqref{c_def} seems to suggest that a sufficient condition for the invariance is:
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_{t}&=&0,\label{alpha_rec_0}\\
\beta_{t}&=&2\beta_{t-1}-\beta_{t-2}.\label{beta_rec}
\end{eqnarray}
In the next Section we demonstrate the general validity of this statement, as well as consider the invariance obtained by adjusting $\alpha_t$ alone.
\section{Invariance}
\label{Sec_Invariance}
If we set $\alpha_t=0$, $\hat{U}_t$ reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{U}_t&=& \big[\cos \theta_t |+\rangle \langle +| +e^{-i\beta_t}\sin \theta_t |+\rangle \langle -| \nonumber \\
&+&e^{i\beta_t}\sin \theta_t |-\rangle \langle +| -\cos \theta_t |-\rangle \langle -|\big]\otimes\hat{I}_P.
\label{U_coin}
\end{eqnarray}
Let us now introduce the wave functions $\psi_{\pm}(n,t)$, the two-dimensional projection of the state of the walker into the position basis:
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_{+}(n,t)&\equiv& \langle +| \otimes \langle n| \psi\rangle_t, \label{Def_Psi_P}\\
\psi_{-}(n,t)&\equiv& \langle -| \otimes \langle n| \psi\rangle_t. \label{Def_Psi_M}
\end{eqnarray}
The evolution operator $\hat{T}_t$ induces the following set of recursive equations on the wave-function components, cf. Eq.~\eqref{evol_t}:
\begin{equation}
\psi_{+}(n,t)=\cos \theta \,\psi_{+}(n-1,t-1)+e^{-i\beta_t}\sin \theta \,\psi_{-}(n-1,t-1),
\label{Rec_P}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\psi_{-}(n,t)=e^{i\beta_t}\sin \theta \,\psi_{+}(n+1,t-1
-\cos \theta\, \psi_{-}(n+1,t-1),
\label{Rec_M}
\end{equation}
which are to be solved under the assumption that the walker is initially at $n=0$, that is, $\psi_{+}(n,0)=\cos \eta\, \delta_{n,0}$, $\psi_{-}(n,0)=\sin \eta\, \delta_{n,0}$, where $\delta_{n,t}$ is the Kronecker delta.
Let us introduce the allied quantities $\psi^{\circ}_{\pm}(n,t)$, the solutions to the time-independent problem, i.e., when $\beta_t=\beta_1$:
\begin{equation}
\psi^{\circ}_{+}(n,t)=\cos \theta \,\psi^{\circ}_{+}(n-1,t-1)+e^{-i\beta_1}\sin \theta \,\psi^{\circ}_{-}(n-1,t-1),
\label{Rec_P0}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\psi^{\circ}_{-}(n,t)=e^{i\beta_1}\sin \theta \,\psi^{\circ}_{+}(n+1,t-1
-\cos \theta\, \psi^{\circ}_{-}(n+1,t-1).
\label{Rec_M0}
\end{equation}
Let us further assume that $\psi_{\pm}(n,t)$ and $\psi^{\circ}_{\pm}(n,t)$ are connected through the following relationships:
\begin{equation}
\psi_{+}(n,t)=\psi^{\circ}_{+}(n,t)e^{i(n-t)(\beta_2-\beta_1)/2},
\label{psi_psi0_P}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\psi_{-}(n,t)=\psi^{\circ}_{-}(n,t)e^{i(n+t)(\beta_2-\beta_1)/2}.
\label{psi_psi0_M}
\end{equation}
Note that Eqs.~\eqref{psi_psi0_P} and~\eqref{psi_psi0_M} satisfy $\psi_{\pm}(0,0)=\psi^{\circ}_{\pm}(0,0)$. Let us consider Eq.~\eref{Rec_P},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\psi_{+}(n,t)&=&\psi^{\circ}_{+}(n,t)e^{i\frac{n-t}{2}(\beta_2-\beta_1)}\\
&=&\cos \theta \,\psi^{\circ}_{+}(n-1,t-1)e^{i\frac{n-t}{2}(\beta_2-\beta_1)}\\
&+&e^{-i\beta_t}\sin \theta \,\psi^{\circ}_{-}(n-1,t-1)e^{i\frac{n+t-2}{2}(\beta_2-\beta_1)},
\end{eqnarray*}
and compare it with Eq.~\eref{Rec_P0}: one must conclude that
\begin{equation}
\beta_t-\frac{n+t-2}{2}(\beta_2-\beta_1)+\frac{n-t}{2}(\beta_2-\beta_1)=\beta_1,
\end{equation}
should hold, that is
\begin{equation}
\beta_{t}=\beta_1+(t-1)\left(\beta_{2}-\beta_{1}\right),
\label{beta_explicit}
\end{equation}
for $t\geq1$. The same conclusion is obtained from Eqs.~\eref{Rec_M},~\eref{Rec_M0} and~\eref{psi_psi0_M}.
From Eq.~\eqref{beta_explicit} it can be easily checked that Eq.~\eqref{beta_rec} is satisfied, and that the recursive law may also be expressed in the following suggesting form:
\begin{equation}
\beta_{t+1}-\beta_{t}=\beta_{t}-\beta_{t-1}.
\end{equation}
Observe how by confirming the validity of Eq.~\eqref{psi_psi0_P} and~\eqref{psi_psi0_M} we have proven that neither $\rho(t,n)$ nor $P_{\pm}(t)$ depend on $\beta_2$, since
\begin{equation}
\left|\psi_{\pm}(n,t)\right|=\left|\psi^{\circ}_{\pm}(n,t)\right|.
\end{equation}
Therefore, we cannot use the detailed knowledge of $\rho(t,n)$ or $P_{\pm}(t)$ to deduce the right value of $\beta_2$ which is the key to continue with the evolution of the system. The same applies to $M(n,t)$,
\begin{equation}
M(n,t) \equiv\left|\psi_{+}(n,t)\right|^2-\left|\psi_{-}(n,t)\right|^2,
\end{equation}
another interesting magnitude that is connected with the local magnetization of the system in the $z$ direction when the qubit represents the spin of the particle~\cite{SA13}. If we continue with this analogy, $\beta_2$ can only be inferred from the local magnetic properties of the system along the $x$ or $y$ directions.
We illustrate in Fig.~\ref{Fig_Sample} the invariance of $\rho(t,n)$ in spite of the time- and site-inhomogeneous phase shifts that Eq.~\eqref{beta_explicit} introduces in the wave functions, cf. Eqs.~\eqref{psi_psi0_P} and~\eqref{psi_psi0_M}. Here we have set $\theta=\pi/4$, $\eta=\pi/3$, $\alpha_t=0$, $\beta_1=0$ and $\beta_2=\pi/7$. With this choice, $\psi^{\circ}_{\pm}(n,t)$ are real functions, whereas $\psi_{\pm}(n,t)$ exhibit a complex, correlated behavior: their relative contribution to the PMF changes abruptly between neighbor locations.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{tabular}{rc}
(a)&\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth,keepaspectratio=true]{Fig2a.eps}\\(b)&\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth,keepaspectratio=true]{Fig2b.eps}\\(c)&\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth,keepaspectratio=true]{Fig2c.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{(Color online)
Comparison of the wave function after $t=30$ time steps. The red solid lines and dots correspond to a time-homogeneous QW.
The blue dotted lines show the real parts of the magnitudes associated with a time-dependent QW,
while the imaginary parts are depicted by green dashed lines.}
\label{Fig_Sample}
\end{figure}
We can draw a complementary picture that may help in the understanding the evolution of $\hat{U}_t$ when $\beta_t$ follows Eq.~\eqref{beta_explicit}, through a geometrical analogy, a representation that is very similar to the Bloch sphere~\cite{AR09b}. Let us introduce $\boldsymbol{u}_t$, a time-dependent, unit-length vector in $\RR^3$. Let us denote by $\theta$ and $\beta_t$ its polar and azimuthal spherical coordinates, respectively. Then, we can recover the coin operator $\hat{U}_t$ through the scalar projection of the Pauli {\it vector\/} $\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}$, with Cartesian components
\begin{eqnarray*}
\hat{\sigma}_x&\equiv& |+\rangle \langle -| + |-\rangle \langle +|,\\
\hat{\sigma}_y&\equiv& -i |+\rangle \langle -| + i |-\rangle \langle +|, \mbox{ and}\\
\hat{\sigma}_z&\equiv& |+\rangle \langle +| - |-\rangle \langle -|,
\end{eqnarray*}
onto the $\boldsymbol{u}_t$ direction, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\hat{U}_t\equiv \left(\boldsymbol{u}_t\cdot\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\right)\otimes\hat{I}_P.
\end{equation}
The evolution of $\boldsymbol{u}_t$ is a step-like precession around the north pole. Observe how, unlike the example shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig_Sample}, $(\beta_2-\beta_1)/\pi$ does not need to be a rational fraction and, therefore, the precession of $\boldsymbol{u}_t$ is not a periodic phenomenon in general. The absence of periodicity implies that the succession defined by the ending points of the vector $\boldsymbol{u}_t$ constitutes an everywhere-dense subgroup of the corresponding parallel of latitude on the (Bloch) sphere, and thus the unconditional probability of choosing a particular value for $\beta_t$ is uniformly distributed in the limit.
This feature is not shared by the second path to invariance, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_{t}&=&\alpha_{t-2},\label{alpha_rec}\\
\beta_{t}&=&\beta_{t-1}.\label{beta_rec_0}
\end{eqnarray}
As one can easily see, Eq.~\eqref{alpha_rec} implies that $\alpha_t$ can take no more than two different values, $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$, and that these two phases must be chosen alternately. The formal proof follows the same steps as in the previous case, so we are going to give a simple sketch of it. We have to assume that the solution to our problem reads
\begin{equation}
\psi_{+}(n,t)=\psi^{\circ}_{+}(n,t)e^{i n(\alpha_2-\alpha_1)/2},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\psi_{-}(n,t)=\psi^{\circ}_{-}(n,t)e^{i n (\alpha_2-\alpha_1)/2},
\end{equation}
when $t$ is even, and
\begin{equation}
\psi_{+}(n,t)=\psi^{\circ}_{+}(n,t)e^{i(n-1)(\alpha_2-\alpha_1)/2},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\psi_{-}(n,t)=\psi^{\circ}_{-}(n,t)e^{i(n+1)(\alpha_2-\alpha_1)/2},
\end{equation}
when $t$ is odd. The introduction of these expressions in the set of recursive formulas induced by Eq.~\eqref{evol_t},
\begin{equation*}
\psi_{+}(n,t)=e^{i\alpha_t}\cos \theta \,\psi_{+}(n-1,t-1)+e\sin \theta \,\psi_{-}(n-1,t-1),
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\psi_{-}(n,t)=\sin \theta \,\psi_{+}(n+1,t-1
-e^{-i\alpha_t}\cos \theta\, \psi_{-}(n+1,t-1),
\end{equation*}
leads to the periodic alternation of $\alpha_t$ between $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$, which is still arbitrary. Even so, this case is not as rich as the previous one.
Finally, note that we have not ruled out the possibility that this kind of nontrivial invariance can be generated by means of recursive laws where $\alpha_t$ and $\beta_t$ collaborate together. However, we can show that the phase locking
$\alpha_t=-\beta_t$ is not a valid candidate. The key point for this effect is that value of the phase factors at time $t=2$ can be set with independence of the phase factors at time $t=1$. This implies, in particular, that condition $c=0$ must be identically satisfied for any choice of $\beta_2$. When $\alpha_t=-\beta_t$, the expression for $c$ reads, cf. Eq.~\eqref{c_def},
\begin{equation*}
c={\rm Re}\left[ e^{i2(\beta_2-\beta_1)}b^*a\right],
\end{equation*}
and then $\beta_2$ is tied to $\beta_1$.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{Sec_Conclusion}
In this paper we have analyzed some properties of a discrete-time quantum walk on the line when the coin operator depends on the time variable.
In particular, we have focused our interest on the effects that the time dependence of the two phase factors can cause on the behavior of the walker. In the first place, we have shown how random changes in any of these magnitudes lead to the recovery of the classical limit. But decoherence is not the immediate consequence of temporal inhomogeneity in the process. On the contrary, we have found a way to mimic the motion of any ordinary quantum walk by means of a sequence of well-chosen, time-dependent coin operators.
A remarkable property of this invariance is that the way in which the {\it replicating\/} sequence must be designed is precise but not unique. It depends on two free parameter whose values cannot be assessed through the mere inspection of the position of the walker.
The information that is hidden in these two magnitudes must be recovered by means of specific inspection of the local quantum properties coined walker. The implications of this fact will be the subject of future research.
\acknowledgments
The author acknowledges partial support from the Spanish Ministerio de Econom\'{\i}a y Competitividad under Contract No. FIS2013-47532-C3-2-P, and from Generalitat de Catalunya, Contract No. 2014SGR608.
|
\section{Introduction: A noisy revolution}
Imagine two simple gambling games, say A and B, in which I play
against you. Each one is a losing game for me, in the sense that
my average capital is a decreasing function of the number of turns
we play. Once you are convinced that I lose in both games, I give
you a third proposal: alternate the games following the sequence
AABBAABB... If you frown, the proposal can be modified to make it
less suspicious: in each run we will randomly chose the game that
is played. If you accept either of these proposals you would have
trusted your intuition too much, not realising that random systems
may behave in an unexpected way.
The phenomenon we have just described is known as {\em Parrondo's
paradox} \cite{abbott,abbott-nature,abbottrev}. It was originally
inspired by a class of physical systems: {\em the Brownian
ratchets} \cite{ajdari,magnasco,astumian,reiman,linke} and lately
has received the attention of scientists working on several
fields, ranging from biology to economics. These are systems
capable of rectifying thermal fluctuations, such as those
exhibited by a Brownian particle.
Brownian motion was one of the first crucial proofs of the
discreteness of matter. First observed by Jan Ingenhousz in 1785,
and later rediscovered by Brown in 1828, the phenomenon consists
on the erratic or fluctuating motion of a small particle when it
is embedded in a fluid. In the beginning of the XXth century,
Einstein realized that these fluctuations were a manifestation of
the molecular nature of the fluid\footnote{The thermal origin of
Brownian motion was firstly proposed by Delsaux in 1877 and later
on by Gouy in 1888 (see \cite{einstein}).} and devised a method to
measure Avogadro's number by using Brownian motion
\cite{einstein}. Since then, the study of fluctuations has been a
major topic in statistical mechanics.
The theory of fluctuations helped to understand noise in
electrical circuits, activation processes in chemistry, the
statistical nature of the second law of thermodynamics, and the
origin of critical phenomena and spontaneous symmetry breaking, to
cite only a few examples. In most of these cases, the role played
by thermal fluctuations or thermal noise is either to trigger some
process or to act as a disturbance. However, in the past two
decades, the study of fluctuations has led to models and phenomena
where the effect of noise is more complex and sometimes unexpected
and even counterintuitive.
Noise can enhance the response of a nonlinear system to an
external signal, a phenomenon known as {\em stochastic resonance}
\cite{hanggires}. It can create spatial patterns and ordered
states in spatially extended systems \cite{nipt,jordi}, and
Brownian ratchets show that noise can be rectified and used to
induce a systematic motion in a Brownian particle
\cite{ajdari,magnasco,astumian,reiman,linke}. In these new
phenomena, noise has a very different role from that considered in
the past: it contributes to the creation of order. This could be
relevant in several fields, and specially in biology, since most
biological systems manage to keep themselves in ordered states
even while
surrounded by noise, both thermal noise at the level of the cell
and environmental fluctuations at the macroscopic level.
However, fluctuations are not only restricted to physics,
chemistry or biology. The origin of the theory of probability is
closely related to gambling games, social statistics, and even to
the efficiency of juries \cite{hacking}. Statistical mechanics and
probability theory have both contributed to each other and also to
fields like economics. In 1900, five years before Einstein's
theory of the Brownian motion, the French mathematician Louis
Bachelier worked out a theory for the price of a stock very
similar to Einstein's \cite{bachelier}. Recently this link between
probability, statistical mechanics, and economics has crystallised
in a new field: {\em econophysics} \cite{econophys}.
Some of the aforementioned constructive role of noise has been
observed in complex systems beyond physics. Stochastic resonance,
for instance, has an increasing relevance in the study of
perception and other cognitive processes \cite{hanggires,prlres}.
Similarly, we expect that other elementary stochastic phenomena
such as rectification will be observed in many situations not
restricted to physics.
With this idea in mind, Parrondo's paradox came up as a
translation to simple gambling games of a Brownian ratchet
discovered by Ajdari and Prost \cite{ajdari}. The ratchet was
afterwards named by Astumian and Bier the {\em flashing ratchet}
\cite{astumian} and it was related to the idea proposed by
Magnasco \cite{magnasco} that biological systems could rectify
fluctuations to perform work and systematic motion.
The paradox does not make use of Brownian particles, but only of
the simpler fluctuations arising in a gambling game. However, it
illustrates the mechanism of rectification in a very sharp way,
and for this reason we think that it could contribute to extend
the ``noisy revolution", i.e., the idea that noise can create
order, to those fields where stochastic dynamics is relevant.
The paper is organised as follows. In section \ref{sec:ratchets}
we briefly review the flashing ratchet and explain how it can
rectify fluctuations. Section \ref{sec:games} is devoted to the
original Parrondo's paradox. There we introduce the paradoxical
games as a discretisation of the flashing ratchet, discuss an
intuitive explanation of the paradox that we have called {\em
reorganisation of trends}, and present an extension of the
original paradox inspired by this idea. In section
\ref{sec:colect} we introduce several versions of the games
involving a large number of players. Some interesting effects can
be observed in these collective games: redistribution of capital
brings wealth \cite{capital}, and collective decisions taken by
voting or by optimizing the returns in the next turn can lead to
worse performance than purely random choices
\cite{eplsr,physicaA}. Finally, in section \ref{sec:conclusions}
we briefly review the literature on the paradox and present our
main conclusions.
\section{Ratchets}
\label{sec:ratchets}
Here we revisit the flashing ratchet \cite{ajdari,astumian}, one
of the simplest Brownian ratchets and the most closely related to
the paradoxical games. We refer to the exhaustive review by
Reimann on Brownian ratchets \cite{reiman} or the special issue in
Applied Physics A, edited by Linke \cite{linke}, for further
information on the subject.
Consider an ensemble of independent one-dimensional Brownian
particles in the asymmetric sawtooth potential depicted in
Fig.~\ref{figflash}. It is not difficult to show that, if the
potential is switched on and off periodically, the particles
exhibit an average motion to the right. Let us assume that the
temperature $T$ is low enough to ensure that $kT$ is much smaller
than the maxima of the potential, and that we start with the
potential switched on and with all the particles around one of its
minima, as shown in the upper plot of Fig.~\ref{figflash}. When
the potential is switched off, the particles diffuse freely, and
the density of particles spreads as depicted in the central plot
of the figure. If the potential is then switched on again, each
particle will move back to the initial minimum or to one of the
nearest neighboring minima, depending on its position. Particles
within the dark region will move to the right hand minimum, those
within the small grey region will move to the left hand minimum,
and those within the white region will move back to their initial
positions. As is apparent from the figure and due to the asymmetry
of the potential, more particles fall into the right hand
minimum, and thus there is a net motion of particles to the right.
For this to occur, the switching can be either random or periodic,
but the average period must be of the order of the time to reach
the nearest barrier by free diffusion (see \cite{ajdari,astumian}
for details).
This motion can be seen as a rectification of the thermal noise
associated with free diffusion. The diffusion is symmetric: some
particles move to the right and some to the left, but their
average position does not change. However, when the potential is
switched on again, most of the particles that moved to the left
are driven back to the starting position, whereas many particles
that moved to the right are pushed to the right hand minimum. The
asymmetric potential acts as a rectifier: it ``kills" most of the
negative fluctuations and ``promotes" most of the positive ones.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textheight]{fig1-flashing.eps}
\caption{ The flashing ratchet at work. The figure represent three
snapshots of the potential and the density of particles. Initially
(upper figure), the potential is on and all the particles are
located around one of the minima of the potential. Then the
potential is switched off and the particles diffuse freely, as
shown in the centered figure, which is a snapshot of the system
immediately before the potential is switched on again. Once the
potential is connected again, the particles in the darker region
move to the right hand minimum whereas those within the small grey
region move to the left. Due to the asymmetry of the potential,
the ensemble of particles move, in average, to the right.}
\label{figflash}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The effect remains if we add a small force toward the left, i.e.,
in a direction opposite to the induced motion. In this case, the
ratchet still induces a motion against the force. Consequently,
particles perform work, and the system can be considered a
Brownian motor. It can be proved that this type of motor is
compatible with the second law of thermodynamics. In fact, the
efficiency of such a motor is far below the limits imposed by the
second law \cite{energrev,europhys}. However, the ratchet with a
force exhibits a curious property: when the potential is
permanently on or off, the Brownian particles move in the same
direction as the force, whereas they move in the opposite
direction when the potential is switched on and off. This is the
essence of the paradoxical games: we have two dynamics; in each
one a quantity, namely the position of the Brownian particle,
decreases in average; however, the same quantity increases in
average when the two dynamics are alternated.
\section{Games}
\label{sec:games}
The flashing ratchet can be discretised in time and space, keeping
most of its interesting features. The discretised version adopts
the form of a pair of simple gambling games, which are the basis
of the Parrondo's paradox.
\subsection{The original paradox}
We consider two games, A and B, in which a player can make a bet
of 1 euro. $X(t)$ denotes the capital of the player, where
$t=0,1,2\ldots$ stands for the number of turns played. Game A
consists of tossing a slightly biased coin so that the player has
a probability $p_A$ of winning which is less than a half. That is,
$p_A=1/2-\epsilon$, where the bias $\epsilon$ is a small positive
number.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.28\textheight]{fig2-rules.eps}
\caption{Rules of the paradoxical games. In game A, the player
wins (her capital increases by one euro) with a probability
$1/2-\epsilon$ and loses (her capital decreases by one euro) with
a probability $1/2+\epsilon$, $\epsilon$ being a small positive
number. In the figure, these probabilities are represented by a
coin with two possible outcomes. In game B, the probability to win
and lose depends on the capital $X(t)$ of the player: if $X(t)$ is
a multiple of three, then we use a ``bad" coin, with a probability
to win equal to $1/10-\epsilon$; if $X(t)$ is not a multiple of
three, then a ``good" coin, with a probability to win equal to
$3/4-\epsilon$, is used. In the figure the darkness of the coins
represents their ``badness'' for the player.}
\label{figrules}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The second game, B, is played with two biased coins, a ``bad
coin'' and a ``good coin''. The player must toss the bad coin if
her capital $X(t)$ is a multiple of $3$, the probability of
winning being $p_{\text{bad}}=1/10-\epsilon$. Otherwise, the good
coin is tossed and the probability of winning is
$p_{\text{good}}=3/4-\epsilon$. The rules of games A and B are
represented in Fig.~\ref{figrules}, in which the darkness
represents the ``badness" of each coin.
For these choices of $p_A,p_{\text{good}} \text{ and }
p_{\text{bad}}$, both games are fair if $\epsilon=0$, in the sense
that $\langle X(t)\rangle$ is constant. This is evident for game
A, since the probabilities to win and lose are equal. The analysis of game B
is more involved, but we will soon prove that the effect of the good
and the bad coins cancel each other for $\epsilon=0$.
On the other hand, both games have a tendency to lose if
$\epsilon>0$, i.e., $\langle X(t)\rangle$ decreases with the
number of turns $t$. Surprisingly enough, if the player randomly
chooses the game to play in each turn, or plays them following
some predefined periodic sequence such as ABBABB..., then her
average capital $\langle X(t) \rangle$ is an increasing function
of $t$, as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{paradoja}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth,]{fig3-paradoja.eps}
\caption{Average capital for 5000 players as a function of the
number of turns for game A, B and their periodic and random
combinations. $\epsilon=0.005$ and $[a,b]$ stands for periodic
sequences where A (B) is played $a$ ($b$) consecutive turns.}
\label{paradoja}
\end{center} \end{figure}
The paradox is closely related to the flashing ratchet. If we
visualise the capital $X(t)$ as the position of a Brownian
particle in a one dimensional lattice, game A, for $\epsilon=0$,
is a discretisation of the free diffusion, whereas game B
resembles the motion of the particle under the action of the
asymmetric sawtooth potential. Fig. \ref{figrw} shows this spatial
representation for game B compared with the ratchet potential.
When the particle is on a dark site, the bad coin is used and the
probability to win is very low, whereas on the white sites the
most likely move is to the right. The sawtooth potential has a
short spatial interval in which the force is negative and a long
interval with a positive force. Equivalently, game B uses a bad
coin on a ``short interval'', i.e., on one site of every three on
the lattice, and a good coin on a ``long interval'' corresponding
to two consecutive sites which are not multiple of three (see Fig.
\ref{figrw}).
As in the flashing ratchet, game B rectifies the fluctuations of
game A. Suppose that we play the sequence AABBAABB... and that
$X(t)$ is a multiple of three immediately after two instances of
game B. Then we play game A twice, which can drive the capital
back to $X(t)$ or to $X(t)\pm 2$. In the latter case, the next
turn is for game B with a capital that is not a multiple of three,
which means a good chance of winning. That is, game B rectifies
the fluctuations that occurred in the two turns of game A. The
rectification is not as neat as in the low temperature flashing
ratchet, but enough to cause the paradox.
There is a more rigorous way of associating a potential to a
gambling game by using a master equation \cite{raulfp}. However,
it provides a similar picture of game B, as a random walk that is
nonsymmetric under inversion of the spatial coordinate and capable
of rectifying fluctuations.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth]{fig4-rw.eps}
\caption{ A random walk picture of game B compared with the
ratchet potential. The bad coin (black dots) plays the role of the
negative force acting on a short interval, whereas the two
consecutive good coins (white dots) are the analogous of the
positive force acting on the long intervals.} \label{figrw}
\end{center} \end{figure}
\subsection{Reorganisation of trends}
\label{closerlook}
Beside the ratchet effect, one can explain the paradox considering
another interesting mechanism. Recall that game B is played with
two coins: a good one, used whenever the capital of the player is
not a multiple of three, and a bad one which is used when the
capital is a multiple of three. Therefore, the ``profitability" of
game B crucially depends on how often the bad coin is used, i.e.,
on the probability $\pi_0$ that the capital is a multiple of
three. It turns out that, when game B is played, this probability
is not $1/3$, as one could naively expect, but larger. This can be
reasoned from figure \ref{figrw}. When the capital is at a white
site, its most likely move is to the right, whereas at dark sites
the most likely move is to the left. The capital thus spends more
time jumping forth and back between a multiple of three and its
left hand neighbour than what would do if it moved completely at
random. Consequently, the probability $\pi_0$ is larger than 1/3.
On the other hand, under game A the capital does move in a random
way. Therefore, playing game A in some turns shifts $\pi_0$
towards 1/3, or, equivalently, reduces the number of times the bad
coin of game B is used. In other words, game A, although losing,
boosts the effect of the good coin in B, giving the overall game a
winning tendency. We have named this mechanism {\em reorganization
of trends}, since game A reinforces the positive trend already
present in game B.
Along this section, we formulate this argument in a quantitative
way. Let us first consider game B separately. The probability to
win in the $t$-th turn can be calculated as
\begin{equation}
p_{\text{win}}(t)=\pi_0(t)p_{\text{bad}}+\left[
1-\pi_0(t)\right]p_{\text{good} }\label{pganar}
\end{equation}
where $\pi_0(t)$ is the probability of $X(t)$ being a multiple of
3 (i.e. of using the bad coin).
One can calculate the value of $\pi_0(t)$, by using very simple
techniques from the theory of Markov chains. First, we define the
random process
\begin{equation} Y(t)\equiv X(t)\mod 3
\end{equation}
taking on only three possible values or states, $Y(t)=0,1,2$,
depending on whether the capital $X(t)$ is a multiple of three, a
multiple of three plus one, or a multiple of three plus two,
respectively. This variable $Y(t)$ is a Markov process, i.e., the
statistical properties of $Y(t+1)$ depend only on the value taken
on by $Y(t)$. This allows one to derive a {\em master equation}
for its probability distribution.
Let $\pi_0(t),\pi_1(t),\pi_2(t)$ be the probability that $Y(t)$ is
equal to 0, 1, and 2, respectively. There are two possibilities
for $Y(t)=2$ to occur: either $Y(t-1)=0$ and we lose in the $t$-th
turn (with probability $1-p_{\rm bad}$), or $Y(t-1)=1$ and we win
in the $t$-th turn (with probability $p_{\rm good}$). Therefore:
\begin{equation} \pi_2(t)=(1-p_{\rm bad})\pi_0(t-1)+p_{\rm
good}\pi_1(t-1).
\end{equation}
Following the same type of argument, one can derive equations for
$\pi_0(t)$ and $\pi_1(t)$, and the three equations can be written
in matrix form as: \begin{equation} \label{equation13}
\vec{\pi}(t)=\Pi_B\vec{\pi}(t-1)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\vec{\pi}(t)\equiv \left(
\begin{array}{c} \pi_0(t) \\ \pi_1(t) \\
\pi_2(t)\end{array}\right)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\Pi_B\equiv \left(
\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 1-p_{\rm good} & p_{\rm good}\\
p_{\rm bad} & 0 & 1-p_{\rm good} \\ 1-p_{\rm bad} & p_{\rm good} &
0
\end{array} \right)\label{matrizB}.
\end{equation}
After a small number of turns of game B, $\vec\pi(t)$ approaches
to a stationary value $\vec\pi^{\rm st}_{\rm B}$, which is
invariant under the transformation given by Eq.
(\ref{equation13}), i.e.:
\begin{equation}
\vec\pi^{\rm st}_{\rm B}=\Pi_B\vec\pi^{\rm st}_{\rm B}.
\end{equation}
The third component of the solution of this equation reads:
\begin{equation}
\pi_{\rm 0B}^{\rm
st}=\frac{5}{13}-\frac{440}{2197}\epsilon+O(\epsilon^2 )\simeq
0.38 - 0.20\,\epsilon \label{piob}
\end{equation}
where we have used the values of the original paradox, $p_{\rm
bad}=1/10-\epsilon$ and $p_{\rm good}=3/4-\epsilon$, and have
expanded the solution up to first order of $\epsilon$, to simplify
the exposition.
Substituting this value in Eq.~(\ref{pganar}) we obtain the
probability of winning for game B for sufficiently large $t$
\begin{equation}
p_{\text{win,B}}=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{147}{169}\epsilon+O(\epsilon^2)
\end{equation}
which is less than $1/2$ for $\epsilon>0$. This proves that game B
is fair for $\epsilon=0$ and losing for $\epsilon>0$, as shown in
Fig.~\ref{paradoja}.
The paradox arises when game A comes into play. Game A is always
played with the same coin, regardless of the value of the capital
$X(t)$, and therefore drives the probability distribution
$\vec\pi(t)$ to a uniform distribution. Thus, game A makes
$\pi_0(t)$ tend to $1/3$. Since $1/3< \pi_{\rm 0B}^{\rm st}$, the
effect of game A is to decrease the probability of using the bad
coin in the turns where B is played.
This can be seen in a more precise way, since the random
combination of games A and B can be again solved by using the
master equation:
\begin{equation}
\vec\pi^{\rm st}_{\rm
AB}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\Pi_B+\Pi_A\right]\vec\pi^{\rm st}_{\rm AB}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{mat-a} \Pi_A= \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 1-p_A & p_A \\
p_A & 0 & 1-p_A \\
1-p_A & p_A & 0 \\
\end{array}\right)
\end{equation}
with $p_A=1/2-\epsilon$. The probability of using the bad coin
decreases to
\begin{equation}
\pi^{\rm st}_{\rm
0AB}=\frac{245}{709}-\frac{48880}{502681}\epsilon+O(\epsilon^2)\simeq
0.35 - 0.10\,\epsilon.
\end{equation}
The probability of winning in this randomised combination of games
A and B is
\begin{eqnarray}
p_{\text{win,AB}} &=& \pi^{\rm st}_{\rm
0AB}\frac{p_{\text{bad}}+p_A}{2}+\left[1-\pi^{\rm st}_{\rm
0AB}\right] \frac{p_{\text{good}}+p_A}{2} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{727}{1418}-\frac{486795}{5 02681}\epsilon+O(\epsilon^2)
\end{eqnarray}
which is greater than $1/2$ for a sufficiently small $\epsilon$.
This is the mechanism behind the paradox which we have termed
``reorganisation of trends": although game A consists itself in a
negative trend because it uses a slightly bad coin, it increases
the probability of using the good coin of B, i.e., game A
reinforces the positive trend already present in B enough to make
the combination win.
Periodic sequences can also be studied as Markov chains and their
probability of winning in a whole period can be easily computed
using different combinations of the matrices $\Pi_A$ and $\Pi_B$.
Finally, the slopes of the curves in Fig.~\ref{paradoja} can be
calculated as $\langle X(t+1)\rangle-\langle X(t)\rangle
=2p_{\text{win}}-1$.
\subsection{Capital-independent games}
\label{sec:capitalindep}
The modulo rule in game B is quite
natural in the original representation of the games as a Brownian
ratchet. However, the rule may not suit some applications of the
paradox to biology, biophysics, population genetics, evolution,
and economics. Thus, it would be desirable to devise new
paradoxical games based on rules independent of the capital.
Parrondo, Harmer and Abbott introduced such a game in Ref.
\cite{npg}, inspired by the reorganisation of trends explained in
the last section.
In the new version, game A remains the same as before, but a game
B$'$, which depends on the history of wins and losses of the
player, is introduced. Game B$'$ is played with four coins $B_1'$,
$B_2'$, $B_3'$, $B_4'$ following history-based rules explained in
table \ref{tablahistoria}.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
Before last & Last & Coin & Prob. of win & Prob. of loss\\
$t-2$& $t-1$ & at $t$ & at $t$ & at $t$\\
\hline
Loss & Loss & $B_1'$& $p_1$ &$1-p_1$\\
Loss & Win & $B_2'$& $p_2$ &$1-p_2$\\
Win & Loss & $B_3'$& $p_3$ &$1-p_3$\\
Win & Win & $B_4'$& $p_4$ &$1-p_4$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{History-based rules for game B'}\label{tablahistoria}
\end{table}
The paradox reappears, for instance, when setting
$p_1=9/10-\epsilon$, $p_2=p_3=1/4-\epsilon$, and
$p_4=7/10-\epsilon$. With these numbers and for $\epsilon$ small
and positive, B$'$ is a losing game, while either a random or a
periodic alternation of A and B$'$ produces a winning result.
Fig.~\ref{npg} shows a theoretical computation of the average
capital for these history-dependent paradoxical games.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{fig5-npg.eps}
\caption{Average capital as a function of the number of turns in
the capital independent games. We plot the result for game A and
B$'$, as well as for the random combination and the periodic
sequence AAB$'$B$'$... In all the cases,
$\epsilon=0.003$.}\label{npg}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The paradox is reproduced because there are bad coins in game B$'$
which are played more often than in a completely random game,
i.e., a quarter of the time. For the above choices of $p_i$,
$i=1,2,3,4$, the bad coins are $B_2'$ and $B_3'$. The other two
coins, $B'_1$ and $B'_4$, are good coins.
Due to the fact that game B$'$ rules depend on the history of wins
and losses, the capital $X(t)$ is no longer a Markovian process.
However, the random vector
\begin{equation}
Y(t)=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
X(t)-X(t-1)\\
X(t-1)-X(t-2)
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
can take on four different values and is indeed a Markov chain.
The transition probabilities are again easily obtained from the
rules of game B$'$ and an analytical solution can be obtained
following a similar argument as in section \ref{closerlook} (see
however Ref. \cite{npg} for details).
We see that the mechanism that we have called reorganisation of
trends can be used to extend the paradox to other gambling games.
It is also noteworthy that the price we must pay to eliminate the
dependence on the capital in the original paradox is to consider
history-dependent rules, i.e., games where the capital is no
longer Markovian.
\section{Collective games}
\label{sec:colect}
In this section we analyse three different versions of paradoxical
games played by a large number of individuals. The three share the
feature that it can sometimes be better for the players to
sacrifice short term benefits for higher returns in the future.
\subsection{Capital redistribution brings wealth.}
\label{sec:raul}
Reorganisation of trends tells us that the essential role of game
A in the paradox is to randomise the capital and make its
distribution more uniform. Toral has found that a redistribution
of the capital in an ensemble of players has the same effect
\cite{capital}.
In the new paradoxical games introduced by Toral in
\cite{capital}, there are $N$ players and one of them is randomly
selected in each turn. They can play two games. The first one,
game A', consists of giving a unit of his capital to another
randomly chosen player in the ensemble, that is, game A$'$ is
nothing but a redistribution of the total capital. The second one,
game B, is the same as in the original paradox. Under game A$'$
the capital does not change, where game B is, as before, a losing
game. The striking result is that the random combination of the
two games is winning, i.e., the redistribution of capital
performed in the turns where A$'$ is played turns the losing game
B into a winning one, actually increasing the total capital
available. Thus, the redistribution of capital turns out to be
beneficial for everybody. This effect is shown in
Fig.~\ref{simulacion} where the average total capital in a
simulation with 10 players and 500 realizations is depicted for
games B and A$'$, and for their random combination. It is
remarkable that the effect is still present when the capital is
required to flow from richer to poorer players (see \cite{capital}
for details).
The explanation to this phenomenon follows the same lines as in
the original paradox.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{fig6-simcapred}
\end{center}
\caption{Average capital per player as a function of the number of
turns in game B, game A$'$ (redistribution of capital), and the
random combination. The data have been obtained for
$\epsilon=0.01$, simulating an ensemble of 10 players and
averaging over 500 realizations.} \label{simulacion}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Dangerous choices I: The voting paradox}
\label{ec:voting}
Up to now, we have considered sequences of games that are
``imposed" to the player or players. Either they play game A, game
B, or a periodic or random sequence, but we never allow the
players to choose the game to be played in each turn. In the case
of a single player this deference is quite generous, since her
capital would increase in average under the following trivial
choice: she selects game B if her capital is not a multiple of
three and game A otherwise. This is undoubtedly the best strategy,
because the best coin is always used in every turn. Moreover, it
is not difficult to see that this choice strategy performs much
better than any other random or periodic combination of games.
However, things change when we consider an ensemble of players.
How can the ensemble choose the game to be played in each turn?
There are some possibilities, such as letting them vote for the
preferred game or trying to maximise the winning probability in
each turn. Which is then the best choice strategy? We will see
that the paradoxical games also yield some surprises in this
context: the choice that prefers the majority of the ensemble
turns to be worse than a random or periodic combination of games.
Even if we select the game maximising the profit in every turn, we
can end with systematic loses, as shown in the next section.
Consider a set of $N$ players who play game A or B against a
casino. In each turn, {\em all} of them play the {\em same} game.
Therefore, they have to make a collective decision, choosing
between game A or B in each turn. We will firstly use a {\em
majority rule} to select the game, that is, the game which
receives more votes is played by all the players simultaneously.
The vote of each player will be determined by her capital,
following the strategy that we have explained above for a single
player. Players with capital multiple of three will vote for game
A, whereas the rest will vote for B.
This strategy, which is optimal for a single player, turns to be
losing if the number of players is large enough \cite{physicaA}.
This is shown in figure \ref{capitalmayoria}, where we plot the
average capital in an ensemble with an infinite number of players.
On the other hand, if the game is selected at random the capital
increases in time.
In order to explain this behaviour, we will focus on the evolution
of $\pi_0(t)$, the fraction of players whose capital is a
multiple of three. The selection of the game by voting can be
rephrased in terms of $\pi_0(t)$. As mentioned above, every player
votes for the game which offers him the higher probability of
winning according to his own state. Then, every player whose
capital is a multiple of three will vote for game A in order to
avoid the bad coin in B. That accounts for a fraction $\pi_0(t)$
of the votes. The remaining fraction $1-\pi_0(t)$ of the players
will vote for game B to play with the good coin. Since the
majority rule establishes that the game which receives more votes
is selected, game A will be played if $\pi_0(t)>1/2$. Conversely,
the whole set of players will play game B when $\pi_0(t)$ is below
$1/2$.
On the other hand, as we have seen in section \ref{closerlook},
playing game B makes $\pi_0(t)$ tend to a stationary value given
by Eq.~(\ref{piob}), namely, $\pi_{\rm 0B}^{\rm st}\simeq 0.38 -
0.2\epsilon<1/2$ for $\epsilon>0$, whereas playing game A makes
$\pi_0$ tend to $1/3$. This is still valid for the present model,
since the $N$ players only interact when they make the collective
decision, otherwise they are completely independent.
If $\pi_0(t)>1/2$, then the ensemble of players will select game
A. The fraction $\pi_0(t)$ will decrease until it crosses this
critical value 1/2. At that turn, B is the selected game and it
will remain so as long as $\pi_0$ does not exceed $1/2$. However,
this can never happen, since game B drives $\pi_0$ closer and
closer to $\pi_{\rm 0B}^{\rm st}$ which is below $1/2$. Hence,
after a number of turns, the system gets trapped playing game B
forever with $\pi_0$ asymptotically approaching $\pi_{\rm 0B}^{\rm
st}$. Since $\epsilon$ is positive, game B is a losing game (c.f.~
section \ref{closerlook}) and, therefore, the majority rule yields
systematic losses, as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{capitalmayoria}.
We have also plotted in Fig.~\ref{pi0mayoria} the fraction
$\pi_0(t)$, to check that, once $\pi_0(t)$ crosses 1/2, game B is
always chosen and $\pi_0(t)$ approaches $\pi_{\rm 0B}^{\rm st}$,
staying far below 1/2.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{fig7-cmr.eps}
\caption{Average capital per player in the collective games as a
function of the number of turns, when the game is selected at
random and following the preference of the majority of the players
(MR). Notice that, in the stationary regime, the majority rule
(MR) yields systematic loses whereas the random choice wins in
average. These are analytical results with $\epsilon=0.005$ and an
infinite number of players.} \label{capitalmayoria}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
On the other hand, if, instead of using the majority rule, we
select the game at random or following a periodic sequence, game A
will be chosen even though $\pi_0 < 1/2$. This is a bad choice for
the majority of the players, since playing B would make them toss
the good coin. That is, the random or periodic selection will
contradict from time to time the will of the majority.
Nevertheless, choosing the game at random keeps $\pi_0$ away from
$\pi_{\rm 0B}^{\rm st}$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{pi0mayoria}, i.e.,
in a region where game B is winning ($\pi_0<\pi_{\rm 0B}^{\rm
st}$). Therefore, the random choice yields systematic gains, as
shown in Fig.~\ref{capitalmayoria}.
It is worth noting that choosing the game at random is exactly the
same as if every player voted at random. Therefore, the players
get a winning tendency when they vote at random whereas they lose
their capital when they vote according to their own benefit in
each run.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{fig8-pmr.eps}
\caption{The fraction of players $\pi_0(t)$ with capital multiple of three
as a function of time
when the game is chosen at random and following the majority rule (MR).
In both cases, $\epsilon=0.005$ and $N=\infty$.
The horizontal lines
indicate the threshold value for the majority rule (1/2), and the
stationary values for games A and B, $\pi_{\rm 0A}^{\rm st}$ and
$\pi_{\rm 0B}^{\rm st}$, respectively. The figure clearly shows
that the random strategy keeps $\pi_0(t)$ small, whereas the
majority rule, selecting B most of the time, drives $\pi_0(t)$ to
a value where both game A and B are losing.} \label{pi0mayoria}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Dangerous choices II: The risks of short-range optimisation}
\label{sec:sr}
Yet another ``losing now to win later'' effect can be observed in
the collective paradoxical games with another choice strategy. As
in the previous example, we consider a large set of players, but
we have to add a small ingredient to achieve the desired effect:
now only a randomly selected fraction $\gamma$ of them play the
game in each turn. Suppose we know the capital of every player so
we can compute which game, A or B, will give the larger average
payoff in the next turn. Again, and even more strikingly,
selecting the ``most favorable game'' results in systematic losses
whereas choosing the game at random or following a periodic
sequence steadily increases the average capital \cite{eplsr}.
The knowledge of the capital of every player allows us to choose
the game with the highest average payoff in the next turn, since
this optimal game can easily be obtained from the fraction
$\pi_0(t)$ of players whose capital is a multiple of three. These
individuals will play the bad coin if game B is chosen and the
remaining fraction $1-\pi_0(t)$ will play the good coin. Hence,
the probability of winning for game B reads
\begin{equation}
p_{\text{winB}}=\pi_0p_{\text{bad}}+(1-\pi_0)p_{\text{good} }.
\end{equation} In case game A is selected, the probability to win is
$p_{\text{winA}}=p_A=1/2-\epsilon$ for all
time $t$. Therefore, to choose the game with the larger payoff
$\langle X(t+1)\rangle-\langle X(t)\rangle =2p_{\text{win}}-1$ in
every turn $t$, we must
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{play A} &\text{if}& p_{\text{winA}}\geq
p_{\text{winB}}(\pi_0)\nonumber\\ \text{play B}&\text{if}&
p_{\text{winA}}< p_{\text{winB}}(\pi_0)
\end{eqnarray}
or equivalently
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{play A} &\text{if}& \pi_{0}(t)\geq
\pi_{0c}\nonumber\\
\text{play B} &\text{if} & \pi_0(t) < \pi_{0c}
\label{prescription}
\end{eqnarray}
with
$\pi_{0c}\equiv(p_A-p_{\text{good}})/(p_A-p_{\text{bad}})=5/13$.
We will call this way of selecting the game {\em the short-range
optimal strategy}. We will also consider that the game is selected
following either a random or periodic sequence. These are both
{\em blind} strategies, since they do not make any use of the
information about the state of the system. However, and
surprisingly enough, they turn out to be much better than the
short-range optimal strategy, as shown in
Fig.~\ref{capitalSRepsilon}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{fig9-csrep.eps}
\caption{Average capital as a function of time for the three
different strategies explained in the text, with $N=\infty$,
$\gamma=0.5$, and $\epsilon=0.005$. The short-range (SR) optimal
strategy is losing in the stationary regime, whereas the two blind
strategies: choosing the game to be played either at random or
following the periodic sequence (ABBABB...), yield a systematic
gain. } \label{capitalSRepsilon}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Notice that \eqref{prescription} is similar to the way the game is
selected by the majority rule considered in the previous section,
but replacing $1/2$ by the new critical value $\pi_{0c}=5/13$.
Therefore, the explanation of this model goes quite along the same
lines as for the voting paradox, although with some differences.
Unlike $1/2$, $\pi_{0c}$ equals the stationary value of $\pi_0(t)$
for game B when $\epsilon=0$. As in the voting paradox, game A
drives $\pi_0$ below $\pi_{0c}$ because game A makes $\pi_0$ tend
to $1/3$. If $\pi_0(t)<\pi_{0c}$, then game B is played, but
$\pi_0(t+1)$ will be still below $\pi_{0c}$ only for $\gamma$
sufficiently small. For example, if $\gamma=1/2$ and $\epsilon=0$,
game B is chosen forty times in a row before switching back to
game A, making $\pi_0$ become approximately equal to $\pi_{\rm
0B}^{\rm st}$ at almost every turn. This behaviour is shown in
Fig.~\ref{pi0SR}. As long as $\pi_0$ is close to $\pi_{\rm
0B}^{\rm st}$, the average capital remains approximately constant,
as shown in Fig.~\ref{capitalSR}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{fig10-psr.eps}
\caption{The fraction $\pi_0(t)$ of players with capital multiple
of three as a function of the number of turns,
for $\epsilon=0$, $N=\infty$, and $\gamma=0.5$. The
horizontal lines show the stationary values for game A and game B
(which coincides with the critical fraction $\pi_{0c}$ for the
short-range optimal strategy). As we have in figure
\ref{pi0mayoria} with the majority rule, the short-range optimal
strategy drives $\pi_0(t)$ towards higher values than the other
two strategies.} \label{pi0SR}
\end{center} \end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{fig11-csr.eps}
\caption{Average capital as a function of time for the three
different strategies explained in the text and for $\epsilon=0$,
$N=\infty$ and $\gamma=0.5$. In this case the short-range optimal
strategy is still winning, due to the small jumps coinciding with
the selection of game A. However, most of the turns game B is
played with a value of $\pi_0(t)$ very close to $\pi_{0B}^{\rm
st}$.} \label{capitalSR}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In contrast, the periodic and random strategies choose game A with
$\pi_0<\pi_{0c}$. Although this does not produce earnings in that
turn, it keeps $\pi_0$ away from $\pi_{\rm 0B}^{\rm st}$. When
game B is chosen again, it has a large expected payoff since
$\pi_0$ is not close to $\pi_{\rm 0B}^{\rm st}$. By keeping
$\pi_0$ not too close to $\pi_{\rm 0B}^{\rm st}$, the blind
strategies perform better than the short-range optimal
prescription, as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{capitalSR}.
The introduction of $\epsilon>0$ has two effects. First of all, it
makes $\pi_{\rm 0B}^{\rm st}$ decrease by a small amount, as
indicated in Eq.~(\ref{piob}). This makes it even more difficult
for the short-range optimal strategy to choose game A, and after a
few runs game B is always selected. Since game B is now a losing
game, the short-range optimal strategy is also losing whereas
periodic and random strategies keep their winning tendency, as can
be seen in Fig.~\ref{capitalSRepsilon}.
To summarise, the short-range optimal strategy chooses B most of
the time, since it is the game which gives the highest returns in
each turn. However, this choice drives $\pi_0(t)$ to a region in
which B is no longer a winning game. On the other hand, the random
strategy from time to time sacrifices the short term returns by
selecting game A, but this choice keeps the system in a
``productive region". We could say that the short-range optimal
strategy is ``killing the goose that laid the golden eggs", an
effect that is also present in simple deterministic systems
\cite{eplsr}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
We have presented the original Parrondo's paradox and several
examples showing how the basic mechanisms underlying the paradox
can yield other counter-intuitive phenomena. We finish by
reviewing these mechanisms as well as the literature related with
the paradox.
The first mechanism, the ratchet effect, occurs when fluctuations
can help to surmount a potential barrier or a ``losing streak''.
These fluctuation can either come from another losing game, such
as in the original paradox, from a redistribution of the capital,
such as in Toral's collective games \cite{capital}, or from a
purely diffusive motion, such as in the flashing ratchet.
A second mechanism is the reorganisation of trends, which occurs
when game A reinforces a positive trend already present in game B.
The same mechanism can be observed in the games with capital
independent rules and it helps to understand the counter-intuitive
behaviour of the collective games presented in section
\ref{ec:voting} and \ref{sec:sr}, where random choices perform
better than the choice preferred by the majority or the one
optimizing short term returns. These models also prompt the
question of how information can be used to design a strategy. It
is a relevant question for control theory and also for statistical
mechanics, since the paradox is a purely collective effect that
goes away for a single player, i.e., the choices following the
short-range optimal strategy and the majority rule perform much
better than the random or periodic ones.
There is a third mechanism which we have not addressed along the
paper, but immediately arises if we consider the games as
dynamical systems: the outcome of an alternation of dynamics can
always be interpreted as a stabilization of transient states. This
interpretation has allowed some authors to extend the basic
message of the paradox to pattern formation in spatially extended
systems \cite{prl,pre,fnl,turing}. In these papers, a new
mechanism of pattern formation based on the alternation of
dynamics is introduced. They show how the global alternation of
two dynamics, each of which leads to a homogeneous steady state,
can produce stationary or oscillatory patterns upon alternation.
Another interesting application of the stabilization of transient
states is presented in Ref. \cite{hanta}. Two dynamics for the
population of a virus are introduced with the following property:
in each dynamics, the population vanishes, whereas the alternation
of the two dynamics, whose origin could be the seasonal variation,
induces an outbreak of the virus.
Similar effects can be seen in quantum systems. Lee {\em et al.}
have devised a toy model in which the alternation of two
decoherence dynamics can significantly decrease the decoherence
rate of each separate dynamics \cite{lee}. Also in the quantum
domain, the paradox has received some attention: there have been
some proposals of a quantum version of the games
\cite{abbotq,meyer2} closely related with the recent theory of
quantum games \cite{eisert}, and the paradox has been reproduced
in the contexts of quantum lattice gases \cite{meyer1} and quantum
algorithms \cite{lee2}.
To finish this partial account of the existing literature on the
paradox, we mention the work by Arena {\em et al} \cite{chaot},
who analyse the performance of the games using chaotic instead of
random sequences of choices; that of Chang and Tsong \cite{trunc},
who study the hidden coupling between the two games in the paradox
and present several extensions even for deterministic dynamics;
and the paper by Kocarev and Tasev \cite{lyap}, relating the
paradox with Lyapunov exponents and stochastic synchronisation.
In summary, Parrondo's paradox has drawn the attention of many
researchers to non-trivial phenomena associated with switching
between two dynamics. We have tried to reveal in this paper some
of the basic mechanisms that can yield an unexpected behaviour
when switching between two dynamics, and how these mechanisms work
in several versions of the paradox. As mentioned in the
introduction, we believe that the paradox and its extensions are
contributing to a deeper understanding of stochastic dynamical
systems. In the case of statistical mechanics, switching is in
fact a source of non-equilibrium which is ubiquitous in nature,
due to day-night or seasonal variations \cite{hanta}.
Nevertheless, it has not been studied in depth until the recent
introduction of ratchets and paradoxical games. As the paradox
suggests, we will probably see in the future new models and
applications confirming that noise and switching, even between
equilibrium dynamics, can be a powerful combination to create
order and complexity.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank valuable comments on the original manuscript made by Katja Lindenberg, Javier
Buceta, Martin Plenio, and H. Leonardo Mart\'{\i}nez. This work was
supported by a grant from the {\em New Del Amo Program} (U.C.M.),
and by MCYT-Spain Grant BFM 2001-0291.
|
\section{Introduction}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{GraphicsGalaxySurvey}}
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic representation of a rapid galaxy survey and electromagnetic follow-up of a GW event. A telescope with large FOV (right) rapidly identifies galaxies within a distance range (red area) defined by the extended H$\alpha$ filter, or alternatively with multiple H$\alpha$ filters covering complementary redshift bands. The upper limit on the covered H$\alpha$-redshift ensures that bright galaxies beyond the GW sensitivity range do not contaminate the galaxy catalog, while the lower-redshift limit filters out local, e.g., galactic objects. A sensitive, narrow-FOV telescope then searches for the electromagnetic counterpart of the GW event in the directions of the identified galaxies.}
\label{JWSTmindetectionduration}
\end{figure}
The detection of gravitational waves (GW) from compact binary coalescences is expected to commence in the near future with the completion of the advanced LIGO detectors \citep{advancedLIGO0264-9381-27-8-084006} next year and advanced Virgo \citep{aVirgo} soon after \citep{2013arXiv1304.0670L}. GWs will enable the examination of binary coalescences, along with other phenomena, from new perspectives \citep{2009RPPh...72g6901A,2010CQGra..27q3001A,2013CQGra..30l3001B}.
To increase our confidence in the first detections, as well as to acquire complementary information from astrophysical sources, it will be critical to search for the electromagnetic or neutrino counterparts of GW signals. For the case of neutron star-neutron star and black hole-neutron star mergers, one of the most promising counterparts are kilonovae \citep{1998ApJ...507L..59L,2010MNRAS.406.2650M,2012ApJ...746...48M,2013ApJ...774...25K,2013Natur.500..547T}. Kilonovae are produced through radioactive decay of r-process elements, which are created in the neutron-rich material ejected during the merger. They produce quasi-isotropic emission that aids detectability compared to beamed, e.g., gamma-ray, emission. With $\gtrsim10^{41}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$ peak luminosity in the near infrared and lasting for $\gtrsim$\,$1$\,week \citep{2013ApJ...774...25K}, kilonovae represent a bright and long emission that could be observed upon following up a GW signal candidate with a variety of telescopes.
The expected relatively poor localization of GW signals represents a significant difficulty for follow-up campaigns. Even with a network of 3+ GW detectors, typical events will be localized within $\sim$\,$10-100$\,deg$^2$. Early on, when only two detectors will be available, or for weak GW signals, the sky area will be $\sim$\,$100-1000$\,deg$^2$ (\citealt{2013arXiv1304.0670L}, and references therein). Such a large sky area (i) will result in a large number of false positive events \citep{2009aaxo.conf..312K}, and (ii) will make electromagnetic follow-up difficult with the sufficient depth.
Information on the location of galaxies within the localized sky area and within the sensitivity range of GW observations can significantly improve the potential for detection. Compact binary mergers are expected to occur in or near galaxies \citep{2010ApJ...708....9F}. Searching in the vicinity of galaxies is therefore sufficient to cover all mergers. In the following calculations we adopt a 200\,Mpc maximum range for GW detection from neutron star-neutron star mergers, while in Section \ref{section:distdependence} we then extrapolate the results to greater distances. 200\,Mpc is the fiducial direction- and orientation-averaged range for the advanced LIGO-Virgo detectors. Under favorable direction/orientation, neutron-star binary mergers will be detectable out to $\sim500$\,Mpc (e.g., \citealt{2013CQGra..30l3001B}). Within this range the expected, albeit uncertain, rate of neutron star-neutron star mergers is $0.4-400$\,yr$^{-1}$, most likely around $40$\,yr$^{-1}$ \citep{2010CQGra..27q3001A}.
To estimate the reduction of false positives due to using galaxy directions, one can consider the results of \cite{2013ApJ...767..124N}, who find that the number of galaxies within this volume is $\sim\,8$\,deg$^{-2}$ within 200\,Mpc. For 100\,deg$^2$ sky area, scaling the results of \cite{2013ApJ...767..124N} yields a total sky area occupied by the galaxies within 200\,Mpc to be $\sim$\,0.04\,deg$^2$, corresponding to $\mathcal{O}(10^3)$ reduction in the rate of false positives.
Similarly to follow-up surveys carried out for initial LIGO-Virgo \citep{loocUp,2014ApJS..211....7A}, galaxy locations can also help prioritize among directions followed up by telescopes with limited field of view (FOV). The advantage of prioritization will be most pronounced for these narrow-FOV telescopes. Consider, for example, a telescope with $\sim15' \times 15'$ FOV (Giant Magellan/IMACS, Long Camera Mode; \citealt{1998SPIE.3355..225B}). Such FOV corresponds to an average of $\sim0.5$ galaxies within $200$\,Mpc. Assuming uniform random galaxy distribution, the direction with the most galaxies within the FOV will have $\sim4$ galaxies, while $\sim60\%$ of the pointings will cover no galaxy. Prioritizing over which directions to follow up first can therefore significantly improve detection efficiency. Even for instruments with larger FOVs, prioritization will be important. For example, the BlackGEM Array \footnote{https://www.astro.ru.nl/wiki/research/blackgemarray} will consist of 60-cm telescopes, each with 2.7\,deg$^2$ FOV. Such FOV corresponds to $\sim20$ galaxies on average within $200$\,Mpc. For uniform galaxy distribution, the direction with the most galaxies within the FOV will have $\sim50\%$ more galaxies than a random direction, and about three times more galaxies than the direction with the least number of galaxies within the FOV.
Despite these potential advantages, galaxy catalogs are currently far from being complete for the relevant GW distance reach of $r\sim$\,$200$\,Mpc \citep{2011CQGra..28h5016W,2013ApJ...764..149M}, making the use of available galaxy catalogs less effective. For instance the galaxy catalog used for GW searches with initial GW detectors is estimated to be about $60\%$ complete with respect to B-band luminosity out to 100\,Mpc \citep{2011CQGra..28h5016W}.
In this paper we investigate whether a galaxy catalog can be assembled in 1\,week, or even 1\,day. We consider a hypothetical H$\alpha$ search with both the Palomar Transient Factory (PTF; \citealt{2009PASP..121.1395L}), and a 2-meter class telescope at the MDM observatory. We first limit the detection range to 200\,Mpc, and then generalize the search sensitivity to greater distances. Here, PTF and MDM are taken as examples to demonstrate the capability of existing and relatively easy-to-access instruments. Rapid surveys will likely be performed by a diverse group of telescopes. As this real-time survey will be critical for optimizing science return, the astronomical interest will be broad.
\section{H$\alpha$ survey requirements and completeness}
Star formation rate (SFR) is typically used in GW searches as the tracer of the rate of compact binary mergers \citep{2012A&A...541A.155A}. The merger rate, nevertheless, is expected to be somewhat delayed compared to SFR, and therefore may also be correlated to the total stellar mass in galaxies (e.g., \citealt{2010ApJ...725.1202L}). In the following, we explore the prospects of an H$\alpha$ imaging survey, building on the close connection between H$\alpha$ emission and the ongoing SFR (e.g., \citealt{2003A&A...410...83H}). We adopt a survey depth of $F_{\rm lim,H\alpha}=10^{-15}$erg\,s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$ following \cite{2013ApJ...764..149M}, who find that $F_{\rm lim,H\alpha}$ corresponds to about $90\%$ completeness in SFR. This completeness threshold is chosen as it ensures the coverage of the majority of the sources, while it limits the observational cost, since the undetected $10\%$ H$\alpha$ luminosity is emitted by the faintest galaxies. Additionally, Metzger \emph{et al.} estimate that $F_{\rm lim,H\alpha}$ depth also renders a galaxy catalog about $50\%$ complete with respect to total stellar mass. We note here that, given available survey capability, it can be possible to go to even greater depths and and therefore further increase the completeness of the galaxy catalog.
\section{Sensitivity for one pointing}
We estimate the required duration of one pointing with a telescope to reach $F_{\rm lim,H\alpha}$ depth. We first consider a 2-meter class telescope, and for this example we adopt the parameters of the parameters of the Hiltner 2.4\,m telescope of the MDM Observatory \footnote{\url{http://mdm.kpno.noao.edu/index/MDM_Observatory.html}}. With such telescope size, $F_{\rm lim,H\alpha}$ corresponds to a photon detection rate of $\phi_{H\alpha}\sim 16$ ph/s. To measure the H$\alpha$ flux, we consider an extended H$\alpha$ filter with $[6530\,\mbox{\AA},6890\,\mbox{\AA}]$ that covers the H$\alpha$ lines within $[0\,$Mpc,$200$\,Mpc$]$. A similar idea of using multiple narrow-band H$\alpha$ filters for finding nearby galaxies was suggested earlier for PTF \citep{2013ApJ...767..124N}.
The background emissions we take into account are galaxy continuum emission and the night sky brightness. We use an R-band filter to estimate and subtract the background. To estimate the night sky brightness, we consider a sky area with $3$\,arcsec angular radius at 200\,Mpc, corresponding to a half-light radius of $\sim\,$3\,kpc, which is the typical galactic half-light radius in the R band \citep{2003MNRAS.341...33K}. Under favorable circumstances this corresponds to a photon rate of $\phi_{\rm sky}\sim 1.3\times10^3$ ph/s \citep{1998NewAR..42..503B}, which can increase by up to a factor of $\sim 7$ for unfavorable source direction, moonlight, and solar activity. To estimate galaxy brightness in the R band, we consider a galaxy at 200\,Mpc with R-band absolute magnitude $M_{\rm R}=-18$, corresponding to a photon rate of $\phi_{\rm galaxy}\sim 1.8\times10^3$ ph/s \citep{1998A&A...333..231B}. We choose this fainter $M_{\rm R}$ since fainter galaxies are more likely to be the ones undetected. For comparison, choosing $M_{\rm R}=-20$ would decrease the observable sky area below by a factor of two, i.e. the covered sky area is weakly dependent on our choice of $M_{\rm R}$. We note that fringing effects for this measurement are likely negligible (see, e.g., \citealt{2000SPIE.4008.1010C} for PTF and \citealt{doi:10.1117/12.2070014} for ZTF).
With these photon rates, we can estimate the minimum observation time $t_{\rm obs}$ required to reach $F_{\rm lim,H\alpha}$ depth with a signal-to-noise ratio SNR:
\begin{equation}
t_{\rm obs} \approx \mbox{SNR}^2\left(\frac{\phi_{\rm sky}+\phi_{\rm galaxy}}{\phi_{H\alpha}^2}\right)\left(\frac{\Delta\lambda_{H\alpha+}}{\Delta\lambda_{\rm R}}\right)^2,
\end{equation}
where $\Delta\lambda_{H\alpha+}=360$\,\mbox{\AA} and $\Delta\lambda_{\rm R}=1491$\,\mbox{\AA} are the widths of the extended H$\alpha$ and R-band filters, respectively. Requiring $\mbox{SNR}=5$, under favorable night sky conditions we find $t_{\rm obs}\approx40$\,s, while under ``typical" conditions $t_{\rm obs}\approx 80\,$s.
It is worth considering here the possibility that a kilonova is present in the pointing area that could in principle ``wash out" the galaxy as it increases the R-band background with little increase in H$\alpha$. To examine this scenario, we note that the R-band absolute magnitude $M_{\rm R}=-18$ considered for the faintest galaxies above corresponds to $\sim 6\times 10^{41}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$ luminosity. This luminosity is greater than any of the kilonova peak luminosities considered in the literature \citep{2013ApJ...775...18B,2013Natur.500..547T,2014arXiv1411.3726K}. For comparison, peak R-band emission described recently by \cite{2014arXiv1411.3726K} is within $2\times10^{40}-4\times10^{41}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$, or R-band absolute magnitude of $[-17.6,-14.3]$. This means that even at peak luminosity, kilonova emission will be significantly below the galaxy luminosity. An active kilonovae will therefore not affect the galaxy survey.
We now calculate the sensitivity using the parameters of PTF. We assume that the same filters are used in this case as well. With its 48-inch Samuel Oschin Telescope, the photon detection rate of PTF for $F_{\rm lim,H\alpha}$ flux is $\phi_{H\alpha}\sim 4$ ph/s. Using the same background photon rate as above, we arrive at $t_{\rm obs}\approx140$\,s under favorable conditions, and $t_{\rm obs}\approx300$\,s under typical conditions.
\section{Covered sky area for kilonovae}
To estimate the sky area that can be surveyed using MDM to find galaxies for kilonova searches, we consider $t_{\rm obs}=80$\,s for typical conditions from above, applied for both the H$\alpha$ and R-band observations. We further assume a 30-second CCD readout time, and 5-second slewing time between different directions. We consider a week-long as well as a day-long observation window after which kilonovae can still detectable, with 6 hours of observation per night. With the $24'\times24'$ FOV of MDM with its 8K CCD, we find the total surveyed sky area in 1\,week to be $\sim100$\,deg$^2$ (or $\sim15$\,deg$^2$ per day). We see that 1\,week is sufficient to find galaxies in the relevant sky area for GW observation, while even less time may be sufficient for better localized events, or if multiple MDM-like telescopes are available.
For PTF, we consider $t_{\rm obs}\approx300$\,s for both H$\alpha$ and R-band observations. We assume a readout time of 31\,s \citep{2009PASP..121.1395L}, and 5-second slewing. We take the Samuel Oschin Telescope's FOV on PTF being 8.1\,deg$^2$, we arrive at a covered sky area of $\sim1800$\,deg$^2$ over a one week period with 6-hours of observation per night (or $\sim260$\,deg$^2$ with 6\,hours of observations). We see that even 1\,day is sufficient for a PTF-like instrument to survey the sky area of interest following a GW signal. Additionally, this result indicates that a fraction of the 6-hour observation will be sufficient for a PTF-like telescope to cover the GW sky area, or a more detailed analysis can be performed in which more detailed information is obtained from the galaxies, such as their redshift.
\section{Distance dependence}
\label{section:distdependence}
While above we considered a fiducial distance of $r=200$\,Mpc, GWs are detectable under favorable directions and orientations for significantly greater distances. At design sensitivity, advanced LIGO-Virgo will be able to detect binary neutron star mergers out to $\sim450$\,Mpc \citep{2013CQGra..30l3001B}, and black hole-neutron star mergers even farther. It is therefore useful to examine the possibility of extending the distance reach of a rapid galaxy survey.
We estimated the sky area that can be cataloged by PTF or MDM as a function of $r$. The analysis was done similarly to the one presented above for 200\,Mpc. We assumed that $F_{\rm lim,H\alpha}$ scales with $r^{-2}$. We scaled the angular size of the background sky area $r^{-2}$, and modified the width of the H$\alpha$ filter to account for the redshift corresponding to $r$. We found that the covered sky area scales as $r^{-1.8}$. For a maximum source distance of $450\,$Mpc but otherwise using the same parameters as above, this corresponds to a covered sky area of $\sim400$\,deg$^2$ for PTF and $\sim\,30$\,deg$^2$ for MDM with 1\,week of observation (or $\sim60$\,deg$^2$ for PTF and $\sim\,3$\,deg$^2$ for MDM with 6 hours of observation). We see that even at this larger distance, $\sim$1-day will be sufficient for PTF-like telescopes for a rapid and comprehensive galaxy survey, while MDM will be able to build a catalog out to this larger distance for better localized GW signals.
\section{Conclusion}
With the sensitivity of present and planned telescopes, it will be difficult to follow-up a GW signal and efficiently scan $\gtrsim100$\,deg$^2$ of the sky for kilonovae. We investigated the capability of a 1 and a 2-meter-class telescope, PTF and MDM, to find galaxies over a large sky area of $\sim100$\,deg$^2$ within a limited time of $\lesssim1$\,week out to $r\geq200$\,Mpc. Such a rapidly assembled galaxy catalog could be used to guide electromagnetic follow-up searches of GW signals from compact binary mergers by significantly reducing the sky area that needs to be scanned. The 1-week time frame is aimed at aiding the observation of kilonovae, one of the most promising electromagnetic counterparts of compact binary mergers, expected to be bright for over a week. We adopted an H$\alpha$ survey that can be $\gtrsim90\%$ complete with respect to star formation rate out to the considered distances. We find that such a survey can find galaxies within a sky area of $\sim1800$\,deg$^2$ for PTF and $\sim100$\,deg$^2$ for MDM, within 1 week out to 200\,Mpc. We also find that even 1\,day of observation is sufficient to cover $\sim260$\,deg$^2$ for PTF out to 200\,Mpc, making PTF capable of assembling the required galaxy catalog in a matter of hours. Further, with such a sensitivity, rapid galaxy surveys with significantly greater source distances can be performed. For $450$\,Mpc, which is the maximum fiducial source distance for advanced LIGO-Virgo for neutron star-neutron star mergers, we find that PTF and MDM can survey $\sim400$\,deg$^2$ and $\sim\,30$\,deg$^2$, respectively, in 1\,week, and PTF will be able to survey $\sim60$\,deg$^2$ in 1\,day. This result shows that even at this largest fiducial distance, a PTF will be capable of assembling a galaxy catalog in $\sim1$\,day.
Many other telescopes, with suitable filters, would also be able to scan even larger sky areas over the allowed time window. For instance, PTF will soon be succeeded by the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF; \citealt{2014arXiv1410.8185B}, which will have a much larger FOV of $47$\,deg$^2$. With the appropriate filters it will be capable of cataloging galaxies within $\sim100$\,deg$^2$ in less than an hour. Other telescopes of interest include the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; \citealt{1998AJ....116.3040G}), which could be mounted simultaneously with both the extended H$\alpha$ and R-band filters, allowing for synchronous observation with greater FOV than MDM. Further possibilities include, but are not limited to, CTIO 4m/DECam \footnote{\url{http://www.ctio.noao.edu/noao/content/Dark-Energy-Camera-DECam}}, Subaru/Suprime-Cam \footnote{\url{http://www.naoj.org/Introduction/instrument/SCam.html}}, SkyMapper \footnote{\url{http://rsaa.anu.edu.au/observatories/telescopes/skymapper-telescope}}, or, in the longer term, LSST \citep{2009arXiv0912.0201L}.
While the presented analysis demonstrates the feasibility of the rapid assembly of a galaxy catalog, there are several improvements that can be addressed in the future. For instance, the analysis above does not find out the distances of galaxies, beyond establishing that they are within 200\,Mpc. This can be remedied by, for instance, multiple, narrower H$\alpha$ filters that can be used to find galaxy distances. Further, the reconstructed distance of the GW source can also be used to tune the search. It will also be interesting to consider whether the rapid galaxy survey itself can be sensitive to also simultaneously detect the electromagnetic counterparts of GWs. To increase the completeness of the surveyed galaxy catalog with respect to stellar mass \citep{2013ApJ...764..149M}, one can further consider pursuing a similar rapid survey with wide FOV radio telescopes, such as ASKAP \citep{2008ExA....22..151J}. Nevertheless, one may not need very high completeness for effective follow-up observations \cite{2014ApJ...784....8H}. Further, the number of galactic foreground sources may be reduced by requiring a minimum redshift in designing the extended H$\alpha$ filter. Finally, rapid galaxy cataloging can be done with different techniques, and can involve multiple telescopes, further increasing the covered sky area or the completeness. This technique can aid GW electromagnetic follow-up observations even before comprehensive all sky surveys become available with suitable depths out to $\sim500$\,Mpc, and remedy the sensitivity limitation due to incompleteness of catalogs from the very first day of GW observations.
Rapid galaxy surveys will require (i) the initial investment of obtaining the appropriate extended or multiple H$\alpha$ filters, and (ii) a continued investment of several hours of telescope time per GW signal candidate of interest. The scientific return of propelling the first GW detections and the following chain of scientific discoveries will be well worth the effort. Further, an added beauty of real-time cataloging is that significant contribution can be realized by accessible telescopes, opening up the field for a broader range of collaborators worldwide.
The authors thank Marica Branchesi, Jules Halpern, Yiming Hu, Ilya Mandel, Zsuzsa Marka, Brian Metzger, Peter Shawhan and Laszlo Sturmann for their helpful comments. This article has been reviewed and approved for publication by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration. We are thankful for the generous support of Columbia University in the City of New York and the National Science Foundation under cooperative agreement PHY-0847182. The article has LIGO document number LIGO-P1400173.
\bibliographystyle{apj}
|
\section{Introduction and main results}
\noindent
We consider existence of solutions for the following class of equations
\begin{equation}
\label{PS}
(-\Delta)^{\frac{s}{2}} u + V(x)u = K(x)f(u) + \lambda |u|^{2^{*}_{s}-2}u \quad\,\, \text{in ${\mathbb R}^N$}.
\end{equation}
Here $ \lambda\geq 0$ is a parameter, $s \in (0,2),$ $2^{*}_{s}=2N/(N-s)$, $N>s$, $(-\Delta)^{\frac{s}{2}} $ is fractional laplacian
$V,K$ are positive functions and $f$ is a continuous function with quasicritical growth.
Recently, a great attention has been focused on the study nonlinear problems involving fractional laplacian,
in view of real-world applications. For instance, this type of operators arise in thin obstacle problems, optimization, finance, phase
transitions, stratified materials, anomalous diffusion, crystal dislocation, soft thin films, semipermeable membranes, flame
propagation, conservation laws, ultra-relativistic limits of quantum mechanics, quasi-geostrophic flows, multiple scattering,
minimal surfaces, materials science and water waves, see \cite{nezza}.
The fractional laplacian $(-\Delta)^{\frac{s}{2}}$ with $s \in (0,2)$ of a function $\phi:{\mathbb R}^N \to {\mathbb R}$ is defined by
$$
{\mathcal F}((-\Delta)^{\frac{s}{2}}\phi)(\xi)=|\xi|^{s}{\mathcal F}(\phi)(\xi),
\quad\text{for $s \in(0,2)$},
$$
where ${\mathcal F}$ is the Fourier transform.
We are going explore problem \eqref{PS} with {\it zero mass} potential, that is when
$V(x)\to 0$, as $|x|\to\infty$. This class was studied by several researchers in the local case $s=2$, e.g.\
in \cite{AS2012,AW,GM,BGM,BL,BPR,LW,Montenegro} and reference therein, where the main feature is to impose restrictions on $V,K$ to get
some compact embedding into a weighted $L^p$ space. Recently
Alves and Souto, in \cite{AS}, in addition to improving all the former restrictions on the potentials, handled subcritical nonlinearities
$f$ which do not satisfy the so-called Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz condition, namely,
\begin{equation}
\text{there exists $\theta\in (2,2^*_s)$ with
$0<\theta F(s)\leq sf(s)$ for all $s>0$, \,\,\, $F(s)=\int_{0}^{s}f(t)dt$.}
\tag{AR}
\end{equation}
Conditions weaker than (AR) were used, first time, in \cite{costa-1,jean,zou,LW,LWa}.
In all the above cited papers, the nonlinearity $f$ had subcritical growth, that is, in addition to $ \lambda =0,$ the growth of $f$ in
comparable with $s^p$ with $p<(N+2)/(N-2)$, for $N \geq 3$.
In the case $s\in (0,2)$, nonlocal case, we say that $f$ has a subcritical growth, if the growth of $f$ in $s$
is comparable with $s^p$ for $p<(N+s)/(N-s)$, with $N>s$.
In this situation, we would like to mention two works, one by Chang and Wang \cite{CW},
where the authors recovered the Berestycki and Lions\cite{BL} results by improving Strauss compactness result \cite{St}, and
a paper by Secchi \cite{Simone}
where the existence of ground state solutions is established.
Motivated by the papers above, we are going to study the nonlocal case, with nonlinearities involving a critical growth and
a subcritical perturbation $f$.
Elliptic problems with critical growth, after the pioneering works by Brezis and Nirenberg\cite{BN} have had many progresses in several
directions. We would like
to mention \cite{ambrosetti,willem} and the references therein, in local case.
For nonlocal case, in bounded domain, we cite \cite{tanhalf, FW,servadei2,cabretan,Jin,barrios} and references therein, while in
whole space was studied recently in \cite{SZY} for non vanishing potential.
Recently, Caffarelli and Silvestre \cite{caffarelli} developed a local interpretation of the fractional
Laplacian given in ${\mathbb R}^N$ by considering a Neumann type operator in the extended domain
${\mathbb R}^{N+1}_{+}$ defined by $\{(x, t) \in {\mathbb R}^{N+1} : t > 0\}$. A similar extension, for nonlocal problems on bounded domain with
the zero Dirichlet boundary condition, was established, for instance, by Cabr\`e and Tan in
\cite{cabretan}, Tan \cite{tan}, Capella, D\`avila, Dupaigne and Sire \cite{capela}, Br$\ddot{\mbox{a}}$ndle,
Colorado, de Pablo and S\`anchez \cite{colorado}. It is worth noticing that, in a bounded domain, the Fourier definition
of the fractional laplacian and its local Caffarelli-Silvestre
interpretation do not agree, see the discussion developed \cite{servadei} for more details.
For $u \in H^{s/2}({\mathbb R}^N),$ the solution $w \in X^{s}({\mathbb R}^{N+1}_{+})$ of
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
-\mathrm{div} ( y^{1-s}\nabla w)=0 & \mbox{in}& {\mathbb R}^{N+1}_{+}\noindent\\
w=u& \mbox{on}& {\mathbb R}^{N} \times\{0\}\noindent
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
is called $s$-harmonic extension $w=E_{s}(u)$ of $u$ and it is proved in \cite{caffarelli} (see also \cite{colorado}) that
$$
\lim_{y \to 0^+} y ^{1-s}\frac{\partial w}{\partial y}(x,y)=-\frac{1}{k_{s}}(-\Delta)^{\frac{s}{2}}u(x),
$$
where
$$
k_{s}=2^{1-s}\Gamma(1-\frac{s}{2})/\Gamma (\frac{s}{2}).
$$
Here the spaces $X^{s}({\mathbb R}^{N+1}_{+})$ and $H^{s/2}({\mathbb R}^N)$
are defined as the completion of $C^{\infty}_{0}(\overline{{\mathbb R}^{N+1}_{+}})$ and $C^{\infty}_{0}({\mathbb R}^{N}),$
under the norms (which actually do coincide, see \cite[Lemma A.2]{colorado})
\begin{align*}
\|w\|_{X^{s}}:=&\Big(\int_{ {\mathbb R}^{N+1}_{+}}k_{s}y^{1-s}|\nabla w|^2 \mathrm{d} x\mathrm{d} y\Big)^{1/2}, \\
\|u\|_{H^{\frac{s}{2}}}:=&\Big(\int_{{\mathbb R}^N}|2\pi\xi|^{s}|\mathbb{F}(u(\xi))|^2 \mathrm{d} \xi\Big)^{1/2}=\Big(\int_{{\mathbb R}^N}|(-\Delta)^{\frac{s}{2}}u|^2 \mathrm{d} x\Big)^{1/2}.
\end{align*}
\noindent
Our problem \eqref{PS} will be studied in the half-space, namely,
\begin{equation}\label{NPS}
\left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
-\mathrm{div} ( y^{1-s}\nabla w)=0 & \mbox{in}& {\mathbb R}^{N+1}_{+}\noindent\\
-k_{s}\frac{\partial w}{\partial \nu}=-V(x)u +K(x)f(u) + \lambda |u|^{2^{*}_{s}-2}u & \mbox{on}& {\mathbb R}^{N} \times\{0\},\noindent
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where
$$
\frac{\partial w}{\partial \nu}=\lim_{y \to 0^+} y ^{1-s}\frac{\partial w}{\partial y}(x,y).
$$
We are looking for a positive solution in the Hilbert space $E$ defined by
$$
E=\Big\{ w \in X^{s}({\mathbb R}^{N+1}_{+}): \ \int_{{\mathbb R}^N}V(x)w(x,0)^2 \mathrm{d} x < \infty\Big\}
$$
endowed with norm
$$
\|w\|:= \Big(\int_{ {\mathbb R}^{N+1}_{+}}k_{s}y^{1-s}|\nabla w|^2 \mathrm{d} x\mathrm{d} y + \int_{{\mathbb R}^N}V(x)w(x,0)^2 \mathrm{d} x\Big)^{1/2}.
$$
Consider the Euler-Lagrange functional associated to \eqref{NPS} given by
\begin{equation}\label{functional}
J_ \lambda (w):=\frac{1}{2}\|w\|^2 - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} K(x) F(w(x,0)) \mathrm{d} x
- \frac{\lambda}{2^{*}_{s}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} w^+(x,0)^{2^{*}_{s}} \mathrm{d} x
\end{equation}
which is $C^1$ with G\^ateaux derivative
\begin{align}
\label{derivative}
J_ \lambda '(w)v&=\int_{ {\mathbb R}^{N+1}_{+}}k_{s}y^{1-s}\nabla w \cdot\nabla v \mathrm{d} x\mathrm{d} y + \int_{{\mathbb R}^N}V(x)w(x,0)v(x,0) \mathrm{d} x \\
& - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} K(x) f(w(x,0))v(x,0) \mathrm{d} x - \lambda \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} w^+(x,0)^{2^{*}_{s}-1} v(x,0) \mathrm{d} x,
\,\,\quad\text{for all $w,v\in E.$} \notag
\end{align}
We now formulate assumptions for $V,K,f$ in problem~\eqref{PS}.
\vskip4pt
\noindent
$\bullet$ {\sc Assumptions on $V$ and $K$.}
\begin{description}
\item[(I) (sign of $V$ and $K$)] $V,K$ are continuous, $V,K>0$ on ${\mathbb R}^N$ and $K \in L^{\infty}({\mathbb R}^N)$;
\item[(II) (decay of $K$)] If $\{A_n\}$ is a sequence of Borel sets of ${\mathbb R}^N$ with $|A_n|\leq R$ for some $R>0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{decay-K}
\lim_{r\to \infty} \int_{A_n \cap B^{c}_{r}(0)} K(x)\mathrm{d} x =0,\quad\text{uniformly with respect to $n \in \mathbb{N}$;}
\end{equation}
\item[(III) (interrelation between $V$ and $K$)] either
\begin{equation}
\label{primaint}
K/V\in L^{\infty}({\mathbb R}^N)
\end{equation}
or there exists $p \in (2,2^{*}_{s})$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{secondainter}
\lim_{|x|\to\infty}\frac{K(x)}{V(x)^\gamma}=0,
\qquad \gamma=\frac{ps-N(p-2)}{2s}\in (0,1).
\end{equation}
\end{description}
\vskip4pt
\noindent
$\bullet$ {\sc Assumptions on $f$.}
\begin{description}
\item[(f1) (behaviour at zero)] $f:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}^+$ is continuous with $f=0$ on ${\mathbb R}^-$.
If \eqref{primaint} holds, then
$$
\limsup_{s\to 0^+}\frac{f(s)}{s}=0.
$$
If condition \eqref{secondainter} holds, we assume
$$
\limsup_{s\to 0^+}\frac{f(s)}{s^{p-1}}< +\infty.
$$
\item[(f2) (quasi-critical growth)] If \eqref{primaint} holds, then
$$
\limsup_{s\to +\infty} \frac{f(s)}{s^{2^{*}_{s}-1}}=0.
$$
If condition \eqref{secondainter} holds, we assume
$$
\limsup_{s\to +\infty}\frac{F(s)}{s^{p}}< +\infty.
$$
\item[(f3) (super-quadraticity)] $\frac{f(s)}{s}$ is non-decreasing in ${\mathbb R}^+$, and
$$
\limsup_{s\to +\infty} \frac{F(s)}{s^{2}}=+\infty.
$$
\item[(f3)$'$ (super-quadraticity)] $\frac{f(s)}{s}$ is non-decreasing in ${\mathbb R}^+$ and there exist $C_0>0$ and $q \in (2,2^{*}_{s})$ with
$$
F(s)\geq C_0 s^q, \,\,\quad \text{for all $s\in{\mathbb R}^+$}
$$
\end{description}
\noindent
\vskip3pt
\noindent
The following are the main results of the paper.
\begin{theorem}Assume {\rm (I)}-{\rm (III)}, {\rm (f1)-(f3)} and $\lambda=0$. Then \eqref{PS} admits a positive solution $u\in E$.
\label{mainsub}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
\label{main}
Assume {\rm (I)}-{\rm (III)}, {\rm (f1)-(f2)-(f3)$'$}, (AR), $\lambda=1$ and that one of the following hold
\begin{enumerate}
\item $N>2s$,
\item $N=2s$,
\item $s<N<2s$ and $q>\frac{N}{N-s}$,
\item $s<N<2s$ and $q<\frac{N}{N-s},$ with $C_0$ large enough.
\end{enumerate}
Then \eqref{PS} admits a positive solution $u\in E$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent
Throughout the paper, unless explicitly stated, the symbol $C$ will always denote a generic positive constant,
which may vary from line to line.
\smallskip
\section{Preliminary results}
\noindent
Consider the weighted Banach space:
$$
L^{p}_{K}=\Big\{ u:{\mathbb R}^N \to {\mathbb R}\,\, \mbox{measurable and}\ \int_{{\mathbb R}^N}K(x)|u|^{p} \mathrm{d} x < \infty\Big\},\quad
\|\cdot\|_{L^{p}_{K}}=\Big(\int_{{\mathbb R}^N}K(x)|u|^{p} \mathrm{d} x\Big)^{1/p}.
$$
\noindent
The first result, on compact injections for $E$, follows by adapting the arguments in \cite{AS}.
\begin{proposition}[Compactness]\label{converge}
The following facts hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $E$ is compactly embedded into $L^q_{K}$ for all $q\in (2,2^{*}_{s}),$ provided that \eqref{primaint} holds;
\item $E$ is compactly embedded into $L^p_{K}$ provided that \eqref{secondainter} holds;
\item If $w_n \rightharpoonup w$ in $E$, then up to a subsequence,
\[
\lim_n\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} K(x) F(w_n(x,0)) \mathrm{d} x =\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} K(x) F(w(x,0)) \mathrm{d} x ;
\]
\item If $w_n \rightharpoonup w$ in $E$, then up to a subsequence,
\[
\lim_n\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} K(x) w_n(x,0) f(w_n(x,0)) \mathrm{d} x =\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} K(x) w(x,0) f(w(x,0)) \mathrm{d} x ;
\]
\item If $w_n \rightharpoonup w$ in $E$, then, up to a subsequence, for any $v\in E$,
\[
\lim_n\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} w_n^+(x,0)^{2^{*}_{s}-1}v(x,0) \mathrm{d} x =\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} w^+(x,0)^{2^{*}_{s}-1}v(x,0) \mathrm{d} x.
\]
\item If $w_n \rightharpoonup w$ in $E$, then up to a subsequence, for any $v\in E$,
\[
\lim_n\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} K(x)f(w_n(x,0))v(x,0) \mathrm{d} x =\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} K(x) f(w(x,0))v(x,0) \mathrm{d} x .
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume that condition \eqref{primaint} holds, let $q\in (2,2^{*}_{s})$ and let us prove assertion (1).
Let $\epsilon >0$. Then, there exist $0<s_0(\varepsilon)<s_1(\varepsilon)$, a positive constant $C(\varepsilon)$ and $C_0$ depending only on $V$ and $K$, such that
\begin{equation}
\label{2.4}
K(x)|s|^q\leq \epsilon C_0 (V(x)|s|^2 + |s|^{2^{*}_{s}})+C(\varepsilon)K(x)\chi_{[s_0(\varepsilon),s_1(\varepsilon)]}(|s|)|s|^{2^{*}_{s}},\quad\text{for all $s\in {\mathbb R}$}.
\end{equation}
Therefore we obtain, for every $w \in E$ and $r>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{2.5}
\int_{B^{+^{c}}_{r}(0)\cap \{y=0\}} K(x)|w(x,0)|^q \mathrm{d} x \leq \epsilon Q(w)+ C(\varepsilon)s_1(\varepsilon)^{2^*_s} \int_{A_\varepsilon\cap (B^{+^{c}}_{r}(0)\cap \{y=0\})} K(x) \mathrm{d} x,
\end{equation}
where we have set
\begin{equation}
\label{Q-A}
Q(w):=C_0\int_{{\mathbb R}^N} (V(x)|w(x,0)|^2 + |w(x,0)|^{2^{*}_{s}}) \mathrm{d} x,
\quad
A_\varepsilon:=\big\{x\in {\mathbb R}^N: s_0(\varepsilon) \leq |w(x,0)|\leq s_1(\varepsilon)\big\}.
\end{equation}
If $(w_n)\subset E$ is such that $w_n \rightharpoonup w$ weakly in $E$ for some $w\in E$, there exists $M>0$ with
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{boundednesses}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^{N+1}_{+}}k_s |\nabla w_n|^2 \mathrm{d} x \mathrm{d} y + \int_{{\mathbb R}^N}V(x)|w_n(x,0)|^2 \mathrm{d} x \leq M, \quad \text{for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$}, \\
\int_{{\mathbb R}^N}|w_n(x,0)|^{2^{*}_{s}} \mathrm{d} x\leq M,\quad \text{for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
so that $Q(w_n)$ is bounded in ${\mathbb R}$. On the other hand,
if $A^n_\varepsilon=\big\{s_0(\varepsilon) \leq |w_n(x,0)|\leq s_1(\varepsilon)\big\},$ we get
$$
s_0(\varepsilon)^{2^{*}_{s}}|A^n_\varepsilon|\leq \int_{A^n_\varepsilon}|w_n(x,0)|^{2^{*}_{s}}\mathrm{d} x \leq \int_{{\mathbb R}^N}|w_n(x,0)|^{2^{*}_{s}}\mathrm{d} x\leq M, \quad \text{for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$}.
$$
which implies that $\sup_{n\in \mathbb{N}} |A^n_\varepsilon|<+\infty$.
Then, in light of \eqref{decay-K}, there exists $r(\varepsilon)>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{2.6}
\int_{A^n_\varepsilon\cap (B^{+^{c}}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\})} K(x) \mathrm{d} x <\frac{\epsilon}{C(\varepsilon) s_1(\varepsilon)^{2^{*}_{s}}},\quad \text{for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$}.
\end{equation}
Whence, invoking \eqref{2.5}, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{2.7}
\int_{B^{+^{c}}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\}} K(x)|w_n(x,0)|^q \mathrm{d} x \leq (2C_0M+1)\varepsilon.
\end{equation}
By the fractional compact embedding \cite{colorado}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{2.8}
\lim_{n\to \infty}\int_{B^{+}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\}} K(x)|w_n(x,0)|^q \mathrm{d} x=\int_{B^{+}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\}} K(x)|w(x,0)|^q \mathrm{d} x.
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{2.7}-\eqref{2.8}, yields
$$
\lim_{n}\int_{{\mathbb R}^N\cap \{y=0\}} K(x)|w_n(x,0)|^q \mathrm{d} x=\int_{{\mathbb R}^N \cap \{y=0\}} K(x)|w(x,0)|^q \mathrm{d} x,
$$
which concludes the proof of (1).
\vskip2pt
\noindent
Assume now that condition \eqref{secondainter} holds and let us prove assertion (2).
By a direct calculation, for any $x\in {\mathbb R}^N$ and $s\geq 0$, if $\gamma\in (0,1)$ is
the constant introduced in \eqref{secondainter}, we get
$$
V(x) s^{2-p} + s^{2^{*}_{s}-p}\geq \omega(p,s) V(x)^{\gamma},
\qquad \omega(p,s)=\Big(\frac{2^{*}_{s}-2}{2^{*}_{s}-p}\Big)\Big(\frac{p-2}{2^{*}_{s}-p}\Big)^{\frac{2-p}{2^{*}_{s}-2}}.
$$
Let $\varepsilon>0$. Combining this inequality with \eqref{secondainter}, there exists $r(\varepsilon)>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{controllokv}
K(x)|s|^p \leq \epsilon \big(V(x)|s|^{2} +|s|^{2^{*}_{s}}\big), \quad\text{for all $s\in {\mathbb R}$ and $|x|\geq r(\varepsilon).$}
\end{equation}
Then, for all $w\in E$, we conclude
$$
\int_{B^{+^{c}}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\}} K(x)|w(x,0)|^p \mathrm{d} x\leq \epsilon \int_{B^{+^{c}}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\}}
(V(x)|w(x,0)|^{2} +|w(x,0)|^{2^{*}_{s}})\mathrm{d} x.
$$
If $(w_n)\subset E$ and $w_n \rightharpoonup w$ weakly in $E,$ there exists $M>0$ such that \eqref{boundednesses} hold. Whence,
for a suitable radius $r(\varepsilon)>0$ there holds
\begin{equation}\label{2.10}
\int_{B^{+^{c}}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\}} K(x)|w_n(x,0)|^p \mathrm{d} x\leq 2\epsilon M,\quad\text{for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$}.
\end{equation}
Since $p\in (2,2^{*}_{s})$, by the fractional compact embedding we have
\begin{equation}\label{2.11}
\lim_{n}\int_{B^{+}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\}} K(x)|w_n(x,0)|^p \mathrm{d} x=\int_{B^{+}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\}} K(x)|w(x,0)|^p \mathrm{d} x.
\end{equation}
Combining $(\ref{2.10})$ and $(\ref{2.11})$ we get
$$
\lim_{n}\int_{{\mathbb R}^N\cap \{y=0\}} K(x)|w_n(x,0)|^p \mathrm{d} x=\int_{{\mathbb R}^N \cap \{y=0\}} K(x)|w(x,0)|^p \mathrm{d} x,
$$
which concludes the proof of assertion (2).
\vskip2pt
\noindent
Let us now turn to the proof of (3) and (4) under assumption \eqref{primaint}.
From $(f_1)$-$(f_3)$, fixed $q\in (2,2^{*}_{s})$ and given $\epsilon>0$, there exist $0<s_0(\varepsilon)<s_1(\varepsilon)$, $C(\varepsilon)>0$
and $C_0$ depending only upon $V$ and $K$, with
\begin{align}\label{2.12}
|K(x)F(s)|&\leq \epsilon C_0(V(x)|s|^2 +|s|^{2^{*}_{s}})+ C(\varepsilon) K(x)\chi_{[s_0(\varepsilon),s_1(\varepsilon)]}(|s|)|s|^q, \,\,\quad\text{for all $s\in {\mathbb R}$}, \\
\label{2.12.1}
|K(x)f(s)s|&\leq \epsilon C_0(V(x)|s|^2 +|s|^{2^{*}_{s}})+ C(\varepsilon) K(x)\chi_{[s_0(\varepsilon),s_1(\varepsilon)]}(|s|)|s|^q, \,\,\quad\text{for all $s\in {\mathbb R}$}.
\end{align}
Notice that, by \eqref{decay-K}, arguing as for the proof of (1), there exists $r(\varepsilon)>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{2.13}
\int_{A^n_\varepsilon \cap B^{+^c}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\}} K(x)\mathrm{d} x\leq \frac{\epsilon}{C(\varepsilon)s_1(\varepsilon)^q}, \quad\text{for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$}.
\end{equation}
Let $\{w_n\}\in E$ be bounded.
Combining the above inequality with \eqref{boundednesses} and \eqref{2.12}-\eqref{2.12.1}, we have
\begin{align}\label{2.14}
& \int_{B^{+^{c}}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\}} K(x)F(w_n(x,0)) \mathrm{d} x\leq (2C_0M + 1)\epsilon ,\quad\text{for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$}, \\
\label{2.14.1}
& \int_{B^{+^{c}}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\}} K(x)f(w_n(x,0))w_n(x,0) \mathrm{d} x\leq (2C_0M + 1)\epsilon ,\quad\text{for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$}.
\end{align}
Since $(w_n(x,0))$ is bounded in $L^{2^{*}_{s}}({\mathbb R}^N)$, by Strauss lemma \cite[Theorem A.I p.338]{BL}, we infer
\begin{align*}
& \lim_{n}\int_{B^{+}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\}} K(x)
F(w_n(x,0)) \mathrm{d} x=\int_{B^{+}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\}} K(x)F(w(x,0)) \mathrm{d} x, \\
& \lim_{n}\int_{B^{+}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\}} K(x)
f(w_n(x,0))w_n(x,0) \mathrm{d} x=\int_{B^{+}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\}} K(x)f(w(x,0)w(x,0) \mathrm{d} x.
\end{align*}
Combining these limits with \eqref{2.14}-\eqref{2.14.1} we conclude the proof.
\vskip4pt
\noindent
Let us now turn to the proof of (3) and (4) under assumption \eqref{secondainter}. Let $\varepsilon>0$. We learned that
there exists $r(\varepsilon)>0$ such that such that \eqref{controllokv} holds, yielding
\begin{align*}
& K(x)|F(s)| \leq \epsilon \big(V(x)|F(s)||s|^{2-p} +|F(s)||s|^{2^{*}_{s}-p}\big), \quad\text{for all $s\in {\mathbb R}$ and $|x|\geq r(\varepsilon)$}, \\
& K(x)f(s)s \leq \epsilon \big(V(x)f(s)s|s|^{2-p} +f(s)s|s|^{2^{*}_{s}-p}\big), \quad\text{for all $s\in {\mathbb R}^+$ and $|x|\geq r(\varepsilon)$}.
\end{align*}
From $(f_1)$-$(f_2)$, there exist $0<s_0(\varepsilon)<s_1(\varepsilon)$ satisfying
\begin{align*}
& K(x)|F(s)| \leq \epsilon \big(V(x)|s|^{2} +|s|^{2^{*}_{s}}\big), \quad\text{for all $s\in I_\varepsilon$ and $|x|\geq r(\varepsilon)$}, \\
& K(x)f(s)s \leq \epsilon \big(V(x)|s|^{2} +|s|^{2^{*}_{s}}\big), \quad \text{for all $s\in I_\varepsilon\cap {\mathbb R}^+$ and $|x|\geq r(\varepsilon)$},
\end{align*}
where $I_\varepsilon=\{\text{$|s|<s_0(\varepsilon)$ or $|s|>s_1(\varepsilon)$}\}.$
Then, we have
\begin{align}\label{estimate1}
\int_{B^{+^{c}}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\}} K(x)F(w_n(x,0) \mathrm{d} x \leq \epsilon Q(w_n) +C(\varepsilon) \int_{A^n_\varepsilon\cap (B^{+^{c}}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\})} K(x) \mathrm{d} x, \\
\label{estimate1-2}
\int_{B^{+^{c}}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\}} K(x)f(w_n(x,0)w_n(x,0) \mathrm{d} x \leq \epsilon Q(w_n) +C(\varepsilon) \int_{A^n_\varepsilon\cap (B^{+^{c}}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\})} K(x) \mathrm{d} x,
\end{align}
where
$$
C(\varepsilon)=\max\Big\{\max_{[s_0(\varepsilon),s_1(\varepsilon)]}|F(s)|,\max_{[s_0(\varepsilon),s_1(\varepsilon)]}|f(s)s|\Big\}.
$$
Arguing as for the proof of (1), we have
\begin{align*}
& \Big|\int_{(B^{+^{c}}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\})} K(x)F(w_n(x,0)) \mathrm{d} x\Big|\leq (2M+1)\epsilon, \quad\text{for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$},\\
& \Big|\int_{(B^{+^{c}}_{r(\varepsilon)}(0)\cap \{y=0\})} K(x)f(w_n(x,0)) w_n(x,0) \mathrm{d} x\Big|\leq (2M+1)\epsilon, \quad\text{for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$}.
\end{align*}
Invoking again Strauss lemma, by the above inequalities, conclusions (3) and (4) follows.
To prove (5), it is enough to observe that $w_n^+(x,0)^{2^{*}_{s}-1}\rightharpoonup w^+(x,0)^{2^{*}_{s}-1}$
weakly in $(L^{2^{*}_{s}})'$. Finally, let us prove (6). If \eqref{primaint} holds, then the sequence
$(\sqrt{K(x)} f(w_n(x,0))\chi_{\{|w_n(x,0)|\leq 1\}})$ is bounded in $L^2({\mathbb R}^N)$ being
$$
|\sqrt{K(x)} f(w_n(x,0))\chi_{\{|w_n(x,0)|\leq 1\}}|^2\leq C V(x)|w_n(x,0)|^2.
$$
This, by pointwise convergence, yields for every $\varphi\in L^2({\mathbb R}^N)$
$$
\lim_k\int_{{\mathbb R}^N} \sqrt{K(x)} f(w_n(x,0))\chi_{\{|w_n(x,0)|\leq 1\}}\varphi(x) \mathrm{d} x=\int_{{\mathbb R}^N} \sqrt{K(x)} f(w(x,0))\chi_{\{|w(x,0)|\leq 1\}}\varphi(x) \mathrm{d} x.
$$
Given $v\in E$, since $\sqrt{K(x)}\leq C \sqrt{V(x)}$, it follows $\sqrt{K(x)}v(x,0)\in L^2({\mathbb R}^N)$, yielding
\begin{equation}
\label{euno}
\lim_k\int_{{\mathbb R}^N} K(x) f(w_n(x,0))\chi_{\{|w_n(x,0)|\leq 1\}} v(x,0) \mathrm{d} x=\int_{{\mathbb R}^N} K(x) f(w(x,0))\chi_{\{|w(x,0)|\leq 1\}} v(x,0) \mathrm{d} x.
\end{equation}
In a similar fashion, the sequence
$(K(x) f(w_n(x,0))\chi_{\{|w_n(x,0)|\geq 1\}})$ is bounded in $L^{\frac{2^*_s}{2^*_s-1}}({\mathbb R}^N)$ being
$$
|K(x) f(w_n(x,0))\chi_{\{|w_n(x,0)|\geq 1\}}|^{\frac{2^*_s}{2^*_s-1}}\leq |w_n(x,0)|^{2^*_s}.
$$
This, by pointwise convergence, and since $v\in E$, yields
\begin{equation}
\label{edue}
\lim_k\int_{{\mathbb R}^N} K(x) f(w_n(x,0))\chi_{\{|w_n(x,0)|\geq 1\}} v(x,0) \mathrm{d} x=\int_{{\mathbb R}^N} K(x) f(w(x,0))\chi_{\{|w(x,0)|\geq 1\}} v(x,0) \mathrm{d} x.
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{euno}-\eqref{edue} yields the assertion. In a similar fashion one can treat the case when
\eqref{secondainter} holds since, by means of (2), $K^{1/p}v(x,0)\in L^p({\mathbb R}^N)$ for all $v\in E$ and, up to a subsequence,
\begin{equation*}
|K(x)^{\frac{p-1}{p}} f(w_n(x,0))\chi_{\{|w_n(x,0)|\leq 1\}}|^{p'}\leq K(x)|w_n(x,0)|^p\leq z(x)\in L^1({\mathbb R}^N).
\end{equation*}
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\noindent
From $(f_1)$-$(f_2)$ one can prove that $J_{\lambda}$ satisfies the Mountain-Pass geometry.
\begin{lemma}[Geometry]
\label{MPG} The functional $J_{\lambda}$ satisfies
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists $\beta, \rho>0$ such that $J_{\lambda}(u)\geq \beta$ if $\|u\|=\rho$;
\item There exists $e\in E\backslash\{0\}$ with $\|u\|>\rho$ such that $J_{\lambda}(e)\leq 0$;
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(2) is obvious. Concerning (1), observe that in light of condition \eqref{secondainter} on $V$ and $K$,
the space $E$ is {\em continuously} embedded into $L^p_K({\mathbb R})$ where
$p\in (2,2^*_s)$ is the precisely the value which appears in condition \eqref{secondainter}. This can be readily obtained by arguing as in the proof of
\cite[part (i) of Theorem 4]{BV} (see formula (8) therein obtained by H\"older inequality) and by using the fractional Sobolev inequality. This is possible
since in any of the two assumptions between $V$ and $K$, we have that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{K}{V^\gamma}\in L^\infty({\mathbb R}),
\qquad \gamma=\frac{ps-N(p-2)}{2s}.
\end{equation*}
This is the fractional counterpart of the assumption on ${\mathcal W}$ in \cite{BV}.
Once this embedding is available, recall that we can write the inequality, for $\varepsilon_0$ to be fixed small
$$
K(x)F(s)\leq \varepsilon_0 V(x)s^2+ Cs^{2^*_s}+C K(x)s^p,\quad x\in{\mathbb R},\,\, s\in{\mathbb R}^+,
$$
and the Mountain-Pass geometry can be proved.
\end{proof}
\noindent
Therefore, there exists a sequence $\{w_n\}\subset E$, so called {\it Cerami sequence} \cite{Ce}, such that
\begin{equation}
\label{ceramiS}
J_{\lambda}(w_n)\to c, \quad (1+\|w_n\|)\|J_{\lambda}'(w_n)\|\to 0,
\end{equation}
where $c$ is given by
$$
c=\inf_{\gamma \in \Gamma}\max_{t\in[0,1]}J_{\lambda}(\gamma(t)),
$$
with
$$
\Gamma=\{\gamma \in C([0,1],E): \gamma(0)=0\ \mbox{and}\ J_{\lambda}(\gamma(1))\leq 0\}.
$$
\noindent
Next we turn to the boundedness of $(w_n)$ in $E$.
\begin{lemma}[Boundedness]
\label{cerami}
Let $\lambda\in\{0,1\}$. Then the Cerami sequence $(w_n) \subset E$ is bounded.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First of all, we observe that $w_n^-\in E$ and, by the definition of $J_{\lambda}$,
\begin{align*}
J_{\lambda}'(w_n)(-w_n^-)& =-\int_{ {\mathbb R}^{N+1}_{+}}k_{s}y^{1-s}\nabla w_n \cdot\nabla w_n^- \mathrm{d} x\mathrm{d} y -\int_{{\mathbb R}^N}V(x)w_n(x,0)w_n^-(x,0) \\
&= \int_{ {\mathbb R}^{N+1}_{+}}k_{s}y^{1-s}|\nabla w_n^-|^2 \mathrm{d} x\mathrm{d} y +\int_{{\mathbb R}^N}V(x)w_n^-(x,0)^2=\|w_n^-\|^2.
\end{align*}
Since $(1+\|w_n\|)J_{\lambda}'(w_n)(-\|w_n^-\|^{-1} w_n^-)=o_n(1)$ as $n\to\infty$, it follows that $J_{\lambda}'(w_n)(-w_n^-)=o_n(1)$ as $n\to\infty$,
which in turn implies that $\|w_n^-\|=o_n(1)$, as $n\to\infty$.
\vskip3pt
\noindent{\bf Case $\lambda=0.$} Denote $J_0 = J.$ Let $t_n\in [0,1]$ be such that
\[
J(t_nw_n)=\max_{t\in [0,1]} J(tw_n).
\]
We {\em claim} that $J(t_nw_n)$ is bounded from above.
Without loss of generality, we may assume that $t_n \in (0,1)$ for all $n$. Then, we have $J'(t_nw_n)(w_n)=0$ and
\begin{align}
\label{computH}
2J(t_nw_n)& = 2J(t_nw_n)-J'(t_nw_n)(t_nw_n) \notag \\
&= \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} K(x)\H(t_n w_n(x,0)) \mathrm{d} x
= \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} K(x)\H(t_n w_n^+(x,0)) \mathrm{d} x,
\end{align}
where $\H(s)=sf(s)-2F(s)$ is nondecreasing and $\H=0$ on ${\mathbb R}^-$.
Thus, since $t_n \in (0,1)$ and $w_n^+\geq 0$, from formula \eqref{computH} we obtain that
\begin{align*}
2J(t_nw_n)\leq & \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} K(x)\H(w_n^+(x,0)) \mathrm{d} x
= \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} K(x)\H(w_n(x,0)) \mathrm{d} x \\
= & 2J(w_n)-J'(w_n)(w_n)= 2J(w_n)+ o_n(1),
\end{align*}
which proves the claim.
Now, we prove that $(w_n) \subset E$ is bounded. Assume by contradiction that, up
to subsequence, $\|w_n\|\to +\infty$ as $n\to\infty$. Set $z_n:=w_n/\|w_n\|$ and suppose that
$z_n \rightharpoonup z$, as $n\to\infty$, in $E$. We now {\em claim} that $z(x,0)=0$ almost everywhere in ${\mathbb R}^N$. In fact,
\begin{align*}
o_n(1)+\frac{1}{2}&= \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} \frac{K(x)F(w_n(x,0))}{\|w_n\|^2} \mathrm{d} x
=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} \frac{K(x)F(w_n(x,0))}{|w_n(x,0)|^2} z_n^2(x,0) \mathrm{d} x.
\end{align*}
By $(f_3)$, given $\tau >0$ there exists $\xi_\tau >0$
such that $F(s)\geq \tau s^2$ for all $|s|\geq \xi_\tau $. Thus,
\[
o_n(1)+\frac{1}{2} \geq \int_{\{|w_n(x,0)|\geq \xi_\tau \}} \frac{K(x)F(w_n(x,0))}{|w_n(x,0)|^2} z_n^2(x,0) \mathrm{d} x
\geq
\tau \int_{{\mathbb R}^N}K(x) z_n^2(x,0) \chi_{\{|z_n(x,0)|\geq \frac{\xi_\tau}{\|w_n\|} \}} \mathrm{d} x.
\]
Thus, by Fatou lemma, since $z_n^2(x,0) \chi_{\{|z_n(x,0)|\geq \frac{\xi_\tau}{\|w_n\|} \}} \to z(x,0)$ a.e.,
for any $\tau>0$, we conclude
$$
\frac{1}{2} \geq \tau \int_{{\mathbb R}^N} K(x) z^2(x,0) \mathrm{d} x.
$$
Since $K>0$, it follows $z(x,0)=0$, by the arbitrariness of $\tau>0$ and the claim follows.
Now, let $B>0$.
Of course $B\|w_n\|^{-1}\in [0,1]$ eventually for $n\geq n_B$, for some $n_B\in\mathbb{N}$. Thus,
\[
J(t_n w_n) \geq J(B z_n) =
\frac{B^2}{2}-
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} K(x)F(B z_n(x,0)) \mathrm{d} x,
\]
since $t_n$ is a maximum point. By Proposition~\ref{converge}, it follows
$$
\int_{{\mathbb R}^N} K(x)F(B z_n(x,0)) \mathrm{d} x \to \int_{{\mathbb R}^N} K(x)F(B z(x,0))=0,
$$
and we have $J(t_nw_n)+o_n(1) \geq B^2/2,$
which yields $\sup\{J(t_nw_n):n\in\mathbb{N}\}\geq B^2/2$, a contradiction if
$$
B=2\sqrt{\sup\{J(t_nw_n):n\in\mathbb{N}\}}\in (0,\infty).
$$
This concludes the proof.
\vskip3pt
\noindent{\bf Case $\lambda=1.$} Denote $J_\lambda = J.$ The boundedness of the $\{w_n\}$ in $E$ follows easily from (AR), since
$$
o_n(1)+ c \geq J(w_n)-\frac{1}{\theta}J'(w_n)(w_n)\geq (\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{\theta})\|w_n\|^2.
$$
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\noindent
The following Sobolev inequality can be found in \cite{colorado},
\begin{equation}\label{trace}
\int_{ {\mathbb R}^{N+1}_{+}}y^{1-s}|\nabla w|^2 \mathrm{d} x\mathrm{d} y\geq \S(s,N)\Big(\int_{ {\mathbb R}^{N}}| w(x,0)|^{2^{*}_{s}} \mathrm{d} x\Big)^{\frac{2}{2^{*}_{s}}},\quad \text{for all $w \in X^{s}({\mathbb R}^{N+1}_{+})$},
\end{equation}
where
$$
\S(s,N)= \frac{\Gamma(\frac{s}{2})\Gamma(\frac{1}{2}(N-s)))(\Gamma(N))^{\frac{s}{N}}}{2\pi^{\frac{s}{N}}\Gamma(\frac{1}{2}(2-s))
\Gamma(\frac{1}{2}(N+s))(\Gamma(\frac{1}{2}N))^{\frac{s}{N}}}.
$$
This constant is achieved on the family of functions \cite{colorado, coti, servadei2} $w_{\epsilon}=E_{s}(u_{\epsilon})$ (by \cite{talenti}
for $s=2$), where
$$
u_{\epsilon}(x)=
\frac{\epsilon^{\frac{N-s}{2}}}{(|x|^2 + \epsilon^2)^{\frac{N-s}{2}}} , \,\quad
\epsilon > 0.
$$
Furthermore, take
$\phi(x,y)=\phi_{0}(|(x,y)|),$ where $\phi_0 \in C^{\infty}(0,\infty)$ is a non increasing
cut-off such that
$$
\phi_0(s)=1\quad \mbox{if}\ s\in [0, 1/2],\quad \phi_0(s)=0,\quad \mbox{if}\ s\geq 1.
$$
Let $\phi w_{\epsilon}$ which belongs to $X^{s}({\mathbb R}^{N+1}_{+}).$
By \cite[Lemma 3.8]{barrios} (which is formulated on a bounded domain $\Omega$, but which holds with the very same proof
when taking $\Omega={\mathbb R}^N$), we have
\begin{lemma}[concentration]
\label{Lemma 3.8}
The family $\{\phi w_{\epsilon}\}$, and its trace on $\{y=0\}$, namely, $\phi u_{\epsilon},$ satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{3.40}
\|\phi w_{\epsilon}\|^{2}_{X^{s}}= \|w_{\epsilon}\|^{2}_{X^{s}}+ \O(\epsilon^{N-s}),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{3.41}
\|\phi u_{\epsilon}\|^{2}_{L^2}=\left\{ \begin{array}{lcr}
\O(\epsilon^{s}) &\mbox{if}& N >2s,\\
\O(\epsilon^{s}\log(1/\epsilon)) &\mbox{if}& N= 2s,\\
\O(\epsilon^{N-s})&\mbox{if}& N <2s,\\
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
for $\epsilon>0$ small enough.
Define $\eta_{\epsilon}=\phi w_{\epsilon} /\|\phi u_{\epsilon}\|_{L^{2^{*}_{s} }} $, then
\begin{equation} \label{3.53.1}
\|\eta_{\epsilon}\|^{2}_{X^{s}}= k_{s}\S(s,N) + \O(\epsilon^{N-s}),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{3.53.2}
\|\eta_{\epsilon}(x,0)\|^{2}_{L^2}=\left\{ \begin{array}{lcr}
\O(\epsilon^{s})&\mbox{if}& N >2s,\\
\O(\epsilon^{s}\log({1/\epsilon}) )&\mbox{if}& N = 2s,\\
\O(\epsilon^{N-s})&\mbox{if}& N <2s.\\
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{stima-q}
\|\eta_\varepsilon(x,0)\|_{L^q}^q=
\left\{ \begin{array}{lll}
\O(\varepsilon^{\frac{2N-(N-s)q}{2}})& &\text{if $q>\frac{N}{N-s}$ (or $N\geq 2s$),} \\
\O(\varepsilon^{\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}) & &\text{if $q<\frac{N}{N-s}$}.\\
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
Here with the notation $a_\varepsilon=\O(b_\varepsilon)$ we mean that $a_\varepsilon/b_\varepsilon$ is uniformly bounded with respect to $\varepsilon$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}\rm
We remark that, actually, except \eqref{3.40} and \eqref{3.53.1}, the other estimates follow exactly as in local case (see \cite{BN}), because
in these cases, we know the explicity expression for $u_{\epsilon}.$ While, for $w_{\epsilon},$ except for $s=1$ (see \cite{tanhalf})
and $s=2$ (local case), the explicit expressions are not available. But, in \cite{barrios}, the authors were clever to overcome
this difficulty, by exploring some properties of the Poisson kernel. The $s$-harmonic extension of the $u_{\epsilon}$ has the following explicit expression
$$
w_{\epsilon}(x,y)=P^{s}_{y}\ast u_{\epsilon}(x)=C_{N,s}y^{s}\int_{{\mathbb R}^N}\frac{u_{\epsilon}(\xi)}{(|x-\xi|^2 + y^2)^{\frac{N+s}{2} } } \mathrm{d}\xi,
\quad \text{for some $C_{N,s}>0$.}
$$
Noticing that as $u_{\epsilon}$ and $P^{s}_{y}$ are self-similar functions, namely
$$
u_{\epsilon}(x)=\epsilon^{\frac{s-N}{2}}u_1(x/\epsilon),\qquad
P^{s}_{y}(x)=\frac{1}{y^N}P^{s}_{1}(x/|y|)=\frac{y^s}{(|x|^2 + y^2)^{\frac{N+s}{2}}},
$$
then
$$
w_{\epsilon}(x,y)=\epsilon^{\frac{s-N}{2}}w_1(x/\epsilon,y/\epsilon).
$$
Exploiting this fact, they estimate as follows
$$
\int_{{\mathbb R}^{N+1}_{+}} y^{1-s} w_{\epsilon}\phi \nabla \phi\cdot \nabla w_{\epsilon} \mathrm{d} x \mathrm{d} y \leq \O(\epsilon^{ N-s}),\quad
\int_{{\mathbb R}^{N+1}_{+}} y^{1-s}|w_{\epsilon}\nabla \phi|^2 \mathrm{d} x \mathrm{d} y \leq \O(\epsilon^{ N-s}).
$$
Combining these inequalities, \eqref{3.40} holds.
The inequality \eqref{3.53.1} comes as a consequence.
Concerning \eqref{stima-q}, we justify it in the case $q<N/(N-s)$, the opposite case being similar. We have
\begin{align*}
\|\phi u_\varepsilon\|_{L^q}^q& =\int_{{\mathbb R}^N} |\phi|^q|u_\varepsilon|^q \mathrm{d} x\geq \int_{B(0,\frac{1}{2})} |u_\varepsilon|^q \mathrm{d} x\\
&=\varepsilon^{\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}\int_{B(0,\frac{1}{2})} \frac{1}{(\varepsilon^2+|x|^2)^{\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}} \mathrm{d} x \\
&=\varepsilon^{\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}\int_{B(0,\frac{1}{2\varepsilon})} \frac{1}{\varepsilon^{(N-s)q}(1+|y|^2)^{\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}} \varepsilon^N \mathrm{d} y \\
&=\varepsilon^{N-\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}\int_{B(0,\frac{1}{2\varepsilon})} \frac{1}{(1+|y|^2)^{\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}} \mathrm{d} y \\
&=\varepsilon^{N-\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}C\int_0^{1/(2\varepsilon)}\frac{1}{(1+\varrho^2)^{\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}} \varrho^{N-1} \mathrm{d} \varrho \\
&=\varepsilon^{N-\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}C\left(\int_0^{1}\frac{1}{(1+\varrho^2)^{\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}} \varrho^{N-1} \mathrm{d} \varrho+
\int_1^{1/(2\varepsilon)}\frac{1}{(1+\varrho^2)^{\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}} \varrho^{N-1} \mathrm{d}\varrho\right) \\
&\geq \varepsilon^{N-\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}\Big(C+
C\int_1^{1/(2\varepsilon)}\frac{1}{\varrho^{(N-s)q-N+1}} \mathrm{d}\varrho\Big) \\
&\geq \varepsilon^{N-\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}\Big(C+
C\varepsilon^{(N-s)q-N})\Big)
\geq C\varepsilon^{\frac{(N-s)q}{2}},
\end{align*}
for $\varepsilon>0$ small enough. Analogously, we get
\begin{align*}
\|\phi u_\varepsilon\|_{L^q}^q& =\int_{{\mathbb R}^N} |\phi|^q|u_\varepsilon|^q\mathrm{d} x\leq \int_{B(0,1)} |u_\varepsilon|^q \mathrm{d} x\\
&=\varepsilon^{\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}\int_{B(0,1)} \frac{1}{(\varepsilon^2+|x|^2)^{\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}} \mathrm{d} x \\
&=\varepsilon^{\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}\int_{B(0,\frac{1}{\varepsilon})} \frac{1}{\varepsilon^{(N-s)q}(1+|y|^2)^{\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}} \varepsilon^N \mathrm{d} y \\
&=\varepsilon^{N-\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}\int_{B(0,\frac{1}{\varepsilon})} \frac{1}{(1+|y|^2)^{\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}} \mathrm{d} y \\
&=\varepsilon^{N-\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}C\int_0^{1/\varepsilon}\frac{1}{(1+\varrho^2)^{\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}} \varrho^{N-1} \mathrm{d} \varrho \\
&=\varepsilon^{N-\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}C\left(\int_0^{1}\frac{1}{(1+\varrho^2)^{\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}} \varrho^{N-1} \mathrm{d}\varrho+
\int_1^{1/\varepsilon}\frac{1}{(1+\varrho^2)^{\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}} \varrho^{N-1} \mathrm{d}\varrho\right) \\
&\leq \varepsilon^{N-\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}\Big(C+
C\int_1^{1/\varepsilon}\frac{1}{\varrho^{(N-s)q-N+1}} \mathrm{d}\varrho\Big) \\
&\leq \varepsilon^{N-\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}\Big(C+
C\varepsilon^{(N-s)q-N})\Big) \leq C\varepsilon^{\frac{(N-s)q}{2}},
\end{align*}
for $\varepsilon>0$ small enough.
Since $\|\phi u_{\epsilon}\|_{L^{2^{*}_{s} }}$ converges to a positive constant,
the assertion follows.
\end{remark}
\noindent
The following result will be crucial for the proof of our main result
\begin{lemma}[MP energy bound]
\label{crucial}
Let $\lambda=1$ and let {\rm (f1)-(f2)-(f3)$'$} hold. Then $c< \frac{s}{2N}(k_{s}\S(s,N))^{N/s}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By definition of $c$, it is sufficient to prove that there exists $\epsilon >0$ small enough that
$$
\sup_{t\geq 0} J(t\eta_{\epsilon}) < \frac{s}{2N}(k_{s}\S(s,N))^{N/s}, \quad J=J_1.
$$
By definition of $J,$ we have
$$
J(t\eta_{\epsilon})=\frac{t^2}{2}\|\eta_{\epsilon}\|^{2} - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} K(x) F(t\eta_{\epsilon}(x,0)) \mathrm{d} x
- \frac{t^{2^{*}_{s}}}{2^{*}_{s}}.
$$
By the assumptions of $f$, there exist $q\in (2,2^*_s)$ and $C_0>0$ with
$F(s)\geq C_0 s^q$ for any $s\in {\mathbb R}^+$. Then
$$
J(t\eta_{\epsilon})\leq \psi(t), \,\,\quad
\psi(t)=\frac{t^2}{2}\|\eta_{\epsilon}\|^2- C_0t^q \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} |\eta_{\epsilon}(x,0)|^q \mathrm{d} x
- \frac{t^{2^{*}_{s}} }{2^{*}_{s}}.
$$
Since $\psi(t)\to-\infty$ as $t \to+\infty$, we have $\sup\{\psi(t):t\geq 0\}=\psi(t_{\epsilon})$
for some $ t_{\epsilon}>0$, so that
$$
\|\eta_{\epsilon}\|^2 - C_0q t^{q-2}_\varepsilon\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} |\eta_{\epsilon}(x,0))|^q \mathrm{d} x
=t^{2^{*}_{s}-2}_{\epsilon},
$$
which yields $\sigma_0\leq t_{\epsilon}\leq \|\eta_{\epsilon}\|^{\frac{2}{2^{*}_{s}-2}}\leq K_0$ for some
$\sigma_0,K_0>0$ independent of $\varepsilon$, in view of Lemma~\ref{Lemma 3.8} and the above equality. Since the map
$$
[0, \|\eta_{\epsilon}\|^{\frac{2}{2^{*}_{s}-2}}]\ni t\mapsto \frac{t^2}{2}\|\eta_{\epsilon}\|^2 - \frac{t^{2^{*}_{s}} }{2^{*}_{s}},
$$
increases, we get for some universal constant $C>0$,
\begin{align*}
\sup_{{\mathbb R}^+}\psi &\leq
\frac{s}{2N}\Big(\|\eta_{\epsilon}\|^2_{X^s}+\int_{{\mathbb R}^N}V(x)\eta_\varepsilon(x,0)^2 \mathrm{d} x\Big)^{N/s}-C_0C \|\eta_{\epsilon}(x,0))\|^{q}_{L^q} \\
&\leq \frac{s}{2N}\Big(k_{s}\S(s,N) + \O(\epsilon^{N-s})+\int_{{\mathbb R}^N}V(x)\eta_\varepsilon(x,0)^2 \mathrm{d} x\Big)^{N/s}-C_0C \|\eta_{\epsilon}(x,0))\|^{q}_{L^q}.
\end{align*}
Now, by the elementary inequality $(a+b)^\alpha\leq a^\alpha+\alpha (a+b)^{\alpha-1}b$, $\alpha\geq 1$ and $a,b>0$, we get by \eqref{3.53.1}
\begin{align*}
\sup_{{\mathbb R}^+}\psi &\leq
\frac{s}{2N}(k_{s}\S(s,N))^{N/s}+ \O(\epsilon^{N-s})+C\int_{{\mathbb R}^N}V(x)\eta_\varepsilon(x,0)^2 \mathrm{d} x-C_0C \|\eta_{\epsilon}(x,0))\|^{q}_{L^q} \\
& \leq \frac{s}{2N}(k_{s}\S(s,N))^{N/s}+ \O(\epsilon^{N-s})+C\|\eta_\varepsilon(x,0)\|_{L^2}^2-C_0C \|\eta_{\epsilon}(x,0))\|^{q}_{L^q}
\end{align*}
\noindent
$\bullet$ In the case $N>2s$, by means of \eqref{3.53.2} and \eqref{stima-q}, we get
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{{\mathbb R}^+}\psi \leq \frac{s}{2N}(k_{s}\S(s,N))^{N/s}+ \O(\epsilon^{N-s})+\O(\epsilon^{s})-C_0\O(\varepsilon^{\frac{2N-(N-s)q}{2}}).
\end{equation*}
Since ${\frac{2N-(N-s)q}{2}}<s<N-s$, we get the conclusion for $\varepsilon$ sufficiently small.
\vskip2pt
\noindent
$\bullet$ If $N=2s$ and $2<q<2^*_s=4$, by \eqref{3.53.2} and \eqref{stima-q}, we get
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{{\mathbb R}^+}\psi \leq \frac{s}{2N}(k_{s}\S(s,N))^{N/s}+ \O(\epsilon^{s}(1+\log(\epsilon^{-1})) )-C_0\O(\varepsilon^{\frac{2N-sq}{2}}).
\end{equation*}
Since it holds
$$
\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\frac{\varepsilon^{\frac{2N-sq}{2}}}{\epsilon^{s}\log(\epsilon^{-1}) }=+\infty,
$$
again can we get the conclusion, for $\varepsilon$ sufficiently small.
\vskip2pt
\noindent
$\bullet$ If $s<N<2s$ and $\frac{N}{N-s}<q<2^*_s$, by \eqref{3.53.2} and \eqref{stima-q}, we get
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{{\mathbb R}^+}\psi \leq \frac{s}{2N}(k_{s}\S(s,N))^{N/s}+ \O(\epsilon^{N-s})-C_0\O(\varepsilon^{\frac{2N-(N-s)q}{2}}).
\end{equation*}
Since ${\frac{2N-(N-s)q}{2}}<N-s$ means $q>\frac{2s}{N-s}(>2)$, we get the conclusion for $\varepsilon$ sufficiently small.
\vskip2pt
\noindent
$\bullet$ If $s<N<2s$ and $2<q<\frac{N}{N-s}$, by \eqref{3.53.2} and \eqref{stima-q}, we get
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{{\mathbb R}^+}\psi \leq \frac{s}{2N}(k_{s}\S(s,N))^{N/s}+ \O(\epsilon^{N-s})-C_0\O(\varepsilon^{\frac{(N-s)q}{2}}),
\end{equation*}
and for $C_0=\varepsilon^{-\vartheta}$ with $\vartheta>\frac{(N-s)(q-2)}{2}$, we get the conclusion. This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{mainsub} completed}
\label{prova1}
In light of Lemma~\ref{MPG}, there exists a {\em Cerami} sequence $\{w_n\}\subset E$ for $J=J_0$.
From Lemma~\ref{cerami} it follows that $w^-_n\to 0$ in $E$ as $n\to\infty$ and that $\{w_n\}$ is bounded and has
a nonnegative weak limit $w\in E$.
By Proposition \ref{converge}, it follows that $w$ is a weak nonnegative solution, to which a weak solution $u \in H^{s/2}({\mathbb R}^N)$ to \eqref{PS} corresponds.
We have $u>0$ if $u\neq 0$. In fact, if $u(x_0)=0$ for some $x_0\in{\mathbb R}^N$, then $(-\Delta)^{s/2} u(x_0)=0$
and by the representation formula \cite{nezza}
$$
(-\Delta)^{s/2} u(x)=-\frac{c(N,s/2)}{2}\int_{{\mathbb R}^N}\frac{u(x+y)+u(x-y)-2u(x)}{|x-y|^{N+s}} \mathrm{d} y,
$$
one obtains that, at $x_0$, that
$$
\int_{{\mathbb R}^N} \frac{u(x_0+y)+u(x_0-y)}{|x_{0}-y|^{N+s}}\mathrm{d} y=0,
$$
yielding $u=0$, a contradiction. Let us prove that, indeed, $u\neq 0$. We prove that $w=E_s(u)\not\equiv 0$.
In fact, $(w_n)$ converges to $w$ strongly in $E.$
Indeed, up to a subsequence, $w_n \rightharpoonup w$ in $E$ as $n\to\infty$, and since $J'(w_n)(w_n)=o_n(1),$ we have, again
by virtue of Proposition \ref{converge},
\begin{align*}
\lim_{n\to \infty} \|w_n\|^2 & =\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_{{\mathbb R}^N}K(x)f(w_n(x,0))w_n(x,0)dx \\
&=\int_{{\mathbb R}^N}K(x)f(w(x,0))w(x,0)dx=\|w\|^2,
\end{align*}
that is, $ w_n \rightarrow w$ in $E.$ Hence $J(w)=c$ and $J'(w)=0,$ this implies that $w\not\equiv 0.$ \qed
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{main} completed}
\label{prova2}
\noindent
In light of Lemma~\ref{MPG}, there exists a {\em Cerami} sequence $\{w_n\}\subset E$ for $J=J_1$.
From Lemma~\ref{cerami} it follows that $w^-_n\to 0$ in $E$ as $n\to\infty$ and that $\{w_n\}$ is bounded and has
a nonnegative weak limit $w\in E$.
By Proposition \ref{converge}, it follows that $w$ is a weak nonnegative solution, to which a weak solution $u \in H^{s/2}({\mathbb R}^N)$ to \eqref{PS} corresponds.
We have $u>0$ if $u\neq 0$, arguing as in Section~\ref{prova1}. Let us prove that, indeed, $u\neq 0$. We prove that $w=E_s(u)\not\equiv 0$.
By virtue of \eqref{ceramiS}, we have
\begin{align*}
& \frac{1}{2}\|w_n\|^2 - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} K(x) F(w(x,0)) \mathrm{d} x
- \frac{1}{2^{*}_{s}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} w_n^+(x,0)^{2^{*}_{s}} \mathrm{d} x=c+o_n(1), \\
& \|w_n\|^2 - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} K(x) f(w(x,0))w(x,0) \mathrm{d} x - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} w_n^+(x,0)^{2^{*}_{s}} \mathrm{d} x=o_n(1).
\end{align*}
Suppose, by contradiction, that $w\equiv 0$. Then, we entail
$$
\Big(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2^{*}_{s}}\Big)\|w_n\|^2=c+o_n(1),
$$
which combined with $\|w_n\|^2=\|w_n(x,0)\|_{2^*_s}^{2^*_s}+o_n(1)$ as $n\to\infty$ and the Sobolev inequality
$$
\|w_n\|^2\geq \int_{ {\mathbb R}^{N+1}_{+}}k_{s}y^{1-s}|\nabla w|^2 \mathrm{d} x\mathrm{d} y\geq k_s \S(s,N) \|w_n(x,0)\|_{2^*_s}^2
$$
implying
$$
c=\lim_n J(w_n)=\Big(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2^{*}_{s}}\Big)\lim_n \|w_n\|^2\geq \frac{s}{2N}(k_{s}\S(s,N))^{N/s}.
$$
This contradicts Lemma~\ref{crucial}. Hence $w\not\equiv 0$ and the proof is complete. \qed
\bigskip
\bigskip
|
\section{Introduction}
The field of galaxy formation and evolution seeks to explain the
evolutionary history of galaxies, but is handicapped by the
difficulties in observing the dark matter field in which the galaxies
form and evolve. The connection between galaxies and their host dark
matter halos is an essential ingredient in the physics of galaxy
formation. One very useful probe of the galaxy-dark matter connection
is weak lensing around galaxies, or galaxy-galaxy lensing
\citep[e.g.,][]{2008ARNPS..58...99H}.
Gravitational lensing, the deflection of light by mass, induces
tangential shear distortions in the shapes of background galaxies
around foreground galaxies, allowing direct measurement of the
galaxy-matter correlation function. This approach has the advantage
of being sensitive to {\em all} matter, independent of its dynamical
state. The individual distortions are small (typically of order
0.1\%), but by averaging over all foreground (``lens'') galaxies
within a given subsample selected based on their properties (a process
known as ``stacking''), and over all the source galaxies behind them,
it is possible to obtain a high signal-to-noise measurement of the
shear as a function of angular separation from the galaxy, known as
the galaxy-galaxy lensing signal.
In the past $\sim 15$ years, the quantity of imaging data with
high-quality galaxy shape information and with some redshift
information (either spectroscopic or photometric redshifts) has
drastically increased, in large part due to the efforts of major
surveys such as the Red-Sequence Cluster Survey
\citep[RCS,][]{2005ApJS..157....1G} and RCS2
\citep{2011AJ....141...94G}, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
\citep[SDSS,][]{2000AJ....120.1579Y}, the Canada-France-Hawaii
Telescope Lensing Survey
\citep[CFHTLenS,][]{2012MNRAS.427..146H,2013MNRAS.433.2545E}, and the
{\em Hubble Space Telescope} ({\em HST}) COSMOS Survey
\citep{2007ApJS..172..196K,2007ApJS..172...38S,2007ApJS..172....1S}.
The increase in data quantity and quality, plus the appeal of a
measurement method that is directly sensitive to the dark matter, has
led to tremendous progress in the use of galaxy-galaxy lensing to
study the connection between galaxies and matter.
The purpose of this review is to describe some of the studies that
have analyzed galaxy-galaxy weak lensing measurements to learn about
the masses of dark matter halos around galaxies, and to highlight
important lessons learned and unsolved aspects of this problem that
require more work in future, for example for the next generation of
large lensing surveys that will measure weak gravitational lensing
more precisely than has been done with current datasets. The topic of
this review is limited to relatively general studies of typical
galaxies, leaving aside studies of particular galaxy types using weak
gravitational lensing
\citep[e.g.,][]{2009MNRAS.393..377M,2010MNRAS.407....2D,2012MNRAS.425.2610R},
studies of the radial profiles of dark matter halos with weak lensing
\citep[e.g.,][]{2007ApJ...667..176G,2008JCAP...08..006M,2010MNRAS.408.1463S},
and studies of group or galaxy cluster dark matter halos
\citep[e.g.,][]{2013SSRv..177...75H}.
\section{Theory}
Weak gravitational lensing, the deflection of light rays by the mass
in matter along the line-of-sight, results in coherent shape
distortions (shears) in the background galaxies. The strength of the
lensing shear depends on the mass in the lens object (galaxy or
cluster), the separation on the sky between the lens and the source
object, and the line-of-sight distances to lens and source.
A galaxy-galaxy weak lensing measurement probes the connection between
galaxies and matter via the cross-correlation functions
$\xi_\text{gm}(\vec{r})$, which can be related to the projected surface
density of matter around the lens galaxies
\begin{equation}\label{E:sigmar}
\Sigma(R) = \overline{\rho} \int \left[1+\xi_\text{gm}\left(\sqrt{R^2 + \chi^2}\right)\right] d\chi.
\end{equation}
where $R$ is the transverse separation and $\chi$ the radial direction
over which we are projecting\footnote{We are ignoring the effects from the
radial window, which is broad enough that it is not relevant at galaxy
scales; see section 2.3 of \cite{2001MNRAS.321..439G} for
details.}. The surface density is then related to the observable
quantity for lensing, the differential surface density,
\begin{equation}\label{E:ds}
\ensuremath{\Delta\Sigma}(R) = \gamma_t(R) \Sigma_c= \overline{\Sigma}(<R) - \Sigma(R),
\end{equation}
in the weak lensing limit, for
a matter distribution that
is axisymmetric along the line of sight (which is naturally achieved
when stacking thousands of lens galaxies to determine their
average lensing signal). Typical galaxy-galaxy lensing measurements
require substantial numbers of lens and source galaxies in order to
average out the random component of the source galaxy
shapes, which is typically the dominant source of noise in the
measurement.
This observable quantity can
be expressed as the product of two factors, a tangential shear
$\gamma_t$ and a geometric factor
\begin{equation}\label{E:sigmacrit}
\Sigma_c = \frac{c^2}{4\pi G} \frac{D_S}{D_L D_{LS}}
\end{equation}
where $D_L$ and $D_S$ are angular diameter distances to the lens and
source, and $D_{LS}$ is the angular diameter distance between the lens
and source.
For isolated galaxies at the center of dark matter halos, the
surface density of surrounding matter can be written in terms of the 3d
density profile $\rho(r)$ on small scales, as
\begin{equation}\label{E:sigmar2}
\Sigma(R) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \rho(r=\sqrt{\chi^2+R^2}) d\chi.
\end{equation}
However, there are additional contributions due to those galaxies that
are satellites, for which the host dark matter halo leads to a
contribution for $R$ in the hundreds of kiloparsec to 1 Mpc range. On
even larger scales, there is a small but significant contribution due
to the matter in structures that are physically associated with but
not inside of the halo in which the lens galaxy resides (the ``2-halo
term''). As a result, the interpretation of the lensing signal
can be complicated, depending on the local environment of the galaxies
(mixture of isolated and central galaxies vs. satellites) and the
separations $R$ used (larger scales requires modeling of the term due to
large-scale structure). Moreover, the stacking process means that the
average profile can be affected not just by mean relationships between
mass and observables, but also by scatter in those relationships.
Different studies have taken different approaches to these
interpretation challenges, as I will describe below.
\section{Results}\label{sec:results}
Among the first galaxy-galaxy lensing results with detailed modeling of the
mass distributions of large samples of foreground lens galaxies were
\cite{2005ApJ...635...73H}, \cite{2006MNRAS.368..715M}, and
\cite{2006MNRAS.371L..60H}.
\cite{2005ApJ...635...73H} used data from the RCS to identify isolated
galaxies and measure their lensing signals as a function of stellar
mass or luminosity. Due to the use of isolated galaxies, their
approach was to fit the signals to an NFW \citep{1996ApJ...462..563N}
profile, ignoring the possibility of contributions from host halos of
those galaxies that may be satellites in larger halos, and restricting
to small enough scales that the 2-halo term is
negligible. They find a relationship
between halo mass and luminosity that goes like $M_\text{halo}\propto
L^{1.5}$. This result is based on the best-fit mass for samples with
some average luminosity, ignoring scatter between mass and luminosity.
They also made these measurements for early and late-type galaxy
samples split based on color, and found $M_\text{halo}/M_*$ higher by
a factor of $\sim 2$ for early types. Dividing $M_*/M_\text{halo}$ by
the cosmological baryon fraction to estimate an efficiency of
conversion of baryons to stars,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eta}
\eta = \frac{M_*}{M_\text{halo}} \frac{\Omega_\text{m}}{\Omega_\text{b}}
\end{equation}
they found $\eta\sim 33$\%
and $\sim 14$\%, respectively, for early and late type galaxies.
Using data from the SDSS Main spectroscopic galaxy sample,
\cite{2006MNRAS.368..715M} analyzed the host halo mass for early and
late-type central galaxies as a function of their stellar mass and
luminosity, for galaxies at a typical redshift of $\langle z\rangle\sim 0.1$ (lower
than the RCS study). In this work, the split
into early versus late types was achieved using a morphological
estimator (not color). This work also estimated the satellite
fractions purely based on the lensing signal alone. In order to
interpret the lensing signals in terms of central and satellite galaxies in a
statistical sense, this work used a halo model
\citep[e.g.,][]{2000MNRAS.318..203S,2002PhR...372....1C} formalism
that was tested for these purposes on mock galaxy samples derived from
$N$-body simulations by \cite{2005MNRAS.362.1451M}. The simple halo
model that was used had only two free parameters, with the rest fixed
to some values selected based on the $N$-body simulation analysis, and
correction factors for scatter in the mass-observable relation were
applied to the best-fit masses. The findings for
$M_*/M_\text{halo}$ in this work were consistent with those from RCS
for stellar masses above $10^{10}M_\odot$. Below that stellar mass,
early and late type galaxies were found to have statistically
consistent conversion efficiencies (Eq.~\ref{eq:eta}), suggesting that stellar mass is a
good tracer of halo mass below $M_*\sim 10^{10}M_\odot$. For a galaxy sample
around $L_*$, the halo model analysis of the lensing results suggests
$M_\text{halo}/L=79^{+27}_{-24}$ and $41^{+16}_{-17} M_\odot/L_\odot$
($2\sigma$) for early and late types, respectively, with
higher values at higher luminosity; results at lower luminosity are
too noisy to draw conclusions about trends in that direction.
Using data from the {\em HST} GEMS survey,
\cite{2006MNRAS.371L..60H} analyzed the lensing signal from high
stellar mass galaxies over a long redshift baseline,
$0.2<z<0.8$. Given the stellar mass limit $\log{\left(M_*/M_\odot\right)}>10.5$,
the majority of the galaxies exhibit early type morphology; however,
no explicit morphological split was used. After modeling the signals
using a pure NFW profile without modeling of signal due to satellites
or halo vs. stellar mass scatter, they find an average conversion
efficiency of $\eta=0.10\pm 0.03$ ($1\sigma$) for the entire sample. These
results are consistent with those from lower redshift
\citep{2005ApJ...635...73H,2006MNRAS.368..715M} when comparing with
samples that have a similar stellar mass range. When
splitting into redshift bins within the GEMS sample, they find no
statistically significant evolution of the $M_\text{halo}/M_*$ ratio, though
their best-fit relation includes slight evolution in the direction
of higher ratio at higher redshift, giving an upper limit in growth of
this ratio of $\lesssim 2.5$ from $z=0.8$ to the present time.
More recently, \cite{2012ApJ...744..159L} carried out a joint analysis
of the galaxy-galaxy lensing, galaxy clustering, and abundance of
galaxies as a function of stellar mass (without splitting by galaxy
type) in the COSMOS survey. While this survey covers a very small
area of the sky, its depth provides a long redshift baseline over
which to carry out this analysis. This joint analysis used a quite
complex formulation of the halo model with many parameters including
ones regulating the scatter between the halo and stellar mass, as
described in \cite{2011ApJ...738...45L}. For this
particular dataset, the stellar mass function has the highest $S/N$
and therefore dominates the constraints on the halo vs. stellar mass
relation, which is provided as a functional form with four parameters
determined in three redshift bins. The redshift evolution of
this halo vs. stellar mass relation is indicative of downsizing, with
the stellar mass at which the star baryon conversion efficiency is
maximized decreasing at lower redshifts. One new aspect to this halo model
analysis compared to previous ones used for lensing analyses is that
it provides constraints on the logarithmic scatter in the stellar mass at fixed
halo mass, which varied in the range $\sigma_{\log{M_*}}=0.2$--$0.25$
for the three redshift bins.
The halo model formalism used by \cite{2012ApJ...744..159L} relied on
the use of all galaxies at fixed stellar mass to define the abundance. An
updated version of the formalism that permits a split into
star-forming and passive galaxies was presented and used by
\cite{2013ApJ...778...93T}, also on the COSMOS data. The results of
that work suggested that for massive galaxies ($M_*\gtrsim
10^{10.6}M_\odot$), star-forming galaxies form stars at a rate that
roughly matches the growth of their dark matter halos via accretion
from $z=1$ to $0$, whereas for quiescent galaxies, the growth of their
dark matter halos outpaces star formation, reducing their apparent
baryon conversion efficiency $\eta$. In contrast, for lower mass galaxies,
the halo vs. stellar mass relations are similar for passive and
star-forming galaxies at $z<1$. These findings are qualitatively
consistent with the trends from the SDSS data using lensing alone in
\cite{2006MNRAS.368..715M}, but the $S/N$ in COSMOS is superior for
lower mass galaxies. Moreover, COSMOS enables tests of redshift
evolution, and find a cross-over in the red-blue stellar vs. halo mass
relation as a function of redshift, which has not been seen in other
surveys (either due to insufficient redshift baseline, or different
modeling strategies).
\cite{2011A&A...534A..14V} used imaging data from the RCS2 together
with SDSS spectroscopic redshifts in order to perform a weak lensing
study of the halo vs. stellar mass relation, with a similar halo model
formalism as that used in \cite{2006MNRAS.368..715M}. They find a relatively
steep scaling of halo mass with luminosity, $2.2\pm 0.1$ and $1.8\pm
0.1$ for red and blue galaxies, respectively\footnote{These numbers
differ from those in \cite{2011A&A...534A..14V}, and
come from a correction that was reported in
\cite{2014MNRAS.437.2111V}, which used the same halo modeling
software.}, which is inconsistent with that found by
\cite{2005ApJ...635...73H} in the RCS; however, the different methods
of modeling the lensing signals and different selection criteria used
could be responsible for this difference. The results are consistent
with those from the SDSS analysis by \cite{2006MNRAS.368..715M} within
the errors. When splitting the sample by stellar mass,
\cite{2011A&A...534A..14V} confirm the findings from the SDSS: below
$10^{11}M_\odot$, the stellar mass traces halo mass, but above that
stellar mass, the halo masses differ for early and late type galaxies.
\cite{2013MNRAS.430..725V} presented a 9-parameter conditional
luminosity function (CLF) formalism including various input from
$N$-body simulations (halo mass function, concentration-mass relation,
and others). \cite{2014MNRAS.437..377C} showed that when fitting the
parameters of this model to describe low-redshift SDSS samples, the
resulting CLF was able to describe lensing signals for
higher-luminosity and redshift SDSS and RCS2 samples without further
adjustment. This result is non-trivially interesting and suggests
that the 9-parameter model may be capturing the key features of the
galaxy-dark matter connection. One interesting aspect of this model
is that it includes
constant scatter in $\log{L}$ at fixed $\log{M_\text{halo}}$, which
implies that the scatter in $\log{M_\text{halo}}$ at fixed $\log{L}$
is not constant (given that the slope of the luminosity-mass relation
varies). This aspect of the model is similar to the results of the
COSMOS analysis from \cite{2012ApJ...744..159L}, which described the
results in terms of a fixed scatter in $\log{M_*}$ at fixed
$M_\text{halo}$.
Two works \citep{2013arXiv1310.6784H,2014MNRAS.437.2111V} have
explored the galaxy-galaxy weak lensing signals as a function of lens
galaxy properties using CFHTLenS data. The CFHTLenS data cover
sufficient area with enough depth that, compared to the SDSS, RCS, and
RCS2, the statistical errors in the lensing signal at lower stellar
mass and luminosity have decreased significantly\footnote{The errors
are similar to those in COSMOS at low stellar mass, however in the
case of the COSMOS analysis, the clustering and stellar mass
function plays a significant role in the halo model constraints at
low stellar mass.}. When fitting the halo mass to a power law in
luminosity (stellar mass), \cite{2014MNRAS.437.2111V} find a power law
index of $1.32\pm 0.06$ and $1.09^{+0.20}_{-0.13}$
($1.36^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$ and $0.98^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$) for red and blue
galaxies, respectively. This is shallower than the RCS2 results,
possibly because of multiple differences in galaxy selection, as
discussed in detail in \cite{2014MNRAS.437.2111V}; however, their
results are largely in agreement with the results from the SDSS.
Comparison with COSMOS results is somewhat more complex, given that
the best-fitting stellar vs. halo mass relationship can only be turned
into an average halo mass within each bin when considering the
scatter in stellar mass at fixed halo mass. We will return to this
point shortly.
\cite{2014arXiv1404.6828H} carried out a maximum-likelihood weak
lensing analysis of optically-selected galaxy groups in the Galaxy and
Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey, using SDSS galaxies as background
sources. While the focus of the paper is on groups of galaxies,
results are also shown for a set of ``groups'' with $N_\text{gal}=1$,
i.e., individual galaxies split by stellar mass (not type or
morphology). The trends for the average halo mass as a function of
stellar mass were largely consistent with those from previous surveys.
One point that was highlighted in both \cite{2011ApJ...738...45L} and
\cite{2014arXiv1404.6828H}, and that is quite relevant
to the comparison of results from e.g. \cite{2014MNRAS.437.2111V}
against those from \cite{2012ApJ...744..159L}, is that the average
halo mass at fixed stellar mass is very sensitive to the lognormal
dispersion in $M_*$ at fixed $M_\text{halo}$ (even more so than on the
median $M_*$ at fixed $M_\text{halo}$). Thus, comparison of results
of contraining $M_*$ as a function of $M_\text{halo}$ against
measurements of $\langle M_\text{halo}\rangle$ at fixed $M_*$ is
highly non-trivial. For the GAMA galaxies, \cite{2014arXiv1404.6828H}
found
$\sigma_{\log{M_*}}\sim 0.15$, consistent with the COSMOS results
within the errors. However, since $\sigma_{\log{M_*}}$ includes not
just intrinsic scatter but also measurement error (which could depend
on how the stellar mass are estimated and whether the dataset has
spectroscopic or photometric redshifts), it is not necessarily the
case that we even expect similar results from all surveys.
To summarize, in Fig.~\ref{fig:comp} we show figure 9 from
\cite{2014arXiv1404.6828H}, which compares the results for the average
halo mass in stellar mass bins (averaged over all galaxy types) from
several different papers.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.8in]{mandelbaum-fig1.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The central halo mass-stellar mass relation measured from
weak lensing, from several works described in this section. The quantity that is plotted is the average
logarithmic halo mass at fixed stellar mass. The COSMOS
measurement, originally provided as a fitted $\langle\log(M_\star)|M_h\rangle$
relation, was converted to the plotted quantity by taking into account the
scatter in mean stellar mass at fixed halo mass. The same
conversion is done for the results from
\citet{2013arXiv1310.6784H}. It is important to keep in mind that
$\langle M_\text{halo}\rangle(M_*)$
depends not just on the mean relationship between these quantities,
but also on both their intrinsic scatter and the measurement error
in the $M_*$. For example, surveys with stellar masses based
purely on photometric redshifts, which are an additional source of
non-negligible scatter, should have lower average halo masses at
fixed stellar mass. Figure used with permission from
\cite{2014arXiv1404.6828H}.}\label{fig:comp}
\end{figure}
\section{Future challenges}\label{S:challenges}
Aside from the basic observational challenges in weak lensing
measurements, which are summarized in
e.g. \cite{2013PhR...530...87W}, here I discuss some of the challenges
in how to make and interpret weak lensing measurements of dark matter
halo masses.
The first issue is in defining the observational quantity to be
used as a mass tracer, typically either stellar mass and luminosity.
For galaxy samples with spectra, the presence of a redshift can be
useful in making a robust estimate of these quantities by fitting the
SED to templates. However, for lens samples with imaging data alone,
photometric redshifts uncertainty becomes uncertainty in the
stellar mass and luminosity. The process of carrying out these fits
to interpret the SED in terms of stellar mass and luminosity has other
sources of uncertainty. The most commonly considered uncertainty is
due to the stellar initial mass function (IMF), which can
lead to tens of percent differences in stellar mass estimates.
However, even controlling for IMF differences,
\cite{2012ApJ...746...95L} argue that differences in stellar mass
estimates due to the stellar population synthesis model, form chosen
for star formation history, and ways of handling dust attenuation can
lead to $\sim 45$\% uncertainties in the stellar mass estimates.
Finally, in the estimate of stellar mass from the mass-to-light ratio
and luminosity, we cannot ignore uncertainties that may arise due to
the flux estimate that goes into luminosity. This estimate often
involves fitting the surface brightness profile of the galaxies, which
itself has many pitfalls in the choice of models to use
\citep[e.g.,][]{2014MNRAS.443..874B} and systematic errors due to sky
level misestimates near bright foregrounds. These sources of
uncertainty make comparison between measurements from different
surveys with different analysis techniques necessarily difficult, and
in future, we will need to control for such differences quite
carefully.
Another issue, which is relevant for studies that attempt to define
type-dependent relationships between stellar and halo mass, relates to
how the galaxies were split into different types. Morphological
estimators can be noisy and difficult to apply to limited-resolution
imaging from the ground. Estimators based on spectra, such as the
strength of the $4000$\AA\ break, are limited to the special cases
where spectra for lens objects are available. Use of rest-frame
colors from imaging data can couple photometric redshift errors to the
quantity used for type classification, and can also be fooled by
dust extinction in edge-on spirals. It is therefore not
apparent to what degree we can compare type-dependent relationships
that are derived in different ways. It is interesting that
\cite{2013arXiv1310.6784H} and \cite{2014MNRAS.437.2111V} found using
CFHTLenS that for certain stellar mass bins, their estimates of the
halo vs. stellar mass relation differ for certain galaxy types.
Naively, since they are using the same source catalog and photometric
redshifts, one would expect the noise in their measurements to be
correlated, which should result in their agreeing at better than the
$1\sigma$ level.
However, the two works differ in their choice of type separator (color
vs. spectral type, respectively) and their way of binning the galaxies
by stellar mass (directly vs. using luminosity and then getting an
average stellar mass for each luminosity bin). They also have some
differences in how the mass modeling of the lensing signals was
carried out. Differences in how the data were split into samples and
modeled must be responsible for the difference between these results.
The final challenges have to do with how halo mass is modeled. The
choice of whether to use isolated galaxies (which do not require
halo modeling) or not could lead to the selection of unfair
samples compared to use of all galaxies regardless of
environment. At the same time, the halo model that can be used to
interpret the lensing signal for a sample of mixed central and
satellite galaxies has its own
limitations: for example, it does not include assembly bias (wherein galaxy
properties depend not just on halo mass but some other parameter like
age; see \citealt{2014MNRAS.443.3044Z} regarding its effects on
halo model analyses, and \citealt{2014MNRAS.444..729H} for an analysis
that attempts to account for assembly bias). It also relies on $N$-body based quantities like
the halo mass function and concentration vs. mass relation, which
means that if baryonic effects are important
\citep{2010MNRAS.405.2161D,2014MNRAS.441.1769C} then the halo model
predictions will be incorrect and therefore so will the estimated
masses. Another factor that is relevant to the studies that already
use halo models is the choice of how much complexity to allow. For
example, \cite{2006MNRAS.368..715M}, \cite{2011A&A...534A..14V}, and
\cite{2014MNRAS.437.2111V} all used simple halo models with many
parameters fixed and with simple corrections for halo mass
vs. observable scatter; \cite{2011ApJ...738...45L} and
\cite{2013ApJ...778...93T} used a much more complex halo model with
more freedom and fewer fixed parameters, but they also needed to
include much more data (stellar mass function and clustering) in order
to get strong parameter constraints, which means that systematic
uncertainties in abundances become more relevant than in the
lensing-only studies. It is clear that some of these nuisance
parameters are important, and in order to compare results we must
understand the impact of choices about which nuisance parameters are held fixed
and which are free.
In short, the above complications can complicate a comparison between the
different measurements described in Section~\ref{sec:results}.
In the near future, larger lensing surveys are going to
make even higher $S/N$ measurements of galaxy-galaxy lensing, which
could lead to
a better understanding of the halo vs. dark matter connection from
weak lensing. At the same time, with the better data will come a need
for greater understanding of how these challenges are affecting the
results.
\section{Conclusions}
Because of its sensitivity to all types of matter (stars, gas, and
dark matter) and its insensitivity to their dynamical state, weak
gravitational lensing has emerged as a powerful tool to study the
connection between galaxies and their host dark matter halos in the
past decade, with results from multiple surveys, the most recent of
which have achieved statistical errors in the 5\% regime. While there
are a number of challenges to understand in the modeling that is used
to go from measured lensing signals to constraints on masses, as
described in \S\ref{S:challenges}, there is every reason to believe
that near-term surveys like Hyper Suprime-Cam
(HSC\footnote{\url{http://www.naoj.org/Projects/HSC/index.html}},
\citealt{2006SPIE.6269E...9M}), the Dark Energy Survey
(DES\footnote{\url{https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/}},
\citealt{2005astro.ph.10346T}), and the KIlo-Degree Survey
(KIDS\footnote{\url{http://www.astro-wise.org/projects/KIDS/}}) will
continue to improve on what we have already learned, and we will learn
yet more from the even more ambitious programs that are planned for
the coming decade, including the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope
(LSST\footnote{\url{http://www.lsst.org/lsst}},
\citealt{2009arXiv0912.0201L}),
Euclid\footnote{\url{http://sci.esa.int/euclid},
\url{http://www.euclid-ec.org}} \citep{2011arXiv1110.3193L}, and the
Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST-AFTA
project\footnote{\url{http://wfirst.gsfc.nasa.gov/}},
\citealt{2013arXiv1305.5422S}).
\section*{Acknowledgements}
I am grateful for the support of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, which
supported my work on this review. I would like to thank Jiaxin Han
for permitting me to use figure 9 from his paper, and Alexie Leauthaud and Ying Zu for useful discussions.
|
\section{Learning embeddings from language data}
Both neural language models and translation models learn real-valued embeddings (of specified dimension) for words in some pre-specified vocabulary, \(V\), covering many or all words in their training corpus. At each training step, a `score' for the current training example (or batch) is computed based on the embeddings in their current state. This score is compared to the model's objective function, and the error is backpropagated to update both the model weights (affecting how the score is computed from the embeddings) and the embedding features. At the end of this process, the embeddings should encode information that enables the model to optimally satisfy its objective.
\subsection{Monolingual models}
In the original neural language model~\cite{Bengio2003lm} and subsequent
variants \cite{collobert2008unified}, each training example consists of $n$ subsequent words, of
which the model is trained to predict the $n$-th word given the first $n-1$
words. The model first represents the input as an ordered sequence of embeddings,
which it transforms into a single fixed length `hidden' representation
by, e.g., concatenation and non-linear projection.
Based on this representation, a probability distribution is
computed over the vocabulary, from which the model can sample a guess at the
next word. The model weights and embeddings are updated to maximise the
probability of correct guesses for all sentences in the
training corpus.
More recent work has shown that high quality word embeddings can be learned via models
with no nonlinear hidden layer ~\citep{mikolov2013distributed,Pennington2014}. Given a single word in
the corpus, these models simply predict which other words will occur nearby. For each
word \( w\) in \(V\), a list of training cases \({(w,c) : c \in V }\) is
extracted from the training corpus.
For instance, in the \emph{skipgram}
approach ~\citep{mikolov2013distributed}, for each `cue word' \(w\) the `context words' \(c\) are sampled
from windows either side of tokens of \(w\) in the corpus (with \(c\) more
likely to be sampled if it occurs closer to \(w\)).\footnote{
Subsequent variants use different algorithms for selecting the
\((w,c)\) from the training corpus \citep{Hill2014EMNLP,levy2014dependency}
} For each \(w\) in \( V\), the model initialises both a
cue-embedding, representing the \(w\) when it occurs as a cue-word, and a
context-embedding, used when \(w\) occurs as a context-word. For a cue word
\(w\), the model can use the corresponding cue-embedding and all
context-embeddings to compute a probability distribution over \(V\) that
reflects the probability of a word occurring in the context of \(w\). When a
training example \((w,c)\) is observed, the model updates both the cue-word
embedding of \(w\) and the context-word embeddings in order to increase the
conditional probability of \(c\).
\subsection{Translation-based embeddings}
Neural translation models generate an appropriate sentence in their target
language \(S_t\) given a sentence \(S_s\) in their source language~\citep[see,
e.g.,][]{Sutskever2014sequence,Cho2014a}. In doing so, they learn distinct sets of
embeddings for the vocabularies \(V_ s\) and \(V_t\) in the source and target
languages respectively.
Observing a training case \((S_s, S_t)\), such a model represents \(S_s\) as an ordered sequence of embeddings of words from \(V_s\). The sequence for \(S_s\) is then encoded into a single representation \(R_S\).\footnote{Alternatively, subsequences (phrases) of \(S_s\) may be encoded at this stage in place of the whole sentence~\citep{Bahdanau2014}.} Finally, by referencing the embeddings in \(V_t\), \(R_S\) and a representation of what has been generated thus far, the model decodes a sentence in the target language word by word. If at any stage the decoded word does not match the corresponding word in the training target \(S_t\), the error is recorded. The weights and embeddings in the model, which together parameterise the encoding and decoding process, are updated based on the accumulated error once the sentence decoding is complete.
Although neural translation models can differ in low-level architecture~\citep{Cho2014,Bahdanau2014}, the translation objective exerts similar pressure on the embeddings in all cases. The source language embeddings must be such that the model can combine them to form single representations for ordered sequences of multiple words (which in turn must enable the decoding process). The target language embeddings must facilitate the process of decoding these representations into correct target-language sentences.
\section{Comparing Mono-lingual and Translation-based Embeddings}
To learn translation-based embeddings, we trained both the RNN encoder-decoder ~\citep[\emph{RNNenc},][]{Cho2014} and the \emph{RNN Search} architectures~\citep{Bahdanau2014} on a 300m word corpus of English-French sentence pairs. We conducted all experiments with the resulting (English) source embeddings from these models. For comparison, we trained a monolingual skipgram model~\citep{mikolov2013distributed} and its \emph{Glove} variant~\citep{Pennington2014} for the same number of epochs on the English half of the bilingual corpus. We also extracted embeddings from a full-sentence language model~\citep[\emph{CW},][]{collobert2008unified} trained for several months on a larger 1bn word corpus.
As in previous studies~\citep{Agirre2009,Bruni2014,baroni2014don}, we evaluate embeddings by calculating pairwise (cosine) distances and correlating these distances with (gold-standard) human judgements.
Table~\ref{table:perf} shows the correlations of different model embeddings with three such gold-standard resources, WordSim-353~\citep{Agirre2009}, MEN~\citep{Bruni2014} and SimLex-999~\citep{hill2014simlex}. Interestingly,
translation embeddings perform best on SimLex-999, while the two sets of monolingual embeddings perform better on modelling the MEN and WordSim-353. To interpret these results, it should be noted that SimLex-999 evaluation quantifies conceptual \emph{similarity} (\emph{dog} - \emph{wolf}), whereas MEN and WordSim-353 (despite its name) quantify more general \emph{relatedness} (\emph{dog} - \emph{collar})~\citep{hill2014simlex}. The results seem to indicate that translation-based embeddings better capture similarity, while monolingual embeddings better capture relatedness.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{r c | r r r r r}
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{~} &\bf Skipgram &\bf Glove &\bf CW &\bf RNNenc &\bf Search \\
\hline
WordSim-353 & \(\rho\) & 0.52 & 0.55 & 0.51 & 0.57 & { \bf 0.58} \\
MEN & \(\rho\) & 0.44 & {\bf 0.71} & 0.60 & 0.63 & 0.62 \\
SimLex-999 & \(\rho\) & 0.29 & 0.32 & 0.28 & {\bf 0.52} & 0.49 \\
\hline
TOEFL & \(\%\) & 0.75 & 0.78 & 0.64 & {\bf 0.93} & {\bf 0.93} \\
Syn/antonym & \(\%\) & 0.69 & 0.72 & 0.75 & {\bf 0.79} & 0.74 \\
\hline
\emph{teacher} & nn & {\small \emph{vocational}} & {\small \emph{student}}
& {\small \emph{student}} & {\small \emph{professor}} & {\small \emph{instructor}} \\
\emph{white} & nn & {\small \emph{red}} & {\small \emph{red}}
& {\small \emph{black}} & {\small \emph{blank}} & {\small \emph{black}} \\
\emph{heat} & nn & {\small \emph{thermal}} & {\small \emph{thermal}}
& {\small \emph{wind}} & {\small \emph{warmth}} & {\small \emph{warmth}} \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Translation-based embeddings outperform alternatives on similarity-focused evaluations.}
\label{table:perf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{table}
To test this hypothesis further, we ran two more evaluations focused specifically on similarity. The TOEFL synonym test contains 80 cue words, each with four possible answers, of which one is a correct synonym~\citep{landauer1997solution}. We computed the proportion of questions answered correctly by each model, where a model's answer was the nearest (cosine) neighbour to the cue word in its vocabulary.\footnote{To control for different vocabularies, we restricted the effective vocabulary of each model to the intersection of all model vocabularies, and excluded all questions that contained an answer outiside of this intersection.} In addition, we tested how well different embeddings enabled a supervised classifier to distinguish between synonyms and antonyms. For 500 hand-labelled pairs we presented a Gaussian SVM with the concatenation of the two word embeddings. We evaluated accuracy using 8-fold cross-validation.
As shown in Table~\ref{table:perf}, translation-based embeddings outperform
all monolingual embeddings on these two additional similarity-focused tasks. Qualitative analysis of nearest neighbours (bottom rows) also supports the conclusion that proximity in the
translation embedding space corresponds to similarity while proximity in the monolingual embedding space reflects relatedness.
\subsection{Quantity of training data}
In previous work, monolingual models were trained on corpora many
times larger than the English half of our parallel translation corpus. To check if these models simply need more training data to
capture similarity as effectively as translation models, we trained them on
increasingly large subsets of Wikipedia.\footnote{
We could not do the same for the translation models because of the scarcity of
bilingual corpora.
} The results refute this possibility: the performance of monolingual embeddings on similarity tasks converges
well below the level of the translation-based embeddings (Fig.~\ref{fig:size}).
\begin{figure*}[h]
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth,clip=True,trim=0 10 0 10]{Figure_1}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{Effect of training corpus size on performance. WordSim-353 results were similar to MEN.}
\label{fig:size}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Analogy questions}
Lexical analogy questions are an alternative way of evaluating word representations~\citep{mikolov2013distributed,Pennington2014}. In this task, models must identify the correct answer (\emph{girl}) when
presented with questions such as `\emph{man} is to \emph{boy} as \emph{woman} is to ...'. For skipgram-style embeddings, it has been shown that if \( \bf m, b \) and \( \bf w\) are the embeddings for \emph{man}, \emph{boy} and \emph{woman} respectively, the correct answer is often the nearest neighbour in the vocabulary (by cosine distance) to the vector \( \bf v = w + b - m \)~\citep{mikolov2013distributed}.
We evaluated the embeddings on this task using the same vector-algebra method as~\citep{mikolov2013distributed}. As before we excluded questions containing a word outside the intersection of all model vocabularies, and restricted all answer searches to this reduced
vocabulary, leaving 11,166 analogies. Of these, 7219 are classed as `syntactic', in that they exemplify mappings between parts-of-speech or syntactic roles (\emph{fast, fastest; heavy | heaviest}), and 3947 are classed as `semantic` (\emph{Ottawa, Canada; Paris | France}), deriving from wider world knowledge. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:analogy}, the translation-based embeddings seem to yield poor answers to semantic analogy questions, but are very effective for syntactic analogies, outperforming the monolingual embeddings, even those trained on much more data.
\section{Conclusions}
Neural machine translation models are more effective than monolingual models at learning embeddings that encode information about concept similarity and syntactic role. In contrast, monolingual models encode
general inter-concept relatedness (as applicable to semantic analogy questions), but struggle to capture similarity, even when training on larger corpora. For skipgram-style models, whose objective is to predict linguistically collocated pairs, this limitation is perhaps unsurprising, since co-occurring words are, in general, neither semantically nor syntactically similar. However, the fact that it also applies to the full-sentence model \emph{CW} suggests that inferring similarity is problematic for monolingual models even with knowledge of the precise (ordered) contexts of words. This may be because very dissimilar words (such as antonyms) actually often occur in identical linguistic contexts.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth,clip=True,trim=0 10 0 10]{Figure_2}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{Translation-based embeddings perform best on syntactic analogies (\emph{run,ran: hide, hid}). Monolingual skipgram/Glove models are better at semantic analogies (\emph{father, man; mother, woman})}
\label{fig:analogy}
\end{figure*}
When considering the strengths of translation embeddings - similarity and syntactic role - it is notable that each item in the three similarity-focused evaluations consists of word groups or pairs of identical syntactic role. Thus, the strong performance of translation embeddings on similarity tasks cannot be simply a result of their encoding of richer syntactic information. To perform well on SimLex-999, embeddings must encode information approximating what concepts \emph{are} (their function or ontology), even when this contradicts the signal conferred by co-occurrence (as can be the case for related-but-dissimilar concept pairs)~\citep{hill2014simlex}. The translation objective seems particularly effective at inducing models to encode such ontological or functional information in word embeddings.
While much remains unknown about this process, one cause might be the different ways in which words partition the meaning space of a language. In cases where a French word has two possible English translations (e.g. \emph{gagner \(\to\) win} / \emph{earn}), we note that the (source) embeddings of the two English words are very close. It appears that, since the translation model, which has limited encoding capacity, is trained to map tokens of \emph{win} and \emph{earn} to the same place in the target embedding space, it is efficient to move these concepts closer in the source space. While clear-cut differences in how languages partition meaning space, such as (\emph{gagner = win, earn}), may in fact be detrimental to similarity modelling (\emph{win} and \emph{earn} are not synonymous to English speakers), in general, languages partition meaning space in less drastically different ways. We hypothesize that these small differences are the key to how neural translation models approximate ontological similarity so effectively. At the same time, since two dissimilar or even antonymous words in the source language should never correspond to a single word in the target language, these pairs diverge in the embedding space, rendering two antonymous embeddings easily distinguishable from those of two synonyms.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Coalescing binary neutron stars are among the most promising sources
of gravitational waves (GWs) for the next-generation, kilometer-size,
GW detectors such as advanced LIGO~\cite{LIGO10},
advanced Virgo~\cite{VIRGO11}, and KAGRA~\cite{KAGRA10}.
Binary neutron stars, together with black-hole$-$neutron-star binaries,
are also regarded as one of the candidate central engines of
short-hard gamma-ray bursts~\cite{NarayPP92}.
The use of matched-filtering technique to detect GW
signals from coalescing binary systems and the interest in shedding
light on gamma-ray burst progenitors have led to impressive advances
in modeling the dynamics and gravitational waveforms of binary
neutron stars (see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{Blanchet06} for the inspiral phase and
Refs.~\cite{HotokKOSK11,HotokKKMSST13,BernuDWB13} for the merger
and postmerger phases).
Most of those studies were carried out in general relativity,
except for Refs.~\cite{BarauPPL13,ShibaTOB14,PalenBPL14}.
Although general relativity has passed all known experimental
and observational tests in the weak-field and slow-motion
limit (see e.g., Ref.~\cite{Will05}), it remains to be seen whether it will
survive tests in the strong-field and high-velocity regime.
The detection of GWs emitted by coalescing binary
systems offers the unique opportunity to investigate the validity
of general relativity in the strong-field regime.
To achieve this goal, accurate gravitational waveforms in gravity theories
alternative to general relativity~\cite{Will93,Will05,WillZ89} need
to be computed.
Here we follow our recent work~\cite{ShibaTOB14} and
focus on the scalar-tensor model~\cite{Jordan49,Fierz56,BransD61,FujiiM03}
proposed by Damour and Esposito-Far\`ese (DEF)~\cite{DamourEF93}
(see also Refs.~\cite{DamourEF92,DamourEF96b,DamourEF98}).
Quite interestingly, there exist choices of the free parameters
in the DEF model, for which both weak and mildly strong gravitational
tests are satisfied, notably the pulsar timing tests,
but strong-field tests could be violated and these violations could be
observed through the emission of GWs from the last stages of the binary's
inspiral, plunge, and merger in advanced LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA detectors.
This is possible because if neutron stars in binary systems carry
negligible scalar charge when largely separated,
they can be dynamically scalarized as they come closer to each other
through gravitational interaction, i.e., they undergo dynamical scalarization
as the binary's compactness increases~\cite{BarauPPL13,ShibaTOB14,PalenBPL14}.
[See also Refs.~\cite{DonevaYSK13,PaniB14,DonevaYSKA14} for scalarization
of rotating stars.]
However, it is important to notice that for the same values of the DEF
parameters for which dynamical scalarization can occur, the DEF model
may have problems in providing cosmological solutions consistent with
our Universe~\cite{DamourN93a,DamourN93b,Sampetal14}. It will be relevant
to further investigate this problem in the future.
Barausse {\it et al.}~\cite{BarauPPL13} showed that dynamical scalarization
takes place in the DEF model by performing numerical-relativity
simulations of inspiraling binary neutron stars. They performed two
numerical simulations, which differed by the strength of the scalar field
and the binary's mass ratio. Their simulations used approximate initial data,
i.e., initial data computed by numerical codes of general relativity instead of
the ones of scalar-tensor theory, and employed the polytropic
equation of state $p/c^2 =K \rho_0^{\Gamma}$ with $\Gamma=2$ and
$K=123 G^3 M_{\odot}^2/c^6$, where $p$ is the pressure and $\rho_0$
is the baryonic rest-mass density in their notation.
For the unequal-mass binary the individual baryonic rest masses were
$1.78 M_{\odot}$ and $1.90 M_{\odot}$,
while for the equal-mass binary the baryonic rest mass
was $1.625 M_{\odot}$.\footnote{We notice that due to a misleading output
in the \textsc{LORENE} data set~\cite{lorene}, the gravitational masses
are not the ones reported in Ref.~\cite{BarauPPL13}.
The gravitational masses of spherical, isolated stars corresponding
to the baryonic rest masses of $1.625 M_{\odot}$, $1.78 M_{\odot}$, and
$1.90 M_{\odot}$ are $1.51 M_{\odot}$, $1.64 M_{\odot}$, and $1.74 M_{\odot}$,
respectively. The results of Ref.~\cite{BarauPPL13} are correct; i.e.,
they were not affected by the gravitational masses reported in the paper.}
For comparison, we computed not in general relativity but in the DEF
scalar-tensor theory the initial data for the same baryonic rest masses
used in Barausse {\it et al.}.
We set $\beta/(4 \pi G)=-4.5$ and $\varphi_{0,\rm{BPPL}} = 10^{-5} G^{-1/2}$,
where $\beta$ is a constant related to the derivative of a
scalar field and $\varphi_{0,\rm{BPPL}}$ is the asymptotic value of
the scalar field as defined by Barausse {\it et al.}~\cite{BarauPPL13}.
We found that the more massive star (with baryonic rest mass of $1.90 M_{\odot}$)
is spontaneously scalarized for a spherical configuration, and thus,
the unequal-mass binary system is already scalarized at the orbital separation
of $60$ km, which is where Ref.~\cite{BarauPPL13} starts their simulations
(see Appendix~\ref{app1} for more details).
Because in their simulation the scalar field does not exist initially,
it rapidly increases just after the simulation starts.
This artificial behavior may have left imprints in the dynamical evolution
of the binary system. Indeed, as we will see in Sec.~\ref{sec3}, the binding
energy computed along a sequence of quasiequilibrium configurations
in the DEF scalar-tensor theory is in absolute value smaller than
in general relativity. Thus, as soon as the simulation starts,
if initial data without the scalar field are used, which is the case
in Barausse {\it et al.}, then the absolute value of the binding
energy will become smaller because the scalar field increases.
This means that the initial datum is a local minimum of the binding energy
along the quasiequilibrium sequences; i.e., it is a local turning
point of the binding energy. We suspect that the fast plunge seen
in Ref.~\cite{BarauPPL13} might be enhanced by this effect. Performing
a numerical simulation using general-relativity and scalar-tensor-theory
initial data will clarify this point.
For the equal-mass binary system numerically evolved in Ref.~\cite{BarauPPL13}
we found, using quasiequilibrium configurations, that the binary is
already dynamically scalarized at the orbital separation
of $40$ km where Ref.~\cite{BarauPPL13} observed dynamical scalarization.
However, our result of an earlier dynamical scalarization may not be
in contradiction with Ref.~\cite{BarauPPL13}.
Indeed, typically we found that the onset of dynamical scalarization
in the quasiequilibrium-configuration study occurs earlier than that
in dynamical simulation~\cite{ShibaTOB14}. This discrepancy may occur
due to the breakdown of the assumption of quasiequilibrium. For a few
orbits before merger the infall velocity of each star in the binary system is
larger in numerical-relativity simulations than in quasiequilibrium
configurations. As a consequence, in numerical-relativity simulations
the binary can merge before the scalar field reaches its equilibrium state,
while, in the quasiequilibrium situation, the scalar field can reach
its equilibrium state even just before the quasiequilibrium sequence ends.
Thus, the effect of the scalar field is overestimated in the quasiequilibrium
study for the cases in which dynamical scalarization occurs just before the
end of the quasiequilibrium sequences. We will present more details about
the results of the equal-mass binary in Appendix~\ref{app1}.
More recently, Palenzuela {\it et al.}~\cite{PalenBPL14} investigated
analytically the phenomenon of dynamical scalarization in the DEF model.
They employed the 2.5 post-Newtonian (PN) equations of motion, recently
derived in Ref.~\cite{MirshW13}, augmented by a set of equations that
phenomenologically describe the increase of scalar charge as the two
neutron stars come closer to each other. In this analysis the binary neutron
stars are approximated by two isolated, spherical neutron stars.
Reference~\cite{PalenBPL14} confirmed and quantified what was found
in Refs.~\cite{BarauPPL13,ShibaTOB14}, notably the fact that binary neutron
stars plunge and merge in the DEF model sooner than in general relativity
when they undergo induced and dynamical scalarization.
To further understand the onset of dynamical scalarization
during the last stages of inspiral, we disentangle conservative from
radiative effects and compute for the first time quasiequilibrium sequences
of binary neutron stars in the DEF model. Our motivations are threefold.
We want to (i) produce initial data for merger simulations in the
scalar-tensor model~\cite{ShibaTOB14},
(ii) accurately extract physical quantities (notably the binding energy
and angular momentum) during the last stages of inspiral, just before merger,
where the effect of gravity becomes strong and the finite-size effect of
a neutron star starts to affect the evolution of the binary system,
and (iii) use those quantities to estimate by how much
the gravitational waveforms in the DEF model
differ from the ones in general relativity.
This paper is organized as follows.
In Sec.~II, we give a brief summary of the quasiequilibrium-sequence
formalism. The formulation is based on the conformal thin-sandwich
decomposition. In Sec.~III we present and discuss the numerical results of
the scalar charge and scalar mass, binding energy, total angular momentum,
central baryonic rest-mass density, evolution of the orbital angular frequency,
and number of GW cycles. Section IV summarizes
our main conclusions.
Throughout this paper, we employ the geometrical units of
$c=G=1$, where $c$ is the speed of light and $G$ is the bare gravitational
constant. We use greek letters to denote spacetime components and latin
letters for the spatial components.
\section{Formulation} \label{sec:form}
As in Ref.~\cite{ShibaTOB14}, we work in the Jordan
frame~\cite{Jordan49,BransD61}.
The basic field equations for computing the metric quantities and
the scalar field are derived by taking variation of the action,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal S} &=&\frac{1}{16\pi}
\int \Bigl[ \phi R -\omega (\phi) \phi^{-1} g^{\mu \nu}
(\nabla_{\mu} \phi) (\nabla_{\nu} \phi) \Bigr] \sqrt{-g} d^4 x
\nonumber \\
&&+{\cal S}_{\rm matter},
\label{action}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\phi$ is the scalar field, $g_{\mu \nu}$ is the spacetime metric
in the Jordan frame, $R$ is the Ricci scalar calculated
from $g_{\mu \nu}$, $g$ is the determinant of $g_{\mu \nu}$,
$\nabla_{\mu}$ is the covariant derivative with respect to $g_{\mu \nu}$,
and ${\cal S}_{\rm matter}$ is the matter part of the action.
The quantity $\omega$ is a function of $\phi$ that takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{\omega(\phi) +3/2} =B \ln \phi
\end{eqnarray}
in the DEF theory, where $B$ is a free parameter~\cite{DamourEF93}
(see Ref.~\cite{ShibaTOB14} for more details).
The relation between Newton's constant $G_{\rm N}$ and
the bare gravitational constant $G$ is
\begin{equation}
G_{\rm N} = \frac{G}{\phi_0} \frac{4 +2 \omega(\phi_0)}{3 +2\omega(\phi_0)},
\end{equation}
where $\phi_0$ is the value of $\phi$ at spatial infinity.
For the values used in this paper, the deviation of the ratio $G_{\rm N}/G$
from unity is on the order of $10^{-9} - 10^{-10}$
[see Eq.~(\ref{eq:varphi_phi}) and the scalar-tensor
values listed at the end of Sec.~\ref{sec:form}].
Taking variation of the action (\ref{action}) with respect to the metric
and the scalar field, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{\mu \nu} -\frac{1}{2} R g_{\mu \nu} &=&8 \pi \phi^{-1} T_{\mu \nu}
+\omega \phi^{-2} \Bigl[ (\nabla_{\mu} \phi) (\nabla_{\mu} \phi) \Bigr.
\nonumber \\
&&\Bigl. -\frac{1}{2} g_{\mu \nu} (\nabla_{\alpha} \phi)
(\nabla^{\alpha} \phi) \Bigr] \nonumber \\
&&+\phi^{-1} \bigl( \nabla_{\mu} \nabla_{\nu} \phi -g_{\mu \nu} \Box \phi \bigr)
\label{eq:metric}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{equation}
\Box \phi =\frac{1}{2 \omega +3} \Bigl[ 8\pi T -\frac{d \omega}{d \phi}
(\nabla_{\mu} \phi) (\nabla^{\mu} \phi) \Bigr], \label{eq:scalar}
\end{equation}
respectively, where $R_{\mu \nu}$ is the Ricci tensor, $\Box$ is
$\nabla_{\mu} \nabla^{\mu}$, and $T_{\mu \nu}$ is the stress-energy tensor.
For an ideal fluid we have
\begin{equation}
T_{\mu \nu} = (\rho +\rho \epsilon +P) u_{\mu} u_{\nu} +P g_{\mu \nu},
\end{equation}
where $u_{\mu}$ is the fluid 4-velocity, $\rho$ is the baryonic rest-mass
density, $\epsilon$ is the specific internal energy,
and $P$ is the pressure. Then, we set the metric line element in 3+1 form,
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2 &=& g_{\mu \nu} dx^{\mu} dx^{\nu}, \nonumber \\
&=& -\alpha^2 dt^2 +\gamma_{ij} (dx^i +\beta^i dt)(dx^j +\beta^j dt)
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha$ is the lapse function, $\beta^i$ is the shift vector,
and $\gamma_{ij}$ is the spatial part of the spacetime metric, and
we solve the basic field equations in the conformal thin-sandwich
decomposition~\cite{York99,PfeifY03}. We decompose the equations for
the metric quantities (\ref{eq:metric}) into the {\it Hamiltonian} constraint,
\begin{eqnarray}
{}^{(3)}R +K^2 -K_{ij} k^{ij} &=&16 \pi \phi^{-1} \rho_{\rm h} \nonumber \\
&&+\omega \phi^{-2} \bigl[ \Pi^2 +(D_{\alpha} \phi)(D^{\alpha} \phi) \bigr]
\nonumber \\
&&+2 \phi^{-1} (D_{\mu} D^{\mu} \phi -K \Pi),
\end{eqnarray}
and the {\it momentum} constraint,
\begin{eqnarray}
D_i K^i_j -D_j K &=&8 \pi \phi^{-1} J_j +\omega \phi^{-2} \Pi D_j \phi
\nonumber \\
&&+\phi^{-1} (D_j \Pi -K_j^i D_i \phi);
\end{eqnarray}
furthermore the trace part of the evolution equation for the extrinsic
curvature $K_{ij}$ satisfies the following equation
\begin{eqnarray}
&&(\partial_t -\beta^k \partial_k) K =
4 \pi \alpha \phi^{-1} (\rho_{\rm h} +S) +\alpha K_{ij} K^{ij}
-D_i D^i \alpha \nonumber \\
&&\hspace{25pt}+\alpha \omega \phi^{-2} \Pi^2 +\alpha \phi^{-1} D_i D^i \phi
-\alpha \phi^{-1} K \Pi \nonumber \\
&&\hspace{25pt}-\frac{3\alpha \phi^{-1}}{2(2\omega +3)} \Bigl[ 8\pi T
+\frac{d\omega}{d\phi} \Bigl\{ \Pi^2 -(D_k \phi) (D^k \phi) \Bigr\} \Bigr],
\nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
while the evolution equation for the spatial metric reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_t \gamma_{ij} =-2\alpha K_{ij} +\gamma_{kj} D_i \beta^k
+\gamma_{ik} D_j \beta^k,
\end{eqnarray}
where ${}^{(3)}R$ denotes the Ricci scalar calculated from $\gamma_{ij}$,
$D_i$ the covariant derivative with respect to $\gamma_{ij}$,
$K$ the trace part of the extrinsic curvature, and
$\Pi \equiv -n^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} \phi$.
Here the quantities $\rho_{\rm h}$, $J_i$, $S$, and $T$ are defined as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_{\rm h} &=& n_{\mu} n_{\nu} T^{\mu \nu}, \\
J_i &=& -n_{\mu} \gamma_{\nu i} T^{\mu \nu}, \\
S &=& \gamma^{ij} (\gamma_{i \mu} \gamma_{j \nu} T^{\mu \nu}), \\
T &=& g_{\mu \nu} T^{\mu \nu},
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
where $n^{\mu}$ is the unit normal to the spatial hypersurface.
In the above decomposition, there appear four freely specified quantities:
the background spatial metric, $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$,
the time derivative of the background spatial metric in
contravariant form, $\partial_t \tilde{\gamma}^{ij}$,
the trace part of the extrinsic curvature, $K$, and
its time derivative, $\partial_t K$.
The background spatial metric is defined by
$\tilde{\gamma}_{ij} \equiv \psi^{-4} \gamma_{ij}$
where $\psi$ is the conformal factor.
Since we consider a stationary state, we set to zero the time derivatives
of the above quantities.
We also set to zero the trace part of the extrinsic curvature, $K$,
because we impose the condition of maximal slicing.
We further require that the background spatial metric, $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$,
be flat; that is, $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij} =f_{ij}$ where
$f_{ij}$ is the flat spatial metric~\cite{Isenb78,Isenb08,WilsoM89}.
The equation for the scalar field (\ref{eq:scalar}) is also rewritten
in the conformal thin-sandwich decomposition as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&(\partial_t -\beta^i \partial_i) \Pi =-\alpha D_i D^i \phi
-(D_i \alpha) (D^i \phi) +\alpha K \Pi \nonumber \\
&&\hspace{25pt}+\frac{\alpha}{2 \omega +3}
\Bigl[ 8 \pi T +\frac{d\omega}{d\phi} \bigl( \Pi^2
-(D_k \phi) (D^k \phi) \bigr) \Bigr].
\end{eqnarray}
The above equation depends on the quantities $\Pi$ and $\partial_t \Pi$.
Since we consider a stationary state, we set to zero $\partial_t \Pi$.
For the quantity $\Pi$, we need to guarantee that it behaves at least
as $\Pi ={\cal O} (r^{-2})$ in the far zone.
This is because the right-hand side of the Hamiltonian constraint and
the trace part of the evolution equation for $K_{ij}$
should decrease fast enough to ensure the spacetime to be
asymptotically flat. In this paper, for simplicity, we set to zero the
quantity $\Pi$ (see Sec.~II.D of Ref.~\cite{ShibaTOB14} for a more detailed
discussion).
Note that, as we mentioned above, we have the freedom of choosing another
background spatial metric, $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$, as well as
the quantity $\Pi$, and the trace part of the extrinsic curvature, $K$.
We think that the choice we made for the background spatial metric
does not affect the main results of this paper, notably the onset of
dynamical scalarization along quasiequilibrium binary neutron stars.
As we will see in Sec.~\ref{sec:scalar}, the location of dynamical
scalarization, i.e., the orbital angular frequency at the onset of
dynamical scalarization, agrees with what determined by fully relativistic
simulations and estimated by the analytical method discussed in
Ref.~\cite{ShibaTOB14}.
Because the simulations and the analytical estimation do not rely
on the assumptions used in this paper, our results for the
location of dynamical scalarization can be considered robust.
Thus, the equations for the quantities that enter in the metric can be
recast in the form
\begin{widetext}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta \psi &=& -2\pi \exp( -\varphi^2/2 ) \psi^5 \rho_{\rm h}
-\frac{1}{8} \psi^{-7} \tilde{A}_{ij} \tilde{A}^{ij}
-\frac{1}{2} \pi B \psi^5 \varphi^2 T \exp( -\varphi^2/2 )
-\frac{1}{4} \psi \Bigl( 1 +\frac{1}{B} -\frac{3}{4} \varphi^2 \Bigr)
f^{ij} (\partial_i \varphi) (\partial_j \varphi) \nonumber \\
&& +\frac{1}{4} \Phi^{-1} \varphi f^{ij} (\psi \partial_i \Phi
-\Phi \partial_i \psi) (\partial_j \varphi), \label{eq:deltapsi} \\
\Delta \Phi &=& 2 \pi \exp( -\varphi^2/2 ) \Phi \psi^4 (\rho_{\rm h} +2S)
+\frac{7}{8} \Phi \psi^{-8} \tilde{A}_{ij} \tilde{A}^{ij}
-\frac{3}{2} \pi B \Phi \psi^4 \varphi^2 T \exp( -\varphi^2/2 )
-\frac{1}{4} \Phi \Bigl( 3 +\frac{1}{B} -\frac{3}{4} \varphi^2 \Bigr)
f^{ij} (\partial_i \varphi) (\partial_j \varphi) \nonumber \\
&& -\frac{3}{4} \psi^{-1} \varphi f^{ij} (\psi \partial_i \Phi
-\Phi \partial_i \psi) (\partial_j \varphi), \\
\Delta \beta^i &+&\frac{1}{3} f^{ij} \partial_j (\partial_k \beta^k)
= 16 \pi \exp( -\varphi^2/2 ) \Phi \psi^{-1} f^{ij} J_j -2\Phi \psi^{-7} \tilde{A}^{ij}
(7 \psi^{-1} \partial_j \psi -\Phi^{-1} \partial_j \Phi)
-2 \Phi \varphi \psi^{-7} \tilde{A}^{ij} \partial_j \varphi, \\
\tilde{A}^{ij} &=&\frac{\psi^7}{2\Phi} \Bigl( f^{kj} \partial_k \beta^i
+f^{ik} \partial_k \beta^j
+\frac{2}{3} f^{ij} \partial_k \beta^k \Bigr),
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
\end{widetext}
where $\tilde{A}^{ij}$ is the traceless part of the conformal
extrinsic curvature defined as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{A}^{ij} =\psi^{10} \Bigl(K^{ij} -\frac{1}{3} \gamma^{ij} K \Bigr),
\end{equation}
the quantity $\Phi$ is defined as $\Phi \equiv \alpha \psi$, and
we introduce a new scalar field $\varphi$ which is related to the
scalar field $\phi$ as
\begin{equation}
\varphi \equiv \sqrt{2 \ln \phi}. \label{eq:varphi_phi}
\end{equation}
The equation for the scalar field (\ref{eq:scalar}) can be rewritten
in the conformal thin-sandwich decomposition imposing
$K=0$, $\partial_t \Pi =0$, and $\Pi=0$, as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta \varphi &=& 2\pi B \psi^4 \varphi T \exp( -\varphi^2/2 )
-\varphi f^{ij} (\partial_i \varphi) (\partial_j \varphi) \nonumber \\
&&-f^{ij} (\Phi^{-1} \partial_i \Phi +\psi^{-1} \partial_i \psi)
(\partial_j \varphi).
\end{eqnarray}
(See Ref.~\cite{ShibaTOB14} for a more detailed derivation of the equations
for the quantities entering the metric and the scalar field.)
We also need to solve for the relativistic hydrostatic equations,
$\nabla_{\mu} T^{\mu \nu}=0$, which are basically the same as
in general relativity because they are written in the Jordan frame.
The equations are decomposed into the first integral of the Euler equation,
\begin{equation}
h \alpha \frac{\gamma}{\gamma_0} = \textrm{const},
\end{equation}
and the equation of continuity,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\rho}{h} \nabla_{\mu} \nabla^{\mu} \Psi
+(\nabla_{\mu} \Psi) \nabla^{\mu} \Bigl( \frac{\rho}{h} \Bigr) = 0,
\end{equation}
where $h =(\rho +\rho \epsilon +P)/ \rho$ is the fluid specific enthalpy,
$\gamma$ is the Lorentz factor between the fluid and co-orbiting observers,
and $\gamma_0$ is the Lorentz factor between the co-orbiting and Eulerian
observers. The quantity $\Psi$ is the fluid velocity potential, which
for an irrotational fluid and an Eulerian observer is related to
the fluid 3-velocity $U^i$ as
\begin{equation}
U^i = \frac{\psi^{-4}}{\alpha u^t h} \tilde{\gamma}^{ij} \partial_j \Psi,
\end{equation}
where $u^t$ is the time component of the fluid 4-velocity
(see Refs.~\cite{GourgGTMB01,TanigS10,Gourgoulhon12} for more details).
We model neutron stars with realistic equations of state (EOS),
using piecewise polytrope segments as introduced by
Read {\it et al.}~\cite{ReadLOF09,ReadMSUCF09}.
In particular, we set the number of polytrope segments to four and
choose the model of APR4 and H4 in Ref.~\cite{ReadLOF09}.
We remind readers that the APR4 EOS~\cite{AkmalPR98} is derived
by a variational method with modern nuclear potentials among neutrons,
protons, electrons, and muons.
The H4 EOS~\cite{LackeNO06} is derived by a relativistic mean-field
theory and includes effects of hyperons. We set the internal flow
in the neutron star to be irrotational as seen by an inertial
observer at infinity~\cite{Kocha92}.
There are two free parameters in the DEF model:
(i) $B$, which appears in $\omega$,
and (ii) $\varphi_0$ the value of $\varphi$ at spatial infinity.
As discussed in Ref.~\cite{ShibaTOB14}, we choose those values,
taking into account the observational constraints
from neutron-star$-$white-dwarf binaries~\cite{Freir12,Anton13,BhatBV08}.
We set $\varphi_0 =1 \times 10^{-5}$ and vary $B$ from 8.0 to 9.0
for APR4 EOS, while $\varphi_0=5 \times 10^{-5}$ and $B$
from 8.5 to 9.5 for H4 EOS.
\section{Numerical results} \label{sec3}
We use the spectral-method library \textsc{LORENE}, developed
by the numerical-relativity group at the Observatory of Meudon~\cite{lorene},
and construct a numerical code to compute quasiequilibrium configurations
of binary neutron stars in the DEF model. The code is similar to those
developed in Refs.~\cite{GourgGTMB01,TanigG02,TanigG03,TanigS10}
for binary neutron stars in general relativity, in particular,
in Ref.~\cite{TanigS10}.
We consider irrotational, equal-mass binary neutron stars
whose total mass is $m = 2.7M_{\odot}$ at infinite separation,
and we construct sequences fixing the baryonic rest mass of
the two neutron stars,
\begin{equation}
M_{\rm B}^{(A)} =\int_{\rm star~A} \rho u^t \sqrt{-g} d^3 x~~~(A=1~{\rm or}~2),
\label{eq:restmass}
\end{equation}
and varying the orbital separation. As found in Ref.~\cite{ShibaTOB14},
for both APR4 and H4 EOSs spontaneous scalarization does not occur
in each star whose mass in isolation is $1.35 M_{\odot}$. Thus,
the baryonic rest masses corresponding to the mass of
$1.35 M_{\odot}$ in the scalar-tensor case are $1.50 M_{\odot}$ for APR4
and $1.47 M_{\odot}$ for H4, respectively. Those values are, basically,
the same as those in general relativity.
Note that the total mass $m$ is the asymptotic value of
the tensor mass defined by $M_{\rm T}=M_{\rm ADM} +M_{\rm S}$~\cite{Lee74}
at infinite separation. Here $M_{\rm ADM}$ is the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM)
mass and $M_{\rm S}$ is the scalar mass.
The latter is defined as the monopole part of the scalar field, $\phi$,
which is expanded as $\phi = \phi_0 +2M_{\rm S}/r +{\cal O}(1/r^2)$
for $r \rightarrow \infty$ where $r$ is the radial coordinate.
In Appendix~\ref{app2}, we show a convergence test for the scalar mass,
varying the numerical resolution (i.e., the number of collocation points).
\begin{figure}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=8.0cm]{fig1a.eps} \\
\vspace{0.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=8.0cm]{fig1b.eps}
\caption{Scalar charge (left $y$ axis) or scalar mass (right $y$ axis)
as a function of the orbital angular frequency normalized to the
tensor mass at infinite separation (lower $x$ axis)
or as a function of the frequency of GWs
defined by $f_{\rm GW} \equiv \Omega/\pi$ from a binary neutron
star with $m = 2.7 M_\odot$ (upper $x$ axis).
Upper panel (a) shows results for APR4 EOS.
Black solid curve with open circles, red with open squares,
green with open diamonds, and blue with open triangles are,
respectively, for the cases $B=9.0$, 8.7, 8.4, and 8.0.
Lower panel (b) shows results for H4 EOS.
Black solid curve with open circles, red with open squares,
and green with open diamonds are, respectively,
for the cases $B=9.5$, 9.0, and 8.5.
\label{fig1}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Scalar charge and scalar mass} \label{sec:scalar}
In Fig.~\ref{fig1} we plot the scalar charge (and scalar mass)
versus the orbital angular frequency for several choices of
the parameters $B$ and $\varphi_0$.
Here the scalar charge, $M_{\varphi}$, is defined as the monopole
part of the field, $\varphi$, which is expanded as
$\varphi = \varphi_0 +M_{\varphi}/r +{\cal O}(1/r^2)$
for $r \rightarrow \infty$. (Note again that in this paper we employ the
geometrical units $c=G=1$.) The relation between the scalar charge and the scalar mass is
given by $M_{\varphi}=2M_{\rm S}/(\phi_0 \varphi_0)$.\footnote{Because
the deviation of the quantity $\phi_0 =\exp(\varphi_0^2/2)$ from unity
is on the order of $10^{-9} - 10^{-10}$ as we set
$\varphi_0 =1 \times 10^{-5}$ or $\varphi_0 =5 \times 10^{-5}$,
the relation between the scalar charge and the scalar mass is
approximately given by $M_{\varphi} \simeq 2M_{\rm S}/\varphi_0$
(see Ref.~\cite{ShibaTOB14} for more details).}
We clearly see the onset of dynamical scalarization as the
orbital separation (angular frequency) decreases (increases),
except for the case of H4 EOS $B=8.5$. Those results confirm what is found
when evolving in full numerical relativity a binary neutron star
with APR4 and H4 EOSs~\cite{ShibaTOB14}. In particular, the onset of
dynamical scalarization was well captured by the scalarization condition
derived in Sec. III~B of Ref.~\cite{ShibaTOB14}. For example, Table I of
Ref.~\cite{ShibaTOB14} predicted that the dynamical scalarization for
a binary system of $(1.35 + 1.35) M_{\odot}$ in the case of APR4 $B=9.0$
sets in at around the orbital separation of
$a \simeq 91 M_{\odot} \simeq 134 ~{\rm km}$.
If we regard this separation as the coordinate separation of
our present computation, it corresponds to the orbital angular
frequency of $G_{\rm N} m \Omega \simeq 0.005$.
This is confirmed by Fig.~\ref{fig1} where dynamical scalarization
clearly occurs at around the orbital angular frequency of
$G_{\rm N} m \Omega \simeq 0.005$.
\begin{table}
\caption{We list the orbital angular frequency and GW
frequency ($f_{\rm GW} \equiv \Omega/\pi$)
at the onset of dynamical scalarization.
\label{table1}}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
Models & $G_{\rm N} m \Omega_{\rm dyn\mbox{-}scal}$
& $f_{\rm GW,dyn\mbox{-}scal}~[{\rm Hz}]$ \\
APR4 (9.0) & 0.0051 & 123 \\
APR4 (8.7) & 0.0125 & 298 \\
APR4 (8.4) & 0.0223 & 534 \\
APR4 (8.0) & 0.0395 & 946 \\
H4 (9.5) & 0.0163 & 391 \\
H4 (9.0) & 0.0302 & 724 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}
In Table~\ref{table1} we show the orbital angular frequencies
and GW frequencies at the onset of dynamical scalarization.
These quantities are extracted from Fig.~\ref{fig1} using the
fit to the scalar charge obtained in Appendix~\ref{app3}
[see Eq.~(\ref{eq:scfit})]. (In particular $G_{\rm N} m \Omega_{\rm dyn\mbox{-}scal}$
is the angular orbital frequency at which the fit function intersects 1.)
From Fig.~\ref{fig1} we see that the scalar charge at the orbital
angular frequencies listed in Table~\ref{table1} is about $0.1 M_{\odot}$.
This value is only $4 \%$ of the total mass $m$; thus, at the onset of dynamical
scalarization the effect of the scalar field onto the dynamics is negligible.
However, as dynamical scalarization proceeds, the scalar charge rapidly
increases by one order of magnitude,
affecting the subsequent evolution of the binary system.
For the cases of APR4 EOS $B=8.0$ and H4 EOS $B=9.0$,
the numerical-relativity simulations carried out in Ref.~\cite{ShibaTOB14}
showed that dynamical scalarization did not occur during the inspiral
but at merger (see Table~II of Ref.~\cite{ShibaTOB14}).
On the other hand, Fig.~\ref{fig1} predicts that for APR4 EOS $B=8.0$ and
H4 EOS $B=9.0$ dynamical scalarization occurs before the end of the
quasiequilibrium sequence. This contradiction may arise because
toward the end of the inspiral the infall velocity becomes large and
the quasiequilibrium model may lose accuracy.
Dynamical scalarization was first found in Ref.~\cite{BarauPPL13}
using polytropic EOS and it was further investigated by the same authors
in Ref.~\cite{PalenBPL14} using 2.5PN equations of motion augmented
by a set of equations that phenomenologically describe the increase
of scalar charge as the two neutron stars come closer to each other.
Figure~3 in Ref.~\cite{PalenBPL14} is similar to our Fig.~\ref{fig1},
although the former is obtained treating binary neutron stars as two,
isolated spherical neutron stars and using 2PN equations of motion
for circular orbits~\cite{MirshW13}, instead of evolving the binary system
along a sequence of quasiequilibrium configurations in the DEF model.
The results in Fig.~\ref{fig1} are not very sensitive to the value of
$\varphi_0$. Indeed, we show in Fig.~\ref{fig2} that when we decrease
the value of $\varphi_0$ to $1 \times 10^{-6}$ for APR4 EOS, dynamical
scalarization occurs at almost the same orbital angular frequency.
Note that at low orbital frequencies, the scalar charge in the case
$\varphi_0 =1 \times 10^{-6}$ is one order of magnitude smaller than
in the case $\varphi_0 =1 \times 10^{-5}$. This confirms that at large
separation the scalar charge is proportional to $\varphi_0$, as found in
Ref.~\cite{ShibaTOB14}. After dynamical scalarization occurs the scalar
charge has the same value, independently on $\varphi_0$.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig2.eps}
\caption{Scalar charge as a function of the orbital angular
frequency normalized to the tensor mass at infinite separation
(lower $x$ axis) or as a function of the frequency of GWs (upper $x$ axis).
Both curves are computed for the case
of APR4 EOS $B=8.7$, but the value of $\varphi_0$ is set to
$1 \times 10^{-5}$ (red dashed with open squares) and $1 \times 10^{-6}$
(black solid with open circles).
\label{fig2}}
\end{figure}
Note that the numerically constructed quasiequilibrium sequences
in Fig.~\ref{fig1} (also in Figs.~\ref{fig2}$-$\ref{fig5})
do not end at the onset of mass shedding from the neutron star's surface,
but stop just before it. This is because it is impossible to treat
a cuspy shape within the spectral method. Thus, we are obliged to stop
the computation before the onset of mass shedding
where the neutron star acquires a cuspy shape.
Note also that in principle Gibbs phenomena could be present
at the surface of the star even before the mass-shedding limit takes place.
This is due to large differences in the density's derivative. However,
because the \textsc{LORENE} spectral code adopts a multidomain method and
surface-fitting coordinates, on each domain the physical fields are
smooth functions and Gibbs phenomena
do not appear (see Ref.~\cite{BonazGM98} for detailed explanations).
\subsection{Binding energy and total angular momentum}
\begin{figure}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=7.7cm]{fig3a.eps} \\
\vspace{0.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=7.7cm]{fig3b.eps}
\caption{Binding energy as a function of the orbital angular frequency
normalized to the tensor mass at infinite separation (lower $x$ axis)
or as a function of the frequency of GWs from a binary
neutron star with $m = 2.7 M_\odot$ (upper $x$ axis).
Upper panel (a) shows results for APR4 EOS. Black short-dashed,
red long-dashed, green dot-short-dashed, and blue dot-long-dashed curves
are, respectively, the cases: $B=9.0$, 8.7, 8.4, and 8.0.
Lower panel (b) shows results for H4 EOS. Black short-dashed,
red long-dashed, and green dot-dashed curves are, respectively,
the cases: $B=9.5$, 9.0, and 8.5.
In both panels, the purple solid curve is drawn by using
a quasiequilibrium sequence in general relativity (GR).
Cyan dashed and dark-green dot-dashed curves refer to the
3PN and 4PN binding energy in general relativity,
respectively~\cite{BiniD13}
(see also Refs.~\cite{BarauBT12,JaranS12,JaranS13}).
\label{fig3}}
\end{figure}
We plot in Fig.~\ref{fig3} the normalized binding energy,
$(M_{\rm T}-m)/m$, along the quasiequilibrium sequences of
binary neutron stars versus the orbital angular frequency.
We find that after the onset of dynamical scalarization the
binding energy in the scalar-tensor case decreases less rapidly
than in general relativity (GR), differing at most by $14 \%$
at high frequencies for the cases considered.
This implies that binary neutron stars undergoing dynamical scalarization
in the DEF theory spiral in more quickly than in general relativity,
if the amount of energy flux of gravitational radiation
in the scalar-tensor case is equal to the one in general relativity.
As we shall see below, the former can be much larger than the latter,
so the binary neutron star approaches the merger even more quickly
once the energy flux in scalar-tensor theory is also taken into
account.
The binding energy is defined by the difference between the tensor mass
at a given separation, $M_{\rm T}$, and that at infinity, $m$.
The tensor mass is given by the sum of the ADM mass, $M_{\rm ADM}$,
and the scalar mass, $M_{\rm S}$~\cite{Lee74}. Quite interestingly,
we find that the scalar mass is not responsible of the large increase
of the tensor mass; the latter increases because of the large increase
(three orders of magnitude) of the scalar field in the ADM mass.
As seen in Eq.~(\ref{eq:deltapsi}), the scalar field and its derivatives
enter the source term of the Poisson-like equation of the conformal
factor, which determines the ADM mass.
In Fig.~\ref{fig4} we plot the total angular momentum,
$J/(G_{\rm N} m^2)$, along the quasiequilibrium sequences
versus the orbital angular frequency.
The behavior of the total angular momentum is basically the same as
the binding energy; i.e., after the onset of dynamical scalarization
the total angular momentum in the scalar-tensor case decreases less rapidly
than in general relativity.
It is worth noticing that in some cases the binding energy/total angular
momentum may reach their minimum before the onset of mass shedding.
The sequences shown in Figs.~\ref{fig3} and \ref{fig4}
terminate slightly before the onset of mass-shedding
because it is impossible to treat a cuspy shape within
the spectral method, as we mentioned at the end of Sec.~\ref{sec:scalar}.
In order to calculate at which orbital angular frequency the sequences
encounter the mass-shedding point, we compute the sensitive mass-shedding
indicator $\chi$,
\begin{equation}
\chi \equiv \frac{(\partial (\ln h)/ \partial r)_{\rm eq}}
{(\partial (\ln h)/ \partial r)_{\rm pole}}
\end{equation}
as a function of the orbital angular frequency.
The above quantity is the ratio between the radial derivative of the enthalpy
computed in the equatorial plane at the surface along the direction toward
the companion star and the one at the surface of the pole of the star.
The indicator takes the value $\chi=1$ for spherical stars and it is
$\chi=0$ in the mass-shedding limit. We extrapolate the sequences of
$\chi$ to the mass-shedding limit and determine the orbital angular
frequency at that point. (For more details on this method see Sec.~4.3
in Ref.~\cite{TanigS10}.) After determining the orbital angular frequency
at the onset of mass shedding, we then extrapolate the binding energy curve to
that frequency.
By this procedure we find that the sequences of APR4 EOS $B=9.0$,
8.7, 8.4, 8.0, and H4 EOS $B=9.5$, $B=9.0$ reach the minimum of
the binding energy (i.e., the onset of secular instability~\cite{FriedUS02})
before the mass shedding. Thus, in these cases the binary neutron stars
terminate the quasiequilibrium sequence at that point, and plunge.
By contrast the sequence of H4 EOS $B=8.5$ terminates at the onset
of mass shedding.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=7.7cm]{fig4a.eps} \\
\vspace{0.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=7.7cm]{fig4b.eps}
\caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig3} but for the total angular momentum.
Cyan dashed and dark-green dot-dashed curves refer to the
3PN and 4PN angular momentum in general relativity,
respectively. Those curves are calculated using
Refs.~\cite{LeTieBW12,BiniD13}.
\label{fig4}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Central baryonic rest-mass density}
\begin{figure}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig5a.eps} \\
\vspace{0.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig5b.eps}
\caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig3} but for the relative change
in the central baryonic rest-mass density of a neutron star.
\label{fig5}}
\end{figure}
In general relativity the central baryonic rest-mass density
of a neutron star in irrotational binary systems always decreases
as the orbital frequency increases (see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{TanigG02}).
We find that this is not the case in the scalar-tensor model under
investigation. After the onset of dynamical scalarization, we find that
the central baryonic rest-mass density starts increasing
(instead of continuing decreasing)
as the orbital frequency increases, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig5}.
It is not easy to physically explain this behavior because of nonlinear
effects related to the deformation of the star and the distribution
profiles of metric and matter quantities in the star.
In our computation, the baryonic rest mass of each star defined by
Eq.~(\ref{eq:restmass}) is fixed along the quasiequilibrium sequences.
To do so, the central value of the baryonic rest-mass density
of a neutron star necessarily increases after dynamical scalarization,
because the remaining part of Eq.~(\ref{eq:restmass}) after dropping
the rest-mass density,
\begin{equation}
\int_{\rm star~A} u^t \sqrt{-g} d^3x,
\end{equation}
decreases rapidly after dynamical scalarization sets in along a constant
baryonic rest-mass sequence, while it slightly increases before the
dynamical scalarization.
\subsection{Evolution of the orbital angular frequency}
\label{sec:evolorb}
\begin{figure}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=7.7cm]{fig6a.eps} \\
\vspace{0.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=7.7cm]{fig6b.eps}
\caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig3} but for the evolution of
the orbital angular frequency (left $y$ axis)
or the frequency of GWs (right $y$ axis)
from a binary neutron star with $m = 2.7 M_\odot$.
The gravitational energy flux is the choice (i).
\label{fig6}}
\end{figure}
We want to estimate the orbital angular frequency and GW cycles
in the DEF model assuming a quasistationary adiabatic evolution.
We follow what was done in Ref.~\cite{TanigS10}. Basically, we use the
balance equation $dE/dt = - {\cal F}$ and integrate
$d \Omega/dt = -{\cal F}/(dE/d\Omega)$. (Note that this PN approximant is
similar to the TaylorT1 approximant in Ref.~\cite{BoyleBKMPSCT07}.)
For $E$ we use the binding energy [fitted to a polynomial in
$x \equiv (G_{\rm N} m \Omega)^{2/3}$] along the quasiequilibrium sequences.
The choice of the energy flux ${\cal F}$ is less straightforward
because we do not know it exactly, so we have to rely on PN
calculations~\cite{DamourEF92,DamourEF96b,DamourEF98,WillZ89,MirshW13,Lang14}.
Since in this paper we consider only the case of equal-mass binaries on
a circular orbit, the monopole and dipole components of the gravitational
radiation vanish. Thus the leading term is the quadrupole component.
Using Ref.~\cite{DamourEF92} [see in particular Eqs.~(6.40) and (6.41) therein]
we find that the ratio of the quadrupole component generated directly
by the scalar field, ${\cal F}_{\varphi}^{\rm Quadrupole}$,
and the quadrupole component of the gravitational field,
${\cal F}_{G}^{\rm Quadrupole}$, is given at leading order in the PN
expansion by\footnote{Here and in the following we assume that
the energy flux derived in PN theory expanding the neutron-star masses about
the asymptotic value $\varphi_0$ continues to be valid
also in the presence of spontaneous and/or dynamical scalarization.}
\begin{equation}
\frac{{\cal F}_{\varphi}^{\rm Quadrupole}}{{\cal F}_{G}^{\rm Quadrupole}}
= \frac{\alpha_{\varphi}^2}{6}
= \frac{1}{6 B} \Bigl( \frac{M_{\varphi, {\rm NS}}}{m_{\rm NS}} \Bigr)^2,
\label{eq:ratioflux}
\end{equation}
where $M_{\varphi, {\rm NS}}$ is the scalar charge of a neutron star,
and $m_{\rm NS}$ is the tensor mass of a {\it spherical} neutron star,
i.e., $m_{\rm NS} = m/2 = 1.35 M_{\odot}$. The quantity
$\alpha_{\varphi}$ is an auxiliary quantity~\cite{DamourEF92,DamourEF93}
defined by
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{\varphi} = -\frac{M_{\varphi, {\rm NS}, {\rm DEF}}}{m_{\rm NS}}
= -\frac{1}{\sqrt{B}} \frac{M_{\varphi, {\rm NS}}}{m_{\rm NS}}. \label{eq:alpha}
\end{equation}
Here $M_{\varphi, {\rm NS}, {\rm DEF}}$ is the scalar charge of a neutron star
defined as the monopole part of the field, $\varphi_{\rm DEF}$,
which is expanded as
$\varphi_{\rm DEF} = \varphi_{0, {\rm DEF}} +M_{\varphi, {\rm NS}, {\rm DEF}}/r +{\cal O}(1/r^2)$
for $r \rightarrow \infty$. (Note that the relation between the var-type
scalar field in this paper, $\varphi$, and that in Ref.~\cite{DamourEF92},
$\varphi_{\rm DEF}$, is given by $\varphi = \sqrt{B} \varphi_{\rm DEF}$.)
Because the scalar charge of a binary system is defined as
a global quantity, we do not know the scalar charge
of the individual stars in the binary system, $M_{\varphi, {\rm NS}}$.
As an approximation, we simply take $M_{\varphi, {\rm NS}} \simeq M_{\varphi}/2$
for the current estimate. From Fig.~\ref{fig1}, we find that the ratio
Eq.~(\ref{eq:ratioflux}) takes the maximum of about 0.028 in the case
of APR4 $B=9.0$ at the end of the sequence.
(The scalar charge at that point is about $M_{\varphi} = 3.3 M_{\odot}$.)
For the other cases the ratio is less than 0.028 throughout
the quasiequilibrium sequences. Thus, since
${\cal F}_{\varphi}^{\rm Quadrupole}$ is at most $3 \%$ of the quadrupole component
of the gravitational field, ${\cal F}_{G}^{\rm Quadrupole}$, we neglect it.
Considering the above, we make the following choices for the gravitational
energy flux ${\cal F}$ in the balance equation: (i) the 3.5PN flux
(also as a polynomial in $x$) computed in general relativity~\cite{Blanchet06},
and (ii) the quadrupole component of the gravitational field in
the scalar-tensor DEF model, i.e., ${\cal F}_{G}^{\rm Quadrupole} =
(32 \nu^2/5) (G_{\rm N} m (1 + \alpha_{\varphi}^2) \Omega)^{10/3}$ where
$\nu = m_{\rm NS}^2/m^2$~\cite{DamourEF92,PalenBPL14}.
The choice (i) will allow us to isolate the contribution to the orbital
angular frequency (and the number of GW cycles, see below) due to
the binding energy computed in this paper, while the choice
(ii) is an estimate of the orbital angular frequency when also the
gravitational radiation in scalar-tensor theory is included.
(Note that today the energy flux in scalar-tensor theory is known only through
leading quadrupole order.) In Appendix~\ref{app3}, we further discuss
those choices and explain how we derive the energy flux in case (ii) using the
scalar charge computed in this paper.\footnote{We are currently working
on long-term evolutions of
binary neutron stars extending our previous study~\cite{ShibaTOB14}.
Preliminary analysis shows that the GW energy flux in the scalar-tensor DEF
model, at a given orbital frequency, is indeed larger than in the
general-relativity case. However, case (ii) seems to overestimate it
and the exact GW luminosity is likely to lie between cases (i) and (ii).}
\begin{figure}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=7.7cm]{fig7a.eps} \\
\vspace{0.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=7.7cm]{fig7b.eps}
\caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig6} but for the choice (ii)
for the gravitational energy flux.
In the general-relativity case, the 3.5PN energy flux computed
in general relativity is used.
These are the same data as used in Fig.~\ref{fig6} (shown as ``GR'').
\label{fig7}}
\end{figure}
In the examples shown in Fig.~\ref{fig6} for the choice (i) and in
Fig.~\ref{fig7} for the choice (ii),
we set the initial orbital angular frequency to $G_{\rm N} m \Omega =0.005$
for the case of APR4 EOS
and $G_{\rm N} m \Omega =0.01$ for H4 EOS.
The final orbital angular frequency of
each curve corresponds to the end point of the quasiequilibrium sequences.
As explained above when discussing Fig.~\ref{fig3}, the sequences
may have the minimum of the binding energy before the mass-shedding point.
If the minimum is found, we use the orbital angular frequency
at that point, $G_{\rm N} m \Omega_{\rm ener\mbox{-}min}$, as the final one.
If not, we adopt the orbital angular frequency at the mass-shedding limit,
$G_{\rm N} m \Omega_{\rm mass\mbox{-}shed}$, as the final one.
In Table~\ref{table2} we show the orbital angular frequency at the end point
of each model which is used for the final orbital angular frequency.
For 3PN and 4PN cases, we use the same final orbital angular frequency
as that in general relativity.
Note that the final orbital angular frequency listed in Table~\ref{table2}
is about $G_{\rm N} m \Omega = 0.05$ for APR4 EOS and 0.04 for H4 EOS.
These values correspond to the frequency of GWs of $\simeq 1200~{\rm Hz}$
and $\simeq 960~{\rm Hz}$ which lie in the high-frequency portion of
the LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA bandwidth.
As a consequence, the effects discussed in Secs.~\ref{sec:evolorb} and
\ref{sec:gwcycles} may not be observable if the broadband noise
spectral density is employed. By contrast interferometer configurations
optimized at high frequency may allow us to measure these effects.
It is relevant to point out that if we consider the case of unequal-mass
binaries, there exists the dipole component of the scalar GWs.
This contribution has the same sign as that of the quadrupole
component~\cite{DamourEF92} and increases the energy flux of the
scalar GWs. Moreover, if we take into account the infall velocity of the stars
in the binary system, the monopole component arises. This also contributes
to increase the energy flux of scalar GWs~\cite{DamourEF92}.
Thus, since the energy flux increases for unequal-mass binaries,
in these cases the merger may occur at even earlier times than what
we estimated in Fig.~\ref{fig6}.
\subsection{Number of gravitational-wave cycles} \label{sec:gwcycles}
\begin{figure}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=7.cm]{fig8a.eps} \\
\vspace{0.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=7.cm]{fig8b.eps}
\caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig3} but for the evolution of
the number of GW cycles.
The gravitational energy flux is the choice (i).
\label{fig8}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=7.cm]{fig9a.eps} \\
\vspace{0.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=7.cm]{fig9b.eps}
\caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig8} but for the choice (ii)
for the gravitational energy flux.
In the general-relativity case, the 3.5PN GR energy flux is used.
These are the same data used in Fig.~\ref{fig6} (shown as ``GR'').
\label{fig9}}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}
\caption{We list the orbital angular frequencies at the end point of each
quasiequilibrium sequence and the number of GW cycles. We also show
the quantity $\delta {\cal N}_{\rm{GW}}$, which is the difference between
the number of GW cycles in the DEF model and in general relativity
[i.e., either APR4 (GR) or H4 (GR) depending on the EOS].
When computing the number of cycles, we set the initial orbital
angular frequency to $G_{\rm N} m \Omega =0.005$ ($f_{\rm GW} = 119.7$ Hz)
for the case of APR4 EOS and $G_{\rm N} m \Omega =0.01$ ($f_{\rm GW} = 239.3$ Hz)
for H4 EOS. The subscripts (i) or (ii) refer to the choice of the gravitational
energy flux discussed in Sec. III~D.
\label{table2}}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lccrrrr}
Models & $G_{\rm N} m \Omega_{\rm ener\mbox{-}min}$
& $G_{\rm N} m \Omega_{\rm mass\mbox{-}shed}$
& ${\cal N}_{\rm{GW} (i)}$ & $\delta {\cal N}_{\rm{GW} (i)}$
& ${\cal N}_{\rm{GW} (ii)}$ & $\delta {\cal N}_{\rm{GW} (ii)}$ \\
APR4 (9.0) & 0.0491672 & 0.0565207 & 238.00 & $-28.87$ & 202.03 & $-64.85$ \\
APR4 (8.7) & 0.0494752 & 0.0572480 & 256.62 & $-10.25$ & 231.48 & $-35.40$ \\
APR4 (8.4) & 0.0523407 & 0.0570327 & 262.94 & $-3.93$ & 239.63 & $-27.24$ \\
APR4 (8.0) & 0.0494658 & 0.0563251 & 265.55 & $-1.33$ & 242.62 & $-24.25$ \\
APR4 (GR) & $\cdots$ & 0.0570651 & 266.87 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
APR4 (3PN) & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 266.08 & $-0.79$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
APR4 (4PN) & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 265.81 & $-1.07$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
H4 (9.5) & 0.0385605 & 0.0438147 & 62.66 & $-10.89$ & 54.76 & $-18.78$ \\
H4 (9.0) & 0.0401870 & 0.0419199 & 70.89 & $-2.66$ & 63.68 & $-9.86$ \\
H4 (8.5) & $\cdots$ & 0.0410100 & 73.47 & $-0.07$ & 66.09 & $-7.46$ \\
H4 (GR) & $\cdots$ & 0.0405359 & 73.54 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
H4 (3PN) & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 74.18 & 0.64 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
H4 (4PN) & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 74.01 & 0.46 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table*}
As seen in Fig.~\ref{fig3}, because after the onset of dynamical scalarization,
the binding energy calculated in the DEF model decreases less rapidly than
that calculated in general relativity, the binary evolves more quickly
in the DEF model than in general relativity, if differences between
the energy fluxes in general relativity and scalar-tensor theory are neglected.
When an estimate of the scalar-tensor energy flux is included the late
evolution of the binary is even faster (see Figs.~\ref{fig6} and \ref{fig7}).
As a consequence, the number of GW cycles computed from an initial frequency
$f_{\rm GW, ini}$ to a final frequency $f_{\rm GW, fin}$ will be different in
the DEF model and in general relativity.
To quantify this, we numerically integrate the orbital angular
frequency between the initial and final frequencies discussed in
Table~\ref{table2} and the text around it. When computing the number of
cycles between two models with the same EOS, we impose that
they have the same initial orbital frequency.
The results are summarized in Table~\ref{table2} and
in Figs.~\ref{fig8} and \ref{fig9}. In particular, the difference in number
of GW cycles between the DEF model
and general relativity for APR4 EOS is 28.9, 10.3, 3.9, and 1.3 for
the case of $B=9.0$, 8.7, 8.4, and 8.0, respectively, if we use the choice (i)
for the gravitational energy flux. On the other hand,
if we adopt the choice (ii), the difference in number of GW cycles
is 64.8, 35.4, 27.2, and 24.3. Note here that the difference is
calculated against the general-relativity case with 3.5PN energy flux
for both choices of (i) and (ii). For the case of H4 EOS, the difference is
10.9, 2.7, and 0.07 for
$B=9.5$, 9.0, and 8.5, respectively, for the choice (i), while for
the choice (ii),
we have 18.8, 9.9, and 7.5, respectively. Thus, except for the case of
H4 EOS $B=8.5$ for
the choice (i), the difference in number of GW cycles is larger than unity.
However, those numbers should be taken with cautiousness because they are
affected by different source of errors.
For example, the quasiequilibrium configurations themselves
include errors. It is usually common to measure the errors
by a global error indicator, i.e., the error in the virial relation.
In scalar-tensor theory the virial relation is expressed as~\cite{ShibaK13}
\begin{equation}
M_{\rm Komar} = M_{\rm ADM} + 2 M_{\rm S} \phi_0^{-1},
\end{equation}
where $M_{\rm Komar}$ is the Komar mass. This relation should hold
along the quasiequilibrium sequences, but because of numerical errors,
deviations can appear. In this paper we define the error in the virial relation
as follows
\begin{equation}
{\rm virial~error} = \Bigl| \frac{M_{\rm Komar} - M_{\rm ADM}
- 2 M_{\rm S} \phi_0^{-1}} {M_{\rm ADM}} \Bigr|.
\end{equation}
In our quasiequilibrium configurations the ``virial error'' is
on the order of $10^{-5}$ for large and medium orbital separations
and $10^{-4}$ for close configurations.
Because the binding energy is on the order of $10^{-3} - 10^{-2}$
throughout the computed orbital-frequency range,
a virial error on the order of $10^{-5} - 10^{-4}$ implies
that the binding energy has a maximal error of a few \%.
Besides the error in the quasiequilibrium configurations,
there are errors due to the fitted curves of the binding energy
and the scalar charge. Nevertheless, the difference in the
number of cycles in Table~\ref{table2} is sufficiently large to make it
worthwhile to run accurate, long full numerical-relativity simulations of binary
neutron stars in the DEF model and develop accurate template waveforms.
The frequency region that is affected by dynamical scalarization is
in the several hundreds of Hz, i.e., in the high-frequency portion of
the LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA bandwidth. If the binary is composed by a neutron star
and black hole, dynamical scalarization would in principle take place
at lower frequencies. Quite interestingly, if the binary is in
an eccentric orbit,
the motion can induce a scalar charge on the black hole~\cite{LiuEWK14}.
We plan to study in the future whether dynamical scalarization occurs
in a black-hole$-$neutron-star binary and is observable by LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA.
It is worthwhile to note that the difference in number of GW cycles
between the DEF model and general relativity is much larger
than that between the 3PN approximation of the binding energy and the 4PN one.
(We use the 3.5PN flux for both calculations.) Setting the integration range
of $G_{\rm N} m \Omega$ to the same as in the general-relativity case,
we obtain that
the difference in the number of GW cycles between the 3PN approximation and
the 4PN one is 0.28 for APR4 EOS and 0.17 for H4 EOS. (The 4PN case has
a smaller number of cycles than that for 3PN.)
Before closing this section, we would like to comment that the difference
in GW frequency between general relativity and the DEF model was also estimated
in Ref.~\cite{PalenBPL14}, evolving the 2.5PN equations of motion augmented
by a set of equations that phenomenologically describe the increase of
scalar charge as the two neutron stars come closer to each other
(see Figs.~7, 9 and 11 in Ref.~\cite{PalenBPL14}). An important difference
between the two sets of results is that the quasiequilibrium sequences
in our computation terminate much earlier than those in Ref.~\cite{PalenBPL14}.
This is because the authors of Ref.~\cite{PalenBPL14} treat binary neutron stars
as two spherical neutron stars, while we compute the deformation of the stars
and stop at the mass-shedding point or at the turning point of the binding
energy.
\section{Conclusions}
We have computed quasiequilibrium sequences of binary neutron stars in the
DEF scalar-tensor model~\cite{DamourEF93} that admits dynamical scalarization.
The EOS of the neutron star that we have employed has the form of a piecewise
polytrope and we have used APR4 and H4 EOSs~\cite{ReadLOF09,ReadMSUCF09}.
We have considered an equal-mass, irrotational binary whose tensor mass at
large separation is $2.7 M_{\odot}$.
Using the quasiequilibrium sequence, we have derived the binding energy
and scalar charge and found that, as the stars come closer,
and the dynamical scalarization sets in, the binding energy decreases less
rapidly than in general relativity.
Using the newly computed binding energy and the balance equation,
we have estimated the number of GW cycles during the adiabatic,
quasicircular inspiral stage up to the end of the sequence, which is
the last stable orbit or the mass-shedding point, depending on which comes
first. When employing the quadrupole component
of the gravitational energy flux in the scalar-tensor DEF model,
we have found that in the most optimistic case, when dynamical scalarization
sets in around a GW frequency of $\sim 130\, {\rm Hz}$
(i.e., $B = 9.0$ and APR4 EOS), the number of GW cycles from $120$ Hz
up to merger in general relativity,
$\sim 270$, is reduced by $24 \%$, of which $11 \%$ is only due to
the inclusion of the scalar-tensor binding energy.
A summary of our results is given in Table~\ref{table2} and
Figs.~\ref{fig6}$-$\ref{fig9} for several choices of the scalar-tensor
parameters. Of course, a reduction in the number of GW cycles
with respect to the general-relativity case does not immediately inform us
on whether the deviation can be observed by advanced detectors.
An analysis that take into account the noise spectral density of the
detector and the accumulated
signal-to-noise ratio would be needed~\cite{Sampetal14}.
As seen in Table~\ref{table1}, GW frequencies at the onset of
dynamical scalarization are in the several hundreds of Hz, where
the broadband interferometer configuration of LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA
has poor sensitivity. In order to measure deviations from
general relativity in the DEF model, it is crucial that
the scalar-field parameter $B$ be large so that dynamical scalarization
sets in at low frequencies (e.g., around $130$ Hz for APR4 EOS and $B=9.0$)
and large differences in the GW cycles can be observed.
However, if the parameter $B$ were too large, the DEF model would be
already rejected by the observational constraints imposed
by neutron-star$-$white-dwarf binaries~\cite{Freir12,Anton13,BhatBV08}.
Recent studies carried out in Refs.~\cite{Samp13,Sampetal14}, which
use scalar-tensor templates in the frequency domain, rely on
the scalar-charge evolution and numerical-relativity simulations of
Refs.~\cite{BarauPPL13,PalenBPL14}, concluded that advanced detectors
operating at a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 10 will be able to constrain
dynamical scalarization only if the system scalarizes at low enough orbital
frequencies, e.g., $\leq 50$ Hz, so that a sufficient number of GW cycles
emitted during the dynamical-scalarization phase can contribute to the
accumulated SNR. This would imply that in the case of APR4 EOS with $B=9.0$,
advanced LIGO and Virgo might observe deviations from general relativity
if dynamical scalarization takes place in nature.
Moreover, using results from Ref.~\cite{TanigS10} and from GR computations
shown in this paper (and also a direct integration of the TaylorT4-PN
approximant with tidal effects~\cite{TanjaH}), we find that in general
relativity tidal effects produce a difference of only a few GW cycles
(i.e., $\sim 1 - 3$ GW cycles depending on the EOS) between 130 Hz and
1200 Hz with respect to the point-particle case. Those small differences in
GW cycles induced by tidal effects at high frequency can be measured by
advanced detectors in one single event only if the SNR is roughly
$30 - 35$~\cite{DelPozzo:2013ala,Wade:2014vqa}. Note that depending on the EOS
those differences can be smaller than or comparable to what we have found
in dynamical scalarization (see Table~\ref{table2}). At SNR around $30 - 35$,
deviations from general relativity might also be observable even in cases
in which the onset of dynamical scalarization happens at orbital frequencies
above $50$ Hz~\cite{Samp13,Sampetal14}. It will be interesting to investigate
in the future the detectability of tidal effects in the presence of dynamical
scalarization. To precisely determine for which neutron-star masses, EOS,
and scalar-tensor parameters dynamical scalarization and tidal effects can
be observed with advanced GW detectors, it will be relevant to develop
accurate waveforms in the DEF scalar-tensor model. To this respect the next
work~\cite{SenBST14} is focusing at building accurate analytical templates
that can incorporate dynamical scalarization, and reproduce the binding energy
computed in this paper and the results from numerical-relativity simulations.
Finally, extending earlier work~\cite{ShibaTOB14}, new long-term numerical
simulations in scalar-tensor theory are suggesting that the analytical
energy flux used in this paper (i.e., the energy flux at quadrupolar order)
is likely to overestimate the exact energy flux in the scalar-tensor DEF model.
Thus, a better modeling of the energy flux (e.g., its PN computation
through 1PN and even 2PN order~\cite{Lang14}) is crucial for understanding and
quantifying differences from the general-relativity case.
\begin{acknowledgments}
A.B. thanks Noah Sennett for useful discussions on dynamical scalarization.
K.T. acknowledges partial support from JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research (26400267).
M.S. acknowledges partial support from JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research
(24244028), JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Area
(20105004), and HPCI Strategic Program of Japanese MEXT.
A.B. acknowledges partial support from NSF Grant No. PHY-1208881 and
NASA Grant No. NNX12AN10G.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
When plant pathogens succeed in infecting their hosts, they colonize
the host tissue and deprive hosts of resources and energy. This often leads
to serious yield losses in agriculture
\citep{stsc05}. Disease-resistant crop varieties and chemicals
(fungicides or antibiotics) are widely used to control infectious
diseases of plants. But both of these control measures are highly
vulnerable to pathogen adaptation: pathogens evolve to overcome host
resistances and to become insensitive to fungicides \citep{mcli02}. In order to
devise effective and durable strategies of disease control \citep{mu14}, a thorough
understanding of basic epidemiological properties of plant pathogens
with the help of appropriate mathematical models is necessary.
The spread of infectious diseases depends on the contact structure,
a network in which each host is a node and has a number of weighted,
directional links to other hosts. The strength of each link represents
the probability of transmission from one host to another. In
infectious diseases of humans and animals contact structures are
determined by networks of social contacts.
Plant pathogens spread over global scales of countries and continents
by natural means and through networks of trade and exchange
\citep{brho02,shpa14}. However, at a local scale of a single field of
crop plants or several adjacent fields, plant pathogens spread
primarily through passive dispersal of infectious propagules through
air, water or soil between immobile plants. Insect pests may disperse
both actively and passively between hosts plants \citep{mado12}. In
both of these cases, the probability of transmission between hosts
depends on the geographical distance between them. Hence, the contact
structure is determined by the spatial scales of pathogen dispersal
and the spatial scales of the host population.
Full information on the contact structure is difficult to obtain and
to analyze. Several global measures are used to characterize networks
of contacts, such as the average degree, i.\,e. the average number of
links per host. Yet, a better measure that characterizes the disease
spread is its basic reproductive number, $R_0$, defined intuitively as
``the average number of secondary cases of infection generated by one
primary case in a susceptible host population''
\citep{anma86}. Mathematically, it is given by the dominant eigenvalue
of the next generation operator \citep{he02}.
Hence, the basic reproductive number is a quantity with a clear biological
meaning that characterizes reproductive fitness
of the pathogen. It determines the invasion threshold: if $R_0>1$ the disease
will spread in the population, otherwise at $R_0<1$ the pathogen will
eventually die out. Therefore, $R_0$ can be used to estimate the
critical proportion of the host population that needs to be immunized
(i.\,e. vaccinated) in order to eradicate the disease \citep{anma91}. Also, $R_0$
often allows one to estimate the final (equilibrium) disease level.
Much attention has been devoted to estimation of $R_0$ for infectious
diseases of humans and animals \citep{anma91,frdo+09,hadu+09}. Several
studies discuss $R_0$ in the context of infectious diseases of plants
\citep{gugi+00,pagu+01,pagi+05,bomc+08}, but only one study provided actual
estimates based on measurements of the apparent infection rate $r$
(the rate of growth of the disease proportion over time, assuming
logistic growth \citep{va63}) for wheat stripe rust \citep{seje+01}.
Another approach is to estimate $R_0$ by fitting the solution
of a population dynamics model of disease spread to an empirical
disease progress curve (i.\,e. the plot of the proportion of disease
over time).
However, this appears to be difficult, because we expect $R_0$ to
depend on the spatial scales of the host
population.
In an agricultural setting, crop plants are usually arranged in nearly
rectangular fields. Each field is characterized by its area $S$ and
aspect ratio $\alpha$. Hence, $R_0$ should depend on $S$ and $\alpha$,
provided that the planting density is fixed. Given the wide variation
in field sizes and shapes across individual fields and growing
regions, countries and continents, a useful estimate for $R_0$ should
also capture the dependence on the field size and shape. But measuring
disease progress curves in many fields with different sizes and shapes
requires enormous efforts and resources.
In this study we propose a novel way to estimate the basic
reproductive number $R_0$ as a function of field size and shape. This
approach uses a spatially explicit population dynamics model
formulated as a system of integro-differential equations. The
estimation of $R_0$ is based on disease gradient measurements in which
the amount of disease is characterized as a function of the distance
from a localized source of initial
inoculum.
The advantage of this approach is that, by measuring the disease gradient
over a large enough distance in a single experiment, one captures the
information on the dependence of $R_0$ on the field size and aspect
ratio. In this way, more useful information can be extracted from
disease gradient data than thought previously.
To provide a proof of principle for this method, we applied it to
wheat stripe rust (an important pathogen of wheat caused by
\emph{Puccinia striiformis} \citep{we11}), since disease gradients for this
pathogen were thoroughly measured over large distances
\citep{samu05,cowa+05}. Using these data, we estimated $R_0$ as a
function of the field size and shape. From this dependence we
determined the ranges of field sizes and shapes over which $R_0$
exhibits a considerable change.
\section{Materials and methods}
\label{sec:methods}
We assume that the hosts are continuously distributed across the
rectangular field with the dimensions $d_x$ and $d_y$. The field area
is $S = d_x d_y$ and its aspect ratio is $\alpha = d_x/d_y$, so that
$\alpha$ close to zero refers to long, narrow fields, while $\alpha=1$
represents a square field.
We trace the densities of healthy hosts $H(x,y,t)$ and infected hosts
$I(x,y,t)$ in space and time using the system of integro-differential equations
\begin{linenomath}
\begin{align}
&\frac{\partial H(x, y, t)}{\partial t} = r_H H(x, y, t) \left[1 - H(x, y, t)/K
\right] - \beta \lambda (x,y) H(x, y, t), \label{eq:host-par-ide-2d-1} \\
&\frac{\partial I(x, y, t)}{\partial t} = \beta \lambda (x,y) H(x, y, t) - \mu I(x, y, t). \label{eq:host-par-ide-2d-2}
\end{align}
\end{linenomath}
Here, the force of infection $\lambda(x,y)$ at a location $x$, $y$ is
determined by integrating over all possible sources of infection:
\begin{linenomath}
\begin{align}\label{eq:force-inf}
\lambda = \int_0^{d_x} du \int_0^{d_y} dv \, \kappa (x,y,u,v) I(u, v, t).
\end{align}
\end{linenomath}
In obtaining
Eqs.\,(\ref{eq:host-par-ide-2d-1})-(\ref{eq:host-par-ide-2d-2}) we
assumed that the characteristic time scale of spore dispersal is much
shorter than the characteristic time scales associated with other
stages of the pathogen life cycle and, hence, the density of spores is
proportional to the density of the infectious host tissue (see
Appendix\,A.4 in Supporting Information for more
details).
The quantities $H(x,y,t)$ and $I(x,y,t)$ represent the areas of the
corresponding host tissue per unit land area. The host tissue could be
leaves, stems or grain, depending on the specific host-pathogen
interaction.
Healthy hosts $H(x,y,t)$ grow logistically with the rate $r_H$ and the
``carrying capacity'' $K$, which may imply limited space or nutrients.
Furthermore, healthy hosts may be infected by the pathogen and
transformed into infected hosts with the rate $\beta \lambda(x,y)$. The
transmission rate $\beta$ is a compound parameter given by the product of
the sporulation rate of the infected tissue and the probability that a
spore causes new infection. Infected host tissue loses its infectivity at a rate
$\mu$, where $\mu^{-1}$ is the average infectious period.
An approximate version of the model
Eqs.\,(\ref{eq:host-par-ide-2d-1})-(\ref{eq:host-par-ide-2d-2}), in
which the host densities were assumed to be homogeneous in space, was
used in several previous studies of plant disease epidemics \citep{hagu+07,bogi08,mimc+14}.
The integral in \eq{eq:force-inf} is weighted using $\kappa(x,y,u,v)$,
the dispersal kernel (or contact distribution \citep{mo77}) that
characterizes the dispersal properties of the pathogen. The dispersal
properties as well as the environmental conditions are assumed to be
the same along the field. Moreover, dispersal is assumed to be
isotropic, meaning that a spore has the same probability to move in
any direction along the two-dimensional field. The latter assumption
can be problematic when strong winds prevail in a certain direction
and may be the cause of discrepancy with the empirical findings (see
Appendix\,A.5).
In this case, the dispersal kernel is only determined by the distance
between the source and the target of infection,
i.\,e. $\kappa(x,y,u,v) = \kappa(r)$, where $r = \sqrt{(x-u)^2 + (y -
v)^2}$. For aerially dispersed plant diseases, $\kappa(r)$ is
defined as a probability density function for an infectious spore to
land at a distance $r$ from its source \citep{nakl+12}.
In order to determine the basic reproductive number, $R_0$, we perform
the linear stability analysis of the disease-free equilibrium of the
system Eqs.\,(\ref{eq:host-par-ide-2d-1})-(\ref{eq:host-par-ide-2d-2}). This
leads to the eigenvalue problem for the Fredholm equation of the
second kind (see Appendix\,A.1 for the derivation)
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fredh2eigval}
R_{0\infty} \int_0^{d_x} du\, \int_0^{d_y} dv \, \kappa (r) w(u,v) = \sigma w(x,y),
\end{equation}
where $R_{0\infty} = \beta K/\mu$. By solving this problem, we can
find the eigenvalues $\sigma_i$ and eigenfunctions $w_i(x,y)$ that
satisfy the \eq{eq:fredh2eigval}. The dominant eigenvalue $\sigma_d$
determines the basic reproductive number, i.\,e. $R_0 =
\sigma_d$. Although an approximate expression for $R_0$ based on its intuitive definition may
often give sound results, this cannot be guaranteed (see Appendix\,A.2).
\section{Results}
We first consider the generic features of how the basic reproductive
number, $R_0$, depends on the field size $d$. Then, we consider these
dependencies in the case of wheat stripe rust in
\sec{sec:case-pstriiformis}.
\subsection{Dependence of the basic reproductive number on the field size}
\label{sec:r0-vs-a}
The basic reproductive number, $R_0$, is shown in \fig{fig:r0-vs-a} as
a function of the linear extension $d$ of a square field for three
different dispersal kernels (Gaussian, exponential and modified
power-law). These three functional forms are often used to describe
dispersal gradients in plant diseases \citep{figr+87,frbo00,samu05},
but also in other taxonomic groups, for example, in pollen, seeds,
seedlings, beetles, moths and butterflies \citep{nakl+12}.
These three functions represent the three classes of dispersal
kernels: ``thin-tailed'' (Gaussian) that decrease faster than
exponential, exponential, and ``fat-tailed'' that decrease slower than
exponential (power-law). ``Thin-tailed'' and exponential kernels give
rise to travelling epidemic waves with a constant velocity, while the
``fat-tailed'' kernels result in accelerating epidemic waves
\citep{mo77,meko03,cowa+05,samu05a}.
For all the three types of dispersal kernels that we considered, the
basic reproductive number first increases as a function of the field
size $d$ and then, eventually, saturates to a constant value (\fig{fig:r0-vs-a}).
Thus, we find that the qualitative dependence of $R_0$, a more
basic epididemiological parameter than the epidemic velocity, on the
field size is quite robust with respect to the functional
form of the dispersal kernel. In particular, it is not affected much
by the nature of the tails of the dispersal kernel. Moreover, we
expect this behaviour to hold for any dispersal kernel, as long as it
a monotonically decreasing function of the distance $r$.
The initial growth of $R_0$ versus $d$ follows a quadratic function
(see Eq.\,(A.10)). It occurs because in this range, the
field size is much smaller than the dispersal radius $a$ (a characteristic
length scale of pathogen dispersal), i.\,e. $d \ll
a$. Therefore, by making the field larger, more spores will land
within the field and lead to new infections. In other words, in this
range the field size is the limiting factor for the pathogen fitness.
On the contrary, when the field size is much larger than the dispersal
radius, i.\,e. $d \gg a$, the basic reproductive number becomes
independent of $d$. Here, pathogen does not become fitter on a larger
field, because its fitness is now limited by the range of dispersal
and not by the size of the field.
While the three curves in \fig{fig:r0-vs-a} exhibit a universal
qualitative behaviour, they differ in the rate at which the saturation
occurs at large field sizes.
The Gaussian dispersal kernel decreases faster with the distance
$r$ than the exponential dispersal kernel. As a result, $R_0$ grows
and saturates as a function of the field size $d$ faster for the Gaussian
than for the exponential.
The result for the power-law dispersal kernel is difficult to compare
with the results for other kernels, since the power law lacks a
meaningful characteristic length scale. Asymptotically, at large field
sizes $R_0$ approaches the constant value slower in the case of the
power-law dispersal kernel than for the other two kernels. However,
at small field sizes, $R_0$ as a function of $d$ may grow faster or
slower for the power-law kernel as compared to the other two kernels,
depending on the values of the parameters $r_0$ and $b$.
In \fig{fig:r0-vs-a}, we present an example when the $R_0$ for the
power law first grows faster than the that for the Gaussian or
exponential dispersal kernels, but subsequently its growth slows down
and becomes slower than for the Gaussian and exponential (as expected
from the asymptotic behavior of the corresponding dispersal kernels).
\subsection{Case study: dependence of the basic reproductive number on
the field size and shape for wheat stripe rust}
\label{sec:case-pstriiformis}
We infer the dependence of the basic reproductive number, $R_0$, on
the field size and shape from the detailed measurements of primary
disease gradients of wheat stripe rust \citep{samu05,cowa+05}. $R_0$
is computed by numerically solving the eigenvalue problem in
\eq{eq:fredh2eigval} for different values of the field dimensions
$d_x$ and $d_y$ that characterize the field size and shape. To perform
this calculation, we estimated the dispersal kernel $\kappa(r)$ and the
compound parameter $R_{0\infty}$ that corresponds to the basic
reproductive number for a very large field from experimental data
\citep{samu05,cowa+05} [see Appendix\,A.3 for the
details of the estimation procedure].
In these experiments, small areas of experimental plots (foci) were
artificially inoculated by pathogen spores ($0^\mrm{th}$
generation). These spores give rise to lesions in the focus (first
generation) that further produce spores, which are dispersed through
the air. This gives rise to infection outside of the focus, producing
the second generation of pathogen lesions. The corresponding disease
severity (the proportion of the leaf area infected) is measured as a
function of the distance $r$ from the focus.
The outcome of this measurement is shown in
\fig{fig:disgrad-data-fit-herm02} for the two largest datasets
(Hermiston 2002 and Madras 2002, downwind) obtained in this
experiment. These two datasets were chosen because they contained
measurements over large enough distances that allowed us to obtain
sound fits. Disease severity strongly depends on the distance $r$: the
value is largest closer to the focus and decreases monotonically with
$r$. The data can be fitted well by the modified power-law function
(solid curve in \fig{fig:disgrad-data-fit-herm02})
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mpowlaw-kern2}
\kappa_\mrm{PL2}(r) = \kappa_0 \left(r_0^2 + r^2 \right)^{-b/2}.
\end{equation}
In contrast, exponential and Gaussian functions provide poor fits
(dashed and dotted curves in \fig{fig:disgrad-data-fit-herm02}).
(For more details on fitting see Appendix\,A.3.1 and Fig.\,6 in the
Electronic Supplementary Materials).
Disease gradients, measured in this way, contain information on
the three key processes in the pathogen life-cycle: spore production,
aerial movement of spores, and infection of healthy host tissue. We assume
that the rate of spore production and the probability to infect
healthy host tissue, once the spore has landed on it, are homogeneous
across the field, i.\,e. do not depend on the distance $r$. Hence, the
compound parameter $R_{0\infty} =\beta K / \mu$ that characterizes
these processes does not depend on the distance. Therefore, the aerial
movement of spores is the only process that depends on the distance
$r$.
Further, we assume that there is a large enough number
of spores produced and the probability of infection is large enough
such that the recorded disease severity is proportional to the spore
concentration in the air. Under these assumptions, our estimate for
the dispersal kernel $\kappa(r)$ is the modified power-law function
[\eq{eq:mpowlaw-kern2}] fitted to the disease gradient data and
normalized as a probability density function (i.\,e. such that its
integral over the whole two-dimensional space equals to unity
[Appendix\,A.3.2]).
We also estimated the parameter $R_{0\infty} $ from the disease
gradient data (see Appendix\,A.3.3) and obtained the value
$R_{0\infty} =65.0$ for the Hermiston 2002 downwind dataset; and the
value $R_{0\infty} =38.0$ for the Madras 2002 downwind dataset.
Using our estimates for the dispersal kernel, $\kappa(r)$, and the
parameter $R_{0\infty} $ we solved the eigenvalue problem
\eq{eq:fredh2eigval} numerically for different field sizes and
shapes. In this way, we obtained the dependence of the basic
reproductive number $R_0$ on the field size
(\fig{fig:r0-vs-a-empir-dprogr}) and its aspect ratio
(\fig{fig:r0-vs-arat-herm02dw}).
In \fig{fig:r0-vs-a-empir-dprogr}, $R_0$ first grows steeply versus
the linear extension of a square field and saturates towards the
asymptotic value $R_{0\infty}$ for large fields. The basic
reproductive number is about two times larger for the parameter values
corresponding to Hermiston 2002 dataset, than for the case of Madras
2002 dataset. This difference stems from the difference in the
asymptotic values $R_{0\infty}$ and also from different shapes of the
disease gradients (cf. panel (a) and (b) in
\fig{fig:disgrad-data-fit-herm02}).
The asymptotic value, $R_{0\infty}$, (indicated by the horizontal
dashed line in \fig{fig:r0-vs-a-empir-dprogr}), is approached faster
in the case of Hermiston 2002 dataset (solid curve in
\fig{fig:r0-vs-a-empir-dprogr}), than for Madras 2002 dataset (dashed
curve in \fig{fig:r0-vs-a-empir-dprogr}). The reason for this is a
different exponent of the power-law function that best fits the
corresponding disease gradients ($b = 3.04$ for Hermiston 2002,
Eq.\,(A.15), and $b = 2.23$, Eq.\,(A.16)). The
disease gradient in Madras 2002 decreases slower due a lower
exponent.
In \fig{fig:r0-vs-arat-herm02dw}, $R_0$ exhibits a saturating growth
as the field aspect ratio $\alpha$ is increased from 0.01 to 1. Hence,
the square fields, with $\alpha=1$, are most conducive for the
disease growth. The basic reproductuve number grows faster and
saturates at larger values of $\alpha$ in smaller fields (cf. dotted,
dashed, dash-dotted and solid curves in
\fig{fig:r0-vs-arat-herm02dw}).
A number of empirical studies have reported that, in agreement with our
results, smaller plots resulted in lower disease levels in wheat
yellow rust \citep{mubr+96}, wheat brown rust (\emph{Puccinia
recondita} f. sp. \emph{tritici}) \citep{bote+84}, potato late
blight \citep{pafr83} and \emph{Valdensia heterodoxa} on
\emph{Vaccinium myrtillus} \citep{sten+06}. However, in a more recent
study in wheat yellow rust \citep{samu09} that used considerably
larger plot sizes, the plot size did not affect the epidemic
velocity. Our estimation framework predicts moderate differences in
the values of $R_0$ between larger square plots and smaller
elongated plots used in experiments \citep{samu09} (cf. the white and
gray circles in both panels of \fig{fig:r0-vs-arat-herm02dw}). This is
expected to result in higher epidemic velocities in larger plots
compared to smaller plots, according to theoretical arguments (see
Appendix\,A.5).
We suggest two possible explanations for this discrepancy
(see Appendix\,A.5 for more details). First, strong wind
with a prevailing direction along the axis of the elongated plot was
observed in the experimental setting \citep{samu09}, but in our model
isotropic dispersal was assumed. The differences in $R_0$ between
smaller elongated plot and a larger square plot that we predict using
the model are possibly masked by the wind. This is because the wind
may increase the pathogen's $R_0$ in the smaller elongated plot by
preventing the spores to land outside the plot. Second, a moderate
difference of 20-30\,\% that we predict for epidemic velocities may be
difficult to detect given the level of experimental uncertainties.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
We found that the basic reproductive number, $R_0$, of crop pathogens
depends on the size and geometry of the field planted with host
plants. $R_0$ increases with the field size at small field sizes and
saturates to a constant values at large field sizes. The value of
$R_0$ reaches its maximum in square fields and decreases as the
field becomes elongated, while retaining the same area.
This pattern appears to be quite general: it holds for dispersal
kernels that decrease exponentially or faster (i.\,e. Gaussian
kernels) as well as for ``fat-tailed'' dispersal kernels that decrease
slower than exponential ones (i.\,e. power-law kernels). We expect the
same qualitative behavior for any dispersal kernel, provided that it
is a monotonically decreasing function of the distance.
As expected, this qualitative picture also holds for the dispersal
kernels estimated in wheat stripe rust.
The asymptotic values of the basic reproductive number at large field
sizes ($R_{0\infty} =65.0$ for Hermiston 2002 downwind, $R_{0\infty}
=38.0$ for the Madras 2002 downwind dataset) result in the values of
the apparent rate of infection $r\approx 0.21$ for Hermiston and $r
\approx 0.18$ for Madras, where the simple relationship $r = \mu \log
R_0$ was used. These values are quite close to the estimates of $r$
obtained independently for these experiments ($r \approx 0.25$
\citep{cowa+05}). Also, in \citep{seje+01} the $R_0$ of wheat yellow
rust was estimated to be around 60 from the measurements of the
apparent rate of infection $r$. This study used a more rigorous
approach to connect $r$ and $R_0$ that took into account the shape of
the sporulation curve. Our estimates of $R_{0\infty}$ are also
consistent, but somewhat smaller than the estimates from field
experiments, where the number of secondary lesions originating from a
single lesion was measured to be as high as several hundred
\citep{faes+13}.
The estimates for $R_{0\infty}$ that we obtained for wheat stripe rust
are considerably larger than typical estimates for the basic
reproductive number for human or animal diseases. For example, the
relatively large values of $R_0$ were estimated for childhood diseases
such as measles (14-18) and pertussis (5-18) \citep{anma91}, the
estimates for the ``swine flu'' influenza H1N1 were in the range
1.4-1.6 \citep{frdo+09}, the estimates for rabies were in the range
1-2 \citep{hadu+09}. A possible exception is malaria, where the
estimates of $R_0$ between one and more than 3000 were reported
\citep{smmc+07}. The $R_0$ determines the critical proportion $p_c$ of
the host population that needs to be immunized in order to eradicate
the disease ($p_c = 1 - 1/R_0$) \citep{anma91}. For example, our estimate for the
wheat stripe rust of $R_0 \simeq 50$ yields the critical proportion
$p_c \simeq 0.98$. This may explain why it is so difficult to
eradicate rusts, while there are cases of dangerous human diseases
(for example, small pox) that were eradicated with
the help of vaccination programmes \citep{anma91}.
This difference in the values of $R_0$ may
result from a different biology of hosts (animals versus plants), or,
alternatively, it could be due to different nature of the diseases,
i.\,e. systemic diseases in the case of humans and animals versus
local lesion diseases in the case of wheat stripe rust.
To determine which of these two explanations is more plausible, one
needs to estimate $R_0$ for systemic disease of plants and local
lesion (i.\,e. skin diseases) of animals.
This difference may also be caused by the characteristic features of
host populations in agroecosystems, where genetically uniform hosts
are planted with high densities in a homogeneous environment. Hence,
it would be interesting to compare the $R_0$ of crop pathogens with
the $R_0$ of plant pathogens in natural ecosystems.
These findings can be used to control plant diseases, if one knows the
spatial scales, i.\,e. field sizes and aspect ratios, over which $R_0$
changes considerably. We found that the $R_0$ of wheat stripe rust
exhibits a large change at a fine spatial scale: when the linear
dimension of a square field increases from zero to about thirty
meters (\fig{fig:r0-vs-a-empir-dprogr}). The most substantial change
of $R_0$ as a function of the field aspect ratio occurs between aspect
ratios of 0.01 and 0.2. These results suggest, that decreasing field
sizes and elongating fields may not be a practical measure to control
wheat stripe rust, because the beneficial effect of lowering the
disease levels is in this case unlikely to outweigh the economical
costs associated with using smaller and longer fields.
But this method could be feasible for controlling other diseases of
crops or pests (for example, western corn rootworm that can disperse
over longer distances \citep{caha+10} than wheat stripe rust).
We hope that our study will stimulate more detailed empirical studies
of the disease gradients for different crop pathogens over long
distances, such that the framework proposed here could be used to infer
how the $R_0$ depends on the spatial scales of the host population.
Although similar ideas about possibilities to control plant diseases
by adjusting field size and geometry were explored mathematically in
\citep{flma+82}, their framework based on reaction-diffusion models
was not capable of including realistic dispersal kernels. Hence, they
could not estimate the spatial scales at which the pathogen fitness
changes considerably.
The experiments in Hermiston 2002 and Madras 2002 used the same
planting density, the same wheat cultivar and the same pathogen race
was used for initial inoculation. But the environmental conditions
were somewhat different in these two locations. Hence, we can largely
attribute the difference in the disease gradients between these two
datasets and the resulting difference in the estimated values of the
basic reproductive number to the difference in the environmental
conditions. In contrast, in natural epidemics the variation in the
outcomes of pathogen dispersal can also result from the genetic
variation in pathogen and host population \citep{taha+14}. Therefore,
in would be interesting to explore the effect of simulataneously
adjusting the spatial scales and introducing genetic diversity to the
host population by using host mixtures or multiline cultivars
\citep{mu02,mimc+14a}
From another point of view, our findings could be helpful for choosing
the minimum plot sizes and aspect ratios for field experimentation in
plant pathology. For the experimental plots to be representative of larger fields
used by growers, the plot size and aspect ratio should
be chosen such that they correspond to the start of the saturation of
the dependency of $R_0$ on the field size
(\fig{fig:r0-vs-a-empir-dprogr}) and aspect ratio
(\fig{fig:r0-vs-arat-herm02dw}). Thus, our results indicate that
in the case of wheat stripe rust, the area of experimental plots
should be at least 0.25\,ha and the aspect ratio should be at least
0.2 (this corresponds approximately to a 20\,m$\times$110\,m elongated
plot, or, alternatively, a 50\,m$\times$50\,m square plot).
Our results could also help to manage fungicide resistance: if several
different fungicides are applied over smaller, elongated patches
within a larger field, then the fitness of resistant strains would be
diminished. This strategy allows one to keep the overall field size large
enough to be economically advantageous, but requires availability of
several different fungicides that have little or no cross-resistance.
The same reasoning applies also for the case of break-down of disease
resistance in host plants. In this case, host cultivars with different
disease resistances should be arranged in smaller, elongated patches
within a larger field.
Favorable arrangements of these patches with different fungicides and
host cultivars that would reduce selection for fungicide resistance
and minimize break-down of host defences can be investigated using
dynamical simulations of the population dynamics model based on
Eqs.\,(\ref{eq:host-par-ide-2d-1})-(\ref{eq:host-par-ide-2d-2}). In order to suggest economically viable implementations,
an epidemiological modeling framework should be coupled with a sound
economical cost-benefit analysis.
So far we discussed disease control on the level of a single field of
crops. But our study also provides a way to incorporate the
dependence of $R_0$ on the spatial stucture of the local host
population into models of disease spread on a regional scale (such as
the models described in \citep{pabo+06,pato+14}). In this
context we expect the nature of tails of the dispersal kernels to play
an important role in the disease spread and would influence optimal
strategies of disease control.
\section{Acknowledgements}
AM and SB gratefully acknowledge financial support by the ERC advanced
grant PBDR 268540 ``The population biology of drug resistance: Key
principles for a more sustainable use of drugs''. The contributions of
CM were supported by NIH grant R01GM96685 through the NSF/NIH Ecology
and Evolution of Infectious Disease Program. The authors would like to
thank Kathryn Sackett for providing estimates of the apparent
infection rate and helpful discussions. AM is grateful to Bruce
McDonald and Roland Regoes for many valuable discussions.
\section{Supporting Information}
\subsection{Linear stability analysis of the disease-free equilibrium}
\label{apsec:linstab}
\setcounter{figure}{0}
We linearize the model
Eqs.\,(\ref{eq:host-par-ide-2d-1})-(\ref{eq:host-par-ide-2d-2}) in the
vicinity of the disease-free fixed point $H(x,y,t)=K$, $I(x,y,t)=0$
and obtain the following equations for the small deviations from this
fixed point $\xi(x,y,t)$ and $I(x,y,t)$:
\begin{align
&\frac{\partial \xi(x, y, t)}{\partial t} = -r_H \xi(x, y, t) -
\beta K \int \kappa (x,y,u,v) I(u, v, t) du\, dv, \label{eq:dev-ide-2d-1} \\
&\frac{\partial I(x, y, t)}{\partial t} = \beta K \int \kappa (x,y,u,v) I(u, v, t) du\, dv - \mu I(x, y, t). \label{eq:dev-ide-2d-2}
\end{align}
The disease-free fixed point becomes unstable if the small deviation
$I(x,y,t)$ grows over time. To check this, we substitute $I(x,y,t)=
w(x,y) e^{\lambda t}$ in \eq{eq:dev-ide-2d-2}. Then, the stability of
the disease-free fixed point is determined by solving eigenvalue
problem
\begin{equation}\label{eqap:fredh2eigval}
\frac{\beta K}{\mu} \int_0^{d_x} du\, \int_0^{d_y} dv \, \kappa (r) w(u,v) = \sigma w(x,y),
\end{equation}
where $\sigma = 1 + \lambda/\mu$. The eigenvalue problem here consists
in finding the values of $\lambda_j$ and functions $w(x,y)$ satisfying
the relationship (\ref{eqap:fredh2eigval}). The disease-free fixed
point is unstable if at least one of $\lambda_j$ has a positive real
part. \eq{eq:fredh2eigval} is the homogeneous Fredholm equation of the
second kind and can be solved numerically using the Nystrom method
\citep{prte+92}. The dominant eigenvalue $\sigma_d$ determines the
basic reproductive number, i.\,e. $R_0 = \sigma_d$.
Note that the eigenvalue problem \eq{eqap:fredh2eigval} also determines
the stability properties of the corresponding integro-difference
system of equations in discrete time.
\subsection{Approximation for the basic reproductive number}
\label{apsec:r0-est}
Approximate expression for the basic reproductive number for the model
Eqs.\,(\ref{eq:host-par-ide-2d-1})-(\ref{eq:host-par-ide-2d-2}) can be
found by applying its intuitive definition ``the average number of
secondary cases of infection generated by one primary case in a
susceptible host population'' \citep{anma86} with the averaging
performed over the spatial coordinates. This leads to the
expression:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:naive-r0}
R_\mrm{0c}(x_0,y_0) = \frac{\beta K}{\mu} \int_0^{d_x} dx \int_0^{d_y} dy \, \kappa (x,y,x_0,y_0).
\end{equation}
Here, the basic reproductive number depends on the position $x_0$,
$y_0$ of the initial inoculum. The basic reproductive number in \eq{eq:naive-r0} does
not yield the invasion threshold at $R_\mrm{0c}(x_0,y_0)=1$ \citep{dihe+90}. However it may
serve as a useful approximate expression, since the calculation
according to \eq{eq:naive-r0} is often much simpler than the solution
of the eigenvalue problem \eq{eqap:fredh2eigval}.
In order to determine how good this approximation is, we obtain an
explicit expression for $R_\mrm{0c}(x_0,y_0)$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:r0-xy}
R_\mrm{0c}(x_0,y_0) = \frac{\beta K}{4 \mu} \left[ \mathrm{erf} \left( \frac{d_x-x_0}{\sqrt{2}d} \right) + \mathrm{erf} \left( \frac{x_0}{\sqrt{2}d} \right) \right]
\left[ \mathrm{erf} \left( \frac{d_y-y_0}{\sqrt{2} d} \right) + \mathrm{erf} \left( \frac{y_0}{\sqrt{2}d}\right) \right],
\end{equation}
where we substituted $\kappa(r)$ in \eq{eq:naive-r0} with the Gaussian
dispersal kernel
\begin{equation}\label{eqap:gauss-pdf}
\kappa_\mrm{G}(r) = \kappa_\mrm{0G} \exp [ -(r/ a)^2].
\end{equation}
The approximate basic reproductive number $R_\mrm{0c}(x_0, y_0)$ in
\eq{eq:naive-r0} depends on the position of the initial inoculum x0,
y0. In order to obtain a single quantity for a particular spatial
configuration of the host population, we average $R_\mrm{0c}(x_0,
y_0)$ over all possible values of $x_0$, $y_0$ within the field:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:r0-xy-av}
\langle R_{0c}(x_0,y_0) \rangle _{x,y} = \int_0^{d_x} dx \int_0^{d_y} dy \, R'_0(x,y).
\end{equation}
In the case of the Gaussian dispersal kernel the \eq{eq:r0-xy-av}
yields:
\begin{align}\label{eq:r0-xy-av-res}
\langle R_{0c}(x_0,y_0) \rangle _{x_0,y_0} = \frac{d^2}{d_x d_y} \frac{\beta K}{\mu}
& \left( \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} (\exp[ -d_x^2/(2 a^2)] - 1) + \frac{d_x}{a}
\mathrm{erf} \left[ \frac{d_x}{ \sqrt{2} a} \right] \right) \times \\
& \left( \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} (\exp[ -d_y^2/(2 a^2)] - 1) + \frac{d_y}{a} \mathrm{erf} \left[ \frac{d_y}{ \sqrt{2} a} \right] \right).
\end{align}
In Figure \ref{fig:r0-vs-a-naive-vs-proper}, the approximate basic
reproductive numbers $R_\mrm{0c}(x_0,y_0)$ calculated using
\eq{eq:r0-xy} (dotted curves), the spatially averaged $\langle
R_{0c}(x_0,y_0) \rangle _{x_0,y_0} $ [\eq{eq:r0-xy-av-res}, dashed
curve] and the exact basic reproductive number obtained by solving
\eq{eqap:fredh2eigval} (solid curve) are plotted versus the field size
$d$.
The approximate $R_\mrm{0c}(x_0,y_0)$ is highest when the initial
inoculum is introduced to the center of the field (upper dotted curve
in \fig{fig:r0-vs-a-naive-vs-proper}) and is lower at the field border
and in its corner (middle and lower dotted curves in
\fig{fig:r0-vs-a-naive-vs-proper}).
The spatial averaged $\langle R_\mrm{0c}(x_0,y_0) \rangle _{x_0,y_0}$
is reasonably close to the actual $R_0$ (cf. dashed and solid curves
in \fig{fig:r0-vs-a-naive-vs-proper}), but it underestimates the
actual $R_0$, because it neglects the contribution of the subsequent
generations of infection.
At $d \gg a$ the $R_0$ tends asymptotically to the maximal value of
$R_\mrm{0c}(x_0,y_0)$, achieved at the field center $x=d/2$,
$y=d/2$. The values of $R_\mrm{0c}(x_0,y_0)$ at the border and in the
corner of the field also reach constant but considerably smaller
values at $d \ll a$. This can be explained by the fact that when the
size of the field increases, the surface-to-volume ratio of the
square field decreases, meaning that the contribution of the hosts
close to the field border to $R_0$ steadily decreases.
\begin{figure
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{r0_approx_vs_fsize_kgauss.eps}} \caption{
Basic reproductive number $R_0$ as a function of the field size
$d$ of the square two-dimensional field measured in units of
the dispersal radius for the Gaussian dispersal kernel
[\eq{eqap:gauss-pdf}]. Solid curve shows the $R_0$ computed by
solving the eigenvalue problem in \eq{eqap:fredh2eigval}. Dotted
curves represent the approximate $R_{0c}(x_0, y_0)$, according to
\eq{eq:r0-xy} with the initial inoculum located at the field
center ($x_0=y_0=d/2$, upper curve), at the field border
($x_0=d/2$, $y_0=0$, middle curve) and in the corner of the field
($x_0=0$, $y_0=0$, lower curve). The dashed curve shows the
average $\langle R_{0c}(x_0,y_0) \rangle _{x_0,y_0}$ over the
field, according to \eq{eq:r0-xy-av-res}. Model parameters:
$\beta=4$, $K=1$, $\mu=2$.}
\label{fig:r0-vs-a-naive-vs-proper}
\end{figure}%
All the curves in \fig{fig:r0-vs-a-naive-vs-proper} behave in the same
way at small field sizes (i.\,e. when $d \ll a$): they increase
quadratically with the field size $d$, according to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:r0-asympt-sm-a}
R_\mrm{0asympt} = \frac{\beta K}{2 \pi a^2 \mu} d^2.
\end{equation}
Thus, the approximate expression for the basic reproductive number
\eq{eq:naive-r0} holds well in the two limiting cases: at small field
sizes (i.\,e. when $d \ll a$) and at large field sizes (i.\,e. when $d
\gg a$).
\subsection{Estimation of the basic reproductive number as a function
of the field size and shape}
\label{apsec:estim-r0-vs-a-arat}
The basic reproductive number, $R_0$ can be determined as the dominant eigenvalue of
the Fredholm equation \eq{eqap:fredh2eigval}
We compute it as a function of the dimensions $d_x$ and $d_y$ of a
rectangular field, which characterize its size and shape. To do this,
we obtain numerical estimates for the dispersal kernel $\kappa(r)$
(\sec{apsec:fit-dg} and \sec{apsec:dispfung-def-norm}) and the
parameter combination $\beta K / \mu$ (\sec{apsec:estim-r0-inf}), which as
we will show corresponds to the limit of $R_0$ at $d_x,\, d_y \to
\infty$.
\subsubsection{Fitting disease gradients}
\label{apsec:fit-dg}
Disease gradients were measured in terms of both average number of
lesions per leaf and disease severity in a large-scale experiment over
three consecutive seasons \citep{samu05,cowa+05}. The datasets
corresponding ot the average numbers of lesions per leaf in primary
disease gradients were fitted using several different model functions
\citep{samu05}. Here, we also fitted the disease severity measurements
corresponding to primary disease gradients
(\fig{figap:disgrad-data-fit-herm02-madr02}) for the two largest
datasets (Hermiston 2002 and Madras 2002) of the experiments
\citep{samu05,cowa+05}.
The following model functions are often used to fit the disease
gradient data.
Lambert kernel \citep{lavi+80}
\begin{equation}\label{eqap:lamb-kern}
y_\mrm{L}(r) = y_{0} \exp [ -(r/ a)^n],
\end{equation}
which includes the special cases of the exponential (or Laplacian)
kernel at $n=1$ and the Gaussian kernel at $n=2$.
Power-law kernel \citep{gr68}
\begin{equation}\label{eqap:powlaw-kern}
y_\mrm{PL}(r) = y_0 r^{-b}
\end{equation}
is used to describe disease gradients of pathogens with long-range
dispersal. However, the function approaches infinity at the focus
$r=0$, which is unrealistic. For this reason a modified power-law
kernel
was introduced \citep{mule85}
\begin{equation}\label{eqap:mpowlaw-kern1}
y_\mrm{PL1}(r) = y_\mrm{0} (r_0 + r)^{-b}.
\end{equation}
It exhibits the same behavior as the power-law kernel in
\eq{eqap:powlaw-kern} at large $r$, but the divergence is ``softened'' such
that the function has a finite value at $r=0$. In this study, we
used a different form of the modified power-law kernel
\begin{equation}\label{eqap:mpowlaw-kern2}
y_\mrm{PL2}(r) = y_0 \left( r_0^2 + r^2 \right)^{-b/2}
\end{equation}
that is very similar to \eq{eqap:mpowlaw-kern1}, but is more suitable for
extensive numerical computations required for the solution of the
eigenvalue problem in \eq{eq:fredh2eigval}.
Figure\,\ref{figap:disgrad-data-fit-herm02-madr02} shows the primary
disease gradients in terms of the disease severity for the two largest
datasets obtained in \citep{cowa+05,samu05}: Hermiston 2002 (left
panel) and Madras 2002 (right panel). Both of the datasets were fitted
using the exponential kernel [\eq{eqap:lamb-kern} with $n=1$], Lambert
kernel [\eq{eqap:lamb-kern}], modified power law 1
[\eq{eqap:mpowlaw-kern1}] and modified power law 2
[\eq{eqap:mpowlaw-kern2}]. The two modified power laws provided best
fits with the modified power law 2 being slightly better. It is
our kernel of choice, since it also allows for faster numerical
solutions of the eigenvalue problem in \eq{eq:fredh2eigval}.
The fit of the modified power-law function in \eq{eqap:mpowlaw-kern2}
to the disease gradient data shown in
\fig{figap:disgrad-data-fit-herm02-madr02} yielded the following
estimates for the parameter values:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:params-herm02dw}
\mrm{Hermiston\:2002\:downwind}\:r_0 = 2.2255\:\mrm{\,m,}\:b = 3.0365,\:y_0 =
6.4424;
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:params-madr02dw}
\mrm{Madras\:2002\:downwind}\: r_0 = 0.4486\mrm{\,m,}\:b = 2.2345, y_0 = 0.085127.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fit_empir_disgrad_herm02dw_madr02dw_app.eps}}\caption{Disease
gradient data (circles) from Hermiston 2002 downwind [left panel
(a)] and Madras 2002 downwind [right panel (b)] experiments
conducted by \citet{samu05,cowa+05}. Natural logarithm of
disease severity is shown versus the distance from focus. The data
was fitted by four functions: exponential [\eq{eqap:lamb-kern}
with $n=1$], Lambert [\eq{eqap:lamb-kern}], modified power law 1
[\eq{eqap:mpowlaw-kern1}] and modified power law 2
[\eq{eqap:mpowlaw-kern2}].}
\label{figap:disgrad-data-fit-herm02-madr02}
\end{figure}%
\subsubsection{Definition and normalization of the dispersal kernel}
\label{apsec:dispfung-def-norm}
We defined the dispersal kernel $\kappa (x,y,u,v) $ as a probability density
function for an infectious spore to land at a distance $r$ from its
source \citep{nakl+12}. A spore should eventually land somewhere is
reflected in the condition to normalize the dispersal kernel:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:kappa-norm-cond}
\int_0^{2 \pi} d \theta \int_0^\infty d r r \kappa(r, \theta) = 1.
\end{equation}
Here, we transformed the dispersal kernel to polar coordinates using
the relationships $x = r \cos \theta$, $y = r \sin \theta$. In the
case of isotropic dispersal $\kappa(r, \theta) = \kappa(r)$, i.\,e. the
dispersal kernel does not depend on the angle of dispersal
$\theta$. Then the normalization condition reads
\begin{equation}\label{eq:kappa-norm-cond-isotr}
2 \pi \int_0^\infty d r r \kappa(r) = 1.
\end{equation}
Next, we provide the normalization condition for the modified
power-law function $Y_\mrm{PL2}(r)$ [\eq{eqap:mpowlaw-kern2}] and for
the Lambert function [\eq{eqap:lamb-kern}].
The dispersal kernel $\kappa(r)$ is assumed to be proportional to the
disease gradient $y(r)$ (see \sec{sec:case-pstriiformis}). Therefore,
the dispersal kernel should be given by the same function as the
disease gradient
\begin{equation}\label{eqap:mpowlaw2-pdf}
\kappa_\mrm{PL2}(r) = \kappa_\mrm{0PL2} \left( r_0^2 + r^2 \right)^{-b/2},
\end{equation}
but with the different proportionality constant $\kappa_0$, which is
obtained by substituting the \eq{eqap:mpowlaw2-pdf} into the normalization condition \eq{eq:kappa-norm-cond-isotr}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:kappa0-pl2}
\kappa_\mrm{0PL2} = (b - 2) r_0^{b-2}/(2 \pi).
\end{equation}
This expression is valid only if the integral in
\eq{eq:kappa-norm-cond-isotr} converges, which is the case at
$b>2$. In both datasets used here (Hermiston 2002 and Madras 2002
downwind) this condition is fulfilled for the values of $b$,
corresponding to the best fit.
Similarly, the Lambert dispersal kernel has the form:
\begin{equation}\label{eqap:lamb-pdf}
\kappa_\mrm{L}(r) = \kappa_\mrm{0L} \exp [ -(r/ a)^n],
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:kappa0-lamb}
\kappa_\mrm{0L} =\frac{1}{\pi a^2 \Gamma \left( \frac{2+n}{n} \right)}
\end{equation}
is determined from the normalization condition \eq{eq:kappa-norm-cond-isotr}.
We use the numerical values for the best-fit parameters
\eq{eq:params-herm02dw} and \eq{eq:params-madr02dw} to obtain
estimates for $\kappa_0$ using \eq{eq:kappa0-pl2}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:herm02dw-kappa0-pl2}
\mrm{Hermiston\:2002\:downwind}:\:\kappa_0 = 0.3780,\:
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:madr02dw-kappa0-pl2}
\mrm{Madras\:2002\:downwind}:\:\kappa_0 = 0.03092.
\end{equation}
Thus, our estimates for the dispersal kernels $\kappa(r)$
are given by the \eq{eqap:mpowlaw2-pdf} with the parameter values from
\eq{eq:params-herm02dw} and \eq{eq:herm02dw-kappa0-pl2} for Hermiston
2002 downwind; and from \eq{eq:params-madr02dw} and \eq{eq:madr02dw-kappa0-pl2}.
\subsubsection{Estimation of the $R_0$ in the limit of a large field size}
\label{apsec:estim-r0-inf}
First, we consider the host population to be initially fully susceptible and
have the leaf area index of $K_0$. Then, we introduce a localized unit of
infected hosts (focus) at a position $x_0$, $y_0$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:unit-init-infect1}
H(x,y,t=0)=K, \: I(x, y, t=0) = I_\mrm{tot0} \delta(x-x_0) \delta(y-y_0).
\end{equation}
We are interested here only in the primary infections occuring due
$I(x, y, t=0)$, because the amount of disease due to the primary
infection (or the primary disease gradient) is often measured in
experiment (for example, \citep{samu05}). Hence, we derive the amount
of infection produced after a single time step $\Delta t$ from
\eq{eq:host-par-ide-2d-2}:
\begin{align}\label{eq:infects-td}
& \left[ I(x, y, t=\Delta t) - I(x, y, t=0) \right] / \Delta t = \\
& \beta \int_0^{d_x} du \int_0^{d_y} dv \kappa(x,y,u,v) I(u,v,t=0) H(x,y,t=0) - \mu I(x,y,t=0)
\end{align}
By substituting \eq{eq:unit-init-infect1} in \eq{eq:infects-td} we
obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:infects-td1}
\Delta I(x, y, t=\Delta t) = I_\mrm{tot0} \Delta t \, K_{\Delta t} \beta \kappa(x,y,x_0,y_0),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:deltai}
\Delta I(x, y, t=\Delta t) = I(x, y, t=\Delta t) - I(x, y, t=0)
\end{equation}
represents the primary disease gradient from a localized point-like
source.
Further, we assume dispersal to be isotropic and set the coordinate of
the focus to zero, i.\,e. $x_0=0$. Then, the amount if infected host
in the next time step and the dispersal function depend only on the
distance $r = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}$ from the focus, i.\,e. $I(x, y, t=\Delta t) = I(r, t=\Delta
t)$, $\kappa(x,y,x_0,y_0) = \kappa(r)$. We can then re-write the
\eq{eq:infects-td1}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:infects-td2}
\Delta I(r, t=\Delta t) = I_\mrm{tot0} \Delta t \, K_{\Delta t} \beta \kappa(r),
\end{equation}
Next, we connect $\Delta I(x, y, t=\Delta t)$ with the whole-plant
disease severity $y(r)$.
The quantity $I(r, t)$ in our model that represents the spatial
density of the infected host tissue. In the case of wheat stripe rust
it is the infected leaf area per unit land area (in analogy with the
``leaf area index'' (LAI), we will call it the ``infected leaf area
index'' (ILAI)). We express the disease severity as a ratio $y(r)
= \mathcal{I}(r)/ \mathcal{K}_{\Delta t}$, where $\mathcal{I}(r)$ is
the total infected leaf area at a location $r$ and
$\mathcal{K}_{\Delta t}$ is the total leaf area at a location. By
dividing both the numerator and the denominator of this expression by
the unit land area $\Delta s$, we obtain $y(r) = \Delta
I(r)/K_{\Delta t}$, where $\Delta I(r)$ is given by \eq{eq:deltai},
and $K_{\Delta t}$ is the total leaf area index. Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:deltai-propto-sev}
\Delta I(r, t) =\Delta t) = K_{\Delta t} y(r).
\end{equation}
On the other hand, from \eq{eq:infects-td2}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:deltai-propto-kappa}
\Delta I(r, t=\Delta t) = \beta K_{\Delta t} \Delta t I_\mrm{tot0} \kappa(r).
\end{equation}
By equating \eq{eq:deltai-propto-sev} and \eq{eq:deltai-propto-kappa}
we obtain the relationship
\begin{equation}\label{eq:disp-func-prop-disgrad}
\frac{\beta}{\mu} = \frac{1} {I_\mrm{tot0} } \frac{y(r)} {\kappa(r)}.
\end{equation}
Here we assumed $\Delta t = 1/\mu$, which implies that the consecutive
pathogen generations do not overlap (see the discussion in \sec{apsec:linstab}).
We multiply both sides of the \eq{eq:disp-func-prop-disgrad} by the
leaf area index $K_{\Delta t}$ at time $t = \Delta t$ and obtain the
expression for $R_{0\infty} = \beta K_{\Delta t} /\mu$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:r0infty-vs-params}
R_{0\infty} = \frac{K_{\Delta t}} {I_\mrm{tot0}} \frac{Y_0}
{\kappa_0}.
\end{equation}
Here we used the fact that $\kappa(r)$ is proportional to $Y(r)$ and,
therefore, their ratio equals to the ratio $Y_0/\kappa_0$.
Now, we determine the intensity of the initial inoculum $I_\mrm{tot0}$
[\eq{eq:unit-init-infect1}] from experimental parameters.
The $\delta$-functions in \eq{eq:unit-init-infect1} represent an
infinitely narrow peak of a unit height. This is an idealized
mathematical entity that can, however, be quite useful. It describes
the actual situation well if the spatial scale of interest is much
larger than the size of the focus. This was the case in the studies
\citep{samu05,cowa+05}, where the focus (the area inoculated initially)
was a square with the side $\Delta x_f = 1.52$\,m, while the spatial
scale over which the epidemic developed in the next generation was
50-80\,m for the two largest datasets (Hermiston 2002 and Madras 2002
downwind).
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cnct-itot0-sev0}
\int_0^{\Delta x_f} d x \int_0^{\Delta x_f} d y I_\mrm{tot0}
\delta(x-x_0) \delta(y-y_0) = I_\mrm{tot0} = \int_0^{\Delta x_f} d x
\int_0^{\Delta x_f} d y I_0 = y_0 K_0 \Delta x_f^2.
\end{equation}
Here, $y_0$ is the disease severity at the focus caused by
artificially inoculated spores (first generation) and $K_0$ is the
leaf area index at the time of inoculation (``zeroth''
generation). The \eq{eq:cnct-itot0-sev0} says what the intensity of
the initial inoculum should be if it was concentrated in a very small
area such that the total amount of disease is the same as in the
experiment.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cnct-itot0-sev0-shrt}
I_\mrm{tot0} = y_0 K_0 \Delta x_f^2.
\end{equation}
After substituting \eq{eq:cnct-itot0-sev0-shrt} into
\eq{eq:r0infty-vs-params} we obtain:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:r0infty-vs-params1}
R_{0\infty} = \frac{K_{\Delta t}} {K_0} \frac{1} {y_0 \Delta x_f^2} \frac{Y_0}
{\kappa_0}.
\end{equation}
The expression in \eq{eq:r0infty-vs-params1} now consists of the
parameters that are known from a typical disease gradient experiment.
We use the estimates we obtained above for the parameters $Y_0$
[\eq{eq:params-herm02dw} and \eq{eq:params-madr02dw}] and $\kappa_0$
[\eq{eq:herm02dw-kappa0-pl2} and \eq{eq:madr02dw-kappa0-pl2}], also
use the area of the focus $\Delta x_\mrm{f}^2 =1.52\,\mrm{m} \times
1.52\,\mrm{m}=2.31\,$m$^2$ for both datasets and the values for the
initial disease severity $y_0=0.227$ (Hermiston 2002) and $y_0=0.062$
(Madras 2002) \citep{cowa+05}. We also assume that the leaf area index
at the time of inoculation $K_0$ was two times smaller than its value
at the time of disease gradient measurement, when the plants almost
reached their maximum size, i.\,e. $K_{\Delta t} = 2 K_0$. By
substituting these values into \eq{eq:r0infty-vs-params1} we obtain
the estimates for $R_{0\infty}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:r0-inf-herm02dw}
\mrm{Hermiston\:2002\:downwind}\:R_{0\infty} = 65.0;
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:r0-inf-madr02dw}
\mrm{Madras\:2002\:downwind}\:R_{0\infty} = 38.0.
\end{equation}
Having obtained the numerical values for the parameter $R_{0\infty} =
\beta K_{\Delta t} / \mu$ and the function $\kappa(r)$, we solved the
eigenvalue problem in \eq{eqap:fredh2eigval} numerically for different
values of $d_x$ and $d_y$ and determined the basic reproductive number
$R_0$ as a function of the field size and shape. The results of this
computation are shown in \fig{fig:r0-vs-a-empir-dprogr} and
\fig{fig:r0-vs-arat-herm02dw}.
\subsection{Susceptible-infected model with spatial spore dispersal}
\label{apsec:si-spore-disp}
In this section we consider the model that takes into account spore
dynamics explicitly. Our goal here is to describe the approximation
that was used to obtain the simplified model
Eqs.\,(\ref{eq:host-par-ide-2d-1})-(\ref{eq:host-par-ide-2d-2}) that
do not explicitly include spore dynamics. For the sake of brevity we
consider the model in one-dimensional space, but it is straightforward
to extend the consideration to two dimensions.
The model of host-pathogen population dynamics reads
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial H(x,t)}{\partial t} &= r_H ( K - H(x,t)) - \beta' \int_0^d \kappa(|s-x|)
U(s,t) ds \, H(x,t), \label{eq:1host1fung1spore-1d-1}\\
\frac{\partial I(x,t)}{\partial t} &= \beta' \int_0^d \kappa(|s-x|) U(s,t) ds \, H(x,t) -\mu I(x,t), \label{eq:1host1fung1spore-1d-2}\\
\frac{\partial U(x,t)}{\partial t} & = \gamma I(x,t) - \mu' U(x,t), \label{eq:1host1fung1spore-1d-3}
\end{align}
where $H(x,t)$, $I(x,t)$ represent the areas covered by susceptible
and infected host tissue, correspondingly, per unit area of the field;
and $U(x,t)$ represents the number of spores per unit area of the
field.
Susceptible hosts $H(x,t)$ grow with the rate $r_H$. Their growth
is limited by the ``carrying capacity'' $K$, implying limited space or
nutrients.
Furthermore, susceptible hosts $H(x,t)$ may be infected by the
pathogen and transformed into infected hosts in the compartment
$I(x,t)$ with the transmission rate $\beta'$. The corresponding terms
in
Eqs.\,(\ref{eq:1host1fung1spore-1d-1})-(\ref{eq:1host1fung1spore-1d-2})
are proportional to the amount of the available susceptible tissue
$H(x,t)$ and to the amount of the infectious spores $U(x,t)$ at the
location $x$. Infectious spores are produced at the rate $\gamma$ and
lost at the rate $\mu'$.
Here, $\kappa(|s-x|)$ is the dispersal kernel that
characterizes the probability of an infectious spore, produced at the
location $s$ to land at the location $x$. The integration is performed
over all possible sources of spores within the field, i.\,e. over the
whole extension of the field from 0 to $d$, where $d$ is the size of
the field. We assume that the dispersal kernel depends only on the
distance $|s-x|$. The fact that the spore should land somewhere allows
to normalize this function such that the integral of it over the whole
space is unity:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:kappa-norm}
\int_0^{\infty} \kappa(r) J(r) dr = 1,
\end{equation}
where $J(r)=1$ for the one-dimensional case considered here, and $J(r)=r$ for the
two-dimensional case (in this case additional integration over the
polar angle is required).
We assume that the characteristic time scale of spore dispersal is
much shorter than the characteristic time scales associated with other
stages of the pathogen life cycle. Then, the equation for spores is
assumed to quickly assume the equilibrium state, with the left-hand
side equal to zero and $U(x,t) = (\gamma / \mu') I(x,t)$. This means
that the density of spores is proportional the density of the
infectious host tissue. By substituting this expression into
Eqs.\,(\ref{eq:1host1fung1spore-1d-1})-(\ref{eq:1host1fung1spore-1d-3}),
we reduce the model to just two
Eqs.\,(\ref{eq:host-par-ide-2d-1})-(\ref{eq:host-par-ide-2d-2}), where
the transmission rate is a compound parameter: $\beta = \gamma \beta'
/ \mu'$.
\subsection{The relationship between the basic reproductive number and
the epidemic velocity}
\label{apsec:relat-r0-epvel}
For the susceptible-infected epidemiological model where the
transmission of disease through space is described using the diffusion
term (proportional to the Laplacian of $I(x,y,t)$), the wave speed of
the epidemic, $c$, is proportional to $\sqrt{R_0 - 1}$
\citep{kero08epvel}. This relationship holds in the case of very local
dispersal: the diffusion term can be obtained from a more general
formulation in terms of a system of integro-differential equations by
performing the Taylor series expansions under the assumption that the
dispersal is sufficiently local. In addition, this requires that the
average dispersal distance is finite, and hence the dispresal kernel
must decay faster than $r^{-3}$.
In our case the dispersal is nonlocal and is governed by empirically
determined dispersal kernels that exhibit power-law behavior. In this
case, it is not straightforward to determine the analytical relationship between
the basic reproductive number and the epidemic velocity. A numerical
investigation can be performed by solving the system of
Eqs.\,(\ref{eq:host-par-ide-2d-1})-(\ref{eq:host-par-ide-2d-2})
numerically with the parameters corresponding to different values of
$R_0$ and determining the epidemic velocity.
However, we can still use the relationship $c \propto \sqrt{R_0 - 1}$
as a rough lower estimate for the epidemic velocity in this
case. Then, the ratio between the epidemic velocities $c_1$ and $c_2$
in plots with different sizes and geometries reads:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:epvel-ratio}
\frac{c_1}{c_2} = \sqrt{\frac{R_{01} - 1} {R_{02} - 1}},
\end{equation}
where $R_{01}$ and $R_{02}$ are the basic reproductive numbers in
these two different plots. We obtained the following estimates for the
basic reproductive numbers that correspond to the two plot sizes and
geomteries (plot 1: $61\,\mrm{m}\times 61\,\mrm{m}$; plot 2:
$6.1\,\mrm{m}\times 61\,\mrm{m}$) used in the experiments
\citep{samu09} (these are marked as white and gray circles in
\fig{fig:r0-vs-arat-herm02dw})
\begin{equation}\label{eq:r0vals-herm02dw}
\mrm{Hermiston\:2002:}\:R_{01} = 57.75,\:R_{02} = 34.91;
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:r0vals-madr02dw}
\mrm{Madras\:2002:}\:R_{01} = 22.83,\:R_{02} = 15.41;
\end{equation}
Substituting these values in \eq{eq:epvel-ratio} leads to the
following approximate ratios of the epidemic velocities:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:epvel-rat-herm02dw}
\mrm{Hermiston\:2002:}\:\frac{c_1}{c_2} = 1.286;
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:epvel-rat-madr02dw}
\mrm{Madras\:2002:}\:\frac{c_1}{c_2} = 1.217.
\end{equation}
Thus, we predict a moderate difference in epidemic velocities in these
two plots, while the empirical study \citep{samu09} reported no
detectable difference. We suggest two possible explantaions for this
discrepancy. First, our model assumed isotropic dispersal and
neglected the influence of the prevailing wind direction, while in the
experimental setting of \citep{samu09}, there was a strong anisotropy
in dispersal due to wind. Strongly directional wind may be capable of
masking the effect of plot size and geometry on $R_0$ and epidemic
velocity. This is because the smaller or narrower plots decrease
pathogen fitness due to the edge effect, i.\,e. due to the pathogen
spores that were lost outside the plot. In the presence of a strong
wind, in an elongated plot, the spores that would have been lost
outside the plot may well remain inside and contribute to the
development of the epidemic. This effect is expected to be strongest
when the prevailing wind direction coincides with the longer axis of
the plot, as was the case in the experimental setting
\citep{samu09}. On the contrary, we expect the effect of the plot size
and geomtry to be magnified by wind, when the wind direction is
perpendicular to the longer axis of the plot.
A second possible factor that may contribute to the discrepancy is the
experimental resolution: it may be challenging to be able to detect
differences in epidemic velocities of 20-30\,\% that we predict in
(\ref{eq:epvel-rat-herm02dw}), (\ref{eq:epvel-rat-madr02dw}).
|
\section{Introduction}
Archetypal analysis (AA) is a matrix factorization technique due to Cutler and Breiman \cite{Cutler1994-AA}. Although not as widely applied as other methods, AA is a powerful tool for data mining, pattern recognition, or classification as it provides significant \textit{and} easily interpretable results in latent component analysis, dimensionality reduction, and clustering. Robust and efficient algorithms have become available \cite{Bauckhage2009-MAA,Eugster2011-WAR,Morup2012-AAF,Seth2014-PAA,Thurau2010-YWC,Thurau2011-CNN} and examples for practical applications are found in physics \cite{Stone1996-AAOSTD,Stone2002-EAD,Chan2003-AAOGS}, genetics and phytomedicine \cite{Huggins2007-TTH,Roemer2012-EDS,Thogersen2013-AAO}, market research and marketing \cite{Li2003-AAA,Bauckhage2014-KAA,Sifa2014-AGR}, performance evaluation \cite{Porzio2006-AAF,Eugster2012-PAO,Seiler2013-AS}, behavior analysis \cite{Thurau2011-IAA,Drachen2012-GSA,Sifa2013-AM}, and computer vision \cite{Marinetti2005-MFM,Thurau2009-AII,Cheema2011-ARB,Prabhakaran2012-AMS,Asbach2013-UMS,Xiong2013-FRV}.
Here, we briefly review basic characteristics and geometric properties of AA and approach the problem of bounding its accuracy. We revisit the SiVM heuristic \cite{Thurau2010-YWC} for fast approximative AA and compare its best possible performance to that of conventional AA. In order for this note to be as self-contained as possible, we include a glossary of terms and concepts that frequently occur in the context of archetypal analysis.
\section{Archetypal Analysis}
Assume a matrix $\boldsymbol{X} = [\vec{x}_1, \vec{x}_2, \ldots, \vec{x}_n] \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$ of data vectors. Archetypal analysis consists in estimating two \textit{column stochastic} matrices $\boldsymbol{B} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times k}$ and $\boldsymbol{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times n}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:AA}
\boldsymbol{X} \approx \boldsymbol{Z} \boldsymbol{A} = \boldsymbol{X} \boldsymbol{B} \boldsymbol{A}
\end{equation}
where the parameter $k$ can be chosen freely by the analyst, but typically $k \ll \min\{m, n\}$.
The $k$ columns $\vec{z}_j$ of $\boldsymbol{Z} \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times k}$ are called the \emph{archetypes} of the data \cite{Cutler1994-AA}. Given \eqref{eq:AA}, we note the following characteristics of archetypal analysis:
Since $\boldsymbol{Z} = \boldsymbol{X} \boldsymbol{B}$ and $\boldsymbol{B}$ is \textit{column stochastic}, we observe that each archetype
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bs}
\vec{z}_j = \boldsymbol{X} \vec{b}_j
\end{equation}
is a \textit{convex combination} of columns of $\boldsymbol{X}$ where the vector of coefficients $\vec{b}_j$ corresponds to the $j$-th column of $\boldsymbol{B}$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfloat[data points $\vec{x}_i \in \mathbb{R}^2$ and their convex hull]{\includegraphics[width=0.32\columnwidth]{dataHull.pdf}} \hfill
\subfloat[$k=3$ archetypes $\vec{z}_j$ and archetypal hull]{\includegraphics[width=0.32\columnwidth]{atHull-3.pdf}} \hfill
\subfloat[$5=3$ archetypes $\vec{z}_j$ and archetypal hull]{\includegraphics[width=0.32\columnwidth]{atHull-5.pdf}}
\subfloat[$7$ archetypes]{\includegraphics[width=0.32\columnwidth]{atHull-7.pdf}} \hfill
\subfloat[$9$ archetypes]{\includegraphics[width=0.32\columnwidth]{atHull-9.pdf}} \hfill
\subfloat[$10$ archetypes]{\includegraphics[width=0.32\columnwidth]{atHull-10.pdf}}
\caption{Archetypal hulls approximate the convex hull of a finite set of data; the more archetypes, the better the approximation.}
\label{fig:hulls}
\end{figure}
Since $\boldsymbol{X} \approx \boldsymbol{Z} \boldsymbol{A}$ and $\boldsymbol{A}$ is \textit{column stochastic}, we also see that each data vector
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:as}
\vec{x}_i \approx \boldsymbol{Z} \vec{a}_i
\end{equation}
is approximated as a \textit{convex combination} of the columns in $\boldsymbol{Z}$ where the vector of coefficients $\vec{a}_i$ corresponds to the $i$-th column of $\boldsymbol{A}$.
Archetypal analysis therefore introduces symmetry into the idea of matrix factorization: \emph{archetypes are convex combinations of data points and data points are approximated in terms of convex combinations of archetypes}.
Results obtained from archetypal analysis are therefore intuitive and physically plausible. In particular, they will be faithful to the nature of the data. For example, if the given data are all non-negative, archetypes determined from archetypal analysis will be non-negative, too. Also, since archetypes are convex combinations of actual data, they closely resemble certain data points and are therefore easily interpretable.
The problem of computing archetypal analysis can be cast as the following constrained quadratic optimization problem
\begin{align}
\label{eq:E}
\min_{\boldsymbol{A}, \boldsymbol{B}} \; E = \; & \bigl \lVert \boldsymbol{X} - \boldsymbol{X} \boldsymbol{B} \boldsymbol{A} \bigr \rVert^2 \\
\text{subject to} \quad & \vec{b}_j \succeq \boldsymbol{0} \wedge \vec{1}^T \vec{b}_j = 1 \; \forall \; j \in \{1, \ldots, k\} \notag \\
& \vec{a}_i \succeq \boldsymbol{0} \wedge \vec{1}^T \vec{a}_i = 1 \; \forall \,\; i \in \{1, \ldots, n\} \notag
\end{align}
where $\lVert \cdot \rVert$ denotes the matrix Frobenius norm.
The minimization problem in \eqref{eq:E} resembles the objectives of related paradigms and therefore poses difficulties known from other matrix factorization approaches. In particular, we note that, although the objective function $E$ is convex in either $\boldsymbol{A}$ or $\boldsymbol{B}$, it is anything but convex in the product $\boldsymbol{A} \boldsymbol{B}$ and may therefore have numerous local minima. Hence, archetypal analysis is a non-trivial problem in general.
Next, we briefly discuss geometric properties of archetypal analysis and how they allow for efficient solutions. However, algorithms that solve \eqref{eq:E} are not our focus in this paper but can be found in \cite{Cutler1994-AA,Bauckhage2009-MAA,Eugster2011-WAR,Morup2012-AAF,Seth2014-PAA}.
\section{The Geometry of AA}
The astute reader may have noticed that archetypal analysis could be solved \textit{perfectly}, if $k=n$. In this case, both factor matrices could be set to the $n \times n$ identity matrix $\boldsymbol{I}$ which would comply with the constraints in \eqref{eq:E} and trivially result in $\lVert \boldsymbol{X} - \boldsymbol{X} \boldsymbol{B} \boldsymbol{A} \rVert = 0$.
A more interesting result is that, in addition to the trivial solution, AA can achieve perfect reconstructions even in cases where $k < n$.
Cutler and Breiman \cite{Cutler1994-AA} prove that, for $k > 1$, archetypes necessarily reside on the data convex hull. Moreover, if the hull has $q \leq n$ vertices and we choose $k = q$, these vertices are the unique global minimizers of \eqref{eq:E}. Increasing the number $k$ of archetypes towards the number $q$ of vertices therefore improves the approximation of the convex hull (see Fig.~\ref{fig:hulls}).
These observations allow for a simplification of the problem in \eqref{eq:E}. Assume the vertices of the data convex hull were known and collected in $\boldsymbol{V} = [\vec{v}_1, \vec{v}_2, \ldots, \vec{v}_q] \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times q}$. Archetypes could then be determined solely from matrix $\boldsymbol{V}$ by solving the appropriately constrained problem
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:V}
\min_{\boldsymbol{A}_q, \boldsymbol{B}_q} \; \bigl \lVert \boldsymbol{V} - \boldsymbol{V} \boldsymbol{B}_q \boldsymbol{A}_q \bigr \rVert^2 \\
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{B}_q$ is of size $q \times k$ and $\boldsymbol{A}_q$ of size $k \times q$. Once archetypes $\boldsymbol{Z} = \boldsymbol{V} \boldsymbol{B}_q$ have been determined, coefficients $\vec{a}_i$ for those data points not contained in $\boldsymbol{V}$ can be computed in a second step. The appeal of this idea lies in the fact that typically $q \ll n$ so that solving \eqref{eq:V} is less demanding than solving \eqref{eq:E}. Moreover, once $\boldsymbol{Z}$ is available, the problem in \eqref{eq:E} needs only to be solved for matrix $\boldsymbol{A}$ which requires less effort than estimating $\boldsymbol{B}$ and $\boldsymbol{A}$ simultaneously \cite{Bauckhage2009-MAA}.
Alas, there is no free lunch! This approach requires to identify the vertices of the data convex hull which is expensive if the data are high dimensional \cite{DeBerg2000-CG}. Nevertheless, there are efficient heuristics for sampling the convex hull of a finite set of data \cite{Bauckhage2009-MAA,Thurau2010-YWC,Kersting2012-MFA,Winter1999-NFA,Chang2006-ANG,Miao2007-EEF} and approximative archetypal analysis can indeed be computed for very large data matrices.
In this paper, we consider \eqref{eq:V} as a vantage point for reasoning about the quality of archetypal analysis and related heuristics. Accordingly, we henceforth tacitly assume that the $m \times q$ matrix $\boldsymbol{V}$ containing the vertices of the data in $\boldsymbol{X}$ was available. Moreover, to reduce clutter, we will drop the subscript $q$ of $\boldsymbol{B}_q$ and $\boldsymbol{A}_q$ and write both matrices as $\boldsymbol{B}$ and $\boldsymbol{A}$, respectively.
\section{Quality Estimates for AA}
Looking at \eqref{eq:V} we observe that the squared Frobenius norm may be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:H}
\bigl \lVert \boldsymbol{V} - \boldsymbol{V} \boldsymbol{B} \boldsymbol{A} \bigr \rVert^2
= \bigl \lVert \boldsymbol{V} \bigl( \boldsymbol{I} - \boldsymbol{B} \boldsymbol{A} \bigr) \bigr \rVert^2
\end{equation}
where the identity matrix $\boldsymbol{I}$ as well as the product matrix $\boldsymbol{BA}$ are both of size $q \times q$. However, while $\boldsymbol{I}$ is of full rank $q$, the rank of $\boldsymbol{BA}$ cannot exceed $k$, because its columns are convex combinations of the $k$ columns of $\boldsymbol{B}$.
Hence, given \eqref{eq:H} and assuming that $k < q$, we can interpret archetypal analysis as the problem of finding a convexity constrained low-rank approximation of $\boldsymbol{I}$. In this section, we explore to what extent this insight allows bounding the quality of archetypal analysis and approximative heuristics. In particular, we note that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bound}
\bigl \lVert \boldsymbol{V} \bigl(\boldsymbol{I} - \boldsymbol{BA} \bigr) \bigr \rVert^2 \leq \bigl \lVert \boldsymbol{V} \bigr \rVert^2 \, \bigl \lVert \boldsymbol{I} - \boldsymbol{BA} \bigr \rVert^2
\end{equation}
and ask how large or small can $\bigl \lVert \boldsymbol{I} - \boldsymbol{BA} \bigr \rVert^2$ become for $k < q$?
\subsection{Two general observations}
To begin with, we show that a perfect low-rank approximation of $\boldsymbol{I}$ is impossible. For the proof, we resort to geometric properties of the standard simplex to familiarize ourselves with arguments used later on.
\begin{lemma}
Let $\boldsymbol{I}$ be the $q \times q$ identity matrix and $\boldsymbol{B} \in \mathbb{R}^{q \times k}$ and $\boldsymbol{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times q}$ be two column stochastic matrices with $k < q$. Then $\bigl \lVert \boldsymbol{I} - \boldsymbol{BA} \bigr \rVert = 0$ cannot be achieved.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that the columns $\vec{b}_j$ of $\boldsymbol{B}$ lie the standard simplex $\Delta^{q-1}$ whose vertices correspond to the columns $\vec{e}_i$ of $\boldsymbol{I}$. In order for the difference of $\boldsymbol{I}$ and $\boldsymbol{BA}$ to vanish, their corresponding columns must be equal
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:proof1}
\vec{e}_i = \boldsymbol{B} \vec{a}_i = \sum_{j=1}^k \vec{b}_j a_{ji} \;\; \forall \; i \in \{1, \ldots, q\}.
\end{equation}
However, as a vertex of a convex set, $\vec{e}_i$ is \textit{not} a convex combination of other points in that set. Hence, in order for \eqref{eq:proof1} to hold, every $\vec{e}_i$ must be contained in the column set of $\boldsymbol{B}$. Yet, while there are $q$ columns in $\boldsymbol{I}$, there are only $k < q$ columns in $\boldsymbol{B}$.
\end{proof}
Having established that a perfect approximation of the unit matrix cannot be attained under the conditions studied here, we ask for the worst case. How bad can it possibly be?
\begin{lemma}
Let $\boldsymbol{I}$, $\boldsymbol{B}$, and $\boldsymbol{A}$ be given as above. The squared distance between $\boldsymbol{I}$ and $\boldsymbol{BA}$ has an upper bound of
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bound1}
\bigl \lVert \boldsymbol{I} - \boldsymbol{BA} \bigr \rVert^2 \leq 2 q.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The columns $\vec{e}_i$ of $\boldsymbol{I}$ and the columns $\boldsymbol{B} \vec{a}_i$ of $\boldsymbol{BA}$ reside in the standard simplex $\Delta^{q-1}$ which is a closed convex set. Any two vertices of $\Delta^{q-1}$ are at a distance of $\sqrt{2}$ and no two points in $\Delta^{q-1}$ can be farther apart than two vertices. Therefore,
\begin{equation}
\bigl \lVert \boldsymbol{I} - \boldsymbol{BA} \bigr \rVert^2 = \sum_{i=1}^q \lVert \vec{e}_i - \boldsymbol{B} \vec{a}_i \rVert^2 \leq q \left(\sqrt{2}\,\right)^2 = 2q.
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
This simple and straightforward result has consequences for archetypal analysis in general. Plugging it into \eqref{eq:bound} gives
\begin{equation}
\bigl \lVert \boldsymbol{V} \bigl(\boldsymbol{I} - \boldsymbol{B} \boldsymbol{A} \bigr) \bigr \rVert^2 \leq 2 q \, \bigl \lVert \boldsymbol{V} \bigr \rVert^2
\end{equation}
and we realize that \textit{the number of vertices $q$ of the data convex hull may impact the quality of archetypal analysis}. The more extremes there are, the higher the potential to err. However, the fewer extreme elements a data set contains, the better the chances of archetypal analysis to produce a good solution.
\subsection{Two more specific observations}
Curiously, the upper bound in \eqref{eq:bound1} does not depend on the number $k$ of archetypes to be determined. Our next questions are therefore if it can be tightened and the parameter $k$ be incorporated.
First of all, we note that stochastic rank reduced approximations of the identity matrix can be understood geometrically. Recall that the columns $\boldsymbol{B} \vec{a}_i$ of $\boldsymbol{BA}$ are convex combinations of the columns $\vec{b}_j$ of $\boldsymbol{B}$ which are $q$-dimensional stochastic vectors that reside in $\Delta^{q-1}$. Approximating $\boldsymbol{I}$ in terms of $\boldsymbol{BA}$ is therefore tantamount to placing $k$ vectors $\vec{b}_j$ into $\Delta^{q-1}$ such that its vertices $\vec{e}_i$ can be approximated in terms of convex combinations over the $\vec{b}_j$.
Also, a good solution to \eqref{eq:V} would mean $\boldsymbol{V} \approx \boldsymbol{V} \boldsymbol{BA}$ so that $\vec{v}_i \approx \boldsymbol{V} \boldsymbol{B} \vec{a}_i$. If one of the data vertices was reconstructed exactly, that is if $\vec{v}_i = \boldsymbol{V} \boldsymbol{B} \vec{a}_i$, then $\vec{v}_i = \boldsymbol{V} \vec{e}_i$ therefore $\boldsymbol{B} \vec{a}_i = \vec{e}_i$. However, $\vec{e}_i$ is a vertex of $\Delta^{q-1}$ and therefore \textit{not} a convex combination of points in $\Delta^{q-1}$. Therefore one of the columns $\vec{b}_j$ of $\boldsymbol{B}$ must equal $\vec{e}_i$ and the corresponding coefficient vector $\vec{a}_i = [0_1, \ldots, 0_{j-1}, 1_j, 0_{j+1}, \ldots, 0_k]^T$
In other words, selecting one of the $\vec{v}_i$ of $\boldsymbol{V}$ as an archetype is to place one of the $\vec{b}_j$ of $\boldsymbol{B}$ onto a vertex of $\Delta^{q-1}$.
Having established this, we can now analyze the SiVM heuristic for archetypal analysis. SiVM (simplex volume maximization) as introduced in \cite{Thurau2010-YWC} is a greedy search algorithm that determines $k$ data points in $\boldsymbol{X}$ that are as far apart as possible and may therefore act as archetypes. In light of our discussion, this heuristic can thus be understood as implicitly placing the $k$ vectors $\vec{b}_j$ onto $k$ of the $q$ vertices of the standard simplex $\Delta^{q-1}$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{q3k2-II.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:height} If two stochastic vectors $\vec{b}_1$ and $\vec{b}_2$ are placed onto two of the vertices of the standard simplex $\Delta^2$, the distance of the third vertex to the sub-simplex spanned by the $\vec{b}_j$ corresponds to the height of $\Delta^2$.}
\end{figure}
Say $\vec{e}_1, \ldots, \vec{e}_k$ had been chosen this way. Then what is the minimal reconstruction error for any of the remaining $q-k$ vertices $\vec{e}_l$? Again, we can argue geometrically. As the selected vertices form a subsimplex $\Delta^{k-1}$ of $\Delta^{q-1}$, any remaining vertex $\vec{e}_l$ would ideally be approximated by its closest point in $\Delta^{k-1}$. The distance $d$ between $\vec{e}_l$ and $\Delta^{k-1}$ corresponds to the height of the $k$ simplex formed by $\{\vec{e}_1, \ldots, \vec{e}_k, \vec{e}_l\}$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:height}). Given the expression for the height of a standard simplex, we therefore have
\begin{equation}
d = \sqrt{\frac{k+1}{2k}} \cdot \sqrt{2}.
\end{equation}
This then establishes that, running SiVM for $k \leq q$, we can achieve
\begin{align}
\label{eq:bound2}
\bigl \lVert \boldsymbol{I} - \boldsymbol{BA} \bigr \rVert^2
& = \underbrace{\sum_{i=1}^k \lVert \vec{e}_i - \boldsymbol{B} \vec{a}_i \rVert^2}_{= 0}
+ \underbrace{\sum_{i=k+1}^q \lVert \vec{e}_i - \boldsymbol{B} \vec{a}_i \rVert^2}_{\neq 0} \notag \\
& = (q-k) \cdot d^2 \notag \\
& = (q-k) \cdot \frac{k+1}{k}.
\end{align}
In contrast to the quality estimate in \eqref{eq:bound1}, the one in \eqref{eq:bound2} now depend on $k$. It decreases for growing $k$ and, as expected, would drop to zero, if $k = q$.
As a greedy selection mechanisms, SiVM is fast but suboptimal with respect to reconstruction accuracy. To see this, we next investigate what happens if the $\vec{b}_j$ are not necessarily placed onto vertices $\vec{e}_i$ of the standard simplex.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\subfloat[$q=3$, $k=2$]{\includegraphics[height=4cm]{q3k2-I.pdf}} \hfill
\subfloat[$q=4$, $k=2$]{\includegraphics[height=4cm]{q4k2-I.pdf}} \hfill
\subfloat[$q=4$, $k=2$]{\includegraphics[height=4cm]{q4k2-II.pdf}} \hfill
\subfloat[$q=4$, $k=3$]{\includegraphics[height=4cm]{q4k3-I.pdf}}
\caption{\label{fig:examples} Examples of how to place stochastic vector $\vec{b}_1, \ldots, \vec{b}_k$ into the standard simplex $\Delta^{q-1}$, $k < q$, so that its vertices $\vec{e}_1, \ldots, \vec{e}_q$ can be well approximated in terms of the $\vec{b}_j$. Each of these configurations achieves the accuracy derived in \eqref{eq:bound2}.}
\end{figure*}
We begin by looking at the problem of computing a rank $k=1$ approximation of $\boldsymbol{I}$, that is, the problem of placing only a single vector $\vec{b}$ into the standard simplex. Ideally, this vector would have a minimum distance to all the vertices and should therefore minimize
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:b}
E = \sum_{i=1}^q \lVert \vec{e}_i - \vec{b} \rVert^2 = \sum_{i=1}^q \bigl( \vec{e}_i^T \vec{e}_i - 2 \vec{e}_i^T \vec{b} + \vec{b}^T \vec{b} \bigr)
\end{equation}
Deriving this objective function with respect to $\vec{b}$ and equating the result to zero yields
\begin{equation}
2q \vec{b} - 2 \sum_{i=1}^q \vec{e}_i = 0 \; \Leftrightarrow \; \vec{b} = \frac{1}{q} \sum_{i=1}^q \vec{e}_i = \frac{1}{q} \vec{1}.
\end{equation}
Apparently, for $k = 1$, the optimal vector $\vec{b}$ is (of course) the center point of $\Delta^{q-1}$. At the same time, the $k \times q$ matrix $\boldsymbol{A}$ of coefficients degenerates to a row vector which, as it must be stochastic, is the vector $\vec{1}^T$. We therefore have
\begin{equation}
\bigl \lVert \boldsymbol{I} - \tfrac{1}{q} \vec{1} \vec{1}^T \bigr \rVert^2 = q \cdot 1^2 - q^2 \cdot \left(\frac{1}{q}\right)^2 = q-1.
\end{equation}
Next, we consider the problem of placing $1 < k \leq q$ vectors $\vec{b}_j$ into the standard simplex so as to approximate $\boldsymbol{I}$. Given our discussion so far, this problem can be approached in terms of subdividing the standard simplex $\Delta^{q-1}$ into $k$ disjoint sub-simplices and placing one of the $\vec{b}_j$ at the center of each of the resulting simplices. Put in simple terms, if we consider
\begin{equation}
q = \sum_{i=1}^k q_i
\end{equation}
such that $q_i \in \mathbb{N}$ and $q_i \geq 1$, the identity matrix can indeed be approximated with a reconstruction accuracy of
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bound2}
\bigl \lVert \boldsymbol{I} - \boldsymbol{BA} \bigr \rVert^2 = \sum_{i=1}^k (q_i - 1) = q - k.
\end{equation}
Interestingly, the quality estimate in \eqref{eq:bound2} decreases linearly in $k$. Again, and as expected, it will drop to zero, if $k = q$. The examples in Fig.~\ref{fig:examples} show several configurations for which this reconstruction accuracy is achieved.
Finally, the results in \eqref{eq:bound1} and \eqref{eq:bound2} allow for estimating the relative reconstruction accuracy of the SiVM heuristic in comparison to conventional archetypal analysis. Figure~\ref{fig:quality} plots the ratio
\begin{equation}
\frac{(q-k)}{(q-k) \frac{k+1}{k}} = \frac{k}{k+1}
\end{equation}
as a function of $k$. We observe that, for small choices of $k$, the accuracy of SiVM quickly improves, exceeds $90\%$ for $k > 10$, and then slowly approaches the theoretically optimal performance of conventional AA if $k$ is increased further.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{qualityRatio.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:quality} Relative reconstruction accuracy of the SiVM heuristic for fast approximative AA. For $k > 10$, can achieve more than $90\%$ of the performance of conventional AA.}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary and Conclusion}
In this note, we briefly reviewed the ideas behind archetypal analysis for data matrix factorization. We discussed geometric properties of solutions found by archetypal analysis and as to how far these allow for efficient heuristics for approximative AA. We then addressed the question of how to estimate the quality of AA algorithms. We showed that the problem of computing archetypal analysis can be reduced to the problem of computing a stochastic low rank approximation of the identity matrix. This point of view allowed us to characterize the optimal performance of SiVM heuristic as well as for conventional AA. Our results indicate that SiVM can provide robust solutions if a larger number of archetypes ($k > 10$) are to be determined.
\section*{Glossary}
Throughout this text, we are concerned with matrices and vectors over the field of real numbers $\mathbb{R}$.
Vectors are written as bold lower case letters ($\vec{v}$) and their components in subscripted lower case italics ($v_k$). $\vec{0}$ is the vector of all zeros and $\vec{1}$ is the vector of all ones.
Matrices are written using bold upper case letters ($\boldsymbol{M}$) and doubly subscripted lower case italics ($m_{ij}$) denote individual components. In order to express that a given matrix consists of $n$ column vectors, we also write $\boldsymbol{M} = [\vec{m}_1, \vec{m}_2, \ldots, \vec{m}_n]$
where $\vec{m}_j \in \mathbb{R}^m$ is the $j$-th column of $\boldsymbol{M} \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$.
We write $\lVert \boldsymbol{M} \rVert$ for the \href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_norm#Frobenius_norm}{\emph{Frobenius norm}} of $\boldsymbol{M}$ and recall that
\begin{equation*}
\lVert \boldsymbol{M} \rVert^2 = \sum_{i,j} m_{ij}^2 = \operatorname{tr} \bigl( \boldsymbol{M}^T \boldsymbol{M} \bigr) = \operatorname{tr} \bigl( \boldsymbol{M} \boldsymbol{M}^T \bigr)
\end{equation*}
as well as
\begin{equation*}
\bigl \lVert \boldsymbol{L} \boldsymbol{M} \bigr \rVert \leq \bigl \lVert \boldsymbol{L} \bigr \rVert \, \bigl \lVert \boldsymbol{M} \bigr \rVert.
\end{equation*}
A vector $\vec{v} \in \mathbb{R}^m$ is a \href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_vector}{\emph{stochastic vector}}, if $v_k \geq 0$ for all $k$ and $\sum_k v_k = 1$. For abbreviation, we write $\vec{v} \succeq \vec{0}$ in order to indicate that $\vec{v}$ is non-negative and use the inner product $\vec{1}^T \vec{v}$ as a convenient shorthand for $\sum_k v_k$.
A matrix $\boldsymbol{M} \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$ is \href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_matrix}{\emph{column stochastic}}, if each of its $n$ column vectors $\vec{m}_j$ is stochastic.
A set $\mathcal{S} \subset \mathbb{R}^m$ is called a \href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convex_set}{\emph{convex set}}, if every point on the line segment between any two points in $\mathcal{S}$ is also in $\mathcal{S}$, i.e. if
\begin{equation*}
\forall \vec{u}, \vec{v} \in \mathcal{S}, \; \forall a \in [0,1]: a \vec{u} + (1-a) \vec{v} \in \mathcal{S}.
\end{equation*}
A vector $\vec{v} \in \mathbb{R}^m$ is called a \href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convex_combination}{\emph{convex combination}} of $n$ vectors $\{\vec{v}_1, \vec{v}_2, \ldots, \vec{v}_n\} \subset \mathbb{R}^m$, if
\begin{equation*}
\vec{v} = \sum_{i=1}^n a_i \vec{v}_i \; \text{ where } \; a_i \geq 0 \; \text{ and } \; \sum_{i=1}^n a_i = 1.
\end{equation*}
Using matrix notation, we write $\vec{v} = \boldsymbol{V} \vec{a}$ where the matrix $\boldsymbol{V} = [\vec{v}_1, \vec{v}_2, \ldots, \vec{v}_n] \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$ and the vector $\vec{a} \in \mathbb{R}^n$ is a stochastic vector.
An \href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_point}{\emph{extreme point}} of a convex set $\mathcal{S}$ is any point $\vec{v} \in \mathcal{S}$ that is \textit{not} a convex combination of other points in $\mathcal{S}$. In other words, if $\vec{v}$ is an extreme point and $\vec{v} = a \vec{u} + (1-a) \vec{w}$ for $\vec{u}, \vec{w} \in \mathcal{S}$ and $a \in [0,1]$, then $\vec{v} = \vec{u} = \vec{w}$.
The \href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convex_hull}{\emph{convex hull}} $\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{S})$ of a set $\mathcal{S} \subset \mathbb{R}^m$ is the set of all possible convex combinations of points in $\mathcal{S}$, that is
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{S}) =
\biggl \{
\sum_{\vec{v}_i \in \mathcal{R}} a_i \vec{v}_i
\, \biggl| \,
\mathcal{R} \subseteq \mathcal{S}, \lvert \mathcal{R} \rvert < \infty, \vec{a} \succeq \vec{0}, \vec{1}^T \vec{a} = 1 \biggr \}.
\end{equation*}
A \href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convex_polytope}{\emph{convex polytope}} is the convex hull of finitely many points, i.e. it is the set $\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{S})$ for $\lvert \mathcal{S} \rvert < \infty$. The extreme points of a polytope are called \href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convex_polytope}{\emph{vertices}}. If $\mathcal{V}(\mathcal{S})$ is the set of all vertices of a polytope, then every point of the polytope can be expressed as a convex combination of the points in $\mathcal{V}(\mathcal{S})$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{2simplex.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:2simplex} The standard simplex $\Delta^2$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$.}
\end{figure}
The \href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplex#The_standard_simplex}{\emph{standard simplex}} $\Delta^{m-1}$ is the convex hull of the \href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_basis}{\emph{standard basis}} $\{ \vec{e}_1, \vec{e}_2, \ldots, \vec{e}_m\} \subset \mathbb{R}^m$, that is
\begin{equation*}
\Delta^{m-1} = \biggl \{ \sum_{i = 1}^m a_i \vec{e}_i \, \biggl| \, \vec{a} \in \mathbb{R}^m, \vec{a} \succeq \vec{0}, \vec{1}^T \vec{a} = 1 \biggr \}.
\end{equation*}
We note that the standard simplex is a polytope whose vertices correspond to the standard basis vectors (see Fig.~\ref{fig:2simplex}) and that every stochastic vector $\vec{v} \in \mathbb{R}^m$ resides within $\Delta^{m-1}$.
There are many useful results about the standard simplex $\Delta^{m-1}$. Among others, its side length is $\sqrt{2}$ and its height is known to be
\begin{equation}
h_{m-1} = \sqrt{\frac{m}{2 (m-1)}} \cdot \sqrt{2}.
\end{equation}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) enable the monitoring of large areas via many low powered sensor nodes (SNs)
with data acquisition, processing and communication capabilities \cite{Romer}.
However, WSN design is challenged by
the high optimization complexity typical of multi-agent systems~\cite{Bernstein},
necessitating decentralized SN operation based on \emph{local} information and limited feedback,
and needs to explicitly consider the resource constraints of SNs
In this two part paper, we present a {feedback-based} cross-layer framework for distributed sensing and estimation of a time-correlated random process at a fusion center (FC),
based on noisy measurements collected from nearby SNs,
which accounts for cross-layer factors such as the shared wireless channel, resulting in collisions among SNs, the sensing and transmission costs,
and the \emph{local} state and local view of the SNs.
In order to cope with the uncertainties and stochastic dynamics introduced by these cross-layer components,
the FC broadcasts feedback information to the SNs, based on the estimation quality achieved, thus enabling
adaptation of their sensing-transmission action.
We design joint sensing-transmission policies with
the goal to minimize the mean squared estimation error (MSE) at the FC,
under a constraint on the sensing-transmission cost incurred by each SN.
In Part I,
we provided a theoretical foundation for the reduction of the system complexity,
arising from the local asymmetries
due to the decentralized operation of SNs, their local state and local view, and the multi-agent nature of the system,
by exploiting the \emph{statistical symmetry} of the WSN with respect to the local view of the SNs and the \emph{large network approximation}.
However, the
dynamic programming (DP) algorithms designed in Part I
still have high complexity. In this second part, building on the results derived in Part I,
we design low-complexity \emph{myopic policies} for a \emph{coordinated scheme},
where the FC schedules the action (sense and transmit, or remain idle) of each SN, and
a \emph{decentralized scheme}, where the SNs determine their action in a decentralized fashion,
based on the feedback information and on their local accuracy state.
These myopic policies are designed in such a way as to optimize a trade-off between the MSE at the FC and the
sensing-transmission cost incurred by each SN.
For the coordinated scheme, we derive the myopic policy in closed form. For the decentralized scheme,
we present an iterative algorithm based on the bisection method \cite{bisection}, which converges provably to a local optimum of the myopic cost function.
Similar to the optimal policy derived via DP, the myopic policy dictates that, when the estimation quality at the FC is poor, the
SNs with the best observation quality activate by collecting high accuracy measurements and transmit them to the FC, to improve the estimation quality.
In contrast, if the estimation quality is good, the SNs stay idle to preserve energy. For both schemes, we derive, in closed form, the value of the threshold on the estimation quality below which the SNs remain idle, and show that it is independent of the number of channels $B$ employed. Additionally, we prove that, for severely energy constrained systems, one orthogonal channel ($B{=}1$) suffices. Numerically, we show that the myopic policies achieve near-optimal performance with respect to the globally optimal DP policy, at a fraction of the complexity, and are thus suitable for implementation in practical WSN deployments.
The problem of decentralized estimation and detection has seen a vast research effort in the last decade,
especially in the design of optimal schemes
for parameter estimation \cite{Xiao,Thatte,Xiao2}, hypothesis testing \cite{Ray,Tsitsiklis,Chamberland}, tracking \cite{Saber,Epstein} and random field estimation \cite{Fang}.
Distributed estimation in bandwidth-energy constrained environments has been considered in \cite{Chieh,Ribeiro,Msechu,Junlin}, for a static setting.
Estimation and detection problems exploiting
feedback information from the FC have been investigated in \cite{Dogandzic,Peng,Kreidl,Dey},
\emph{e.g.}, enabling adaptation of the SNs' quantizers in the estimation of a finite state Markov chain \cite{Dey}.
A consensus based approach for distributed multi-hypothesis testing has been studied in~\cite{Saligrama}.
Differently from these works, we employ a cross-layer perspective, \emph{i.e.}, we jointly consider and optimize the resource constraints typical of WSNs,
such as the shared wireless channel, resulting in collisions among SNs, the time-varying sensing capability of the SNs, their decentralized decisions,
and the cost of sensing and data transmission, and propose a feedback mechanism from the FC to enable \emph{adaptation} and cope with the random fluctuations in the overall measurement quality collected at the FC,
induced by these cross-layer factors.
This is in contrast to, \emph{e.g.}, \cite{Dey}, where adaptation serves to cope with the distortion introduced by quantization.
We do not consider the problem of quantizer design,
and focus instead on a \emph{censoring} approach \cite{Appadwedula,Msechu},
\emph{i.e.}, quantization is fixed and sufficiently fine-grained, so that the measurements received at the FC can be approximated as Gaussian.
In fact, in light of our cross-layer design perspective, quantization may be less relevant due to the overhead required to perform essential tasks such as
synchronization and channel estimation~\cite{Appadwedula}.
Distributed Kalman filtering for WSNs has been proposed in \cite{Olfati},
using a consensus approach and local Kalman filters at each SN.
In this paper, Kalman filtering is employed only at the FC, which collects unfiltered observations from the SNs.
In fact, due to the poor estimation capability of SNs and their energy constraints, which force them to
remain idle most of the time,
the performance gain achievable by exploiting the time-correlation via local Kalman filtering may be small.
This paper is organized as follows.
In Secs. \ref{model}, we present the system model
and some preliminary results from Part~I.
In Secs. \ref{analysisCoord} and \ref{analysisDistr}, we derive the myopic policy for the coordinated and decentralized schemes, respectively.
In Sec.~\ref{numres}, we provide numerical results.
In Sec. \ref{conclusions}, we conclude the paper.
The analytical proofs are provided in the Appendix.
\vspace{-3mm}
\section{System Model}
\label{model}
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{Main system parameters}
\label{tab1}
\vspace{-5mm}
\begin{center}
\footnotesize
\scalebox{0.88}{
\begin{tabular}{|c| l | c | l | c | l | c | l |}
\hline\T\B $\{X_k\}$& random process to be tracked
&
$S_A$& local ambient SNR
&
$Y_{n,k}$& measurement of SN $n$ in slot $k$
&
$\gamma_{n,k}$& accuracy state with
s.s.d. $\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma)$
\\\hline\T\B
$\alpha$& time-correlation parameter
&$S_{M,n,k}$& local measurement SNR
&$A_{n,k}$& activation of SN $n$, slot $k$
&$B_{n,k}$& channel ID for SN $n$, slot $k$
\\\hline\T\B
$\Lambda_k$& aggregate SNR at FC
& $\phi S_{M,n,k}$& sensing cost
& $c_{\mathrm{TX}}$& transmission cost
&$B$& \# channels available, $B\leq N_S$
\\\hline\T\B
$V_k$ & prior variance
&$\hat V_k$ & posterior variance
&$q$ & SN activation probability
& $N_S$ & \# of SNs, $N_S\geq B$
\\\hline\T\B
$\theta{\triangleq}\frac{\phi}{c_{\mathrm{TX}}}$& normalized unitary sensing cost &
$\bar M_{\delta}$ & average MSE
&
$\bar C_{\delta}^{n}$ &
\multicolumn{3}{l|}{
average sensing-transmission cost of SN $n$
}
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{table*}
\noindent In this section, we present the system model, whose parameters are listed in Table \ref{tab1}.
Consider a WSN with one FC, depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:WSN}, whose goal
is to track a random process $\{X_k,k{\geq}0\}$
following the scalar linear Gaussian state space~model
\begin{align}
\label{markovstate}
X_{k+1}=\sqrt{\alpha} X_k+Z_k,
\end{align}
based on measurements collected by $N_S$ nearby SNs.
In~(\ref{markovstate}), $k{\in}\mathbb N{\equiv}\{0,1,2,\dots\}$ is the slot index,
$\alpha{\in}[0,1)$ is the \emph{time-correlation parameter} and $Z_k{\sim}\mathcal N(0,\sigma_Z^2)$.
We denote the statistical power of $X_k$ as $\sigma_X^2{=}\frac{\sigma_Z^2}{1-\alpha}$,
and assume $\sigma_X^2{=}1$, since any other value can be obtained by scaling.
Each slot is divided in three phases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{FC instruction} $\mathbf D_k$, broadcasted by the FC (Sec.~\ref{FCinstruct});
\item \emph{Sensing and transmission to FC}: each SN, given $\mathbf D_k$, selects its
sensing-transmission action (Sec. \ref{ph2});
\item \emph{Estimation at FC}: given the measurements collected, the FC estimates $X_k$ via Kalman filtering (Sec. \ref{P3}).
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\scalebox{0.5}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (0,0) -- (-0.7,-0.35);
\node at (-1.6,-.5) {Estimate $\hat X_{k}$};
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (3,0) -- (0+0.5,0);
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (-2.12,2.12) -- (0-0.3535,0+0.3535);
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (0,-3) -- (0,0-0.5);
\node at (6,-2) {Process $X_k$};
\draw [fill=black,draw=black,thick,text=white] (0,0) circle [radius=0.5];
\draw [fill=gray,draw=black,thick,text=white] (3,0) circle [radius=0.5];
\node at (3,0) {SN1};
\node at (4,0) {$Y_{1,k}$};
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (3.7,0) -- (3.5,0);
\def2.12+0.6{3.5}
\def-2.12-0.25{0.35}
\draw [fill=white, ultra thick] (2.12,2.12) circle [radius=0.5];
\node at (2.12,2.12) {SN2};
\node at (2.83+0.2,2.83-0.2) {$Y_{2,k}$};
\draw [ultra thick,dashed, ->] (0,0) -- (2.47-0.7,2.47-0.7);
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (2.62,2.62) -- (2.47,2.47);
\def2.12+0.6{2.12+0.6}
\def-2.12-0.25{2.12-0.25}
\draw [fill=white, ultra thick] (0,3) circle [radius=0.5];
\node at (0,3) {SN3};
\node at (0,4) {$Y_{3,k}$};
\draw [ultra thick,dashed, ->] (0,0) -- (0,2.5);
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (0,3.7) -- (0,3.5);
\def2.12+0.6{0.6}
\def-2.12-0.25{3-0.25}
\draw [fill=gray,draw=black,thick,text=white] (-2.12,2.12) circle [radius=0.5];
\node at (-2.12,2.12) {SN4};
\node at (-2.83,2.83) {$Y_{4,k}$};
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (-2.62,2.62) -- (-2.47,2.47);
\def2.12+0.6{-2.12-1.2-0.6}
\def-2.12-0.25{2.12-0.25}
\draw [fill=white, ultra thick] (-3,0) circle [radius=0.5];
\node at (-3,0) {SN5};
\node[above] at (-1.5,0) {$d_{k+1}$};
\node at (-4,0) {$Y_{5,k}$};
\draw [ultra thick,dashed, ->] (0,0) -- (-2.5,0);
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (-3.7,0) -- (-3.5,0);
\def2.12+0.6{-3.5-1.2}
\def-2.12-0.25{0.35}
\draw [fill=white, ultra thick] (-2.12,-2.12) circle [radius=0.5];
\node at (-2.12,-2.12) {SN6};
\node at (-2.83-0.2,-2.83+0.2) {$Y_{6,k}$};
\draw [ultra thick,dashed, ->] (0,0) -- (-2.47+0.7,-2.47+0.7);
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (-2.62,-2.62) -- (-2.47,-2.47);
\def2.12+0.6{-2.12-1.2-0.6}
\def-2.12-0.25{-2.12-0.25}
\draw [fill=gray,draw=black,thick,text=white] (0,-3) circle [radius=0.5];
\node at (0,-3) {SN7};
\node at (0,-4) {$Y_{7,k}$};
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (0,-3.7) -- (0,-3.5);
\def2.12+0.6{0-1.2-0.6}
\def-2.12-0.25{-3-0.25}
\draw [fill=white, ultra thick] (2.12,-2.12) circle [radius=0.5];
\node at (2.12,-2.12) {SN8};
\node at (2.83,-2.83) {$Y_{8,k}$};
\draw [ultra thick,dashed, ->] (0,0) -- (2.47-0.7,-2.47+0.7);
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (2.62,-2.62) -- (2.47,-2.47);
\def2.12+0.6{2.12+0.6}
\def-2.12-0.25{-2.12-0.25}
\node [text=white] at (0,0) {FC};
\draw[->,decorate, decoration={snake, segment length=7mm, amplitude=1mm}] (5,-1.7) -- (4,-0.3);
\draw[->,decorate, decoration={snake, segment length=7mm, amplitude=1mm}] (4.4,-2) -- (3,-2.5);
\draw[->,decorate, decoration={snake, segment length=7mm, amplitude=1mm}] (6,-1.7) -- (3.6,2.4);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{{A WSN for distributed estimation, with FC quality feedback.
Each SN decides to either remain idle with cost $0$ or to collect and transmit to the FC the measurement $Y_{n,k}$ of $X_k$ with local measurement SNR $S_{M,n,k}$ and cost $c_{\mathrm{TX}}+\phi S_{M,n,k}$. The shared wireless channel results in collisions and packet losses. The FC,
based on the measurements received, computes an MMSE estimate of $X_k$, $\hat X_k$, and broadcasts the instruction $\mathbf D_{k+1}$ based on the estimation quality
achieved,
which is used by the SNs to adjust their sensing-transmission parameters for the next slot.}
\label{fig:WSN}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-3mm}
\subsection{Sensing and transmission to FC}
\label{ph2}
\noindent Each SN, at the beginning of slot $k$, given the instruction $\mathbf D_k$ broadcasted by the FC,
selects (possibly, in a randomized fashion)
the sensing-transmission parameters $(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k},B_{n,k})$,
where $A_{n,k}{\in}\{0,1\}$ is the \emph{activation} decision of SN $n$,
$S_{M,n,k}{\geq}0$ is the \emph{local measurement SNR} specified below, and $B_{n,k}{\in}\{0,1,2,\dots,B\}$ is the \emph{channel index}.
{If $A_{n,k}{=}0$, SN $n$ remains idle, hence $S_{M,n,k}{=}0$ (no measurement collected) and $B_{n,k}{=}0$ (no channel selected).
On the other hand, if $A_{n,k}{=}1$, then $B_{n,k}{\in}\{1,2,\dots,B\}$ and
the measurement of $X_k$ by SN $n$ is given by}
\begin{align}
\label{Ynk}
Y_{n,k}=\gamma_{n,k}X_{k}+W_{A,n,k}+W_{M,n,k},
\end{align}
where $W_{A,n,k}{\sim}\mathcal N(0,1/S_A)$ is the \emph{ambient noise},
and $W_{M,n,k}{\sim}\mathcal N(0,1/S_{M,n,k})$ is the \emph{measurement noise} introduced by the sensing apparatus,
independent of each other, over time and across SNs,
$S_{A}$ is the \emph{local ambient SNR}, and $S_{M,n,k}$ is the
\emph{local measurement SNR}, controlled by the $n$th SN, resulting in the sensing cost $\phi S_{M,n,k}$, where $\phi\geq 0$ is a constant.
The transmission cost is denoted as $c_{\mathrm{TX}}$, common to all SNs,
so that the overall sensing-transmission cost
is $c_{SN}(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k}){=}A_{n,k}(c_{\mathrm{TX}}{+}\phi S_{M,n,k})$.
We define the \emph{normalized unitary sensing cost} $\theta{\triangleq}\frac{\phi}{c_{\mathrm{TX}}}$, and
the \emph{sample average sensing-transmission cost for SN $n$} over a time horizon of length $T+1$ as
\begin{align}
\label{ctn}
C_n^{T}(A_{n,0}^T,S_{M,n,0}^T)=\frac{1}{T+1}\sum_{k=0}^{T}c_{SN}(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k}).
\end{align}
The \emph{accuracy state} $\gamma_{n,k}$, taking values in the finite set $\Gamma$, models the ability of SN $n$ to accurately measure $X_k$.
We model it as a Markov chain with transition probability $\mathbb P(\gamma_{n,k+1}{=}\gamma_2|\gamma_{n,k}{=}\gamma_1){=}P_\gamma(\gamma_1;\gamma_2)$ and steady state distribution $\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma)$,
i.i.d. across SNs, and we let $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k{=}(\gamma_{1,k},\gamma_{2,k},\dots,\gamma_{N_S,k})$.
We denote the best accuracy state as $\gamma_{\max}{=}\max\Gamma$,
and, without loss of generality, we assume $\gamma_{\max}{=}1$ and $\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma_{\max}){>}0$.
We denote the general scenario where $\gamma_{n,k}$ follows a Markov chain as \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario,
and the special cases where $\gamma_{n,k}{=}\gamma_{\max},\forall n,k$ deterministically
and $\gamma_{n,k}$ is i.i.d. over time as \emph{best-}$\gamma$ and \emph{i.i.d.-}$\gamma$ scenarios, respectively.
The $N_S$ SNs share
a set of $B\leq N_S$ orthogonal single-hop wireless channels to report their measurements to the FC.
We employ the collision channel model, \emph{i.e.},
the transmission on a given channel is successful if and only if one SN transmits in that channel.
\subsection{MMSE estimator at the FC via Kalman filtering}
\label{P3}
\noindent Let $O_{n,k}$ be the \emph{transmission outcome} for SN $n$, \emph{i.e.},
$O_{n,k}=1$ if and only if its transmission is successful. Then, the weighted average measurement
\begin{align}
\label{bari}
\bar Y_{k}\triangleq\frac{\sum_{n}O_{n,k}\frac{S_{n,k}}{\gamma_{n,k}}Y_{n,k}}{\sum_{n}O_{n,k}S_{n,k}}
\end{align}
is a sufficient statistic for $X_k$,
where we have defined the \emph{local SNR} for SN $n$
\begin{align}
\label{Slocal}
S_{n,k}=\frac{\mathbb E[(\gamma_{n,k}X_{k})^2|\gamma_{n,k}]}{\mathbb E[(W_{A,n,k}+W_{M,n,k})^2]}=
\gamma_{n,k}^2 \frac{S_{A}S_{M,n,k}}{S_{A}+S_{M,n,k}}.
\end{align}
Given the transmission outcome and $X_k$,
$\bar Y_k$ is a Gaussian random variable with mean $X_k$ and variance
$\Lambda_k^{-1}$,
where we have defined the \emph{aggregate SNR} collected at the FC as
\begin{align}
\label{Stot}
\Lambda_k\triangleq\sum_{n=1}^{N_S}O_{n,k}S_{n,k}.
\end{align}
Let $\hat X_{k-1}$ and $\hat V_{k-1}$ be the posterior mean (\emph{i.e.}, the MMSE estimate)
and variance of $X_{k-1}$ at the FC at the end of slot $k{-}1$,
\emph{i.e.}, $X_{k-1}{\sim}\mathcal N(\hat X_{k-1},\hat V_{k-1})$ is the belief of the FC
of $X_{k-1}$.
Before collecting the measurements from the SNs in slot $k$,
using~(\ref{markovstate}),
the belief of the FC of $X_{k}$ is $X_{k}{\sim}\mathcal N(\sqrt{\alpha} \hat X_{k-1},V_k)$,
where $V_k$ is the \emph{prior variance} of $X_k$,
defined recursively as
\begin{align}
\label{nu}
&V_k=\alpha \hat V_{k-1}+\sigma_Z^2=
1-\alpha(1-\hat V_{k-1})\triangleq \nu(\hat V_{k-1}).
\end{align}
Then, upon collecting the weighted average measurement $\bar Y_k$~(\ref{bari})
with aggregate SNR $\Lambda_k$,
the FC updates the \emph{posterior variance} $\hat V_k$ and mean $\hat X_{k}$ of $X_{k}$ as
\begin{align}
\label{nu2}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\hat V_k=\frac{V_k}{1+V_k\Lambda_k}
\triangleq \hat \nu(V_{k},\Lambda_k),
\\
\hat X_{k}=\sqrt{\alpha} \hat X_{k-1}+\Lambda_k\hat V_k\left(\bar Y_k -\sqrt{\alpha}\hat X_{k-1}\right).
\end{array}\right.
\end{align}
The function $\nu(\hat V_{k-1})$ determines the prior variance of $X_k$, given the posterior variance of $X_{k-1}$,
whereas $\nu(V_k,\Lambda_k)$ determines the posterior variance of $X_k$, given its prior variance $V_k$,
as a function of the aggregate SNR $\Lambda_k$ collected at the FC.
The MSE in slot $k$ is thus
\begin{align}
&\mathbb E\left[\left.(\hat X_{k}- X_{k})^2\right|V_{k},\Lambda_k\right]
=\hat \nu(V_{k},\Lambda_k).
\end{align}
We define the \emph{sample average MSE} under $\Lambda_0^T$ over a time horizon of length $T+1$ as
\begin{align}
\label{RT}
R_T(V_0;\Lambda_0^T)=\frac{1}{T+1}\sum_{k=0}^{T}\hat V_k,
\end{align}
where $\hat V_k=\hat\nu\left(\nu(\hat V_{k-1}),\Lambda_k\right)$.
\vspace{-3mm}
\subsection{FC instruction policy}
\label{FCinstruct}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{FC instruction policy}
\label{tabins}
\vspace{-7mm}
\begin{center}
\footnotesize
\scalebox{0.83}{
\begin{tabular}{|c| c | c | c |}
\hline\T\B
\multirow{2}{*}{\em Scheme} & \multirow{2}{*}{\em Activity $A_{n,k}$} & \em Local measurement & \multirow{2}{*}{\em Channel ID $B_{n,k}$}\\
& &\em SNR $S_{M,n,k}$ &
\\\hline\T\B
{\bf Coordinated} & Centralized, $@$ FC & Centralized, $@$ FC & Centralized, $@$ FC
\\\hline\T\B
\multirow{2}{*}{{\bf Decentralized}} & Local, w.p. $q_k(\omega_{n,k})$ & Local, $\sim S_{M,k}(\omega_{n,k})$ & \multirow{2}{*}{Local, random}
\\
& $q_k(\cdot)$ given by FC & $S_{M,k}(\cdot)$ given by FC &
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\vspace{-7mm}
\end{table}
\noindent At the beginning of each slot $k$,
the FC broadcasts an
\emph{instruction} $\mathbf D_k\in\mathcal D$, which, together with the local accuracy state $\gamma_{n,k}$,
is employed by SN $n$ to select $(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k},B_{n,k})$. We consider the following schemes:
\subsubsection{Coordinated scheme}
In the coordinated scheme, given $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k$, the FC schedules the sensing-transmission action $(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k},B_{n,k})$ of each SN.
Note that each SN is required to report its accuracy state to the FC,
whenever its value changes.
The communication overhead required to collect such information at the FC is analyzed in Part I.
Therefore, the instruction takes the form $\mathbf D_k{=}(d_{1,k},d_{2,k},\dots,d_{N_{S},k})$, where
$d_{n,k}{=}(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k},B_{n,k})$.
Since $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{k}$ is perfectly known at the FC at the beginning of slot $k$,
letting $\pi_{\boldsymbol{\gamma},k}$ be the belief of $\boldsymbol\gamma_{k}$ at the FC, we have that
$\pi_{\boldsymbol{\gamma},k}(\boldsymbol\gamma){=}\chi(\boldsymbol\gamma{=}\boldsymbol\gamma_{k})$,
where $\chi(\cdot)$ is the indicator function.
The value $\mathbf D_k$ is selected
based on $V_k$, and $\pi_{\boldsymbol{\gamma},k}$
according to some (possibly, non-stationary) \emph{instruction policy} $\delta_k(\mathbf d|V_k,\pi_{\boldsymbol{\gamma},k})\triangleq\mathbb P(\mathbf D_{k}=\mathbf d|V_k,\pi_{\boldsymbol{\gamma},k})$.
\subsubsection{Decentralized scheme}
In the decentralized scheme, the FC specifies
$\mathbf D_k{=}(q_k(\cdot),S_{M,k}(\cdot))$,
where $q_k{:}\Gamma{\mapsto}[0,1]$ and $S_{M,k}{:}\Gamma{\mapsto}[0,\infty)$
are, respectively,
the activation probability and
the local measurement SNR functions employed by each SN to select their sensing-transmission strategy in a decentralized manner, as a function of the local accuracy state $\gamma_{n,k}$.
Therefore, $\mathbf D_k$ takes value in the set $\mathcal D{\equiv}([0,1]^\Gamma{\times}\mathbb R_+^\Gamma)$,
and is generated according to some (possibly, non-stationary) policy $\delta_k(\mathbf d|V_k,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,k}){\triangleq}\mathbb P(\mathbf D_{k}{=}\mathbf d|V_k,\pi_{\boldsymbol{\gamma},k})$, where
$\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,k}(\boldsymbol\gamma_k){=}\mathbb P(\boldsymbol\gamma_k|\mathcal H_k)$
is the belief state of the accuracy state vector $\boldsymbol\gamma_k$, given the history of observations collected up to time $k$ at the FC, $\mathcal H_k$.
Given
$\mathbf D_k{=}(q_k(\cdot),S_{M,k}(\cdot))$
and the local accuracy state $\gamma_{n,k}$,
SN $n$ chooses its action $(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k},B_{n,k})$
as $A_{n,k}{=}1$ with probability $q_k(\gamma_{n,k})$,
$A_{n,k}{=}0$ otherwise; if $A_{n,k}{=}1$, then
$S_{M,n,k}{=}S_{M,k}(\gamma_{n,k})$ and $B_{n,k}$ is chosen uniformly from the set of channels $\{1,2,\dots, B\}$
(if $A_{n,k}{=}0$, then $S_{M,n,k}{=}B_{n,k}{=}0$).
Due to the randomized channel accesses, this scheme may result in collisions among SNs.
The distribution of the number of successful transmissions when each SN transmits with probability $q$ is denoted as
$p_R(r;q)$, and its distribution is characterized in \cite[Prop.~4]{MichelusiP1} and, for the case $N_S\to\infty$, in \cite[Corollary 1]{MichelusiP1}.
\vspace{-3mm}
\subsection{Performance metrics and optimization problem}
\label{sec:optprob}
\noindent Given the initial prior variance and distribution $(V_0,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0})$, and the instruction policy $\delta$,
we define the average MSE and sensing-transmission cost of SN $n$ over a finite horizon of length $T+1$
as
\begin{align}
\label{Cest}
&\bar M_{\delta}^{T}(V_0,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0})=\mathbb E\left[\left.R_T(V_0;\Lambda_0^T)\right|
V_0,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0}\right],
\\\label{CSN}
& \bar C_{\delta}^{T,n}(V_0,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0})=\mathbb E\left[\left.
C_n^{T}(A_{n,0}^T,S_{M,n,0}^T)
\right|V_0,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0}\right],
\end{align}
where $R_T(V_0;\Lambda_0^T)$ is the sample average MSE given by (\ref{RT}),
and $C_n^{T}(A_{n,0}^T,S_{M,n,0}^T)$
is the \emph{sample average sensing-transmission cost for SN $n$}, given by (\ref{ctn}).
The expectation is computed with respect to the activation, local measurement SNR, accuracy state and medium access processes
$\{\mathbf D_k,A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k},\gamma_{n,k},O_{n,k},n\in\{1,2,\dots,N_S\},k\in\mathbb N\}$, induced by policy $\delta$.
In particular, we are interested in the infinite horizon $T{\to}\infty$ (average long-term performance)
and $V_0{=}~1$,
so that we will drop the dependence on $T$, $V_0$ and $\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0}$ in the following treatment, whenever possible.
In Part I,
we have studied the problem of determining the optimal instruction policy $\delta^*$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{optproblag}
\!\!\!\!\delta^*=&\arg\min_{\delta} \bar M_{\delta}
+\frac{\lambda}{c_{\mathrm{TX}}}\sum_{n=1}^{N_S}\bar C_{\delta}^{n},
\end{align}
where $\lambda\geq 0$ is the Lagrange multiplier, which trades off MSE and sensing-transmission cost.
The problem (\ref{optproblag}) can be solved
via DP \cite{Bertsekas2005}.
Due to the high dimensional optimization involved, in Part I
we have derived structural properties of $\delta^*$ for the
\emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario, by exploiting the \emph{statistical symmetry} of the WSN and the \emph{large network} approximation,
based on which DP can be solved more efficiently. For the coordinated scheme, we have also
shown that a constant policy which collects a constant aggregate SNR sequence $\Lambda_k=\bar\Lambda,\forall k$ in each slot is optimal
in some special cases \cite[Theorem 2]{MichelusiP1}. We have then extended these results to the \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario.
\vspace{-5mm}
\subsection{{Complexity of DP}}
\label{complanal}
\noindent Despite the significant computational reduction achieved by exploiting
the statistical symmetry and large network approximation, DP has high complexity.
In fact, the optimization problem in each DP stage is non-convex, and the action space is very large.
Specifically, the DP algorithm for the coordinated scheme,\footnote{We remark that, owing to the large network approximation, the DP algorithms
are defined only in the \emph{best}-$\gamma$ scenario, where the belief $\boldsymbol\gamma_{k}$ is constant,
based on which an heuristic scheme is defined
for the \emph{Markov}-$\gamma$ scenario, see Part I.} provided here for convenience, is given by
\noindent {\bf COORD-DP: DP algorithm for the coordinated scheme, \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario.}
For $k=T,T-1,\dots,0$, solve, $\forall V_k{\in}[1-\alpha,1]$,
\begin{align}\label{DPgenCOORD}
\nonumber
&\bar W^{T-k}(V_{k})
=\!\!\!\!\min_{\Lambda_k\in [0,BS_A)}
\bar W^{T-k-1}(\nu(\hat \nu(V_{k},\Lambda_{k})))
\\&
+\hat \nu(V_{k},\Lambda_k)
+\frac{\lambda}{c_{\mathrm{TX}}} t^*(\Lambda_k)c_{SN}\left(1,S_{M}^*(\Lambda_k)\right),
\end{align}
where $\bar W^{-1}(V_{T+1})=0$, and $(t^*(\Lambda_k),S_{M}^*(\Lambda_k))$ are given in \cite[Prop.~3]{MichelusiP1}.
The optimizer, $\Lambda_k^*(V_k)$, is the optimal aggregate SNR collected at the FC in slot $k$,
from which the optimal number of SNs activated is $t_k(V_k){=}t^*(\Lambda_k^*(V_k))$,
with local measurement SNR $S_{M,n,k}(V_k)=S_{M}^*(\Lambda_k^*(V_k))$.
\hfill\QED
In order to implement the above DP algorithm,
the cost-to-go function $\bar W^{T-k}(V_{k})$ is evaluated only in
$N_V$ equally spaced sample points, rather than the interval $[1{-}\alpha,1]$,
\emph{i.e.},
\begin{align}
\mathcal V\equiv\left\{1-\alpha+\frac{i}{N_V-1}\alpha,\ \forall i=0,1,\dots, N_V-1\right\}.
\end{align}
For each sample point $V_k\in\mathcal V$, the optimal aggregate SNR $\Lambda_k^*(V_k)$ can be determined approximately
as follows:
first, the space $[0,BS_A)$ is quantized into $N_L$ equally spaced points,
\begin{align}
\mathcal L\equiv\left\{\frac{i}{N_L}BS_A,\ \forall i=0,1,\dots, N_L-1\right\}
\end{align}
(the sample point $BS_A$ is not included since it correspond to an infinite local measurement SNR, which is unfeasible).
Assuming an approximation of the cost-to-go function $\bar W^{T-k-1}(V_{k+1}),\ V_{k+1}{\in}\mathcal V$ in (\ref{DPgenCOORD})
is available from the previous DP stages, the term $\bar W^{T-k-1}(\nu(\hat \nu(V_{k},\Lambda_{k})))$ in (\ref{DPgenCOORD})
can then be approximated via linear interpolation.
An approximation of $\Lambda_k^*(V_k)$ can then be obtained via exhaustive search over the set $\mathcal L$,
with precision roughly given by $\Delta_L=BS_A/N_L$.\footnote{However, notice that, since the cost function in (\ref{DPgenCOORD}) is generally non-convex, the precision of such solution cannot be guaranteed.}
Therefore, in order to accomplish a target precision $\Delta_L$,
each DP stage requires $BS_AN_V/\Delta_L$ evaluations of the cost-to-go function.
If $T_{DP}$ stages are performed, the overall complexity scales with $BS_AN_VT_{DP}/\Delta_L$.
Similarly, the DP algorithm for the decentralized scheme is given by
\noindent {\bf DEC-DP: DP algorithm for the decentralized scheme, \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario.}
For $k=T,T-1,\dots,0$, solve, $\forall V_k{\in}[1-\alpha,1]$,
\begin{align}
\label{DPzeta}
&\!\!\!\!\bar W^{T-k}(V_{k})\!\!=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\min_{\!\!\!\zeta\in[0,1],S_{M}}\!
\sum_{r=0}^Bp_R(r;\zeta)\hat \nu\left(\!\!V_{k},r\frac{S_AS_M}{S_A\!\!+\!\!S_M}\!\right)
\!\!+\!\!\frac{\!\lambda\zeta\!}{\!c_{\mathrm{TX}}\!} c_{SN}(1,\!S_{M}\!)
\nonumber
\\&
\!+\!\sum_{r=0}^Bp_R(r;\zeta)
\bar W^{T-k-1}\left(\nu\left(\hat \nu\left(V_{k},r\frac{S_AS_M}{S_A+S_M}\right)\right)\right),
\end{align}
where $\bar W^{-1}(V_{T+1}){=}0$, $\zeta{=}qN_S/B$
is the \emph{normalized activation probability per channel}, and
$p_R(r;\zeta)$ is the distribution of $R_k$ for $N_S{\to}\infty$ \cite[Corollary 1]{MichelusiP1}.
The optimizer, $(\zeta_k^*(V_k),S_{M,k}^*(V_k))$, is the optimal normalized activation probability and local measurement SNR in slot $k$,
from which the activation probability is given by $q_k^*(V_k){=}B\zeta_k^*(V_k)/N_S$.
\hfill\QED
In this case, for each $V_k{\in}\mathcal V$,
an approximation of the optimal $(\zeta_k^*(V_k),S_{M,k}^*(V_k))$ can be obtained via exhaustive search over the grid
$[(\mathcal Z\setminus\{0\})\times\mathcal S_M]\cup\{(0,0)\}$, where
\begin{align}
&\mathcal Z\equiv\left\{\frac{i}{N_Z-1},\ \forall i=0,1,\dots, N_Z-1\right\},
\\
&\mathcal S_M\equiv\left\{\frac{i+1}{N_M-i}S_A,\ \forall i=0,1,\dots, N_M-1\right\},
\end{align}
and $N_Z$, $N_M$ are the number of samples.
Note that the choice of the samples for the local measurement SNR, $\mathcal S_M$, is such that the
interval of feasible values for the local SNR~(\ref{Slocal}), $(0,S_A)$, is uniformly quantized.
The points $\{0\}\times\mathcal S_M$ are not included in the search grid, since, when the transmission probability is zero, all SNs are inactive and
their local measurement SNR is $0$.
Similarly, $0{\notin}\mathcal S_M$, since the measurements collected with local measurement SNR $0$ are not informative and do not need to be transmitted.
The precision in the evaluation of $\zeta_k^*(V_k)$ is roughly $\Delta_Z{=}1/(N_Z{-}1)$,
whereas the optimal local SNR (\ref{Slocal}) is evaluated with precision roughly given by $\Delta_M{=}S_A/(N_M{+}1)$.
Each DP stage thus involves $N_V[(N_Z-1)N_M+1]$ evaluations of the cost-to-go function (\ref{DPzeta}),
so that the overall complexity after $T_{DP}$ stages scales approximately as $N_VT_{DP}S_A/(\Delta_Z\Delta_M)$.
Since the SNs typically have limited computational capability, in this paper, we focus on low-complexity control policies,
which can be implemented in practical systems.
Specifically, we investigate the \emph{myopic policy} (MP), defined as the solution of the optimization problem
\begin{align}
\label{MPgen}
&\delta^{(MP)}(V_k,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,k})=\arg\min_{\delta}
\mathbb E\left[
\hat \nu(V_{k},\Lambda_k)
\vphantom{\sum_{n=1}^{N_S}}\right.\\&\left.\left.\nonumber
+\frac{\lambda}{c_{\mathrm{TX}}}\sum_{n=1}^{N_S}c_{SN}\left(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k}\right)
\right|V_k,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,k},\delta
\right],
\end{align}
where $\delta$ depends on the specific scheme considered,
and the expectation is
computed with respect to the aggregate SNR collected at the FC, induced
by policy $\delta$, and the sensing-transmission decisions of the SNs.
Such policy neglects the impact of the current decision on the future, and only optimizes the current cost,
hence it corresponds to the first DP stage ($T_{DP}{=}1$).
In particular, the overall cost balances the expected MSE in slot $k$, $\mathbb E[\hat \nu(V_{k},\Lambda_k)|V_k,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,k},\delta]$,
and the expected sensing-transmission cost incurred by each SN in slot $k$, $\mathbb E\left[c_{SN}\left(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k}\right)|V_k,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,k},\delta\right]$.
We denote the average long-term MSE and sensing-transmission cost under the MP, for a specific value of $\lambda$, as $\bar M_{MP}^\lambda$ and $\bar C_{MP}^\lambda$, respectively.
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem1}
We note the following beneficial property of the MP:
given $V_k$ and $\Lambda_k$, the next state is $V_{k+1}{=}\nu(\hat\nu(V_k,\Lambda_k)){=}1{-}\alpha(1{-}\hat\nu(V_k,\Lambda_k))$;
therefore, the minimization of the expected MSE $\mathbb E[\left.\hat \nu(V_{k},\Lambda_k)|V_k,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,k}\right|\delta]$,
implicit in the definition of the MP (\ref{MPgen}), also yields a minimization of the expected prior variance in the next slot,
$\mathbb E[\left.\nu(\hat\nu(V_k,\Lambda_k))|V_k,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,k}\right|\delta]$, \emph{i.e.}, the MP not only minimizes the present cost in slot $k$,
but, on average, also moves the system to a "good" next state associated to a more accurate estimate of $X_{k+1}$.
Furthermore, note that the MP is optimal when the process $X_k$ is i.i.d. ($\alpha{=}0$) and $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k$ is i.i.d. over time.
In fact, in this case, the sensing-transmission decision in slot $k$ does not affect the next state $V_{k+1}$ and the future cost, hence $V_k=1$ in each slot.
\end{remark}
\section{Myopic Policy: Coordinated scheme}
\label{analysisCoord}
\noindent In this section, we analyze the MP for the coordinated scheme.
As in Part I, we first investigate the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario, and then extend the analysis
to the \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario.
\vspace{-2mm}
\subsection{\emph{Best-}$\gamma$ scenario}
\label{bestomegacoord}
\noindent In this case, the belief $\pi_{\boldsymbol{\gamma},k}$ is constant and can be neglected.
From (\ref{MPgen}), using the structural properties of \cite[Prop.~2]{MichelusiP1}, \emph{i.e.}, $S_{M,n,k}=S_{M,k},\forall k$, the MP is defined as
\begin{align}
\label{MPcost}
(t^{(MP)},S_M^{(MP)})(V_k)=&
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\underset{t\in\{0,1,\dots,B\},S_M\geq 0}{\arg\min}
\hat \nu\left(V_{k},t\frac{S_AS_M}{S_A+S_M}\right)
\nonumber\\&
+\frac{\lambda}{c_{\mathrm{TX}}} t c_{SN}\left(1,S_M\right),
\end{align}
where $t^{(MP)}(V_k)$ is the number of SNs activated and $S_M^{(MP)}(V_k)$
is the common local measurement SNR.
The $t^{(MP)}(V_k)$ SNs are selected randomly from the set of $N_S$ SNs.
The following theorem derives a closed-form expression of the MP.
We denote by $\lceil x\rceil$ for $x\in\mathbb R$ the ceiling operation.
\vspace{-7mm}
\begin{thm}
\label{lemMPclosedform}
Let $\lambda{\leq}\frac{1}{\left(\sqrt{1+1/S_A}+\sqrt{\theta}\right)^2}{\triangleq}\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$,
$v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,-1){\triangleq}0$,
$t^*{\triangleq}\left\lceil\sqrt{\frac{1}{\lambda S_A}{+}\frac{1}{4}}{-}\frac{3}{2}\right\rceil$,
and, for $0\!\leq\!t\!\leq\!t^*$,
\begin{align}
\label{vth}
&v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,t)
\triangleq
\frac{
\sqrt{\lambda\theta}+\lambda\left(t+\frac{1}{2}\right)
}
{1-\lambda (t+1)tS_A}
\\& \nonumber
+
\frac{
\sqrt{\lambda}
\sqrt{
\sqrt{\lambda\theta}(2t+1)
+\lambda \theta(t+1)tS_A
+\frac{\lambda}{4}
+\frac{1}{S_A}
}
}{1-\lambda(t+1)tS_A}.
\end{align}
We have the following cases:
\noindent \emph{i)} if $V_k{>}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,t^*)$, then $t^{(MP)}(V_k){=}\min\{t^*+1,B\}$;
\noindent \emph{ii)} if $V_k{=}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,\hat t)$, for some $\hat t{\in}\{0,1,\dots,t^*\}$, then $t^{(MP)}(V_k){=}\min\{\hat t{+}1,B\}$ with probability $p_{\hat t}$,
$t^{(MP)}(V_k){=}\min\{\hat t,B\}$ otherwise, for some $p_{\hat t}{\in}[0,1]$;
\noindent \emph{iii)} otherwise, $t^{(MP)}(V_k){=}\min\{\hat t,B\}$, where $\hat t$ is the unique $\hat t{\in}\{0,1,\dots,t^*\}$ such that $v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,\hat t{-}1){<}V_k{<}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,\hat t)$.
\noindent \emph{iv)} In all cases,
\begin{align}
\label{optSM}
S_M^{(MP)}(V_k)=\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda\theta}}-\frac{1}{V_k}\right)\frac{S_AV_k}{1+t^{(MP)}(V_k)S_AV_k}.
\end{align}
\end{thm}
\noindent\emph{Proof:}
See Appendix \ref{proofoflemMPclosedform}.
\hfill\QED
\noindent Note that, when $V_k{=}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,\hat t)$, for some $\hat t{\in}\{0,1,\dots,t^*\}$, the choice of $t^{(MP)}(V_k)$ is probabilistic.
This is because both solutions $t^{(MP)}(V_k){=}\min\{\hat t,B\}$ and $t^{(MP)}(V_k){=}\min\{\hat t{+}1,B\}$
attain the same cost in (\ref{MPcost}). By varying the probability $p_{\hat t}{\in}[0,1]$, different trade-offs between MSE and sensing-transmission cost are obtained.
The case $\lambda{>}\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$ is of no interest, since the sensing-transmission cost
in (\ref{MPcost}) becomes too large, thus forcing the trivial MP $t^{(MP)}(V_k){=}0,\forall V_k$.
The threshold $v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,t)$ is an increasing function of $t$.
The implication is that, the poorer the estimate of $X_k$, \emph{i.e.}, the larger $V_k$, the more SNs activated,
and thus the larger the sensing-transmission costs incurred.
In other words, the limited resources available are allocated only when the FC is most uncertain about the state, \emph{i.e.}, when the estimate of
$X_k$ is poor and needs to be improved. On the other hand, the SNs are kept idle when the FC has an accurate estimate of $X_k$, in order to preserve energy.
Moreover, $S_M^{(MP)}(V_k)$ is a piecewise increasing function of $V_k$, except at the boundaries $v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,t)$ corresponding to transitions in the number of SNs activated, increasing function of $S_A$ and decreasing function of $\theta$.
In fact, $S_A$ determines the error floor in the measurement collected by each SN, so that,
as $S_A$ increases and the ambient noise becomes less relevant,
or the sensing cost decreases (as a consequence of decreasing $\theta$),
there is a stronger incentive to collect more accurate measurements.
The next proposition gives properties of the performance achieved by the MP, in the asymptotic regime $\lambda\to \{0,\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}\}$.
\begin{propos}
\label{lemperformance}
In the limits $\lambda\to 0$ and $\lambda\to \lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$,
the MP attains the following average long-term performance:
\begin{align}
&\lim_{\lambda\to0}\bar M_{MP}^\lambda=\hat\nu^*(BS_A),\
&\lim_{\lambda\to0}\bar C_{MP}^\lambda=\infty,\\
&\lim_{\lambda\to\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}}\bar M_{MP}^\lambda=1,\
&\lim_{\lambda\to\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}}\bar C_{MP}^\lambda=0,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\label{nuing}
\!\!\hat\nu^*(x)\triangleq\frac{
\sqrt{\!(1\!-\!\alpha)^2(1\!+\!x^2)\!+\!2(1\!\!-\!\!\alpha^2)x}
\!-\!(1\!-\!\alpha)(1\!+\!x)
}
{
2\alpha x
}.
\end{align}
\end{propos}
\noindent\emph{Proof:}
See Appendix \ref{proofoflemperformance}.
\hfill\QED
\noindent As expected, when $\lambda{\to}\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$, the sensing-transmission cost becomes dominant in the overall MP cost function,
hence the SNs are forced to remain idle in each slot. The resulting sensing-transmission cost is zero, and the MSE is $1$, since no measurements are received at the FC.
On the other hand, when $\lambda{\to}0$, the MSE cost becomes dominant. In this case, all $B$ channels are used to transmit
the measurements to the FC in each slot, and each measurement is collected with infinitely large measurement SNR $S_M{\to}\infty$, so that the aggregate SNR collected at the
FC is $BS_A$, hence the sensing-transmission cost converges to $\infty$ and the MSE to $\hat\nu^*(BS_A)$
\cite[Prop.~7]{MichelusiP1}.
\subsubsection{Complexity of the MP}
\label{complmpcoord}
Note that the MP for the coordinated scheme can be determined in closed form, and therefore its complexity scales with $N_V$, the number of
sample points in the prior variance state space $\mathcal V$.
Therefore, a significant complexity reduction is achieved with respect to DP (\ref{DPgenCOORD}),
with complexity $BS_AN_VT_{DP}/\Delta_L$ (Sec. \ref{complanal}).
In the next section, we further specialize the analysis to the case $S_A\to\infty$, which provides further insights on the structure of the MP. In this case, the measurement $Y_{n,k}$ collected by SN $n$ is only subject to
additive Gaussian measurement noise, whereas the ambient noise is zero.
\vspace{-3mm}
\subsection{\emph{Best-}$\gamma$ scenario with $S_A\to\infty$}
\noindent We have the following corollary of Theorem~\ref{lemMPclosedform}.
\begin{corol}
\label{corolMPclosedform}
Let $\lambda\leq\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}=\frac{1}{\left(1+\sqrt{\theta}\right)^2}$
and
\begin{align}
v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)
\triangleq
\sqrt{\lambda\theta}+\frac{\lambda}{2}
+
\sqrt{\lambda}
\sqrt{
\sqrt{\lambda\theta}
+\frac{\lambda}{4}
}.
\end{align}
\noindent \emph{i)} If $V_k>v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$, then the MP is $t^{(MP)}(V_k)=1$ and
\begin{align}
\label{SAinf}
S_M^{(MP)}(V_k)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda\theta}}-\frac{1}{V_k}.
\end{align}
\noindent \emph{ii)} If $V_k{<}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$, the MP is $t^{(MP)}(V_k){=}S_M^{(MP)}(V_k){=}0$.
\noindent \emph{iii)} Finally, if $V_k{=}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$, the MP is
$t^{(MP)}(V_k){=}1$, $S_M^{(MP)}(V_k){=}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda\theta}}{-}\frac{1}{V_k}$ with probaility $p_0$,
and
$t^{(MP)}(V_k){=}0$, $S_M^{(MP)}(V_k){=}0$ with probability $1{-}p_0$, for some $p_0{\in}[0,1]$.
\end{corol}
Corollary \ref{corolMPclosedform}
dictates that, when $S_A{\to}\infty$, only one SN may activate, \emph{i.e.}, the sensing-transmission burden
is concentrated on a single SN, whereas all the other SNs remain idle.
In fact, the ambient noise provides an SNR floor in the quality of the measurement collected by each SN.
When $S_A$ is finite, \emph{i.e.}, the ambient noise is non-zero, it may be desirable to collect multiple measurements from multiple sensors, in order to average out the effect
of the ambient noise, despite the fact that a large transmission cost may be incurred.
On the other hand, when $S_A$ is infinite, \emph{i.e.}, the ambient noise is zero, there is no need to average out the ambient noise, hence it is beneficial to
collect a highly accurate measurement from one SN only, in order to minimize the transmission cost.
This result implies that one orthogonal channel ($B{=}1$) suffices in this case.
Alternatively, in order to collect the target aggregate SNR $\Lambda_k{>}0$, the FC should activate
$t{>}0$ SNs with local SNR $S_{M,n,k}{=}\Lambda_k/t$.
The resulting overall network cost is
$tc_{\mathrm{TX}}+\phi \Lambda_k$, minimized by $t=1$.
In the next theorem we characterize, in closed form, the performance of the MP when $S_A\to\infty$.
To this end, we define
$\lambda_j^*$ to be the unique solution of $\eta_j(\lambda_j^*)=0$, where
\begin{align}
\label{etak}
\eta_j(\lambda)\triangleq1-\alpha^{j}(1-\sqrt{\lambda\theta})-v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0),\ j\geq 0,\lambda\geq 0.
\end{align}
In the statement of the theorem and in its proof, we make use of properties of $ \eta_j(\lambda)$ and $\lambda_j^*$, stated in Prop.~\ref{eta} in Appendix~\ref{proofofeta}.
\begin{thm}
\label{lemSAinf}
Let $S_A{=}\infty$, $J{\geq}1$, $\lambda{\in}(\lambda_{J-1}^*,\lambda_J^*]$, $\hat V^*{=}\sqrt{\lambda\theta}$.
\noindent \emph{i)} If $\lambda=\lambda_J^*$, then
\begin{align}
\label{Rinf}
&\!\!\!\bar M_{MP}^{\lambda,p_0}
\!=\!
1\!-\!\frac{\{1\!-\!\alpha^{J}[1\!-\!(1\!-\!\alpha)(1\!-\!p_0)]\}(1\!-\!\hat V^*)}{(J+1-p_0)(1-\alpha)},
\\
\label{Cinf}
&\!\!\!\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda,p_0}
\!=\!
\frac{1}{N_S(k+1-p_0)}
\left[c_{\mathrm{TX}}
+\phi\frac{1}{\hat V^*}(1-\hat V^*)
\right.
\\&
\left.\times\left(
\!p_0\frac{1-\alpha^{J}}{1\!-\!\alpha^{J}(1\!-\!\hat V^*)}\!
+\!(1-p_0)\frac{1-\alpha^{J+1}}{1\!-\!\alpha^{J+1}(1\!-\!\hat V^*)}
\!\right)\right]\!.\!
\nonumber
\end{align}
\noindent \emph{ii)} Otherwise ($\lambda\in (\lambda_{J-1}^*,\lambda_{J}^*)$),
\begin{align}
\!\!\!\!\!\bar M_{MP}^{\lambda,1}
\!=&
1-\frac{(1-\alpha^{J})(1-\hat V^*)}{J(1-\alpha)},
\\
\!\!\!\!\!\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda,1}
\!=&
\frac{1}{N_S J}\left[c_{\mathrm{TX}}
+\phi\frac{1}{\hat V^*}
\frac{(1-\alpha^{J})(1-\hat V^*)
}{1-\alpha^{J}(1-\hat V^*)}\right].
\end{align}
\end{thm}
\noindent\emph{Proof:}
See Appendix \ref{proofoflemSAinf}.
\hfill\QED
\noindent
{Consider the case $\lambda{\in}(\lambda_{J-1}^*,\lambda_{J}^*)$ (a similar argument holds for the case $\lambda{=}\lambda_J^*$).
The parameter $J$ represents the \emph{transmission period}, \emph{i.e.}, one SN is activated once every $J$ slots, whereas all SNs stay idle in the
remaining $J{-}1$ slots.
On the other hand, $\hat V^*$ is the minimum posterior variance achieved when one SN is activated and its measurement is collected at the FC.
During the idle period, no measurements are collected, hence the posterior variance increases in each slot.
As discussed in \cite[Remark 5]{MichelusiP1}, this pattern of periodic transmissions with period $J$ can be reduced
by including a term which accounts for the \emph{outage event} $\hat V_k\geq\hat v_{\mathrm{th}}$ in the MP cost function.
Clearly, as $\lambda$ increases, the transmission period $J$ augments,
hence the SNs are activated less frequently resulting in a lower cost and poorer MSE performance.
Similarly, $\hat V^*$ increases since a smaller local measurement SNR is employed by the active SN (see (\ref{SAinf})).}
By varying $(\lambda,p_0){\in}\mathcal L$,
where
\begin{align*}
\label{}
&\mathcal L{\equiv
\underset{j\geq 1}{\cup}
\left[
\left\{(\lambda,1):\lambda\in (\lambda_{j-1}^*,\lambda_{j}^*)\right\}
{\cup}
\left\{(\lambda_j^*,p_0):p_0\in[0,1]\right\}\right],
\end{align*}
we obtain different operational points $(\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda,p_0},\bar M_{MP}^{\lambda,p_0})$.
The next proposition states properties of the cost-MSE graph $(\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda,p_0},\bar M_{MP}^{\lambda,p_0})_{(\lambda,p_0)\in\mathcal L}$.
To this end, we define the following ordering of the elements in $\mathcal L$: let
$(\lambda^{(i)},p_0^{(i)})\in\mathcal L$, $i=1,2$ with $(\lambda^{(1)},p_0^{(1)})\neq (\lambda^{(2)},p_0^{(2)})$;
then, $(\lambda^{(1)},p_0^{(1)})\succ (\lambda^{(2)},p^{(2)})$ if either
$\lambda^{(1)}>\lambda^{(2)}$, or $\lambda^{(1)}=\lambda^{(2)}$ and
$p_0^{(1)}<p_0^{(2)}$.
\begin{propos}
\label{lemconvex}
\noindent \emph{i)} $(\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda,p_0},\bar M_{MP}^{\lambda,p_0})_{(\lambda,p_0)\in\mathcal L}$ is continuous.
\noindent \emph{ii)} $\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda,p_0}$ is decreasing in $(\lambda,p_0)\in\mathcal L$,
whereas $\bar M_{MP}^{\lambda,p_0}$ is increasing in $(\lambda,p_0)\in\mathcal L$,
\emph{i.e.},
\begin{align}
\label{decreasing}
&\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda^{(1)},p_0^{(1)}}
<\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda^{(2)},p_0^{(2)}},\
\bar M_{MP}^{\lambda^{(1)},p_0^{(1)}}
>\bar M_{MP}^{\lambda^{(2)},p_0^{(2)}},
\\\nonumber&
\forall(\lambda^{(i)},p_0^{(i)})\in\mathcal L,\ i=1,2\text{ s.t. } (\lambda^{(1)},p_0^{(1)})\succ (\lambda^{(2)},p_0^{(2)}).
\end{align}
\end{propos}
\noindent\emph{Proof:}
See Appendix \ref{proofoflemconvex}.
\hfill\QED
\noindent
Prop. \ref{lemconvex} shows a desirable property of the MP for the special case $S_A{\to}\infty$.
In particular, the larger $\lambda$, \emph{i.e.} the more resource constrained the system, the smaller the sensing-transmission cost and the larger the
MSE. The implication is that we can tune $\lambda$ in order to achieve the desired trade-off between
cost and MSE. Note that
(\ref{decreasing}) is not expected. In fact, the MP is designed to minimize only the instantaneous cost (\ref{MPcost}),
not the average long-term performance.
The more general case $S_A<\infty$ is difficult to analyze, due to the complex structure of the MP and the resulting evolution of $\{V_k,\ k\geq 0\}$.
In the next section, we analyze the \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario.
\vspace{-3mm}
\subsection{\emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario}
\noindent In this case, the accuracy state of each SN fluctuates over time according to a Markov chain, thus causing random fluctuations
in the aggregate SNR collected at the FC.
The optimal policy is difficult to characterize,
due to the high dimensionality of the problem.
Herein, as in Part I, we define a \emph{sub-optimal coordinated MP}, based
on the MP derived in Sec. \ref{bestomegacoord}.
Specifically,
let $r(\cdot;\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k){:}\{1,2,\dots,N_S\}{\mapsto}\{1,2,\dots,N_S\}$
be a ranking of SNs indexed by $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k$, such that $r(m;\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k)$
is the label of the SN with the $m$th highest accuracy state,
\emph{i.e.}, $\gamma_{r(1;\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k),k}\geq\gamma_{r(2;\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k),k}\geq,\dots,\geq\gamma_{r(N_S;\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k),k}$.
Let $\{\tilde V_k,k\geq 0\}$ be a \emph{virtual prior variance process}, generated as if all measurements were collected with
the best accuracy state $\gamma_{\max}$. Starting from $\tilde V_0=V_0$, we thus have $\tilde V_{k+1}=\nu(\hat\nu(\tilde V_k,\tilde\Lambda_k))$,
where $\tilde\Lambda_k=t^{(MP)}(\tilde V_k)\frac{S_AS_M^{(MP)}(\tilde V_k)}{S_A+S_M^{(MP)}(V_k)}$.
We define the sub-optimal coordinated MP (SCMP) as follows.
\noindent\textbf{SCMP}:
Given $\lambda{\leq}\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$, the virtual prior variance state $\tilde V_k$, and $\boldsymbol\gamma_k$,
the
$t^{(MP)}(\tilde V_k)$ SNs with the best accuracy state are activated in slot $k$,
with local measurement SNR $S_M^{(MP)}(\tilde V_k)$,
\begin{align}
\!\!\nonumbe
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\!\!\!\!A_{r(m;\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k),k}\!=\!1,\ \!\!S_{M,r(m;\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k),k}\!=\!S_M^{(MP)}(\tilde V_k),\forall m\leq t^{(MP)}(\tilde V_k),
\\
\!\!\!\!A_{r(m;\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k),k}\!=\!0,\ \forall m>t^{(MP)}(\tilde V_k).\hfill\QED
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
In the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario, SCMP simplifies to the MP given by Theorem~\ref{lemMPclosedform}.
In the next proposition, we derive a bound to the average long-term performance of SCMP
in the \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario,
$(\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda},\bar M_{MP,\lambda})$, with respect to the performance achieved
in the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario, $(\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda,\gamma_{\max}},\bar M_{MP}^{\lambda,\gamma_{\max}})$.
Its proof is similar to the proof of \cite[Theorem 3]{MichelusiP1}, and is thus omitted.
\begin{propos}
Under the SCMP, if $\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma_{\max}){<}1$
and $N_S{\geq}\frac{B-1}{\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma_{\max})}$, then $\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda,\gamma_{\max}}{=}\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda}$ and
\begin{align}
\label{ineq2}
\!\!\!0
\!\leq\!
\bar M_{MP}^{\lambda}\!-\!\bar M_{MP}^{\lambda,\gamma_{\max}}
\!\leq\!
\frac{\exp\left\{-\frac{\left(N_S\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma_{\max})-B+1\right)^2}{2N_S\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma_{\max})}\right\}
}{1-\alpha}.
\end{align}
\end{propos}
Note that SCMP achieves the same average long-term cost as if all the SNs could sense with the best accuracy state $\gamma_{\max}$.
This is a consequence of the fact that SCMP is generated according to the virtual prior variance state $\tilde V_k$, whose evolution
emulates that of the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario.
In the next section, we analyze the MP for the decentralized scheme.
\vspace{-3mm}
\section{Myopic Policy: Decentralized scheme}
\label{analysisDistr}
\noindent We first investigate the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario, and then
extend our analysis to the \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario.
\vspace{-3mm}
\subsection{\emph{Best-}$\gamma$ scenario}
\label{bestomegadistr}
\noindent In the decentralized scheme, the MP is defined as
\begin{align}
\label{DPMP}
(q^{(MP)},S_{M}^{(MP)})(V_k)
=&\arg\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\min_{q\in[0,1],S_{M}\geq 0}\!\!\!\!\!
\mathbb E\left[\hat \nu\left(V_{k},\frac{R_kS_AS_{M}}{S_A+S_{M}}\right)\right]
\nonumber\\&
+\lambda N_S q (1+\theta S_M),
\end{align}
where $R_k$ is the number of packets successfully received at the FC, as a result of having each node transmit
with probability $q$ in one of the $B$ orthogonal channels available.
We focus on the \emph{large network} approximation, \emph{i.e.},
on the asymptotic scenario of large number of SNs
$N_S\to\infty$, where we fix the \emph{normalized activation probability} $\zeta{=}qN_S/B$, and optimize over the values of $\zeta$ and $S_M$.
Then, the MP for $N_S{\to}\infty$ is defined as
\begin{align}
\label{DPMP2}
\!\!\!\!(\zeta^{(MP)},S_{M}^{(MP)})(V_k)
=\arg\!\!\!\!\!\min_{\zeta\geq 0,S_{M}\geq 0}
f(\zeta,S_M,V_k),
\end{align}
where, letting $N_S\to\infty$ in (\ref{DPMP}), we have defined
\begin{align*}
\label{}
&\!\!f(\zeta\!,\!S_M\!,\!V_k)\!\!=\!\!\!
\sum_{r=0}^B\!\mathcal B_{B}\!\left(r;\rho(\zeta)\right)\!
\hat \nu\!\!\left(\!\!V_{k},\!\!\frac{rS_AS_{M}}{S_A\!+\!S_{M}\!}\!\right)
\!\!+\!\!\lambda \zeta B(1+\theta S_M),
\end{align*}
we have used the fact that
$R_k$ converges to a binomial random variable with $B$ trials and success probability
$\rho(\zeta)=\zeta e^{-\zeta}$ \cite[Corollary~1]{MichelusiP1},
and we have defined the PMF of the binomial distribution $\mathcal B_{B}\left(r;\rho\right)=
\left(\begin{array}{c}B\\r
\end{array}
\right)\rho^r\left(1-\rho\right)^{B-r}
$.
The following theorem characterizes the solution of (\ref{DPMP2}).
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{thm}
\label{lemMPdistr}
Let
$\lambda<\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$,
where $\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$ is defined in Theorem~\ref{lemMPclosedform},
and $v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$ be given by (\ref{vth}) for $t{=}0$.
\noindent\emph{i)} If $V_k\leq v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$,
then $(\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k),S_{M}^{(MP)}(V_k))=(0,0)$.
\noindent\emph{ii)} Otherwise, $(\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k),S_{M}^{(MP)}(V_k))=(\zeta,S_M)$
must simultaneously solve,
for some $\zeta\in (0,1)$, $S_M>0$,
\begin{align}
\label{}
\!\!\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\!\!\!\!h(S_M\!,\!\zeta\!,\!V_k)\!\triangleq\!
-\mathbb E\!\!\left[\!
\left.\hat \nu\!\left(\!V_{k},\!\!\frac{R_kS_AS_{M}}{S_A+S_{M}}\right)^2\!\!\!\!\frac{R_kS_A^2}{(S_A+S_{M})^2}
\right|\!\rho(\zeta)\!
\right]
\!\!+\!\!\lambda \zeta B\theta\!=\!0,
\\
\!\!\!\!g(S_M,\zeta,V_k)\!\triangleq\!
\mathbb E\left[\left.\hat \nu\left(\!V_{k},\!\!\frac{R_kS_AS_M}{S_A\!+\!S_M}\right)\frac{R_k-\rho(\zeta)B}{\rho(\zeta)(1-\rho(\zeta))}\right|\!\rho(\zeta)\!
\right]
\nonumber\\
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
+\lambda B\frac{e^{\zeta}}{1-\zeta} (1+\theta S_M)=0,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
where the expectation is computed with respect to the PMF of $R_k\sim\mathcal B_{B}\left(\cdot;\rho(\zeta)\right)$.
Moreover,
\begin{align}
\label{boundz}
&\!\!\!0<\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k)<\min\left\{1,2\ln\left(\frac{V_k}{\sqrt{\lambda\theta}}\right)\right\}\triangleq \zeta_{\mathrm{th}}^{\max}(V_k)
\\&
\label{boundSM}
\text{and }S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\min}\leq S_{M}^{(MP)}(V_k)\leq S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\max},\ \text{where}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
&S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\min}\triangleq\frac{
-\lambda\theta S_A-\lambda(1+V_kS_A)+V_k^2S_A
}
{2\lambda\theta(1+V_kS_A)}
\\&
-
\frac{
\sqrt{
[(\lambda\theta+V_k^2)S_A-\lambda(1+V_kS_A)]^2
-4\lambda\theta V_k^2S_A^2
}
}
{2\lambda\theta(1+V_kS_A)},
\nonumber\\&
S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\max}\triangleq
\min\left\{\frac{
\!-\!\lambda\theta S_A\!-\!\lambda(1\!+\!V_kS_A)\!+\!V_k^2S_A
}
{2\lambda\theta (1+V_kS_A)}\right.
\label{smmax}
\\&
\left.\!\!+
\frac{
\sqrt{
[(\lambda\theta\!+\!V_k^2)\!-\!\lambda(1/S_A\!+\!V_k)]^2\!-\!4\lambda\theta V_k^2
}
}
{2\lambda\theta (1/S_A+V_k)},S_A\!\!\left(\!\!\frac{V_k}{\sqrt{\lambda\theta}}\!-\!1\!\!\right)\!\!\right\}.
\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{thm}
\noindent\emph{Proof:}
See Appendix \ref{proofoflemMPdistr}.
\hfill\QED
\noindent
The MP dictates that the SNs activate only when the estimation quality at the FC is poor, \emph{i.e.},
$V_k{>}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$, in order to improve the estimate, and remain idle to preserve energy when it is accurate ($V_k\leq v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$).
Therefore, the MP induces an efficient utilization of the scarce resources available in the system.
Interestingly, the threshold on the prior variance state, $v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$, and on the Lagrange multiplier, $\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$,
have the same expression as in the coordinated scheme (see Theorem~\ref{lemMPclosedform}).
These thresholds are independent of the number of channels $B$. This is because, when $\lambda{\to}\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$,
the sensing-transmission cost dominates the cost function defining the MP, hence the SNs activate with (normalized) probability close to
zero. It follows that, with high probability, only one channel will be occupied, and the remaining channels remain unused.
The practical implication is that, when $\lambda\to\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$,
\emph{i.e.}, the WSN is severely energy constrained, $B{=}1$ suffices.
Note that the MP, when $V_k{>}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$, must simultaneously solve
$h(S_{M}^{(MP)}(V_k),\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k),V_k){=}0$ and
$g(S_{M}^{(MP)}(V_k),\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k),V_k){=}0$. This is a set of \emph{necessary} conditions, but they may not be sufficient.
In fact, the cost function defining the MP in (\ref{DPMP2}) is, in general, non-convex with respect to $(\zeta,S_M)$.
We now present an iterative algorithm to determine a \emph{local} minimum of (\ref{DPMP2}), for the case $V_k>v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$.
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{algo}\label{algoMP}$ $\\
\noindent 1) Let $S_{M}^{(0)}\in (S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\min},S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\max}),\ \zeta^{(0)}\in (0,\zeta_{\mathrm{th}}^{\max}(V_k))$, $i=0$;
\noindent 2) given $\zeta^{(i)}$, determine
\begin{align}
S_{M}^{(i+1)}=\underset{S_M\in (S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\min},S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\max})}{\arg\min}f(\zeta^{(i)},S_M,V_k)
\end{align}
as follows: if $h(S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\min},\zeta^{(i)},V_k){\geq}0$, set $S_{M}^{(i+1)}{=}S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\min}$;
if $h(S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\max},\zeta^{(i)},V_k){\leq}0$, set $S_{M}^{(i+1)}{=}S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\max}$;
otherwise, determine $S_{M}^{(i+1)}$ as the unique
$S_M{\in}(S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\min},S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\max})$ such that $h(S_M,\zeta^{(i)},V_k){=}0$, using the \emph{bisection method} \cite{bisection};
\noindent 3) given $S_{M}^{(i+1)}$, determine
\begin{align}
\zeta^{(i+1)}=\underset{\zeta\in (0,\zeta_{\mathrm{th}}^{\max}(V_k))}{\arg\min}f(\zeta,S_{M}^{(i+1)},V_k)
\end{align}
as follows: if $g(S_{M}^{(i+1)},\zeta_{\mathrm{th}}^{\max}(V_k),V_k){\leq}0$, set $\zeta^{(i+1)}{=}\zeta_{\mathrm{th}}^{\max}(V_k)$;
otherwise, determine $\zeta^{(i+1)}$ as the unique
$\zeta{\in}(0,\zeta_{\mathrm{th}}^{\max}(V_k))$ such that $g(S_{M}^{(i+1)},\zeta,V_k){=}0$, using the \emph{bisection method};
\noindent 4) update $i{:}i+1$ and repeat from steps 2) and 3) until convergence; return $\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k)=\zeta^{(i)}$,
$S_{M}^{(MP)}(V_k)=S_{M}^{(i)}$.
\end{algo}
Note that Algorithm \ref{algoMP} is guaranteed to converge to a \emph{local} minimum of the MP cost function (\ref{DPMP2}),
since, at each step 2-3), the function $f(\cdot)$ is minimized while keeping the other parameter fixed, and
the MP solution $(\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k),S_{M}^{(MP)}(V_k))$ lies in the bounded set $(0,\zeta_{\mathrm{th}}^{\max}(V_k))\times(S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\min},S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\max})$.
In steps 2{-}3), we have used the fact that $h(\cdot)$ and $g(\cdot)$
are the derivatives of $f(\cdot)$ with respect to $S_M$ and $\zeta$,
and these functions are increasing in $S_M$ and $\zeta$, respectively (see Appendix~\ref{proofoflemMPdistr}).
A corollary of Theorem \ref{lemMPdistr} is given below, for the case $B{=}1$.
\begin{corol}
\label{sdfsdf}
Let $B{=}1$.
\noindent \emph{i)} If $V_k{\leq}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$,
then $(\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k),S_{M}^{(MP)}(V_k))=(0,0)$.
\noindent \emph{ii)}
Otherwise,
\begin{align}
\label{SMMP}
S_{M}^{(MP)}(V_k)=\left(\frac{e^{-\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k)/2}}{\sqrt{\lambda\theta}}-\frac{1}{V_k}\right)\frac{V_kS_A}{1+V_kS_A},
\end{align}
and $\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k)$ is the unique $\zeta\in (0,\zeta_{\mathrm{th}}^{\max}(V_k))$ solving
\begin{align}
\label{solvez}
\!\!\!\frac{-V_kS_A}{1\!+\!V_kS_A}\!\!\left(
\!\!V_k
\!-\!e^{\frac{\zeta}{2}}\sqrt{\lambda\theta}\frac{2\!-\!\zeta}{1\!-\!\zeta}
\!+\!\frac{e^{\zeta}}{1\!-\!\zeta}\frac{\lambda\theta}{V_k}
\right)
\!+\!\frac{\lambda e^{\zeta}}{1\!-\!\zeta}
\!=\!0.\!\!
\end{align}
\end{corol}
For this case, a stronger result can be proved: the solution is a global minimum of (\ref{DPMP2}), rather than a local one for the general case $B{\geq}2$.
$\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k)\in (0,\zeta_{\mathrm{th}}^{\max}(V_k))$ can be determined using the bisection method \cite{bisection},
by exploiting the fact that (\ref{solvez}) is an increasing function of $\zeta$.
Note that, for fixed $\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k)$, $S_{M}^{(MP)}(V_k)$ is an increasing function of $S_A$ and $V_k$, and decreasing function of
$\lambda$ and $\theta$ (however, $\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k)$ is also a function of these parameters via (\ref{solvez})). In fact, the larger $S_A$ (\emph{i.e.}, the smaller the
error floor induced by the ambient noise) or
$V_k$ (\emph{i.e.}, the poorer the quality of the estimate),
or the smaller $\theta$ (\emph{i.e.}, the smaller the sensing cost) or $\lambda$ (\emph{i.e.}, the milder the cost constraint),
the stronger the incentive to sense with higher local measurement SNR.
By further specializing Corollary \ref{sdfsdf} to $\theta{=}0$ (no transmission cost), $S_A{=}\infty$ (no ambient noise) and $V_k{=}1{-}\alpha^{J_k+1}$, we obtain the
MP \cite[Sec. II.B]{MichelusiP1}.
\subsubsection{Complexity of the MP}
\label{complmpdec}
Unlike the coordinated scheme,
the MP for the decentralized one cannot be determined in closed form.
For each $V_k\in\mathcal V$,
in order to determine $S_{M}^{(i+1)}$ in step 2) of Algorithm \ref{algoMP} with precision $\Delta_M$\footnote{The precision is evaluated with respect to the local SNR (\ref{Slocal}), in order to have a fair comparison with the analysis in Sec. \ref{complanal}} using the bisection method \cite{bisection},
at most $I_2\triangleq K_2-\log_2\Delta_M$
evaluations of $f(\zeta^{(i)},S_M,V_k)$ are needed (each corresponding to an iteration of the bisection method), where
$K_2$ is a constant which depends on the initial search interval $[S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\min},S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\max}]$.
Similarly, in order to determine $\zeta^{(i+1)}$ in step 3) of Algorithm~\ref{algoMP} with precision $\Delta_Z$ using the bisection method,
at most $I_3\triangleq K_3-\log_2\Delta_Z$
evaluations of $f(\zeta,S_{M}^{(i+1)},V_k)$ are needed (each corresponding to an iteration of the bisection method), where
$K_3$ is a constant which depends on the initial search interval $[0,\zeta_{\mathrm{th}}^{\max}(V_k)]$.
For $\Delta_M,\Delta_Z\ll 1$ we thus obtain $I_2{\simeq}-\log_2\Delta_M$
and $I_2{\simeq}-\log_2\Delta_Z$.
Assuming steps 2) and 3) of Algorithm~\ref{algoMP} are repeated $T_{MP}$ times, the
overall complexity thus scales as $-N_VT_{MP}\log_2(\Delta_M\Delta_Z)$.
We conclude that the complexity of the MP algorithm scales with the logarithm of $1/(\Delta_M\Delta_Z)$,
and thus provides a significant complexity reduction with respect to DP (\ref{DPzeta}),
whose complexity scales linearly with $1/(\Delta_M\Delta_Z)$ (Sec.~\ref{complanal}).
We have verified numerically that Algorithm \ref{algoMP} typically converges in few iterations ($T_{MP}{\sim}5$).
In the special case $B{=}1$ studied in Corollary~\ref{sdfsdf}, $S_{M}^{(MP)}(V_k)$ can be determined exactly as a function of
$\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k)$, whereas $\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k)$
can be determined via one run of the bisection method \cite{bisection} to solve (\ref{solvez}), resulting in the overall complexity
$-N_V\log_2(\Delta_Z)$.
\vspace{-3mm}
\subsection{\emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario}
\noindent We now discuss the \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario.
As for the coordinated scheme, we define a \emph{sub-optimal decentralized MP} (SDMP), based
on the MP derived in Sec. \ref{bestomegadistr}.
\noindent\textbf{SDMP}:
Given $\lambda\leq \lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$ and
the value of $V_k$ fed back from the FC,
the activation probability is defined as
\begin{align*}
\!q^{(MP)}(V_k,\gamma)\!=\!
\left\{
\!\!\!\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \gamma>\gamma_{\mathrm{th}},\\
\frac{\frac{B}{N_S}\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k)-\sum_{\gamma>\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}}\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma)}{\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma_{\mathrm{th}})},
& \gamma=\gamma_{\mathrm{th}},\\
0, &\gamma<\gamma_{\mathrm{th}},
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align*}
and the local measurement SNR as $S_{M,n,k}{=}S_{M}^{(MP)}\!(V_k)$,
where $\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}$ uniquely solves~$\!\!\!\underset{\gamma\geq \gamma_{\mathrm{th}}}\sum\!\!\!\!\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma){\geq}
\frac{B}{N_S}\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k){>}\!\!\!\underset{\gamma>\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}}\sum\!\!\!\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma)$.
\hfill\QED
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = .85\linewidth,trim = 10mm 4mm 10mm 9mm,clip=true]{figMPNS20_c}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{MSE as a function of the network cost, \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario, $N_S=20$.
\vspace{-5mm}
\label{NS20}
\end{figure}
\noindent Note that
$\sum_{\gamma}q^{(MP)}(V_k,\gamma)\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma)N_S/B{=}\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k)$,
\emph{i.e.}, all SNs activate with \emph{marginal} normalized probability $\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k)$,
with respect to the steady state distribution of $\gamma_{n,k}$.
The performance of the sub-optimal decentralized MP is difficult to characterize. In fact, due to the Markov property of the accuracy state $\gamma_{n,k}$,
the number of collisions and successful transmissions are correlated over time.
However, the following proposition holds in the \emph{i.i.d.-}$\gamma$ scenario.
To this end, we denote by
$(\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda},\bar M_{MP}^{\lambda})$
and $(\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda,\gamma_{\max}},\bar M_{MP}^{\lambda,\gamma_{\max}})$
the performance in the
\emph{i.i.d.-}$\gamma$ and \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenarios, respectively.
\begin{propos}
In the \emph{i.i.d.-}$\gamma$ scenario, if
$N_S\geq B/\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma_{\max})$, then
$\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda}=\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda,\gamma_{\max}}$, $\bar M_{MP}^{\lambda}=\bar M_{MP}^{\lambda,\gamma_{\max}}$.
\end{propos}
As shown in Part I, this is a consequence of the fact that, if the conditions of the proposition hold,
then $\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}{=}\gamma_{\max}$,
hence only the SNs with the best accuracy state may activate under SDMP, so that there is no degradation in the aggregate SNR collected at the FC, $\Lambda_k$,
compared to the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario. In other words, a densely deployed WSN provides \emph{sensing diversity}.
\section{Numerical Results}\label{numres}
\noindent In this section, we provide numerical results.
Unless otherwise stated, we consider a WSN of size $N_S\in\{20,100\}$ SNs (\emph{small} and \emph{large} WSN, respectively).
We let $c_{\mathrm{TX}}{=}1$, $S_A{=}20$, $\phi{=}0.25$, $\alpha{=}0.96$, and $B{=}5$.
We consider the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario only. Similar considerations hold for the \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario.
The interested reader is referred to Part~I for a numerical evaluation of the \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario.
We consider the following schemes, evaluated via Monte-Carlo simulation over $T=10^5$ slots:
\noindent$\bullet$ \emph{COORD-DP}: optimal coordinated scheme, obtained via $T_{DP}=100$ DP iterations (see Part I);
\noindent$\bullet$ \emph{DEC-DP}: optimal decentralized scheme, obtained via $T_{DP}=100$ DP iterations (see Part I);
\noindent
$\bullet$ \emph{COORD-SNR}: max coordinated aggregate SNR scheme; non-adaptive policy which maximizes the expected aggregate SNR at the FC, under cost constraints for the SNs (see Part~I);
\noindent
$\bullet$ \emph{DEC-SNR}: max decentralized aggregate SNR scheme; non-adaptive policy which maximizes the expected aggregate SNR at the FC, under cost constraints for the SNs (see Part~I);
\noindent$\bullet$ \emph{COORD-MP}: MP for the coordinated scheme (Sec. \ref{analysisCoord});
\noindent$\bullet$ \emph{DEC-MP}: MP for the decentralized scheme (Sec. \ref{analysisDistr}), derived via Algorithm \ref{algoMP}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = .85\linewidth,trim = 10mm 4mm 10mm 9mm,clip=true]{figMPNS100_c}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{MSE as a function of the network cost, \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario, $N_S=100$.
\vspace{-5mm}
\label{NS100}
\end{figure}
In Figs. \ref{NS20} and \ref{NS100}, we plot the
MSE (\ref{Cest}) as a function of the network sensing-transmission cost (\ref{CSN})
for the small and large WSN scenarios, respectively, obtained by varying the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$.
We notice that, in both cases, COORD-MP and DEC-MP incur no performance degradation with respect to
their DP counterparts COORD-DP and DEC-DP, respectively, at a fraction of the complexity.
As conjectured in Remark \ref{rem1}, this is because the MP not only minimizes the present cost in slot $k$,
but, on average, also moves the system to a "good" next state.
{Therefore, as shown in Part I, similar to the DP policies, also the MP outperforms the technique proposed in \cite{Msechu}.}
On the other hand, the non-adaptive schemes COORD-SNR and DEC-SNR incur a significant performance degradation,
since they greedily maximize the expected aggregate SNR collected at the FC, $\mathbb E[\Lambda_k]$, but do not take into account
the fluctuations in $\Lambda_k$, and hence,
in the
quality state $V_k$, resulting from cross-layer factors such as the decentralized access decisions of the SNs and the uncertain channel outcomes.
In Fig. \ref{figstruct}, we plot the structure of DEC-DP and DEC-MP as a function of the quality state $V_k$.
We note that, as $V_k$ increases,
\emph{i.e.}, the estimate of $X_k$ is less accurate,
both $\zeta^*(V_k)$ and $\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k)$ increase,
in order to achieve a higher estimation accuracy.
On the other hand, when the estimation accuracy is good ($V_k<0.2$ for DEC-DP and $V_k<0.1$ for DEC-MP),
the activation probability is zero, so that the SNs can
save energy.
The threshold on the estimation quality below which the SNs remain idle, $v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$, is given in closed form by (\ref{vth}) for $t{=}0$.
Note that the normalized activation probability is larger for DEC-MP than for DEC-DP. The resulting higher transmission cost for the former is balanced
by employing a smaller local measurement SNR $S_M^{(MP)}(V_k){<}S_M^{*}(V_k)$, incurring smaller sensing cost,
so that the overall sensing-transmission cost is the same for both schemes.
Finally, note that, for both schemes, the local measurement SNR is approximately constant for all values of the quality state $V_k$, thus suggesting
that adaptation of the activation probability is more critical than adaptation of the local measurement SNR.
A practical implication is that
a lower optimization complexity can be achieved by
adapting only the former, while
using a constant value for the latter
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = .85\linewidth,trim = 10mm 4mm 10mm 9mm,clip=true]{figMPstruc}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{Structure of DEC-DP and DEC-MP as a function of the prior variance $V_k$.
The corresponding simulated network cost is $\simeq 1.66$ and the MSE is $\simeq 0.12$ for both schemes.
\vspace{-5mm}
\label{figstruct}
\end{figure}
Finally, in Fig. \ref{figstructCOORD}, we plot COORD-DP and COORD-MP as a function of the quality state $V_k$.
Similar to the decentralized scheme, as proved in Theorem~\ref{lemMPclosedform},
activations are of threshold type, \emph{i.e.}, one SN is activated only if $V_k>0.35$, otherwise all SNs remain idle.
Moreover, as can be observed from the figure and analytically from (\ref{optSM}),
the local measurement SNR increases with $V_k$, in order to achieve higher estimation accuracy when
the estimation quality at the FC is poor.
\vspace{-3mm}
\section{Conclusions}\label{conclusions}
\noindent In this paper, we have proposed a cross-layer distributed sensing-estimation framework for WSNs,
which exploits the quality feedback information from the FC.
Our cross-layer design approach allows one to model the time-varying capability
of the SNs to accurately sense the underlying process,
the scarce channel access resources shared by the SNs, as well as sensing-transmission costs.
We have proposed a coordinated scheme, where the FC schedules the action of each SN,
and a more scalable decentralized scheme, where each SN performs a local decision to sense-transmit or remain idle, based on the FC quality feedback and
the local observation quality.
In this second part, we have designed low-complexity myopic policies.
For the coordinated scheme, we have shown that the myopic policy can be characterized in closed form. For the decentralized scheme, we have presented an iterative algorithm which converges provably to a local optimum of the myopic cost function.
Numerically, we have shown that the myopic policies achieve near-optimal performance,
at a fraction of the complexity with respect to the optimal policy derived via dynamic programming,
and thus are more suitable for implementation in practical WSN deployments.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = .85\linewidth,trim = 10mm 4mm 10mm 9mm,clip=true]{figstrucCOORD}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{Structure of COORD-DP and COORD-MP as a function of the prior variance $V_k$.
The corresponding simulated network cost is $\simeq 0.312$ and the MSE is $\simeq 0.25$ for both schemes.
\vspace{-5mm}
\label{figstructCOORD}
\end{figure}
\appendices
\vspace{-3mm}
\section{}
\label{proofoflemMPclosedform}
\noindent\emph{Proof of Theorem \ref{lemMPclosedform}:}
We first optimize (\ref{MPcost}) with respect to the local measurement SNR $S_M$, for a fixed $t>0$.
Since (\ref{MPcost}) is convex with respect to $S_M$, by computing the derivative with respect to
$S_M$ and setting it to zero, and forcing the solution to be non-negative, since $S_M\geq 0$, we obtain the optimal $S_M^*(t)$
\begin{align}
\label{SMopt}
S_M^*(t)=\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda\theta}}-\frac{1}{V_k}\right)^+\frac{S_AV_k}{1+tS_AV_k}.
\end{align}
We now optimize with respect to the number of active SNs $t\in\{0,1,\dots,B\}$.
Note that, if $V_k\leq\sqrt{\lambda\theta}$, then $S_M^*(t)=0,\ \forall t$, hence
the optimal number of active SNs is $t^{(MP)}(V_k)=0$.
Otherwise ($V_k>\sqrt{\lambda\theta}$), after plugging $S_M^*(t)$ into the cost function (\ref{MPcost}), we obtain the cost function
\begin{align}
f(t)\triangleq\frac{V_k+2tS_AV_k\sqrt{\lambda\theta}-t\lambda\theta S_A}{1+tS_AV_k}+\lambda t,
\end{align}
hence $t^{(MP)}(V_k)=\arg\min_{t\in\{0,1,\dots,B\}} f(t)$.
In order to solve this problem, we study the function $f(t)$.
We have
\begin{align*}
&g(t)\triangleq (f(t+1)-f(t))(1+(t+1)S_AV_k)(1+tS_AV_k)
\\&=\nonumber
-S_A(\sqrt{\lambda\theta}-V_k)^2
+\lambda[1+(t+1)S_AV_k](1+tS_AV_k),
\end{align*}
hence $f(t+1)\geq f(t)\Leftrightarrow g(t)\geq 0$.
Note that
\begin{align*}
g(t+1)-g(t)=2S_AV_k\lambda[1+(t+1)S_AV_k]>0,
\end{align*}
hence $g(t)$ is an increasing function of $t$.
Solving with respect to $V_k$, $g(t)\leq 0$ is equivalent to
\begin{align}
\label{cond1000}
&V_k^2S_A(\lambda(t+1)tS_A-1)
\\&\nonumber
+V_kS_A[2\sqrt{\lambda\theta}+\lambda(2t+1)]
+\lambda (1-S_A\theta)
\leq 0.
\end{align}
Note that (\ref{cond1000}) cannot hold if $[\lambda(t+1)tS_A-1]{\geq}0$, since $V_k{>}\sqrt{\lambda\theta}$ and the left hand expression would be strictly positive.
Therefore, $\lambda(t+1)tS_A-1<0$ for (\ref{cond1000}) to hold. Solving with respect to $V_k$, it can be shown that
(\ref{cond1000}) is equivalent to the union of $V_k\geq v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,t)$ and
\begin{align}
\label{sdfsfds}
& V_k\leq
\frac{
\sqrt{\lambda\theta}+\frac{\lambda}{2}(2t+1)
}
{1-\lambda(t+1)tS_A}
\\& \nonumber
\!-\!\frac{
\sqrt{\lambda}
\sqrt{
\sqrt{\lambda\theta}(2t\!+\!1)
\!+\!\lambda \theta(t\!+\!1)tS_A
\!+\!\frac{\lambda}{4}
\!+\!\frac{1}{S_A}
}
}{1-\lambda(t+1)tS_A}
\leq\sqrt{\lambda\theta},
\end{align}
where the second inequality in (\ref{sdfsfds}) can be proved using the fact that $\lambda<1/[(t+1)tS_A]$ for (\ref{cond1000}) to hold.
Note that, since $V_k>\sqrt{\lambda\theta}$, the inequality (\ref{sdfsfds}) cannot hold, hence
\begin{align}
\label{must}
\!\!\!g(t)\!\leq\!0\!\Leftrightarrow \!
V_k\geq v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,t)\text{ and }\lambda(t+1)tS_A-1<0.
\end{align}
Let $t^*{=}\max\{t:\lambda(t+1)tS_A-1{<}0\}$, whose solution is given as in the statement of the theorem.
Clearly, $0{\leq}t^*{<}\infty$.
From (\ref{must}), we then have $g(\tau){>}0,\forall \tau{>}t^*$.
On the other hand, for $\tau\leq t^*$, we have that
$g(\tau)\leq 0\Leftrightarrow V_k\geq v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,\tau)$.
Note that $v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,\tau){>}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,\tau-1)$.
It follows that, if $V_k{<}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$, then
$V_k{<}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,\tau),\forall \tau$, and therefore $g(\tau){>}0,\forall \tau$.
In this case, $f(\tau+1){>}f(\tau){>}\dots{>}f(0)$, hence $t^{(MP)}(V_k){=}0$.
On the other hand, if $V_k{\geq}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,t^*)$, then $V_k{\geq}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,\tau),\forall\tau{\leq}t^*$,
hence $g(\tau){\leq}0,\forall\tau{\leq}t^*$, $g(\tau){>}0,\forall \tau{>}t^*$. In this case,
$f(t^*{+}1){=}\min_{t}f(t)$, hence $t^{(MP)}(V_k){=}\min\{t^*{+}1,B\}$.
Finally, if
$v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,t^*){>}V_k{\geq}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$,
letting $\hat t{=}\min\{t{\leq}t^*{:}V_k{<}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,t)\}$,
we have $V_k{<}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,\hat t)$, or equivalently $g(\hat t){>}0$,
hence $g(\tau){>}0,\forall \tau{\geq}\hat t$, and
$V_k{\geq}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,\tau),\forall \tau{<}\hat t$, or equivalently $g(\tau){\leq}0$.
In particular, $g(\hat t{-}1){\leq}0$ and $g(\hat t){>}0$, \emph{i.e.},
$f(\hat t){=}\min_{t\geq 0} f(t)$ and $t^{(MP)}(V_k){=}\min\{\hat t,B\}$.
If $g(\hat t{-}1){=}0$, we have $f(\hat t){=}f(\hat t{-}1)$, hence both $\tau{=}\hat t$ and $\tau{=}\hat t{-}1 $ minimize $f(t)$ and
the choice of $t^{(MP)}(V_k)$ is probabilistic.
To conclude, we show that it suffices to consider $\lambda\leq\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$.
We show that, if $\lambda>\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$, then the MP solution is forced to $t^{(MP)}(V_k)=0,\ \forall V_k$, so that all SNs remain idle at all times.
This occurs if $1<v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$, since $V_k\leq 1$, \emph{i.e.},
\begin{align}
\label{aaaaa}
\sqrt{\lambda}\sqrt{\sqrt{\lambda\theta}+\frac{\lambda}{4}+\frac{1}{S_A}}
>
1-\sqrt{\lambda\theta}-\frac{\lambda}{2},
\end{align}
or equivalently:
\noindent 1) If the right hand expression in (\ref{aaaaa}) is negative, \emph{i.e.},
$\lambda{>}\frac{4}{(\sqrt{\theta+2}+\sqrt{\theta})^2}$;
\noindent 2) If $
\lambda\leq\frac{4}{(\sqrt{\theta+2}+\sqrt{\theta})^2}
$ and, by squaring each side of (\ref{aaaaa}),
\begin{align}
\label{rrr}
\lambda(1-\theta+1/S_A)+2\sqrt{\lambda\theta}-1>0.
\end{align}
We further distinguish the following subcases:
\noindent 2.a) if $\theta=1+1/S_A$, then (\ref{rrr}) is equivalent to $\lambda>\frac{1}{4\theta}$;
\noindent 2.b) if $\theta<1+1/S_A$, then (\ref{rrr}) is equivalent to $\lambda>\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$;
\noindent 2.c) finally, if $\theta>1+1/S_A$, then (\ref{rrr}) is equivalent to
\begin{align*}
\label{}
\!\!\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}
\!<\!\lambda\!<\!
\frac{1}{(\sqrt{1+1/S_A}-\sqrt{\theta})^2}\!.\!\!
\end{align*}
Note that the upper bound is redundant since,
using the fact that
$\theta>1+1/S_A$, we obtain the tighter bound
\begin{align*}
\label{}
&\lambda\leq\frac{4}{(\sqrt{\theta\!+\!2}\!+\!\sqrt{\theta})^2}
\!\!<\!\!
\frac{1}{(\sqrt{1\!+\!1/S_A}\!-\!\sqrt{\theta})^2},
\end{align*}
hence (\ref{rrr}) is equivalent to $\lambda>\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}.$
Combining the cases 1) and 2), (\ref{aaaaa}) holds if $\lambda{>}\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$.
Hence, in order to avoid the trivial MP solution $t^{(MP)}(V_k){=}0,\forall V_k$,
$\lambda$ must satisfy the condition of the theorem.
Finally, the optimal $S_M^{(MP)}(V_k)$ is given by $S_M^{(MP)}(V_k)=S_M^*(t^{(MP)}(V_k))$. The theorem is thus proved.
\hfill\QED
\vspace{-3mm}
\section{}
\label{proofoflemperformance}
\noindent\emph{Proof of Prop. \ref{lemperformance}:}
When $\lambda\to 0$, we have
$v_{\mathrm{th}}(0,t){=}0,\forall t{\geq}-1$,
$t^*{\to}\infty$.
Therefore, since $V_k{>}v_{\mathrm{th}}(0,t),\forall t{\geq}-1$, from Theorem~\ref{lemMPclosedform} we have $t^{(MP)}(V_k){=}B$, hence all channels are occupied.
Moreover, $S_M^{(MP)}(V_k){\to}\infty$, so that the sensing-transmission cost in each slot is $\infty$, and the aggregate SNR collected at the FC in each slot is $\Lambda_k{\to} BS_A,\forall k{\geq}0$. The result follows from \cite[Prop.~7]{MichelusiP1}.
Now, consider the case $\lambda{\to}\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$. In this case, we have $v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda_{\mathrm{th}},0){=}1$,
by definition of $\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$. Therefore, it follows that $t^{(MP)}(V_k){=}0$, so that
the sensing-transmission cost in each slot $0$, and the aggregate SNR collected at the FC in each slot is $\Lambda_k{=}0$.
\hfill\QED
\vspace{-3mm}
\section{}
\label{proofofeta}
\begin{propos}[Properties of $\eta_j(\lambda)$ and $\lambda_j^*$]
\label{eta}
$\eta_j(\lambda)$ is a decreasing function of $\lambda{\in}[0,\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}]$ and increasing function of $j{\geq}0$.
Additionally, $\lambda_0^*{=}0$, $\lambda_{j-1}^*{<}\lambda_j^*,\forall j{\geq}1$, and $\lambda_{\infty}^*{\triangleq}\lim_{j\to\infty}\lambda_j^*{=}\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$.
\end{propos}
\noindent\emph{Proof:}
The first part can be proved by inspection, \emph{i.e.}, by solving $\frac{\mathrm d \eta_j(\lambda)}{\mathrm d\lambda}{<}0$ and
$\eta_{j+1}(\lambda){-}\eta_j(\lambda){>}0$.
We have $\eta_0(0){=}0$, hence $\lambda_0^*{=}0$, $\lim_{j\to\infty}\eta_j(\lambda){=}1{-}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$,
and $\lambda_{\infty}^*{=}\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$.
Finally, $0{=}\eta_{j-1}(\lambda_{j-1}^*){<}\eta_{j}(\lambda_{j-1}^*)$, and thus necessarily $\lambda_{j}^*{>}\lambda_{j-1}^*$, since $\eta_{j}(\lambda)$
is a decreasing function of $\lambda$.~\hfill\QED
\vspace{-3mm}
\section{}
\label{proofoflemSAinf}
\noindent\emph{Proof of Theorem~\ref{lemSAinf}:}
We prove the theorem only for the case $\lambda{<}\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$ and $V_0{=}1$. A similar proof holds for the case
$\lambda{=}\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$ or $V_0{<}1$, the only difference being in the initial transient behavior (which does not affect the
average long-term performance). In the proof, we define $f_i\triangleq 1-\alpha^i(1-\sqrt{\lambda\theta})$, for $i\geq 0$.
Let $\lambda{\in}(\lambda_{J-1}^*,\lambda_J^*]$, for some $J\geq 1$ (for any $\lambda{<}\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$, such $J$ exists and is unique).
Since $\lambda{<}\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$, we have $v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0){<}1{=}V_0$, hence,
from Corollary \ref{corolMPclosedform}, $t^{(MP)}(V_0){=}1$, $\Lambda_0{=}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda\theta}}{-}1$.
Then we have $\hat V_0{=}\sqrt{\lambda\theta}$, $V_1{=}f_1$,
with cost $c_{\mathrm{TX}}+\phi(1/\sqrt{\lambda\theta}-1)$.
In the following stages $k\geq 1$, let $V_k=f_i$ for some $i>0$. This is true for $k=1$, since $V_1=f_1$.
Then, from Corollary~\ref{corolMPclosedform}:
\noindent 1) if $f_i{<}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$, then $t^{(MP)}(V_k){=}0$, $\Lambda_k{=}0$, $\hat V_k{=}f_i$,
$V_{k+1}{=}1{-}\alpha(1{-}V_k){=}f_{i+1}$, with cost $0$;
\noindent 2) if $f_i{=}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$, then, with probability $(1{-}p_0)$, $t^{(MP)}(V_k){=}0$, $\Lambda_k{=}0$, $\hat V_k{=}f_i$,
$V_{k+1}{=}1{-}\alpha(1{-}\hat V_k){=}f_{i+1}$, with cost $0$;
otherwise, with probability $p_0$,
$t^{(MP)}(V_k){=}1$, $\Lambda_k{=}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda\theta}}{-}\frac{1}{f_i}$, $\hat V_k{=}\sqrt{\lambda\theta}$,
$V_{k+1}{=}1{-}\alpha(1{-}\hat V_k){=}f_{1}$, with cost $c_{\mathrm{TX}}{+}\phi(1/\sqrt{\lambda\theta}-f_i^{-1})$;
\noindent 3) if $f_i{>}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$, then
$t^{(MP)}(V_k){=}1$, $\Lambda_k{=}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda\theta}}{-}\frac{1}{f_i}$, $\hat V_k{=}\sqrt{\lambda\theta}$,
$V_{k+1}{=}f_{1}$, with cost $c_{\mathrm{TX}}{+}\phi(1{/}\sqrt{\lambda\theta}{-}f_i^{-1})$.
Since $\{f_i,i>0\}$ is a non-decreasing sequence,
and using the definition of $\lambda_j^*$ as the unique solution of $\eta_j(\lambda_j^*)=0$ (see (\ref{etak})),
we have that $f_{i}<v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)\Leftrightarrow i<J$,
and $f_{i}=v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)\Leftrightarrow \lambda=\lambda_{J}^*$ and $i=J$.
It follows that, if $V_k=f_i$ for some $i< J$, then $V_{k+j}=f_{i+j},\forall j\leq J-i$.
If $V_k=f_{J}$, then, with probability $p_0$ (where $p_0=1$ if $\lambda\in(\lambda_{J-1}^*,\lambda_{J}^*)$), $V_{k+1}=f_1$; otherwise, $V_{k+1}=f_{J+1}$.
Finally, if $V_k=f_{J}+1$, then $V_{k+1}=f_1$.
The prior variance process $\{V_k,k>0\}$ thus follows a time-homogeneous, finite-state Markov chain,
taking value from the set $\{f_1,f_2,\dots,f_{J+1}\}$.
Let $\pi_i$ be the long-term time-average probability that $V_k=f_i$, defined as
\begin{align}
\label{}
\pi_i=\lim_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T+1}\sum_{k=0}^T\chi(V_k=f_i).
\end{align}
By solving the steady state equations, it is given by
\begin{align}
\label{}
\pi_i=\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{J+1-p_0} & i=1,2,\dots,J, \\
\frac{1-p_0}{J+1-p_0} & i=J+1, \\
0 & i>J+1.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
By averaging with respect the steady-state distribution $\pi_i$,
the average long-term sensing-transmission cost incurred by each SN under the MP is thus given by
\begin{align}
\label{}
&\bar C_{MP}=
\frac{1}{N_S}\pi_{J}p_0\left[c_{\mathrm{TX}}+\phi\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda\theta}}-\frac{1}{f_{J}}\right)\right]
\nonumber\\&
+\frac{1}{N_S}\pi_{J+1}\left[c_{\mathrm{TX}}+\phi\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda\theta}}-\frac{1}{f_{J+1}}\right)\right],
\end{align}
since transmissions occur only if $V_k=f_{J}$ (with probability $p_0$) or
$V_k=f_{J+1}$ (with probability $1$), yielding (\ref{Cinf}).
Similarly, the average long-term MSE is given by
\begin{align*}
\label{}
&\bar M_{MP}\!\!=\!\!\!\sum_{i=1}^{J-1}\!\!\pi_if_i\!+\!\pi_{ K_\lambda}(p_0\sqrt{\lambda\theta}\!+\!(1\!-\!p_0)f_{J})
\!+\!\pi_{J+1}\sqrt{\lambda\theta},
\end{align*}
since no transmissions occur in states $f_i,\ i=1,2,\dots,J-1$, hence $\hat V_k=V_k=f_i$,
yielding (\ref{Rinf}).
\hfill\QED
\vspace{-3mm}
\section{}
\label{proofoflemconvex}
\noindent\emph{Proof of Prop. \ref{lemconvex}:}
Using the fact that $p_0{=}1$ for $\lambda{\in}(\lambda_{j-1}^*,\lambda_j^*)$, we
obtain that
the average long-term expressions (\ref{Rinf}) and (\ref{Cinf}) are continuous functions of
$\lambda\in(\lambda_{j-1}^*,\lambda_j^*)$.
Similarly, (\ref{Rinf}) and (\ref{Cinf}) are continuous functions of $p_0{\in}[0,1]$, for $\lambda{=}\lambda_j^*,\forall j$.
Continuity at the boundaries holds by inspection of (\ref{Rinf}), (\ref{Cinf}).
Now, we prove that $\bar M_{MP}^{\lambda,1}$ and $\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda,1}$
are, respectively, increasing and decreasing functions of $\lambda\in(\lambda_{j-1}^*,\lambda_j^*),\forall j$,
and that $\bar M_{MP}^{\lambda_j^*,p_0}$ and $\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda_j^*,p_0}$
are, respectively, decreasing and increasing functions of $p_0\in[0,1],\ \forall j$.
The property (\ref{decreasing}) then follows from this and the continuity.
From (\ref{Rinf}) and (\ref{Cinf}), for $j\geq 1$ and $\lambda\in(\lambda_{j-1}^*,\lambda_j^*)$ we have
\begin{align}
\label{derivRinf}
&\frac{\mathrm d\bar M_{MP}^{\lambda,1}}{\mathrm d\lambda}
=
\frac{1-\alpha^{j}}{1-\alpha}\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{2j\sqrt{\lambda}}>0,
\\&
\label{derivCinf}
\frac{\mathrm d\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda,1}}{\mathrm d\lambda}
\!=\!
\frac{-\phi(1\!-\!\alpha^{j})[1\!-\!\alpha^{j}(1\!-\!\sqrt{\lambda\theta})^2]}{2k\lambda\sqrt{\lambda\theta}[1-\alpha^{j}(1-\sqrt{\lambda\theta})]^2}
<0,
\end{align}
where we have used the fact that $\lambda\leq\lambda_{\mathrm{th}}$, hence $\sqrt{\lambda\theta}\leq 1$.
Similarly, for $j\geq 0$, $\lambda=\lambda_j^*$ and $p_0\in[0,1]$, we have
\begin{align}
\label{}
\label{derivRinfp}
&\frac{\mathrm d\bar M_{MP}^{\lambda,p_0}}{\mathrm dp_0}
=
\frac{1-\sqrt{\lambda_j^*\theta}}{(j+1-p_0)^2}\left(j\alpha^{j}-\frac{1-\alpha^{j}}{1-\alpha}\right),
\end{align}
hence $\frac{\mathrm d\bar M_{MP}^{\lambda,p_0}}{\mathrm dp_0}{<}0{\Leftrightarrow}F_j{\triangleq}j\alpha^{j}-\frac{1-\alpha^{j}}{1-\alpha}{<}0$.
This is verified, since
$F_{j+1}{-}F_j{=}{-}(j{+}1)\alpha^{j}(1{-}\alpha){<}0$, so that $F_j{<}F_0{=}0,\forall j{>}0$.
Similarly,
\begin{align}
\label{derivCinfp}
&\!\!\!\frac{\mathrm d\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda,p_0}}{\mathrm dp_0}
=
\frac{\phi}{(j+1-p_0)^2}\left(\frac{1}{\theta}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda_j^*\theta}}\right)
\\&
\!\!\!-\!\frac{\phi}{(j+1-p_0)^2}\left[\!\!\frac{j+1}{1\!-\!\alpha^{j}(1\!-\!\sqrt{\lambda_j^*\theta})}-\frac{j}{1\!-\!\alpha^{j+1}(1\!-\!\sqrt{\lambda_j^*\theta})}\!\!\right]\!.\!\!
\nonumber
\end{align}
By solving $\eta_j(\lambda_j^*)=0$ by definition of $\lambda_j^*$,
with respect to $\theta$ as a function of $\lambda_j^*\theta$, and using (\ref{etak}) and (\ref{vth}),
we obtain
\begin{align}
\label{th}
\theta=\frac{\lambda_j^*\theta[1-\alpha^{j}(1-\sqrt{\lambda_j^*\theta})]}{(1-\alpha^{j})^2(1-\sqrt{\lambda_j^*\theta})^2}.
\end{align}
Replacing (\ref{th}) in (\ref{derivCinfp}), and letting $x{=}\sqrt{\lambda_j^*\theta}{\in}[0,1]$,
we obtain
\begin{align}
\label{}
&\!\!\!\frac{\mathrm d\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda,p_0}}{\mathrm dp_0}
\propto
1\!-\!\alpha^j
\!-\!\frac{j\alpha^{j}x^2(1-\alpha)}{[1-\alpha^{j}(1-x)][1-\alpha^{j+1}(1-x)]
}
\triangleq G(x),
\nonumber
\end{align}
We have
\begin{align}
\label{
&\frac{\mathrm d G(x)}{\mathrm d x}
=
-\frac{j\alpha^{j}x(1-\alpha)}{[1-\alpha^{j}(1-x)]^2[1-\alpha^{j+1}(1-x)]^2}
\\&\nonumber
\times
\left[
x(2-\alpha^{j+1}-\alpha^{j})
+2(1-x)(1-\alpha^{j})(1-\alpha^{j+1})
\right]
\leq 0.
\end{align}
It follows that $G(x)\geq G(1)=1-\alpha^j-j\alpha^{j}(1-\alpha)\geq 0$, hence
$\frac{\mathrm d\bar C_{MP}^{\lambda,p_0}}{\mathrm d p_0}>~0$, thus proving
(\ref{decreasing}).
\hfill\QED
\vspace{-3mm}
\section{}
\label{proofoflemMPdistr}
\noindent\emph{Proof of Theorem \ref{lemMPdistr}:}
Let, for $V_k\in(0,1]$,
\begin{align}
\label{}
&S_{M}^{(MP)}(\zeta;V_k)=\arg\min_{S_M\geq 0}f(\zeta,S_M,V_k),\ \zeta>0,
\\
&\zeta^{(MP)}(S_M;V_k)=\arg\min_{\zeta\geq 0}f(\zeta,S_M,V_k),\ S_M\geq 0.
\end{align}
\subsection{Optimal $\zeta^{(MP)}(S_M;V_k)$ given $S_M\geq 0$}
\noindent It can be shown that
\begin{align}
\label{fdsfds}
&\frac{\mathrm df(\zeta,S_M,V_k)}{\mathrm d\zeta}=
\lambda B (1+\theta S_M)
\\&\!+\!\nonumber
e^{-\zeta}(1\!-\!\zeta)
\mathbb E\left[\left.\frac{R_k-\rho(\zeta)B}{\rho(\zeta)(1\!-\!\rho(\zeta))}\hat \nu\left(V_{k},\frac{R_kS_AS_{M}}{S_A+S_{M}}\right)
\right|\rho(\zeta)\right],
\end{align}
where we have used the fact that
\begin{align}
\frac{\mathrm d\mathcal B_{B}\left(r;\rho\right)}{\mathrm d\rho}=
\mathcal B_{B}\left(r;\rho\right)
\frac{r-\rho B}{\rho(1-\rho)}.
\end{align}
The argument within the expectation in (\ref{fdsfds}) is concave in $R_k$. If $\zeta\geq 1$, using Jensen's inequality \cite{Boyd},
we thus obtain
\begin{align}
&\frac{\mathrm df(\zeta,S_M,V_k)}{\mathrm d\zeta}\geq
\lambda B (1+\theta S_M)>0,
\end{align}
where we have used the fact that $\mathbb E\left[\left.R_k\right|\rho(\zeta)\right]{=}\rho(\zeta)B$.
It follows that $f(\zeta,S_M,V_k)$ increases for $\zeta{\geq}1$, hence $\zeta^{(MP)}(S_M;V_k){\in}[0,1)$ and we optimize over $\zeta{\in}[0,1) $ hereafter.
By multiplying each side of (\ref{fdsfds}) by $\frac{e^\zeta}{1-\zeta}$, we obtain that
$\frac{\mathrm df(\zeta,S_M,V_k)}{\mathrm d\zeta}{>}0$ is equivalent to $g(S_M,\zeta,V_k){>}0$.
We have the following property of $g(S_M,\zeta,V_k)$.
\begin{propos}
\label{incrG}
$g(S_M,\zeta,V_k)$ is an increasing function of $\zeta$.
\end{propos}
\noindent\emph{Proof:}
See Appendix \ref{AppincrG}.
\hfill\QED
\noindent Using Prop. \ref{incrG} and the fact that
$\lim_{\zeta\to 1}g(S_M,\zeta,V_k)=\infty$, we obtain the following cases, depending on the sign o
\begin{align*}
\label{}
g(S_M,0,V_k)\!=\!B\!\left[\!\hat \nu\left(\!V_{k},\frac{S_AS_M}{S_A\!+\!S_M\!}\right)\!-\!V_k\right]
\!+\!\lambda B (1\!+\!\theta S_M)\!:
\end{align*}
if $g(S_M,0,V_k)\geq 0$,
then $\frac{\mathrm df(\zeta,S_M,V_k)}{\mathrm d\zeta}>0,\forall\zeta\in (0,1)$ and $\zeta^{(MP)}(S_M;V_k)=0$;
otherwise,
$\zeta^{(MP)}(S_M;V_k)$ is the unique $\zeta\in (0,1)$ such that $g(S_M,\zeta,V_k)=0$.
\subsection{Optimal $S_{M}^{(MP)}(\zeta;V_k)$ given $\zeta\in(0,1)$}
\noindent Let $\zeta\in(0,1)$. It can be shown that
\begin{align}
\label{}\nonumber
&\frac{\mathrm df(\zeta,S_M,V_k)}{\mathrm d S_M}=h(S_M,\zeta,V_k),\ \text{hence}
\\
\label{fderiv}
&\frac{\mathrm d^2f(\zeta,S_M,V_k)}{\mathrm d S_M^2}=
\frac{\mathrm dh(S_M,\zeta,V_k)}{\mathrm d S_M}
\\&\nonumber
\!=\!
\mathbb E\left[\left.\!
\hat \nu\!\left(V_{k},\frac{R_kS_AS_{M}}{S_A+S_{M}}\right)^{\!\!3}\!
\frac{2R_kS_A^2(1+V_kR_kS_A)}{V_k(S_A+S_M)^3}
\!\right|\rho(\zeta)\!
\right]
>0,
\end{align}
hence $f(\zeta,S_M,V_k)$ is convex in $S_M$, for a fixed $\zeta>0$, $V_k\in(0,1]$.
We have
$\underset{S_M\to\infty}{\lim} h(S_M,\zeta,V_k)=\lambda\theta \zeta B>0$ and
\begin{align}
\label{}
h(0,\zeta,V_k)=
-\zeta e^{-\zeta}BV_k^2+\lambda\theta \zeta B.
\end{align}
Then, if $h(0,\zeta,V_k){\geq}0$, \emph{i.e.},
$\zeta{\geq}\zeta_{\mathrm{th}}^{\max}(V_k)$, we have $h(S_M,\zeta,V_k){\geq}0,\forall S_M{\geq}0$, hence
$S_{M}^{(MP)}(\zeta;V_k){=}0$.
Otherwise ($\zeta{<}\zeta_{\mathrm{th}}^{\max}(V_k)$),
$S_{M}^{(MP)}(\zeta;V_k)$ is the unique $S_M{>}0$ such that $h(S_M,\zeta,V_k){=}0$.
By evaluating $h(S_M,\zeta,V_k)$ in $S_M{=}S_A\left(\frac{V_k}{\sqrt{\lambda\theta}}{-}1\right)$, it can be shown that
\begin{align}
\label{}
h\left(S_A\left(V_k/\sqrt{\lambda\theta}-1\right),\zeta,V_k\right)>0.
\end{align}
Therefore, necessarily $S_{M}^{(MP)}(\zeta;V_k)\in (0,S_A\frac{V_k-\sqrt{\lambda\theta}}{\sqrt{\lambda\theta}})$.
We now prove that the MP is $\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k){=}0{\Leftrightarrow}V_k{\leq}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$.
In fact, if there exists some $\tilde S_M\geq 0$ such that $g(\tilde S_M,0,V_k){<}0$, for such $\tilde S_M$ we have that
$\zeta^{(MP)}(\tilde S_M;V_k){>}0$
and, for all $S_M{\geq}0$,
$V_k{=}f(0,S_M,V_k){>}f(\zeta^{(MP)}(\tilde S_M;V_k),\tilde S_M,V_k)$,
hence the MP satisfies $\zeta^{(MP)}{>}0$ (in fact, $\zeta{=}0$ has sub-optimal cost $f(0,S_M,V_k){=}V_k$).
On the other hand, if $g(S_M,0,V_k){\geq}0,\forall S_M{\geq}0$, it follows that
$\zeta^{(MP)}(S_M;V_k){=}0,\forall S_M{\geq}0$, hence the MP satisfies $\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k){=}0$.
We conclude that $\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k){=}0{\Leftrightarrow}\min_{S_M\geq 0}g(S_M,0,V_k){\geq}0$.
We thus minimize $g(S_M,0,V_k)$ with respect to $S_M$. It can be shown that $g(S_M,0,V_k)$ is a convex function of $S_M{\geq}0$.
By setting the derivative with respect to $S_M$ to zero and forcing the solution to be non-negative (since $S_M{\geq}0$), we obtain
\begin{align}
S_M^*=\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda\theta}}-\frac{1}{V_k}\right)^+\frac{S_AV_k}{1+S_AV_k}.
\end{align}
By evaluating the function $g(S_M^*,0,V_k)$ when $V_k\leq \sqrt{\lambda\theta}$, hence $S_M^*=0$,
we obtain
$g(S_M^*,0,V_k)=\lambda B\geq 0$, hence $\zeta^{(MP)}=0$ if $V_k{\leq}\sqrt{\lambda\theta}$.
We now consider the case $V_k{>}\sqrt{\lambda\theta}$. After rearranging the terms, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\label{}
g(S_M^*,0,V_k)=&B\lambda
-B\frac{S_A}{1+S_AV_k}(V_k-\sqrt{\lambda\theta})^2.
\end{align*}
Solving $g(S_M^*,0,V_k)\geq 0$ with respect to $V_k$, it can be shown that this is equivalent to $V_k\leq v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$,
and therefore $\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k)=0\Leftrightarrow V_k\leq v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$.
Finally, we show that the MP lies within (\ref{boundz}) and (\ref{boundSM}), when $V_k{>}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$.
By contradiction, if $\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k){\geq}\zeta_{\mathrm{th}}^{\max}(V_k)$,
then $S_{M}^{(MP)}(V_k){=}0$, hence
$\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k){=}\arg\min f(\zeta,0,V_k){=}0$, yielding a contradiction.
Hence, necessarily, $\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k){<}\zeta_{\mathrm{th}}^{\max}(V_k)$.
On the other hand, if $g(S_{M}^{(MP)}(V_k),0,V_k){\geq}0$, then $\zeta^{(MP)}(V_k){=}0$, yielding a contradiction.
Therefore, we must have $g(S_{M}^{(MP)}(V_k),0,V_k){<}0$. By solving it with respect to
$S_{M}^{(MP)}(V_k)$, we obtain (\ref{boundSM}).
Using the fact that $V_k{>}v_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda,0)$, it can be shown that
$S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\min}{>}0$. Moreover, in general, $S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\max}{>}S_{M,\mathrm{th}}^{\min}$,
so that
the upper/lower bounds are not tight.
\hfill\QED
\vspace{-3mm}
\section{}
\label{AppincrG}
\noindent\emph{Proof of Prop. \ref{incrG}:}
We have
\begin{align*}
\label{}
&\!\frac{\mathrm dg(S_M,\zeta,V_k)}{\mathrm d\zeta}\!=\!
\frac{Be^{-\zeta}(1-\zeta)}{\rho(\zeta)^2(1-\rho(\zeta))^2}
\mathbb E\left[
\hat \nu\left(V_{k},\frac{R_kS_AS_M}{S_A+S_M}\right)\right.
\\&\left.\left.\!\times\!
\vphantom{\hat \nu\left(V_{k},\frac{R_kS_AS_M}{S_A+S_M}\right)}
\left[
(R_k\!-\!\rho(\zeta)B)^2
\!-\!R_k(1\!-\!\rho(\zeta))
\!+\!(R_k\!-\!\rho(\zeta)B)\rho(\zeta)
\right]\right|\rho(\zeta)\right]
\nonumber\\&
+e^{\zeta}\frac{2-\zeta}{(1-\zeta)^2}
\lambda B^2 (1+\theta S_M)\\
&
B e^{-\zeta}(1\!-\!\zeta)(1\!-\!\rho(\zeta))^{B-2}
s_B\left(\frac{\rho(\zeta)}{1\!-\!\rho(\zeta)},\frac{S_AS_M}{S_A\!+\!S_M}\right),
\end{align*}
where the inequality is obtained by minimizing with respect to $\lambda$, yielding $\lambda=0$, and we have defined, for
$x\in\left[0,\frac{1}{e-1}\right]$ and $S_T\geq 0$,
\begin{align}
\label{sb}
&s_B(x,S_T)=\frac{1}{x^2 }\sum_{r=0}^B
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
B\\r
\end{array}
\right)x^r
\hat \nu\left(V_{k},rS_T\right)
\\&\times
\left[
\left(r(1+x)-xB\right)^2
-r(1+x)
+\left(r(1+x)-xB\right)x
\right].\nonumber
\end{align}
By rearranging the terms, we obtain, for $B>1$.
\begin{align}
\label{}
&s_B(x,\!S_T
\!=\!\nonumber
B(B\!-\!1)(1\!+\!x)^2
\!\sum_{r=0}^{B\!-\!2}\!\!
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\!\!\!B\!-\!2\!\!\!\\r
\end{array}
\right)x^{r}
\hat \nu\left(V_{k},(r+2)S_T\right)\\&
-2B(B\!-\!1)(1+x)\!\sum_{r=0}^{B-1}\!\!
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\!\!\!B-1\!\!\!\\r
\end{array}
\right)x^{r}\nonumber
\hat \nu\left(V_{k},(r+1)S_T\right)\\&
+B(B\!-\!1)\sum_{r=0}^B
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
B\\r
\end{array}
\right)x^r
\hat \nu\left(V_{k},rS_T\right).
\end{align}
We now prove that $s_B(x,S_T)\geq 0$, by induction on $B$.
For $B=1$, from (\ref{sb}) we obtain $s_1(x,S_T)=0$.
Now, assume that, for some $B>1$, $s_{B-1}(x,S_T)\geq 0$. We prove that this implies $s_B(x,S_T)\geq 0$.
It can be shown that
the derivative of $s_B(x,S_T)$ with respect to $x$ is given by
\begin{align}
\label{}
&\!\!\frac{\mathrm ds_B(x,S_T)}{\mathrm dx}\!=\!
\frac{1}{1+V_kS_T}Bs_{B-1}\left(x,\frac{S_T}{1+V_kS_T}\right)\geq 0,
\end{align}
hence $s_B(x,S_T)\geq s_B(0,S_T)$.
The result follows since $s_B(0,S_T)>0$ by inspection.
\hfill\QED
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtranS}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{intro}
The heavy elements (heavier than Zn) are thought to be built by two main processes.
The s-process operates by slow neutron capture on seed nuclei on a long time scale and the capture is slow compared to the $\beta$ decay of the affected nucleus. It often happens in relatively low-mass stars at the end of their long evolution in their AGB (asymptotic giant branch) phase, \citep[for example][]{KappelerGB11,BisterzoGS12}.
The r-process instead occurs on a very short time scale in violent events not yet clearly identified \citep[e.g.][]{LangankeThi13,AokiSB13}: explosions following the core collapse of massive supernovae, and/or mergings of neutron stars or of black holes, and/or jets, and/or gamma ray bursts, etc. These two distinct processes build generally different isotopes of a given heavy element, and different element ratios.
Since the low-mass stars have a very long lifetime, the matter in the very first phases of the Galaxy could not be enriched by the late production of these low-mass stars in their AGB phase, therefore the heavy elements abundances in this matter must only reflect the r-process production.
The stars formed from this primitive matter are considered as key objects for constraining the r-process.
These stars are extremely metal-poor, since at their birth the matter was enriched by a very small number of supernovae.
Following \citet{BeersChris05}, stars are called extremely metal-poor (EMP), when [Fe/H] \footnote{In the classical notation, $\rm [X/H] = \log (N_{X} / N_{H})_{star} - \log (N_{X} / N_{H})_{Sun}$ } $\leq -3$.
Here, for convenience, we extend this definition to stars with $\rm[Fe/H] \leq -2.6$, although most of the stars considered are strictly EMP following the classification of \citet{BeersChris05}. We will consider two classes of EMP stars: the classical EMP stars (which are not carbon-rich) and the carbon-rich EMP stars (CEMP).
$\bullet$ The EMP stars. In the classical EMP stars, the scatter of the enrichment in neutron-capture elements is very large, some are rich in neutron-capture elements like CS\,31082-001 \citep{HillPC02,SiqueiraMelloSB13}
with a mean enhancement reaching $\rm[r/Fe] \simeq +1.0$ dex, but
others are poor with $\rm[r/Fe] \simeq -1.0$ dex like HD\,122563 \citep{HondaAI06}.
Generally, [Eu/Fe] is used to measure the r-process enrichment. In the EMP stars it is not always easy to measure the abundance of Eu, but at these low metallicities there is a very good correlation between [Eu/Fe] and [Ba/Fe] \citep[see, e.g.,][]{MashonkinaCB10,SpiteSpite14}, and thus [Ba/Fe] can be used to estimate the r-process enrichment.
In Fig.\,\ref{scatter1} [Sr/Ba] is plotted vs. [Ba/Fe] for the sample of EMP stars observed in the framework of the ESO Large Program First Stars, hereafter ESO-First stars, following \citet{HillPC02}, \citet{FrancoisDH07}, and \citet{BonifacioSC09}. All the EMP stars are located in the upper lefthand corner of the figure, and the scatter of the ratio [Sr/Ba] increases strongly when [Ba/Fe] decreases.
All the EMP stars have\\
\indent--$\rm [Ba/Fe] \lesssim +1.0$,\\
\indent--$\rm [Sr/Ba] < 0.5 - [Ba/Fe]$,\\
\indent--$\rm [Sr/Ba] \gtrsim -0.5$, and thus greater than the r-only solar value of this ratio: $\rm [Sr/Ba]_{\odot} = -0.5$ following \citet{MashonkinaG01} and \citet{MashonkinaChri14}.
It has been shown that, generally speaking, in the EMP stars, the abundance pattern of the neutron-capture elements is not the same when [Sr/Ba] is high (as in CS\,31082-001) and when [Sr/Ba] is low as in HD\,122563 \citep{HondaAI06,HondaAI07}. It appears also that there are not two distinct populations of EMP stars r-rich and r-poor, but a continuous evolution of the abundance patterns of the neutron-capture elements with [Ba/Fe] \citep[see also][]{RoedererCK10}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\resizebox {6.5cm}{7.0cm}
{\includegraphics {bafe-srLTE-C-pluspat4.ps} }
\caption[]{[Sr/Ba] vs. [Ba/Fe] for {\bf~~~~~i)} our sample of EMP stars from the Large Program First Stars: filled symbols (blue squares for unmixed giants, \citet{SpiteCP05}, red diamonds for mixed giants, black circles for dwarfs); and {\bf~~~~~ii}) green open squares for the CEMP stars in the same range of metallicity gathered from \citet{AokiRN01,AokiRN02}, \citet{BarbuySS05}, \citet{SivaraniBB06}, \citet{BeharaBL10}, \citet{SpiteCB13}, and \citet{YongNB13}. The dotted line at [Sr/Ba]=--0.5 represents the value of the r-only solar value of this ratio \citep{MashonkinaG01}. (Color figures are available in the electronic edition.)\\
The EMP stars are all located in the left upper corner of the figure, many CEMP stars are located in the same region (they are CEMP-no), but another group (CEMP-s) has a high abundance of Ba: $\rm[Ba/Fe]\gtrsim+1$ associated with a low value of [Sr/Ba] (lower right region).\\
In the left upper corner, the stars are gathered below the dashed line: [Sr/Ba] = 0.5 -- [Ba/Fe]. }
\label{scatter1}
\end{figure}
$\bullet$ The CEMP stars.
A significant fraction of the EMP stars is carbon-rich.
\citet{BeersChris05} consider that a star is carbon-rich when
$\rm[C/Fe] \geq +1.0$. As a comparison, following \citet{BonifacioSC09}, the mean value of [C/Fe] in {\it normal} EMP stars (not carbon-rich) is about $\rm +0.40 \pm 0.2$.
The fraction of carbon-enhanced stars increases when the metallicity decreases \citep[see e.g.][]{LucatelloTB05,CarolloFB2014}. They represent 20\% of the stars at $\rm[Fe/H]=-2$, and of the six stars known with $\rm[Fe/H]\leq-4.5$, only one \citep{CaffauBF11,CaffauBF12} does not present a carbon enhancement.
In Fig.\,\ref{scatter1}, a set of CEMP stars has been gathered from LTE analyses of \citet{AokiRN01,AokiRN02}, \citet{BarbuySS05}, \citet{SivaraniBB06}, \citet{BeharaBL10}, \citet{SpiteCB13} and \citet{YongNB13}.
Several CEMP stars are located in the same region as the EMP stars. They seem to have the same abundance pattern of neutron-capture elements as the EMP stars \citep{SpiteSpite14}, and are generally not binaries \citep{StarkenburgSC14}. They are classified CEMP-no \citep[see also][]{CarolloFB2014}.
Other CEMP stars are strongly enriched in neutron-capture elements compared to the EMP stars. In Fig.\ref{scatter1} they have $\rm [Ba/Fe] \gtrsim 1.0$ and $\rm [Sr/Ba] < -0.5$.
It has been shown that these stars have a high value of the ratio [Pb/Eu]: a "s-process" signature \citep[see, e.g.,][]{MashonkinaRF12,RoedererCK10,SivaraniBM04}. Such a signature may seem unexpected in stars formed so early in the Galaxy.
But most of these stars have been found to have a variable radial velocity, indicating pollution by a nearby companion.
In fact, the neutron-capture elements observed in these CEMP stars would not reflect the primitive matter that formed the star: they have been produced by the s-process in the higher mass companion of the binary in its AGB phase, and later transferred to the atmosphere of the (today observed) lower mass companion \citep[see e.g.][]{IzzardGS09}.
In this paper, we will call these stars CEMP-s, without attempting to resolve the CEMP-rs subclass \citep[where Eu is also enhanced, see, e.g.,][]{BarbuySS05} from a CEMP-s subclass where it is not.
Recently, \citet{AokiSB13} have extracted {\it normal} (not carbon-rich) EMP stars ($\rm [Fe/H] \leq -2.5$) in the SAGA Database \citep{SudaKY08} with measured values of Sr and Ba (260 stars).
Almost all these stars present a ratio $\rm[Sr/Ba]>-0.5$, as expected from Fig.~\ref{scatter1} for {\it normal} EMP stars.
However they point out that among these stars, a subsample of six EMP stars (not C-rich) had a surprisingly low-[Sr/Ba] ratio, lower than the r-only solar value of this ratio ($\rm[Sr/Ba]=-0.5$).
In these stars the [Sr/Ba] ratio is similar to the ratio observed in the CEMP-s stars, but they have a ratio $\rm[Ba/Fe]<+1$. This paper is an attempt to better understand the cause of these anomalies.
\section {Observations of the star sample}
In the subsample of \citet{AokiSB13}, two stars are suspected of being binaries. A pollution by a companion could thus be suspected of being responsible for their abundance anomalies. But four EMP stars are found to have a ratio $\rm[Sr/Ba]\ll -0.5$ and $\rm[Ba/Fe]<+1$ and are, to date, not suspected of being binaries.
These stars are presented in Table \ref{starsAoki}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\caption[]{Stars selected by \citet{AokiSB13} with $\rm [Fe/H] \leq -2.5$, $\rm [Ba/Fe]< 1.0$ and $\rm [Sr/Ba] \ll -0.5$ }
\label{starsAoki}
\begin{tabular}{l@{~~~}c@{~~~}c@{~~~}c@{~~~}c@{~~}r@{~~}c@{}c@{}c }
Star & [Fe/H]& [Ba/Fe] & [Sr/Ba]& $T_\mathrm{eff}$ & $\log g$ & Ref\\
\hline
CS~22950-173 & --2.50 &--0.04 & --0.72 & 6800 & 4.5 & 1\\
CS~29493-090 & --2.82 & +0.52 & --1.41 & 4700 & 1.3 & 2\\
CS~30322-023 & --3.40 & +0.54 & --1.05 & 4100 &--0.3 & 3\\
~~~~~~''~~~ & --3.26 & +0.59 & --1.10 & 4300 & 1.0 & 4\\
HE~0305-4520 & --2.91 & +0.59 & --1.25 & 4820 & 1.3 & 2\\
\hline
\multicolumn{7}{l}{1- \citet{PrestonSne00}}\\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{2- \citet{BarklemCB05}}\\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{3- \citet{MasseronEF06}}\\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{4- \citet{AokiBC07}}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption[]{Radial velocities (geocentric and barycentric) of the three stars studied. The precision of the radial velocities is about 1\,$\rm km\,s^{-1}$.}
\label{VVr}
\begin{tabular}{l@{~~~}c@{~~~}r@{~~~}r@{~~~}r@{~~}c@{~~}c@{}c@{}c }
Star & MJD & RV & RV & RV \\
& & (geo) & corr & (bary)\\
\hline
CS~22950-173 & 53848.34 & +38.7 & +29.8 & +68.5\\
\\
CS~29493-090 & 53637.17 & +287.9 & --18.8 & +269.1\\
CS~29493-090 & 53645.18 & +291.5 & --21.7 & +269.8\\
CS~29493-090 & 53645.22 & +291.85 & --21.75& +270.1\\
\\
HE~0305-4520 & 54024.25 & +137.2 & --0.6 & +136.6\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The star CS\,30322-023 has been studied in detail by \citet{MasseronEF06,MasseronJP10} and \citet{AokiBC07}.
We analyzed high-resolution spectra for the three other stars.
The spectra of CS\,22950-173 and HE\,0305-4520 were obtained at the VLT telescope with the UVES spectrograph \citep{DekkerDK00} in the course of our own observing programs. The UVES spectra of CS\,29493-090 (HE\,2156-3130) were retrieved from the ESO archive.\\
The resolving power of the spectra is about 40,000 with five pixels per resolution element. The spectra cover the ranges $\rm 330<\lambda <451\,nm $ (blue arm) and $\rm 480<\lambda <680\,nm $ (red arm).
The spectra were reduced (optimum extraction, division by the flat field, wavelength calibration) using the standard UVES pipeline.
The S/N of the spectra (per pixel) at 420nm is 110 for CS~22950-173, 80 for CS~29493-090 and 100 for HE~0305-4520.
Since the existence or non-existence of a companion is essential for explaining the peculiar heavy element patterns in metal-poor stars, we carefully measured the radial velocity of the three new low-Sr/Ba stars (Table \ref{VVr}). The measurements were done on the blue spectra, and the precision of the measurements is about 1~ $\rm km\,s^{-1}$. These measurements are discussed in sections \ref{to} and \ref{rvgi} and compared to the values found in the literature.
\section {Analysis}
We carried out a classical LTE analysis, which is homogeneous with the analysis of the ESO-First stars sample: red giant branch (RGB) stars \citep{CayrelDS04} and turnoff stars \citep{BonifacioSC09}, using OSMARCS model atmospheres \citep{GustafssonBE75,GustafssonEE03} and the {\tt turbospectrum} spectral synthesis code \citep{AlvarezP98,Plez12}.
For the two giants, the effective temperatures $T_\mathrm{eff}$ ~were taken from \citet{BarklemCB05} and deduced from colors. For the turnoff star CS~22950-173, we adopted a temperature based on 3D profiles of the $\rm H\alpha$ wings taking into account the influence of the gravity on this profile iteratively (Sbordone et al., in preparation). This temperature is a little higher than the value adopted by \citet{SbordoneBC10} but a little lower than the temperature adopted by \citet{PrestonSne00}.\\
The microturbulence velocity was derived from the Fe\,{\small I} ~lines, requiring that the abundance derived for individual lines be independent of the equivalent width of the line, and the surface gravity $\log g$ ~was determined by requiring that the Fe and Ti abundances derived from neutral and ionized lines be the same.
The adopted parameters are given in Table \ref{models}. These parameters are in the same range as the models adopted for the ESO-First stars sample, giant and turnoff stars \citep{CayrelDS04,BonifacioSC09} and lead to the same uncertainties: about 100K on $T_\mathrm{eff}$, 0.2 dex on $\log g$, and 0.2\,$\rm km\,s^{-1}$~ on $\rm v_{t}$, which induces an uncertainty of about 0.1 dex on [Fe/H].
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\caption[]{Parameters of the models adopted for the three stars analyzed here and the corresponding errors}
\label{models}
\begin{tabular}{l@{~~~}c@{~~~}r@{~~~}c@{~~~}c@{~~}c@{~~}c@{}c@{}c }
Star & $T_\mathrm{eff}$ & $\log g$ & $\rm v_{t}$ & [Fe/H]\\
\hline
CS~22950-173 & 6615 & 4.1 & 1.4 &--2.6 \\
CS~29493-090 & 4700 & 1.3 & 1.9 &--3.1 \\
HE~0305-4520 & 4820 & 1.3 & 2.0 &--3.0 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\resizebox {8.5cm}{3.8cm}
{\includegraphics {spBa22950-173.ps} }
\caption[]{Profile of the 493.4 Ba\,{\small II} ~lines in CS\,22950-173 computed with our adopted model (Tab.\ref{starsAoki}) and [Ba/Fe]=--0.53 (adopted value, thick blue line), and [Ba/Fe]=--0.04 (thin red line). The dashed line corresponds to a profile of the Ba line computed with the model adopted by \citet{PrestonSne00} and [Ba/Fe]=-0.04.}
\label{ba22950}
\end{figure}
\section{The turnoff star CS~22950-173} \label{to}
In our set of stars, CS~22950-173 is the only turnoff star, and the chemical composition of the atmosphere of this star could not be affected by a mixing with deep layers.
Following \citet{AokiSB13}, this star has been found to be a binary by \citet{PrestonSne00}, suggesting that
an anomaly in its abundance pattern could be due to a mass transfer from a now defunct companion, when it was in its AGB phase. However, we checked that \citet{PrestonSne00} do not indicate in their Table 1 that this star is suspected to be a binary, and it is even listed (their Table 4) among the ``blue metal-poor stars with constant radial velocities''.
Moreover, in our spectrum obtained in 2006, we measured a barycentric radial velocity (Table \ref{VVr}), in good agreement with the value ($=69.4 \pm 1$ $\rm km\,s^{-1}$) measured by \citet{PrestonSne00} on spectra obtained between 1993 and 1998.
A first analysis of this star has been published in \citet{SbordoneBC10} giving the abundances of Fe and Li. A new more complete analysis will be published soon by Sbordone et al. (in preparation). The CH band is very weak, and we found $\rm[C/Fe] \leq +0.78$: the star is not a CEMP star, according to the definition of \citet{BeersChris05}.
We could measure two \Srd ~lines at 407.771 and 421.552nm and two Ba\,{\small II} ~lines at 493.408 and 614.171nm, and we obtained [Sr/H]=--3.24 and [Ba/H]=--3.13 ([Ba/Fe] = --0.53) i.e. [Sr/Ba]=--0.11.\\
In Fig.\ref{ba22950} we compare the observed spectrum in the region of the Ba line at 493.408nm with\\
(i) synthetic profiles computed with our adopted model and [Ba/Fe]=--0.53 (adopted value) and [Ba/Fe]=--0.04 (Preston \& Sneden value), and\\
(ii) the synthetic profile computed with the model of \citet{PrestonSne00} and [Ba/Fe]=--0.04.
It can be deduced from this figure that the value of [Ba/Fe] measured by Preston \& Sneden is not compatible with our spectrum and the model we adopted. If the model of \citet{PrestonSne00} had been adopted, a higher value of [Ba/Fe] would be found ($\rm[Ba/Fe] \simeq -0.35$) but also a higher value of [Sr/Fe] and thus finally, the ratio [Sr/Ba] would remain unchanged.
Finally, the star CS~22950-173, with $\rm[Sr/Ba] \simeq -0.1$, is not a low-Sr/Ba star, and we will no more consider this star in the following.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption[]{LTE abundances in low-[Sr/Ba] ratio giant stars. For Na we give also the NLTE value.
The data for CS\,30322-023 are taken from \citet{MasseronEF06}}.
\label{abund}
\begin{tabular}{l@{~~~}r@{~~~}r@{~~~}r@{~~~}r@{~~}r@{~~}r@{}c@{}c }
& \multicolumn{2}{l}{\small{CS\,30322-023}} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{\small{CS\,29493-090}} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{\small{HE\,0305-4520}} \\
\hline
$\rm [Fe/H]$ &\multicolumn{2}{c}{--3.40}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{--3.10}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{--2.95}\\
$\rm^{12}C/^{13}C$ &\multicolumn{2}{c}{4}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{5.5}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{4}\\
\hline
&[X/Fe]&$\sigma$&~~~[X/Fe]&$\sigma$ &~~~[X/Fe]&$\sigma$\\
$\rm C_{(CH)}$ & 0.80 & - & 0.73 & 0.10 & 0.42 & 0.10 \\
N & 2.91 & - & 1.51 & 0.15 & 1.58 & 0.15 \\
C+N & 1.70 & - & 1.03 & - & 0.99 & - \\
O & 0.63 & - & - & - & 0.83 & 0.10 \\
Na & 1.29 &0.24& 1.13 & 0.10 & 1.04 & 0.10 \\
$\rm Na_{(NLTE)}$& 0.79 &0.24& 0.53 & 0.10 & 0.54 & 0.10 \\
Mg & 0.80 &0.10& 0.98 & 0.13 & 0.36 & 0.11 \\
Ca & 0.30 &0.12& 0.27 & 0.10 & 0.26 & 0.10 \\
Ti\,{\small I} & --0.20 &0.19& 0.11 & 0.05 & 0.16 & 0.05 \\
Ti\,{\small II} & 0.23 &0.13& 0.17 & 0.05 & 0.21 & 0.05 \\
Fe\,{\small I} & 0.01 &0.18& --0.04 & 0.05 &--0.01 & 0.05 \\
Fe\,{\small II} & --0.01 &0.19& 0.03 & 0.05 & 0.04 & 0.05 \\
Sr & --0.50 & - & --1.02 & 0.11 &--0.76 & 0.11 \\
Y & --0.36 &0.15& --0.82 & 0.10 &--0.58 & 0.10 \\
Zr & 0.14 &0.30& --0.50 & 0.10 &--0.38 & 0.11 \\
Ba & 0.52 &0.10& 0.43 & 0.10 & 0.32 & 0.10 \\
La & 0.46 &0.10& 0.23 & 0.12 & 0.09 & 0.12 \\
Ce & 0.59 &0.24& 0.19 & 0.10 & 0.31 & 0.12 \\
Nd & 0.57 &0.29& 0.23 & 0.11 & 0.32 & 0.10 \\
Eu & --0.63 & - & --0.21 & 0.11 &--0.31 & 0.11 \\
Dy & --0.13 & - & - & - & - & - \\
Pb & 1.49 &0.20& 1.15 & 0.18 & 1.25 & 0.22 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{The giant stars}
The abundances of the elements in the three low-Sr/Ba giants, CS\,29493-090, HE\,0305-4520 (this paper), and CS\,30322-023 \citep{MasseronEF06,MasseronJP10} are given in Table \ref{abund} with the stochastic errors arising from random uncertainties in the oscillator strengths and in the measurement of the equivalent widths or the profiles\footnote{The line list, and the abundances line by line are available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5)
or via http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/qcat?J/A+A/}. Systematic uncertainties are mainly due to the adopted stellar parameters. The total uncertainty can be estimated as the quadratic sum of the stochastic and the systematic errors. Because of the similarity of the response of a given set of elements to changes in stellar parameters, systematic errors largely cancel out, reducing the uncertainty on the relative abundances. In the range of temperature gravity and metallicity considered here, the systematic error on [X/Fe] is less than 0.1 \citep[see][]{HillPC02,CayrelDS04,FrancoisDH07}.
It is interesting to note that in CS\,29493-090 (Table \ref{abund}) the abundance of some elements (C, N, Na, Mg, Ba, Fe) has been determined independently by \citet{MasseronJL12}. They used a model that is only slightly different ($T_\mathrm{eff}$=4700K, $\log g$=0.9, $\rm v_{t}$=1.6 $\rm km\,s^{-1}$), but the agreement in the determination of [Fe/H] and [X/Fe] is good with a $\rm \Delta [X/Fe] < 0.15$ dex. The main difference is observed for [N/Fe] because Masseron et al. only used the CN band, while we used the CN and the NH bands. If we had only used the CN band, we would have found [N/Fe]=+1.34, and the difference $\rm \Delta [N/Fe]$ would drop down to 0.11 dex.
Below we compare the abundances of the elements in these three stars,
(i) to our set of classical EMP stars studied in the same way in the frame of the ESO-First stars program \citep{HillPC02,CayrelDS04,SpiteCP05,BonifacioSC09},
(ii) to CEMP stars, observed and analysed also homogeneously in the frame of the ESO-First stars program: CS\,22892-052 \citep{SnedenCL03,CayrelDS04}, CS\,22949-037 \citep{McWilliamPS95,DepagneHS02}, and CS\,31080-095, CS\,22958-045, CS\,29528-041 \citep{SivaraniBB06}, and to CEMP stars in the same range of metallicity, gathered from the literature \citet{AokiRN01,AokiRN02}, \citet{BarbuySS05}, \citet{BeharaBL10}, \citet{SpiteCB13}, \citet{YongNB13}.
We have divided the CEMP stars in two subclasses: the CEMP-s, with $\rm[Ba/Fe]>1.0$ and the CEMP-no with $\rm[Ba/Fe]\leq 1.0$, (see Fig. \ref{scatter1}).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\resizebox {8.8cm}{4.8cm}
{\includegraphics {abgfe-c+nmix4.ps} }
\caption[]{Comparison of the abundance of [(C+N)/Fe]. ~~~(i) For the sample of EMP stars studied in the framework of the large program "First Stars": filled blue squares for unmixed RGB stars, filled red diamonds for mixed RGB's, and filled black circles for the turnoff stars (no EMP turnoff stars appear in this figure, because it was not possible to measure the nitrogen abundance in these stars \citep{BonifacioSC09});
~~~(ii) for CEMP-no (open green crosses);
~~~(iii) for CEMP-s (open green circles), and ~~~(iv) for the three low-[Sr/Ba] giants here studied (open pink star symbols).\\
These three low-[Sr/Ba] stars are located in the region generally occupied by the carbon-rich stars.
}
\label{cpn}
\end{figure}
\subsection{C N O abundances} \label{parcno}
With a ratio [C/Fe] between 0.42 and 0.80 dex (Table \ref{abund}), the three low Sr/Ba stars are not CEMP stars according to the definition of \citet{BeersChris05}: $\rm [C/Fe] > +1$.
But in the atmosphere of giant stars, AGB, or even red giant branch (RGB) stars, the carbon abundance does not always represent the abundance of C in the gas that formed the star.
It has been shown, in particular, that in classical EMP stars evolving along the RGB, an extra mixing occurs when a star crosses the bump in the luminosity function \citep[see:][]{SpiteCP05,SpiteCH06}.
At $\rm[Fe/H] \approx -3.0$, the extra mixing occurs for a temperature of about 4800K and a (spectroscopic) gravity $ \approx 1.5$.
The atmosphere is mixed with CNO processed material: [C/Fe] decreases and [N/Fe] increases, but [(C+N)/Fe] remains (almost) constant with a mean value close to +0.3dex (see Fig. \ref{cpn}).
The three low-Sr/Ba stars are cool giants (Table \ref{models}), and thus it is possible that in their atmosphere, part of the original carbon has been transformed into nitrogen. As a consequence, it is more suitable to compare the abundance of C+N in the low-Sr/Ba stars to the abundance of C+N in classical EMP stars and in CEMP stars (Fig.\ref{cpn}).
As for the CEMP-s or the CEMP-no stars, the three low-Sr/Ba stars, present a ratio [(C+N)/Fe] higher than the classical EMP stars (Fig.\ref{cpn}). It is interesting to note that the CEMP-s and the CEMP-no stars occupy different regions of the figure, the CEMP-s having, at a given metallicity, a higher value of [(C+N)/Fe] than the CEMP-no. This difference could reflect the different origins of the overabundance of C and N in CEMP-s and CEMP-no stars \citep[see also,][]{SpiteCB13}.
The three low-Sr/Ba stars are located in the region of the CEMP-no stars. They could have been born carbon-rich and later, could have undergone an extra mixing, which would explain their relatively low carbon abundance associated with a high value of the abundance of nitrogen.
This extra mixing is also characterized by a low value of the $\rm ^{12}C/^{13}C$ ratio (close to the equilibrium value), which is indeed observed in these three stars (see upper part of Table \ref{abund}).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\resizebox {8.8cm}{4.8cm}
{\includegraphics {abgfe-oamix4.ps} }
\caption[]{Comparison of the abundance of oxygen in a sample of RGB stars studied in the framework of the ESO large program "First Stars", in CEMP-s and CEMP-no stars and in the low-Sr/Ba giants. The symbols are the same as in Fig. \ref{cpn}. The three low-Sr/Ba giants have an oxygen abundance similar to the abundance measured in the classical EMP stars, but several CEMP stars also have a {\it normal} oxygen abundance.}
\label{oxy}
\end{figure}
In two of these stars the oxygen abundance could be derived from the forbidden line at 630~nm, and when compared to the set of normal EMP stars this abundance appears to be normal, although in some carbon-rich stars (but not all), it is very high (see Fig. \ref{oxy}).
In Figures \ref{cpn} and \ref{oxy}, only the giants of the large program First Stars appear, since it has not been possible to measure N and O in the subsample of turnoff stars.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\resizebox {8.8cm}{4.8cm}
{\includegraphics {abdgfe-na-nlte4.ps} }
\caption[]{Comparison of the abundance of sodium in a sample of RGB stars studied in the framework of the ESO large program "First Stars" and in the three low-[Sr/Ba] giants studied here. The symbols are the same as in Fig. \ref{cpn}. The three low-Sr/Ba giants have a high sodium abundance like several RGB mixed stars, but [Na/Fe] in these stars is less than the value observed in the majority of the CEMP-s or CEMP-no stars.}
\label{na}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\resizebox {8.8cm}{4.8cm}
{\includegraphics {abdgfe-LTE2013mg4.ps} }
\caption[]{Comparison of the abundance of magnesium in the ESO-First stars and in the three low-Sr/Ba giants studied here. The symbols are the same as in Fig. \ref{cpn}. In two low-Sr/Ba giants, [Mg/Fe] is higher than in the classical EMP stars as in many CEMP-s or CEMP-no stars, but in the third one [Mg/Fe] is close to the mean value, as it is also in many CEMP-s or CEMP-no stars.}
\label{mg}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The light elements from Na to Mg} \label{parnaca}
Since in these very metal-poor stars, the sodium abundance is deduced from the Na\,{\small I}~ resonance lines, the NLTE correction can reach --0.5~dex, and it is different in turnoff and giant stars.
As a consequence, in Table \ref{abund} and in Fig. \ref{na}, in order to allow a comparison with the Na abundance in the classical EMP and CEMP stars, the $\rm[Na/Fe]_{NLTE}$ has been estimated from the computations of \citet{GehrenLS04} and \citet{AndrievskySK07}.
In Fig. \ref{na} and \ref{mg} we compare the sodium and magnesium abundances in classical EMP, CEMP-s, CEMP-no stars and in the three peculiar low-Sr/Ba stars. The Na abundance in these three stars is high (as in several mixed RGB stars), but not as high as in most CEMP stars (CEMP-s or CEMP-no).
The slight overabundance of magnesium in these stars is {\it normal} for EMP or CEMP stars, but [Mg/Fe] is rather high in two of these stars (Fig. \ref{mg}), but not as high as in many CEMP-s or CEMP-no stars.\\
The classical EMP stars present a very low scatter of [C+N/Fe], [O/Fe], [Na/Fe], [Mg/Fe]. This low scatter is illustrated in Fig. \ref{cpn}, \ref{oxy}, \ref{na}, \ref{mg} (filled symbols). The pattern of the abundances of the elements from C to Mg in CS\,30322-023, CS\,29493-090, and HE\,0305-4520 shows that these stars are not classical EMP stars and it allows us to classify them rather among the CEMP stars. The abundances of these light elements in the CEMP-s or the CEMP-no stars is so scattered that it is not possible at this stage to constrain the origin of the overabundance of C+N, Na, and Mg better in the three low-Sr/Ba stars.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\resizebox {6.1cm}{6.5cm}
{\includegraphics {bafe-srLTE-C-pluspatB6.ps} }
\caption[]{[Sr/Ba] vs. [Ba/Fe] for {\bf~~~~i)} our sample of EMP stars (Large Program First Stars restricted to the stars with $\rm -3.5 \leq [Fe/H] \leq -2.7$), for {\bf~~~~~ii)} the CEMP stars in the same range of metallicity gathered from \citet{AokiRN01,AokiRN02}, \citet{DepagneHS02}, \citet{BarbuySS05}, and \citet{YongNB13}, and for {\bf~~~~~iii)} the three low-Sr/Ba giants (this paper).
Symbols are the same as in Fig. \ref{cpn}.\\
The three low-Sr/Ba giants occupy a very peculiar position in this diagram: they associate a low value of [Sr/Ba] like in the CEMP-s stars to a relatively low value of [Ba/Fe] ($\rm[Ba/Fe]<1$) like in the classical EMP stars or the CEMP-no.\\
}
\label{scatter2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\resizebox {8.0cm}{3.36cm}
{\includegraphics {heavy-sur-Fe-r.ps} }
\resizebox {8.0cm}{3.36cm}
{\includegraphics {heavy-sur-Fe-s.ps} }
\caption[]{Neutron-capture element ratios relative to iron [X/Fe], in the three low-Sr/Ba stars (CS\,30322-023, blue line; CS\,29493-090, red line; HE\,0305-4520, green line), are compared ~~~~~in A) to the ratios observed in CS\,31082-001, a typical example of the r-process, ~~~~~in B) to the s-process computations in an AGB star during the thermal pulses shifted by --1.4 dex.
}
\label{surfe}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\resizebox {6.8cm}{4.1cm}
{\includegraphics {CEMP-EMP-eu.ps} }
\resizebox {6.8cm}{4.1cm}
{\includegraphics {CEMP-EMP-lowsrba.ps} }
\caption[]{
Panel A: abundance pattern of the heavy elements in two classical CEMP-s stars CS\,22948-027 and CS\,29497-034 (blue diamonds and blue pentagons) and compared to the abundance pattern of the classical r-rich EMP star CS\,31082-001 (black dots). The blue solid line represents the abundance pattern of the r-process elements in the solar system.\\
Panel B: same as Panel A, but for the three low-Sr/Ba stars studied here (open pink symbols).\\
In this figure, the abundances are represented not by ratios compared to the Sun (as in the previous figures), but by the other classical notation $\rm \log \epsilon\,$: the logarithm of the number of atoms for $10^{12}$ atoms of H, scaled to the abundance of europium.
The abundance pattern of the three low Sr-Ba stars (Panel B) present many similarities with the abundance pattern of CS\,22948-027 and CS\,29497-034 (panel A).
}
\label{pattern}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The neutron-capture elements from Sr to Pb}
To allow a more precise comparison of the low-Sr/Ba stars to the different subsamples of metal-poor stars (EMP stars, CEMP stars), ~in Fig. \ref{scatter2} we have plotted [Sr/Ba] vs. [Ba/Fe] for only giant stars within a narrow range of metallicity $\rm [Fe/H]=-3.1\pm0.4$. These stars have model parameters very close to those of the low-Sr/Ba stars, and as a consequence the comparison is even more suitable.
As can be seen, the three low-Sr/Ba stars occupy a very peculiar position in this diagram, and this position is not the consequence of a difference in metallicity since the different subsamples of stars in this figure have the same mean metallicity. The low-Sr/Ba stars are Ba-rich with $\rm[Ba/Fe]>0.0$ like the EMP r-rich stars, but their Sr abundance is low with $\rm[Sr/Fe] < -0.5$, and as a consequence, the ratio [Sr/Ba] is less than the lower limit for an r-process production: [Sr/Ba]=--0.5 \citep{MashonkinaG01}. The ratio [Sr/Ba] in the three low-Sr/Ba giants is similar to the one observed in the CEMP-s stars (Fig. \ref{scatter2}) but with a lower [Ba/Fe] ratio.
In panel A of Fig \ref{surfe}, we compare the abundance ratios [X/Fe] (where X is any of the neutron-capture elements) in the low-Sr/Ba stars (Table \ref{abund}) to the ratios observed in r-rich stars, which are a good proxy for the typical r-process \citep{SiqueiraMelloSB13,PlezHC04}. The behaviors are completely different, even the behavior of the Sr, Y, Zr group is different, but the main difference is in the [Pb/Eu] ratio. This is a clear indication that in our low-Sr/Ba stars, the neutron-capture elements were not formed by the r-process.\\
In panel B, we compare the abundance ratios [X/Fe] in the three low-Sr/Ba stars to the s-process production during thermal pulses in a moderately metal-poor AGB (Z=0.001) following \citet{GorielyMow00}. In this figure we shifted those computed [X/Fe] ratios by --1.4 dex for an easier comparison to the observations. In spite of the higher metallicity of the AGB model in the computations of \citet{GorielyMow00}, the abundance pattern is quite similar.\\
The similarity between the s-process computations during thermal pulses of AGB stars \citep{GorielyMow00}
is striking (in particular the ratio [Pb/Eu]) and strongly support that the neutron-capture elements in the low-Sr/Ba stars have mainly been formed by the s-process.
\section{Discussion}
\subsection{Were the low-Sr/Ba stars enriched by the ejecta of a defunct AGB star?}
In panel A of Fig. \ref{pattern}, we compare the abundance pattern of two \mbox{CEMP-s} stars CS\,22948-027 or CS\,29497-034 \citep[following][]{BarbuySS05} to the abundance pattern of a classical r-rich EMP star CS\,31082-001 \citep[][]{SiqueiraMelloSB13}.
Compared to the abundance pattern of the r-elements in the Sun the CEMP-s stars present a strong overabundance of Ba, La, Ce, Nd, and Pb relative to Eu.\\
In panel B, we compare the abundance pattern of the three low-Sr/Ba stars to CS\,31082-001 and the solar r-process abundance pattern.
The low-Sr/Ba stars and the CEMP-s stars have similar characteristics: strong enhancement of Ba, La, Ce, and Pb relative to Eu when compared to r-process rich stars and/or to the the solar r-process although the overabundances of the Ba-group and of Pb (relative to Eu) is more pronounced in the low-Sr/Ba stars.
The CEMP-s stars such as CS\,22948-027 or CS\,29497-034 are generally found to be binaries, and thus the distribution of their neutron-capture elements is explained by a mass transfer from an earlier AGB companion (now, a white dwarf), that has produced neutron-capture elements by the s-process. Would it be possible that the three low Sr/Ba stars in Table \ref{abund} be RGB binaries that have been enriched by an AGB companion?\\
\subsubsection{Radial velocities of the three low-Sr/Ba stars} \label{rvgi}
The radial velocities of the three low-Sr/Ba stars have been carefully measured:\\
\noindent--CS~30322-023\\
The radial velocity of this star has been studied in detail by
\citet{MasseronEF06} from 12 spectra obtained between 2001 and 2006, and they conclude that there was no firm support for the binary nature of this star.\\
--CS~29493-090\\
On spectra obtained in 2003, \citet{BarklemCB05} measured RV=269.8 $\rm km\,s^{-1}$~ in very good agreement with the value obtained from our 2005 spectra (Table \ref{VVr}).\\
--HE~0305-4520\\
On spectra obtained in 2002, \citet{BarklemCB05} measured RV=135.3 $\rm km\,s^{-1}$, in agreement with the value obtained from our 2006 spectrum (Table \ref{VVr}).
As a consequence, none of these low-Sr/Ba stars presents a clear variation in the radial velocity that could support the hypothesis that their atmosphere has accreted matter from an AGB companion.
As noted by \citet{MasseronEF06}, however, ``the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence''. The stars could have a rather long period (although this is not favorable to a significant amount of pollution) or/and a small radial velocity amplitude. They could also have an orbit in a plane (nearly) perpendicular to the line of sight, and in this case their binarity could perhaps be detected from a variation in the astrometric position of the stars by the spatial mission Gaia \citep{deBruijne12}.
\subsection{Is it possible that the low Sr/Ba stars are AGB stars ? }
If we exclude an external enrichment of the atmospheres of our low-Sr/Ba stars, we have to explore the possibility of an internal production of $\rm^{12}C$, $\rm^{13}C$, N, and the s-process elements with a transfer to the surface.
In low-mass stars this is sometimes possible if the star is an AGB star.
In the sample of \citet{AokiSB13}, among 260 stars only five stars present a low Sr/Ba ratio.
If a star stays one tenth of its life on the RGB \citep[e.g.][]{IbenI91,PietrinferniCS04}, then our stars should stay around 1.3 Gyrs on the RGB. Following \citet{Bloeker95} the lifetime of a star of about $1M_{\odot}$, in the AGB phase, is only about $4.5\times10^{7}$ years. Therefore, we could expect to find about eight AGB stars in the \citet{AokiSB13} sample, a number compatible with the small number of low-Sr/Ba stars in the sample.
\subsubsection{Do we see an internal pollution of the atmosphere occurring in TP-AGB stars?}
In low-mass stars an internal production of $\rm^{12}C$, $\rm^{13}C$, N and the s-process elements with a transfer to the surface occurs in thermally pulsating AGB (TP-AGB) star.
During a thermal pulse \citep[e.g.][]{KappelerGB11}, partial He burning occurs in the intershell, and after a limited number of thermal pulses, the convective envelope penetrates the top region of the He intershell and mixes newly synthesized material to the surface during the third dredge-up \citep[see also:][]{CampbellLatt08,CampbellLK10}.
\citet{MasseronEF06} suggests that CS~30322-023 could be a TP-AGB star, and this would explain the observed abundances by an internal (recent) enrichment in carbon, and in heavy elements bearing the signature of the s-process. This hypothesis is based on their having found that the gravity of CS~30322-023 is very low ($\log g$ = --0.3), and is reinforced by the fact that $\rm H_{\alpha}$ presents a variable emission, probably due to a stellar wind.
However, \citet{AokiBC07} also studied this star and found a gravity $\log g$ = 1. They use a {\it photometric} temperature, while \citet{MasseronEF06} determine the temperature by requiring that the abundance deduced from the Fe\,{\small I} ~lines be independent of the excitation potential of the line, including in their computations Fe\,{\small I} ~lines with very low excitation potentials, so sensitive to NLTE effects \citep{CayrelDS04}. This difference in temperature has no significant effect on the abundance ratios, but does induce a difference in gravity (since gravity is determined in both cases from the ionization balance between Fe\,{\small I}~ and Fe\,{\small II}).
It will be very interesting to obtain a direct measurement of the luminosity (and thus of $\log g$) of this star from a future precise parallax provided by the spatial mission Gaia, defining the precise evolution status of CS~30322-023.
CS\,29493-090 and HE\,0305-4520 have similar abundance ratios as CS~30322-023, but they are hotter with a higher gravity ($\log g$=1.3, see Table \ref{models}) and do not show emission in $\rm H_{\alpha}$.
From Fig. 8 of \citet{MasseronEF06}, they cannot be TP-AGB, but they could be early-AGB. Could it be possible that, already at this phase of the stellar evolution, neutron-capture elements be produced in the stellar interior and brought to the surface by a deep mixing?
\subsection{Do we see the s-process production of the core He flash in the low-Sr/Ba stars ? }
In metal-rich stars, during the helium flash at the tip of the RGB, convection cannot break the H-burning shell and bring the products of the helium-burning nucleosynthesis to the surface, since the active H-burning shell provides an entropy barrier against mixing. However \citet{CampbellLK10} have shown that in hyper metal poor stars ($\rm[Fe/H] < 5.0$), this barrier can be broken (helium flash induced mixing), and the material, processed in the helium burning shell, is carried to the stellar surface by a dredge-up event.
Our low-Sr/Ba stars are not as metal-poor as the model computed by \citet{CampbellLK10}, but it would be interesting to check if in stars with $\rm[Fe/H] = -3.0$ this process could sometimes not be, in some particular conditions, efficient.
\section {Conclusion}
We analyzed four extremely metal-poor stars (EMP) for which anomalously low-[Sr/Ba] ratios were reported in the literature (lower than the ratio of the typical main r-process). One of them (the only turnoff star) turns out to have a "normal" Sr/Ba ratio (and was discarded from this work). The three remaining stars are all cool evolved giants. The abundance ratios of the elements lighter than the iron peak are generally not compatible with the classical EMP stars (Figs. \ref{cpn} to \ref{mg}). Compared to the classical EMP stars these low-[Sr/Ba] stars
present an enhancement of C+N, Na, and Mg.
From their temperature and gravity they can be evolved RGB stars or AGB stars.
The moderately high C/Fe ratio measured in the three giants does not make them CEMP stars following the definition of \citet{BeersChris05}, but we showed that these cool giants ($\rm T_{eff} \leq 4800K$) with a low gravity ($\log g <1.5$) present the characteristics of stars having undergone a deep mixing (in the RGB phase). In this case, part of their initial C would have been transformed into N during their evolution, therefore the carbon abundance in the cloud that formed the star was probably much higher than the value measured today in their atmosphere; also the stars could be CEMP stars (following the definition of \citealp{BeersChris05}) at their birth. For evolved giants, it would be more suitable to define the CEMP type from the C+N abundance of the star rather than from their C abundance alone: for example, CEMP stars could be defined (Fig. \ref{cpn}) by $\rm[(C+N)/Fe] > 0.8$.
In the CEMP-s stars, the low Sr/Ba ratio is generally associated to $\rm[Ba/Fe] >1$ (Fig. \ref{scatter2}), and to high abundances of Ba and Pb relative to Eu. The radial velocity of these stars is variable \citep{StarkenburgSC14}, and their abundances are interpreted as a superficial pollution (by a mass transfer from a now extinct AGB companion) providing C, N, and the neutron-capture elements produced by the s-process.
The abundance pattern of the neutron-capture elements in our three low-Sr/Ba stars is slightly different from the pattern of CEMP-s stars: the abundances of the neutron-capture elements relative to europium is larger (Fig. \ref{pattern}). The distribution of the ratios [X/Fe] (where X is a neutron-capture element) vs. the atomic number Z is very similar to the predictions of \citet{GorielyMow00} or \citet{CampbellLK10} for a pure s-process.
\\
What is the origin of the enrichment by the s-process?\\
\\
We consider different possibilities:\\
\\
$\bullet$ The stars could be classical RGB stars that would have undergone an external enrichment by a now defunct AGB star, as stated for the CEMP-s stars. In this case, we should expect, at least statistically, a variation in the radial velocity of these stars. No variation is present clearly in any of our three low-Sr/Ba stars but a further monitoring of their radial velocity would be very useful for a firm decision.\\
\noindent $\bullet$ In the absence of radial velocity variations, it is interesting to investigate whether autopollution is a valuable alternative solution.
A He shell flash may be considered, but it would occur when the stars are already in the TP-AGB phase, and it cannot occur in an early-AGB. As a consequence, this process does not seem able to explain the peculiar abundances of the low-Sr/Ba stars, which have a relatively high gravity ($\log g \sim 1.3$).
The stars may have undergone a dual core flash at the tip of the RGB, but this mechanism is predicted only in hyper low metallicity stars \citep{CampbellLatt08,CampbellLK10} and a higher C/N ratio would be expected. Moreover, the surface composition is expected to remain unchanged from the core flash dredge-up until the beginning of the TP-AGB phase.\\
\noindent More definitive conclusions would require both
(i) a check of a possible binarity of the three low-Sr/Ba stars from new precise measurements of the radial velocities, and also of the astrometric position of the stars (space astrometry mission Gaia).
(ii) measurements of the luminosity (distance) of the stars with Gaia, to derive their evolution status more precisely: early-AGB or TP-AGB. Maybe in the future, asteroseismology could help to distinguish between RGB and AGB stars.
\begin {acknowledgements}
We made use of SIMBAD operated by the CDS in Strasbourg, of the ADS Service
(SAO/NASA), and of the arXiv Server (Cornell University). The authors acknowledge the support of Observatoire de Paris-GEPI and the support of the CNRS (PNCG and PNPS). E.C. is grateful to the FONDATION MERAC for funding her fellowship.
\end {acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{aa}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{1}
Let $B(n)$ denote the $n$-th Bell number and $S(n,k)$ denote the Stirling number of the second kind. Spivey \cite{Spi} established combinatorially the following identity for Bell numbers
\begin{equation}\label{spv}
B(n+m) = \sum_{k=0}^n \sum_{j=0}^m j^{n-k} \binom{n}{k} S(m,j) B(k)\,.
\end{equation}
Various alternative proofs and extensions of this identity have appeared in the literature. For instance, Gould and Quaintance \cite{GouQua} provided a generating function proof, which, in turn, was extended by Xu \cite{Xu} in the case of Hsu and Shuie's \cite{HsuShu} generalized Stirling numbers. Katriel \cite{Kat} proved a $q$-analogue using certain $q$-differential operators. Still, Belbachir and Mihoubi \cite{BelMih} proved \ref{spv} using a decomposition of the Bell polynomial using a certain polynomial basis. See also \cite[Theorem 10]{MaaMih}, \cite[Theorem 5.3]{ManSchSha} and \cite{Mez} for other generalizations and methods. The present authors also derived a generalization \cite[Theorem 4.5]{CorCelGon} of Spivey's identity in the case of the generalized $q$-Stirling numbers that arise from normal ordering.
In this short paper, we derive variations of \ref{spv} and other related identities using the aforementioned rook model which we describe in Section \ref{2}. The results are presented in Section \ref{3}. In Section \ref{4}, we introduce a new rook model for the Type II generalized $q$-Stirling numbers of Remmel and Wachs \cite{RemWac} which is a variation of Goldman and Haglund's. We show how the method used in deriving the earlier identities can be easily adapted under this model.
\section{The rook model}\label{2}
In this section, we introduce a rook model based on Goldman and Haglund's \cite{GolHag}. We will later show that these two models are essentially identical and give rise to the same rook numbers.
Let $w$ be a word consisting of the letters $U$ and $V$. If we let $U$ correspond to a unit horizontal step and $V$ a unit vertical step, then $w$ outlines a Ferrers boards (or simply, board), which we denote by $B(w)$. For example, Figure \ref{board} shows the board outlined by $UVUUUVVU$. Note that we allow the rightmost columns and the bottommost rows to be empty, i.e., not containing any cell. The initial $U$'s and final $V$'s, if any, are extraneous when we consider rook placements, but they are natural in the context of normal ordering (see \cite{Var}). Alternatively, we can also describe a board by the length of its columns.
Given a board $B$, we associate to each cell of $B$ an integer called its \emph{pre-weight}. Fix $s\in\mathbb R$. A placement of $k$ rooks on a board $B$ is a marking of $k$ cells of $B$ with ``$\bullet$'' such that at most one rook is placed in each column. We assume that the rooks are placed from right to left among $k$ chosen column. Once a rook is placed on a cell, $s-1$ is added to the pre-weight of every cell to its left in the same row. However, if a cell lies above a rook (in which case it said to be \emph{cancelled} by the rook), then the cell is assigned the pre-weight 0. We denote by $C_k(B;s)$ the set of all placement of $k$ rooks on $B$ under the rules we just described.
For the purpose of distinguishing the pre-weights of a board before and after rooks are placed, we will call the former as \emph{default pre-weights}. We number the rows and columns of a board $B$ from top to bottom and from right to left, respectively. The term pre-weight is chosen because it determines the weight of a board. Specifically, a cell with pre-weight $t$ is assigned the weight $q^t$ if it does not contain a rook, and $[t]_q=\frac{q^t-1}{q-1}$ if it contains a rook. The weight of a rook placement $\phi$, denoted by $\wt(\phi)$, is defined as the product of the weight of the cells.
Denote by $J_n$ the board outlined by $(VU)^n$ whose cells have default pre-weight 1. Note that columns of $J_n$ have lengths $0, 1, \ldots n-1$. Figure \ref{rookplc} shows a rook placement on $J_5$ where the values in the cells indicate the pre-weights. This particular rook placement has weight $q^{2s+2}[s]_q$.
We denote by $S_{s,q}[n,k]$ the sum of the weights of all placements of $n-k$ rooks on $J_n$, i.e.,
\[
S_{s,q}[n,k] = \sum_{\phi\in C_{n-k}(J_n;s)} \wt(\phi)\,.
\]
\begin{remark} If, for instance, a column has two cells where the bottom cell has pre-weight $c_1$ and the top cell has pre-weight $c_2$, then the placement of a rook on the bottom cell has weight $[c_1]_q$ while the placement of a rook on the top cell has weight $q^{c_1}[c_2]_q$. Hence, the total weight of all rook placements on this column is $[c_1]_q+q^{c_1}[c_2]_q=[c_1+c_2]_q$. In general, if $c$ is the sum of the pre-weights of the cells in a column, then the total weight of all rook placements on the column is $[c]_q$. \label{ddd}
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}\label{trr} The number $S_{s,q}[n,k]$ satisfies the recurrence
\begin{equation*}
S_{s,q}[n,k] = q^{s(n-1)-(s-1)(k-1)} S_{s,q}[n-1,k-1] + [s(n-1)-(s-1)k]_q S_{s,q}[n-1,k]\,,
\end{equation*}
with initial conditions $S_{s,q}[n,0]=S_{s,q}[0,n]=\delta_{0,n}$, where $\delta_{0,n}=1$ if $n=0$ and 0 if $n\neq 0$.
\begin{proof}If there is a rook on the $n$-th column, then the other columns form a rook placement from $C_{n-1-k}(J_{n-1};s)$. Due to the placement of $n-1-k$ rooks on the first $n-1$ columns, the $n$-th column has pre-weight $(n-1)+(s-1)(n-1-k)=s(n-1)-(s-1)k$. Hence, the total weight contributed by all rook placements on the $n$-th column is $[s(n-1)-(s-1)k]_q$.
If there is no rook on the $n$-th column, then the remaining columns form a rook placement from $C_{n-k}(J_{n-1};s)$. Because of the placement of $n-k$ rooks on the first $n-1$ columns, the $n$-th column has pre-weight $(n-1)+(s-1)(n-k)=s(n-1)-(s-1)(k-1)$, which implies that the $n$-th column contributes a weight of $q^{s(n-1)-(s-1)(k-1)}$.
\end{proof}
\end{proposition}
By comparing recurrences, we see that $h^{n-k}S_{s,q}[n,k]$ equals the number $\mathfrak S_{s;h}(n,k|q)$ in \cite{ManSchSha2}. These numbers are coefficients of the string $(VU)^n$ in its normally ordered form, i.e., an equivalent expression where the $V$'s are to the right of $U$'s obtained using the relation $UV=qVU+hV^s$. When $h=1,q=1$, the cases $s=1$ and $s=0$ produce the usual Stirling number of the first kind and Stirling number of the second kind, respectively. (See \cite{ManSchSha2} for other special cases and their relationship with normal ordering.)
\begin{remark} The original Goldman-Haglund rook model is as follows (see \cite[Section 7]{GolHag}). Let $B$ be a board and consider a rook placement $\phi$ on $B$ such that no two rooks occupy the same column. Given a cell $\gamma$ in $B$, let $v(\gamma)$ be the number of rooks strictly to the right of, and in same row as $\gamma$. Define the weight of $\gamma$ to be
\begin{align*}
\wt(\gamma) = \begin{cases}
1 & \mbox{if there is a rook below} \\ & \hspace{0.3in}\mbox{and in the same column as $\gamma$,} \\
[(s-1)v(\gamma)+1]_q & \mbox{if $\gamma$ contains a rook,}\\
q^{(s-1)v(\gamma)+1}& \mbox{else}\,.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
The weight of $\phi$, denoted by $\wt(\phi)$ is then defined as the product of the weight of the cells. (Note that in \cite{GolHag}, the boards are bottom and right justified, the rooks are placed from left to right and a rook cancels cells that lie below it. In addition, $\alpha$ is used instead of $s$. The definition of $\wt(\gamma)$ above has been modified to reflect the definitions in the current paper.)
It can be easily seen that the weight of a rook placement under the Goldman-Haglund model and under the current model are identical. First, note that $\wt(\gamma)$ is precisely the pre-weight of $\gamma$. Under the latter, a cell lying above a rook has pre-weight 0 and hence, has weight $q^0=1$. A cell containing a rook and has $t$ rooks lying to its right and on the same row will have pre-weight $t(s-1)+1$ and hence, the weight $[t(s-1)+1]_q$. Finally, a cell not containing a rook and has $t$ rooks lying to its right and on the same row will have pre-weight $t(s-1)+1$ and thus, the weight $q^{t(s-1)}+1$. Hence, given a rook placement $\phi$, $\wt(\phi)$ is identical under both models.
\end{remark}
The concept of pre-weights provides us with some degree of flexibility in further generalizing the earlier model. For instance, instead of adding $s-1$ to the pre-weight of each cell to the left of a rook, we can fix a \emph{rule} $R$ which specifies, given a placement of rook in a cell, the cell (in each column to the right of a rook) that receives the pre-weight increment. Denote by $C^R_k(B;s)$ the set of placement of $k$ rooks on the board $B$ under this rule. In particular, we denote by $\mathcal R$ the rule which specifies that the $i$-th rook (from the right) adds a pre-weight of $s-1$ to the $i$-th cell above the bottom cell in every column to its left. Of course, when the default rule is used, we simply use the notation $C_k(B;s)$.
In addition to specifying a rule $R$, we can also assign other values for the default pre-weights. This will be useful when we consider Type II $q$-analogues of Stirling numbers in Section \ref{4}. For $\alpha\in\mathbb R$, denote by $J'_{n,\alpha}$ the board outlined by $(VU)^nV$ where the bottom cell in each column each has default pre-weight $\alpha$. Figure \ref{rookplc2} shows one rook placement in $C^{\mathcal R}_{3}(J'_{4,\alpha};s)$, which has weight $q^{2s+2\alpha}[\alpha]_q^2[s]_q$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prew} Given any rule $R$ and two boards $B_1$ and $B_2$ with the same number of non-empty columns such that the corresponding columns have identical total column pre-weights, we have $\sum_{\phi\in C^{R}_k(B_1;s)} \wt(\phi) = \sum_{\phi\in C^{R}_k(B_2;s)} \wt(\phi)$. Furthermore, given a board $B$ and two rules $R_1$ and $R_2$, $\sum_{\phi\in C^{R_1}_k(B;s)} \wt(\phi) = \sum_{\phi\in C^{R_2}_k(B;s)} \wt(\phi)$.
\begin{proof} We can establish, using the same reasoning as Remark \ref{ddd}, that the sum of the weights of all possible rook placements on a particular column is completely determined by the column's total pre-weight, regardless of the distribution of the pre-weights of the individual cells. This proves the first statement. The second statement follows from the first statement and the fact that different rules applied on the same board result to boards with identical total column pre-weights.
\end{proof}
\end{proposition}
\section{Results}\label{3}
Define the $n$-th generalized Bell polynomial by \[B_{s,q}[n;x]=\sum_{k=0}^n S_{s,q}[n,k] x^k\,.\] The $n$-th generalized Bell number, denoted by $B_{s,q}[n]$, is defined as $B_{s,q}[n;1]$. The $q$-binomial coefficients are given by $\pq{n}{k}_q=\frac{[n]_q!}{[k]_q![n-k]_q!}$, where $[n]_q!=[n]_q[n-1]_q\cdots[2]_q[1]_q$. Clearly, $\pq{n}{k}_q = \pq{n}{n-k}_q$. They also satisfy the relations (see \cite[Table 1 and Identity (2.2)]{MedLer})
\begin{align*}
\pq{n}{k}_q &= \sum_{0\leq t_1 \leq t_2 \leq \ldots \leq t_{n-k}\leq k} q^{t_1+t_2+\cdots+t_{n-k}}\\
\pq{n}{k}_q &= \sum_{t_0+t_1+t_2+\cdots+t_{k}=n-k} q^{0t_0+1t_1+2t_2+\cdots+kt_{k}}\,.
\end{align*}
In this section, we show how Spivey's identity, specifically, its generalization involving $S_{s,q}[n,k]$, is a consequence of a convolution identity. We then proceed by deriving other convolution identities and the identities for Bell numbers that arise from them.
A version of Lemma \ref{lemma1} and Theorem \ref{or} already appeared in \cite{CorCelGon}, but only the case where $s\in\mathbb N$ and with pre-weights interpreted as subdivisions in cells was proved in detail.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma1} Let $\phi$ be a placement of $k$ rooks on the board $J_n$. Then, there exists a unique (possibly empty) collection $\mathcal C$ of columns in $\phi$, such that if $|\mathcal C|=\mu+1$, then (a) these columns have a rook in the bottom $1,2,\ldots,\mu+1$ cells and (b) every column not in $\mathcal C$ contains at least $1+t$ uncanceled cells not containing a rook, where $t$ is the number of columns in $\mathcal C$ to the right of that column.
\begin{proof}
Let $\phi\in C^{R}_k(J'_{n,\alpha};s)$. The elements of $\mathcal C$ can be obtained iteratively as follows. Let $c_1$ be the first column from the right containing a rook on the bottom cell. If there exists no such $c_1$, then $\mathcal C=\varnothing$. Let $c_2$ be the next column containing a rook in one of the bottom two cells, i.e., either on the bottom cell or on the cell above the bottom cell. If there exists no such $c_2$, then $\mathcal C=\{c_1\}$. We can continue this process as long as needed until the elements of $\mathcal C$ are all determined. Note that this process also shows the uniqueness of $\mathcal C$.
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{alpha} Let $\alpha\in\mathbb R,n,k\in\mathbb N$. Then, for any rule $R$,
\begin{align}
\sum_{\phi\in C^R_{n-k}(J'_{n;\alpha};s)} \wt(\phi) &= \sum_{r=0}^n q^{\alpha r}\pq{n}{r}_{q^s} S_{s,q}[r,k] \prod_{i=0}^{n-r-1}[\alpha+si]_q \label{oh}\\
\sum_{\phi\in C^R_{n-k}(J'_{n;\alpha};s)} \wt(\phi) &= \sum_{r=0}^n q^{\alpha k} S_{s,q}[n,r] \pq{r}{k}_{q^{s-1}} \prod_{i=0}^{r-k-1} [\alpha+i(s-1)]_q\,.\label{oh1}
\end{align}
\begin{proof}
We prove \ref{oh} first. Let $\phi\in C^{\mathcal R}_{n-k}(J'_{n;\alpha};s)$. By Lemma \ref{lemma1}, we can write $\phi$ uniquely as a pair $(\mathcal C_{\phi},\phi-\mathcal C_{\phi})$, where $\mathcal C_{\phi}$ are the cells of $\phi$ that either lie in the columns that satisfy the properties in the lemma with $\mu=n-r-1$ or on the bottom $1+t$ cells of the other columns, and $\phi-\mathcal C_{\phi}$ are the cells in $\phi$ not in $\mathcal C_{\phi}$. One sees that $\phi-\mathcal C_{\phi}$ forms some rook placement in $C_{r-k}(J_r;s)$. This accounts for the factor $S_{s,q}[r,k]$.
Let $L_{\mu}$ be the set of all such possible $\mathcal C_{\phi}$, with $\phi\in C^{\mathcal R}_{n-k}(J'_{n;\alpha};s)$ with $\mu=n-r-1$ as in Lemma \ref{lemma1}. It suffices to compute the sum of the weights of the elements of $L_{\mu}$. Clearly, the columns containing rooks contribute a weight of $\prod_{i=0}^{n-r-1} [\alpha+si]_q$ and the bottom $r$ cells of the columns not containing rooks contribute a weight of $q^{\alpha r}$ regardless of where the rooks are. On the other hand, the weight contributed by the remaining cells depends on the placement of the rooks, and varies as $q^{st_1} q^{st_2} \cdots q^{st_{n-r}}$ for some $0\leq t_1\leq t_2 \leq \ldots \leq t_{n-r} \leq r$. Hence, these cells contribute
\[
\sum_{0\leq t_1\leq t_2 \leq \ldots \leq t_{n-r} \leq r} q^{st_1} q^{st_2} \cdots q^{st_{n-r}} = \pq{n}{r}_{q^s}\,.
\]
For \ref{oh1}, we consider rook placements using the default rule on the board outlined by $(VU)^nV$ where the cells in the first row each have pre-weight $\alpha$ while all the other cells have pre-weight 1. By Proposition \ref{prew}, the sum of the weight of all placements of $n-k$ rook on this board equals that of $C^R_{n-k}(J'_{n;\alpha};s)$ for any rule $R$.
A rook placement in $C_{n-k}(J'_{n;\alpha};s)$ can then be formed as follows. First, we place $n-r$ rooks in cells lying on rows $2,\ldots,n-1$ and columns $2,\ldots,n$. The sum of the weights of all such placements is $S_{s,q}[n,r]$. Then, place the remaining $r-k$ rooks on the first row. The weight contributed by the cells in the first row containing rooks is $\prod_{i=0}^{r-k-1} [\alpha+i(s-1)]_q$, and this is independent of the choice of columns. On the other hand, the weight contributed by the cells in the first row not containing rooks is $q^{\alpha t_0} q^{\alpha t_1}\cdots q^{\alpha t_{r-k}}$ for some $t_0+t_1+\ldots+t_{r-k}=k$. Finally,
\begin{align*}
\sum_{t_0+t_1+\ldots+t_{r-k}=k} &q^{\alpha t_0} q^{\alpha t_1}\cdots q^{\alpha t_{r-k}} = q^{\alpha } \pq{r}{r-k}_{q^{s-1}} = q^{\alpha } \pq{r}{k}_{q^{s-1}}\,.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
It is interesting to note that the individual terms on the $RHS$ of \ref{oh} and \ref{oh1} are not equal for fixed $r$.
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}\label{or} Let $n,m,k\in\mathbb N$. Then,
\begin{align}\label{iden1}
S_{s,q}[n+m,k] = \sum_{r=0}^n \sum_{j=0}^m S_{s,q}[m,j]\,q^{r(j(1-s)+sm)} \pq{n}{r}_{q^s} S_{s,q}[r,k-j] \prod_{i=0}^{n-r-1} [j(1-s)+sm+si]_q\,.
\end{align}
Consequently,
\begin{equation}\label{bbb1}
B_{s,q}[n+m;x] = \sum_{r=0}^n \sum_{j=0}^m S_{s,q}[m,j]\,q^{r(j(1-s)+sm)} \pq{n}{r}_{q^s} B_{s,q}[r;x] x^j \prod_{i=0}^{n-r-1} [j(1-s)+sm+si]_q\,.
\end{equation}
In particular,
\begin{align}\label{an}
B_{s,q}[n+m] &= \sum_{r=0}^n \sum_{j=0}^m S_{s,q}[m,j]\,q^{r(j(1-s)+sm)} \pq{n}{r}_{q^s} B_{s,q}[r] \prod_{i=0}^{n-r-1} [j(1-s)+sm+si]_q\,.
\end{align}
\begin{proof} The number $S_{s,q}[n+m,k]$ equals the sum of the weights of all rook placements in the set $C_{n+m-k}(J_{n+m;s})$. The rooks may be placed as follows. First, place $m-j$ rooks in columns $2,\ldots,m$. The sum of the weights of all such placements is $S_{s,q}[m,j]$. Next, place the remaining $n+j-k$ rooks in columns $m+1,\ldots,n$. Due to the placement of the first $m-j$ rooks, columns $m+1,\ldots,n$ form a board whose column pre-weights are identical to those of $J'_{n;j(1-s)+sm}$. Identity \ref{iden1} follows from \ref{oh} of Theorem \ref{alpha} using the replacement $\alpha \rightarrow j(1-s)+sm, k \rightarrow k-j$.
To obtain \ref{bbb1}, multiply both sides of \ref{iden1} by $x^k$ and take the sum over all $0\leq k \leq n+m$.
\end{proof}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{ne} Let $n,m\in\mathbb N$. Then,
\begin{align}
S_{s,q}[n+m,k] = \sum_{r=0}^n \sum_{j=0}^m S_{s,q}[m,j] q^{(j(1-s)+sm)(k-j)} \pq{r}{k-j}_{q^{s-1}} S_{s,q}[n,r] \prod_{i=0}^{r-k+j-1} [j(1-s)+sm+i(s-1)]_q\,.
\end{align}
Consequently,
\begin{align}
B_{s,q}[n+m;x] &=\sum_{r,j,k} S_{s,q}[m,j] q^{(j(1-s)+sm)(k-j)} \pq{r}{k-j}_{q^{s-1}} S_{s,q}[n,r] x^{k} \prod_{i=0}^{r-k+j-1} [j(1-s)+sm+i(s-1)]_q\,.
\end{align}
In particular,
\begin{align}\label{exd}
B_{s,q}[n+m] &=\sum_{r,j,k} S_{s,q}[m,j] q^{(j(1-s)+sm)(k-j)} \pq{r}{k-j}_{q^{s-1}} S_{s,q}[n,r] \prod_{i=0}^{r-k+j-1} [j(1-s)+sm+i(s-1)]_q\,.
\end{align}
\begin{proof} The proof is the same as that of Theorem except that we use Identity \ref{oh1} of Theorem \ref{alpha}.
\end{proof}
\end{theorem}
Taking cue from the identities in \cite[Theorem 2.6]{MedLer}, we derive another set of convolution identities.
\begin{theorem}\label{sec}For $n,m,j\in\mathbb N$, we have
\begin{align}
S_{s,q}[n+1,m+j+1] &= \sum_{k=m}^n \sum_{r=0}^{n-k} S_{s,q}[k,m]\, q^{r((k-m)(s-1)+k+1)+k+(k-m)(s-1)} \nonumber \\ &\hspace{0.5in} \pq{n-k}{r}_{q^s} S_{s,q}[r,j] \prod_{i=0}^{n-k-r-1} [(k-m)(s-1)+k+1+si]_q\,,\label{hey1} \\
S_{s,q}[n+1,m+j+1] &= \sum_{k=m}^n \sum_{r=0}^{n-k} S_{s,q}[k,m]\, q^{(j + 1)(k + (k - m)(s - 1)) + j} \nonumber \\ &\hspace{0.5in} \pq{r}{j}_{q^{s-1}} S_{s,q}[n-k,r] \prod_{t=0}^{r-j-1} [(k-m)(s-1)+k+1+t(s-1)]_q\,.\label{hey2}
\end{align}
\begin{proof} For a given rook placement in $C_{n-m-j}(J_{n+1};s)$, there exists a unique $k$ such that there are $k-m$ rooks in columns $2,\ldots,k$, $0$ rooks in column $k+1$ and $n-j-k$ rooks in columns $k+2,k+3,\ldots,n+1$. Indeed, if there exists $k_1<k_2$ satisfying these properties, then there are $k_2-k_1$ rooks in columns $k_1+1,k_1+2,\ldots,k_2$. This is impossible since there is no rook in column $k_1+1$.
Suppose that $k-m$ rooks have been placed in columns $1,2,\ldots,k$. The weight contributed by the $k+1$-th column is $q^{k+(k-m)(s-1)}$. Using Theorem \ref{alpha} with the substitutions $\alpha\rightarrow k+1+(k-m)(s-1), n\rightarrow n-k, k\rightarrow j, i\rightarrow r$, we obtain two different expressions for the sum of the weights of the placements of $n-j-k$ rooks in columns $k+2,k+3,\ldots,n+1$.
\end{proof}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}We briefly discuss some special cases.
By letting $s=0$ in \ref{an}, we get the following $q$-analogue of \ref{spv} which was previously derived by Katriel \cite{Kat}
\[
B_q[n+m]=\sum_{r=0}^n \sum_{j=0}^m S_q[m,j] q^{rj} \binom{n}{r} B_q[r] [j]_q^{n-r}\,,
\]
where, $S_{0,q}[n,k]=S_q[n,k]$ and $B_{0,q}[n+m]=B_{q}[n+m]$ are the $q$-Stirling number of the second kind and the $q$-Bell number, respectively.
A ``dual'' of Spivey's identity was derived by Mez\"o \cite{Mez} and is given by
\begin{align}\label{mez}
(n+m)! = \sum_{r=0}^n \sum_{j=0}^m c(m,j) m^{\overline{n-r}} \binom{m}{j} r!\,,
\end{align}
where $a^{\overline{b}}=a(a+1)\cdots(a+b-1)$ and $c(n,k)$ is the Stirling number of the first kind. One can check that\ref{an} reduces to \ref{mez} when $s=1,q=1$. Using \ref{exd}, we deduce another expression for $(n+m)!$, namely
\[
(n+m)! = \sum_{r,j,k} c(m,j) \binom{r}{k-j} c(n,r) m^{r-k+j}\,,
\]
or equivalently,
\[
(n+m)! = \sum_{r,j,k} c(m,j) \binom{r}{k} c(n,r) m^{k}\,.
\]
A simple combinatorial interpretation of the above identity was given by Mez\"o \cite{Mez2}. Color the first $m$ elements red and the remaining $n$ elements blue. Place the red elements into $j$ cycles in $c(m,j)$ ways and the blue elements into $r$ cycles in $c(n,r)$ ways. Then, write the cycles in standard form, i.e., such that the maximum element in each cycle is written first and the cycles are arranged by increasing first elements. Pick $k$ cycles among the $r$ blue cycles in $\binom{r}{k}$ ways. Insert the $k$ blue cycles among the red elements such that if there are consecutive blue cycles after a red element, we rewrite the blue cycles in standard form. This can be done in $m^k$ ways. Finally, we remove the parentheses of the blue cycles which were inserted and forget the colors.
Other identities for the the classical Stirling numbers and Bell numbers and their $q$-analogues may be obtained as straight-forward corollaries of the results in this section. For instance, Theorem \ref{ne} gives
\begin{align*}
S_q[n+m,k] &= \sum_{r=0}^n \sum_{j=0}^m S_q[m,j] q^{j(k-j)} \binom{r}{k-j}_{1/q} S_q[n,r] [j]_q[j-1]_q\cdots[k-r+1]_q\,,
\end{align*}
which appears to be new.
\end{remark}
The proposition that follows generalizes Theorems \ref{or}, \ref{ne} and \ref{sec}. As before, two explicit forms, which we no longer state, can be obtained through an application of Theorem \ref{alpha}. For the proofs, only the needed partition of the boards are described.
\begin{proposition}There holds
\begin{align*}
S_{s,q}[m_1+\cdots+m_n,k] &=\sum_{\substack{j_1+\cdots+j_n=k\\ j_1,\ldots,j_n\in\mathbb N}}\,\,
\prod_{i=1}^n \sum \wt(\phi)\,,\\
S_{s,q}[n+j-1,m_1+\cdots+m_j+j-1] &= \sum_{\substack{k_1+\cdots+k_j=n \\ k_1,\ldots,k_n\in\mathbb N}} q^{\sum_{t=1}^{i-1} k_t+(k_t-m_t)(s-1)} \prod_{i=1}^j \sum \wt(\phi) \,.
\end{align*}
where in the first expression, the rightmost sum is taken over all rook placements in $C_{m_i-j_i}\left(J'_{m_i;\sum_{t=1}^{i-1} j_t(1-s)+sm_t};s\right)$ and in the second expression, $C_{k_i-m_i}\left(J'_{k_i;\sum_{t=1}^{i-1} k_t+1+(k_t-m_t)(s-1)};s\right)$.
\begin{proof} For the first identity: starting from the right, divide the the board $J_{m_1+\cdots+m_n}$ into $n$ groups $G_1,\ldots,G_n$ consisting of $m_1,\ldots,m_n$ adjacent columns, respectively. Then, for $1\leq i\leq n$, place $m_i-j_i$ rooks on the columns in $G_i$.
For the second identity: use the fact that for every rook placement in $C_{n-(m_1+\cdots+m_j)}(J_{n+j-1})$, there exists a unique $j$-tuple $(k_1,\ldots,k_j)$ satisfying $k_1+\cdots+k_j=n$ such that (a) starting from the right, the board $J_{n+j-1}$ can be divided into $j$ groups $G_1,\ldots,G_j$ consisting of $k_1,\ldots,k_n$ adjacent columns, respectively, with one column not containing a rook in between, and (b) for $1\leq i\leq j$, there are $k_i-m_i$ rooks on the columns in $G_i$.
\end{proof}
\end{proposition}
\section{Extension to Type II $q$-analogues}\label{4}
Hsu and Shuie \cite{HsuShu} introduced generalized Stirling numbers via the relations
\begin{align*}
(x|\alpha)_n &=\sum_{k=0}^n S^1_{n,k}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)(x-\rho|\beta)_k\\
(x|\beta)_n &=\sum_{k=0}^n S^2_{n,k}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)(x+\rho|\alpha)_k
\end{align*}
where $(z|\alpha)_0=1$ and $(z|\gamma)_n=z(z-\gamma)\cdots(z-(n-1)\gamma)$ for every positive integer $n$. When $(\alpha,\beta,r)=(0,1,0)$, $S^1_{n,k}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)$ and $S^2_{n,k}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)$ become the usual Stirling number of the first kind and Stirling number of the second kind, respectively. Since $S^1_{n,k}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)=S^2_{n,k}(\beta,\alpha,-\rho)$, it suffices to consider just one of these numbers, namely $S^1_{n,k}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)$.
Let $[\gamma]_{p,q}=\frac{p^{\gamma}-q^{\gamma}}{p-q}$ for any $\gamma\in\mathbb R$. The Type II $p,q$-analogues of these numbers were introduced by Remmel and Wachs \cite{RemWac} by the following recursions ($\rho$ appears as $-r$ in \cite{RemWac})
\begin{align*}
S^{1,p,q}_{n,k}(\alpha,\beta,\rho) &= q^{(k-1)\beta-(n-1)\alpha+\rho} S^{1,p,q}_{n-1,k-1}(\alpha,\beta,\rho) + p^{t-k\beta} [k\beta-(n-1)\alpha+\rho] S^{1,p,q}_{n-1,k}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)\\
S^{2,p,q}_{n,k}(\alpha,\beta,\rho) &= q^{-\rho+(k-1)\alpha-(n-1)\beta} S^{2,p,q}_{n-1,k-1}(\alpha,\beta,\rho) + p^{t+\rho-k\alpha} [k\alpha-\rho-(n-1)\beta] S^{2,p,q}_{n-1,k}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)
\end{align*}
where in addition $S^{1,p,q}_{0,0}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)=S^{2,p,q}_{0,0}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)=1$ and $S^{1,p,q}_{n,k}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)=S^{2,p,q}_{n,k}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)=0$ if $k=0$ or $k>n$. Since $S^{1,p,q}_{n,k}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)=S^{2,p,q}_{n,k}(\beta,\alpha,-\rho)$, we also consider just one of these numbers, which we choose to be $S^{1,p,q}_{n,k}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)$. When $(\alpha,\beta,\rho)=(0,1,0)$ and $p=q=1$, $S^{1,p,q}_{n,k}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)=S(n,k)$.
Remmel and Wachs also gave combinatorial interpretations for these numbers for a certain choice of parameters. Our goal in this section is to introduce an alternative rook interpretation for $S^{1,1,q}_{n,k}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)$ which adapts the method used in Section \ref{3}. To do this, we will derive the analogue of Theorem \ref{or} and Theorem \ref{ne}. We leave the corresponding versions of the other identities in Section \ref{3} to the interested reader.
Let $c,d\in\mathbb R$ and denote by $J^{c,d}_n$ the board outlined by $(VU)^n$ such that each bottom cell has default pre-weight $d$ and all other cells have default pre-weight $c+d$. Let $S^{c,d}_{s,q}[n,k]$ denote the sum of the weights of all placements of $n-k$ rooks on $J^{c,d}_n$.
\begin{remark} Since $J^{1,0}_{n}=J_n$, it follows that $S^{1,0}_{s,q}[n,k]=S_{s,q}[n,k]$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} A ``special case'' of $J^{c,d}_{n-1}$ with $c=m,d=0$ are the $m$-jump boards $Jb_{n,m}$ \cite[Example 3]{GolHag} which have column heights $0,m,2m,\ldots,(n-1)m$. One sees that these two boards have identical column pre-weights.
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition} The number $S^{c,d}_{s,q}[n,k]$ satisfies the recurrence
\[
S^{c,d}_{s,q}[n,k] = q^{c(n-1)+d+(n-k)(s-1)} S^{c,d}_{s,q}[n-1,k-1] + [c(n-1)+d+(n-k-1)(s-1)]_q S^{c,d}_{s,q}[n-1,k]
\]
Hence,
\[
S^{\beta-\alpha,-\rho}_{-\beta+1,q}[n,k] = S^{1,1,q}_{n,k}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)\,.
\]
\begin{proof} The proof is similar to that of Proposition \ref{trr}.\end{proof}
\end{proposition}
\begin{theorem}\label{t1}
For $n,m,k\in\mathbb N$, we have
\begin{multline*}
S^{c,d}_{s,q}[n+m,k] = \sum_{r=0}^n \sum_{j=0}^m S^{c,d}_{s,q}[m,j]\, q^{r(d+mc+(m-j)(s-1))} \\ \pq{n}{r}_{q^{c+s-1}} S^{c,0}_{s,q}[r,k-j] \prod_{i=0}^{n-r-1} [d+mc+(m-j)(s-1)+(c+s-1)i]_q\,.
\end{multline*}
This implies that
\begin{multline*}
S^{1,1,q}_{n,k}(\alpha,\beta,\rho) = \sum_{r=0}^n \sum_{j=0}^m S^{1,1,q}_{m,j}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)\, q^{r(\beta j-\alpha m-\rho)} \pq{n}{r}_{q^{-\alpha}} S^{1,1,q}_{r,k-j}(\alpha,\beta,0) \prod_{i=0}^{n-r-1} [\beta j-\rho-\alpha(m+i)]_q\,.
\end{multline*}
\begin{proof}
We proceed as in Theorem \ref{or}. The $m-j$ rooks in columns $2,\ldots,m$ explains the factor $S^{c,d}_{s,q}[m,j]$. We then determine the sum of the weights of all placements of $n+j-k$ rooks in the remaining columns.
The placement of $m-j$ rooks adds $(m-j)(s-1)$ to the total pre-weights of columns $m+1,\ldots,n$. These columns form a board whose column pre-weights are identical to the board outlined by $(VU)^nV$ such that the bottom cells have pre-weight $d+mc+(m-j)(s-1)$ and the other cells have pre-weight $c$. For convenience, let us denote such board by $B$.
Note that Lemma \ref{lemma1} is a statement regarding only the placement of rooks and thus, it holds true regardless of the default pre-weights of the cells and the rule used. Hence, we can use this lemma on $B$ with rule $\mathcal R$, reasoning as in Theorem \ref{or}.
Let $\phi\in C^{\mathcal R}_{n+j-k}(B;s)$. Again, by Lemma \ref{lemma1}, we can write $\phi$ uniquely as $(\mathcal C_{\phi},\phi-\mathcal C_{\phi})$. Note that $\phi-\mathcal C_{\phi}$ forms a rook placement in $C_{r-k+j}(J^{c,0}_r;s)$ and not in $C_{r-k+j}(J^{c,d}_r;s)$! This is because $\phi-\mathcal C_{\phi}$ does not include any bottom cell of $\phi$.
The board $B$ is similar to $J'_{n;\alpha}$ with $\alpha=d+mc+(m-j)(s-1)$, the only difference is that the non-bottom cells of $B$ have pre-weight $c$. Hence, a cell with pre-weight $c$ which receives an additional pre-weight due to the placement of a rook following rule $\mathcal R$ will have pre-weight $c+s-1$.
\end{proof}
\end{theorem}
Define $B^{1,1,q}_{n;x}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)=\sum_{k=0}^n S^{1,1,q}_{n}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)$.
\begin{corollary}
For $n,m,\in\mathbb N$, we have
\begin{multline}\label{mezz}
B^{1,1,q}_{n+m;x}(\alpha,\beta,\rho) = \sum_{r=0}^n \sum_{j=0}^m S^{1,1,q}_{m,j}(\alpha,\beta,\rho)\, q^{r(\beta j-\alpha m-\rho)} \pq{n}{r}_{q^{-\alpha}} B^{1,1,q}_{r;x}(\alpha,\beta,0) \prod_{i=0}^{n-r-1} [\beta j-\rho -\alpha(m+i) ]_q\,.
\end{multline}
\end{corollary}
Letting $q=1$ produces a generalization of Spivey's identity, which is a variant of Xu's result \cite[Corollary 8]{Xu}. Also, Mez\"o \cite[Theorem 2]{Mez} obtained a special case of \ref{mezz} for $(\alpha,\beta,\rho)=(0,1,\rho)$.
\begin{theorem} Let $n,m\in\mathbb N$. Then,
\begin{multline*}
S^{c,d}_{s,q}[n+m,k] = \sum_{r=0}^n \sum_{j=0}^m S^{c,d}_{s,q}[m,j] q^{(d + mc + (m - j)(s - 1))(k - j)} \\ \pq{r}{k-j}_{q^{s-1}} S^{c,0}_{s,q}[n,r] \prod_{i=0}^{r-k+j-1} [d + mc + (m - j)(s - 1) + i(s-1)]_q\,.
\end{multline*}
This gives
\begin{multline}
S^{1,1,q}_{n+m,k}(\alpha,\beta,\rho) = \sum_{r=0}^n \sum_{j=0}^m S^{1,1,q}_{m,j}(\alpha,\beta,\rho) q^{(\rho+\alpha m -\beta j)(j-k)} \\ \pq{r}{k-j}_{q^{-\beta}} S^{1,1,q}_{n,r}(\alpha,\beta,0) \prod_{i=0}^{r-k+j-1} [\rho+\alpha m -\beta (j+i)]_q\,.
\end{multline}
\begin{proof} Instead of using the board $J^{c,d}_{n}$, we use the board outlined by $(VU)^n$ such that the bottom cells of columns $2,\ldots,m$ have pre-weight $c+d$, the cells in row $m$ have pre-weight $c+d$, and all other cells have pre-weight $c$. We then proceed as in the proof of Theorem \ref{ne}.
\end{proof}
\end{theorem}
\section{Some Remarks}
Mez\"o's dual of Spivey's identity is based on the relation $n!=\sum_{k=0}^n c(n,k)$. However, it is not true that $[n]_q!=\sum_{k=0}^n c_q[n,k]$, where $c_q[n,k]=S_{1,q}[n,k]$. It would be interesting to derive an expression for $[n+m]_q!$ similar to Mez\"o's for $q$-Stirling numbers of the first kind.
We also ask if a modification of the rook model for the Type II generalized $q$-Stirling numbers can be made to given another combinatorial interpretation for both the Type I and Type II $p,q$-analogues. It is also possible that the techniques outlined in this paper may be modified to obtain the corresponding identities for the generalized Stirling numbers that arise from other rook models, such as those in \cite{RemWac} and \cite{Brig}.
Lastly, we note that other forms of convolution identities are given in \cite[Theorem 1]{AgoDil} and \cite[page 5]{MedLer}. Can these identities and their $S_{s,q}[n,k]$ versions be proved using partitions on rook boards?
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{1}
In string theory, the T-duality shows the equivalence of two theories that look different under the exchange of a radii R and $\alpha^{\prime}$/R. For the closed strings \cite{Zwiebach:1992ie, Saadi:1989tb}, the T-duality of closed strings exchanges winding and momentum modes. In the case of open strings, the T-duality of open strings exchanges the Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions. The studies of the T-duality pave the way for the unified theory. One way is to study the low energy effective action. It is well-known that the DBI model can be derived from the one-loop $\beta$ function. The low-energy effective field theory (higher derivative gravity \cite{Zwiebach:1985uq} or non-local theory) can be directly found from the one-loop $\beta$ function. Nevertheless, we encounter the non-geometry or T-fold problem in the massless closed string theory. This problem is generic and unavoidable in string theory. To solve this problem, we need to construct geometric languages to endow string theory with a global geometry. Double field theory \cite{Hull:2009mi, Hull:2009zb, Hohm:2010jy, Hohm:2010pp, Lee:2013hma, Tseytlin:1990va, Tseytlin:1990nb, Copland:2011wx, Berman:2007yf, Berman:2007xn, Avramis:2009xi, Berkeley:2014nza, Duff:1989tf, Siegel:1993xq, Siegel:1993th, Siegel:1993bj} and generalized geometry \cite{Gualtieri:2003dx, Hitchin:2004ut, Cavalcanti:2011wu} are two typical examples. This new \lq\lq{}stringy geometry\rq\rq{} \cite{Hohm:2011dv, Hohm:2010xe} geometrize the non-geometric flux and find the 10-dimensional supergravity with the non-geometric flux as shown in \cite{Aldazabal:2011nj, Andriot:2012an}. At the current stage, the most non-trivial problem is that the double field theory needs the section conditions to have gauge invariance. The approaches of relaxing the section conditions can be found in \cite{Geissbuhler:2013uka, Grana:2012rr, Ma:2014ala}. The extension of the $\alpha^{\prime}$ correction explores a geometric way to find the T-duality with $\alpha^{\prime}$ correction \cite{Hohm:2013jaa, Bedoya:2014pma}. The geometric structure can also be extended to the 11-dimensional supergravity \cite{Berman:2010is, Hohm:2013vpa, Hohm:2013uia, Hohm:2014fxa, Berman:2012vc, Hohm:2013pua}. Some recent good reviews can be found in \cite{Hohm:2013bwa, Aldazabal:2013sca, Berman:2013eva}.
To get a geometric picture of brane theory, a combination of non-commutative gauge theory and the generalized geometry is necessary. The non-commutative gauge theory of the D-brane is already well-known, but the non-commutative gauge theory of the M-brane is still not completely understood \cite{Ho:2008nn, Ho:2012dn}. Recently, theories based on the equivalence between the commutative and non-commutative gauge theories are found. The theories are the Nambu-Sigma model and generalized DBI model \cite{Jurco:2012yv, Schupp:2012nq}. The non-commutative geometry is encoded in the generalized metric, which is an ingredient of the generalized geometry. Although they do not use the full language of the generalized geometry \cite{Jurco:2013upa, Jurco:2014sda}, they found the evidence for the DBI-like M2-M5 system \cite{Cederwall:1997gg}.
The main task of this paper is to calculate the dimensional reduction of the generalized DBI theory at the massless level. We perform the dimensional reduction from a $(q+1)$-brane ending on a $(p+1)$-brane to a $q$-brane ending on a $p$-brane. We consider flat spacetime, constant antisymmetric background field and the $(q+1)$-form gauge field only exists in $(q+1)$-dimensional worldvolume directions (no time direction) in $q$-$p$ system. The non-trivial result of this theory is that the appearance of the 2$(q+1)$-th root, which can be shown by the equivalence between the commutative and non-commutative descriptions, is robust against the dimensional reduction. The most interesting study is the system of a 2-brane ending on a 5-brane. The system can be reduced to a 1-brane ending on a 4-brane by the dimensional reduction. This shows that the system of a 2-brane ending on a 5-brane can be reduced to the DBI theory in our simple consideration. Finally, we discuss the possibility of adding one-form gauge field in the generalized DBI theory. We can include one-form gauge field up to $H^2$ in principle, and the calculation also demonstrates the potential to extend the generalized DBI theory with different field contents. This study should give the simplest understood of the higher-form fields although it is not a general consideration. Our study on the generalized DBI theory should motivate interest of duality structure in higher dimensions.
The plan of this paper is to first review the generalized DBI theory in Sec. \ref{2}.
Then we discuss the dimensional reduction without scalar fields in Sec. \ref{3} and dimensional reduction with scalar fields in Sec. \ref{4}.
Finally, we conclude in Sec. \ref{5}. We also provide the detailed calculation in \ref{app1} and \ref{app2}.
\section{Review of the Generalized DBI}
\label{2}
In this section, we follow \cite{Jurco:2012yv, Schupp:2012nq} to review the generalized DBI theory. First of all, we show the closed-open string relations from the string sigma model. Secondly, we generalize the Poisson-Sigma model to Nambu-Sigma model. We obtain the generalized closed-open relations from the Nambu-Sigma model. Then we introduce the membrane action, which is equivalent to the Nambu-Sigma model under the gauge fixing. In the end of this section, we use the generalized closed-open relations to construct an action.
We define our notations as follow. We denote the worldvolume directions from $A$ to $H$ and indicate the transverse directions from $I$ to $Z$. The index $a$=$1, 2, \cdots, p$ are reserved for the spatial components of worldvolume coordinates (We denote them from $a$ to $h$.), while the Greek letters $\mu, \nu, \rho, \sigma$=0, 1, $\cdots$, $D-1$ denote the target space indices and $w$=0, 1 denote the world-sheet index. In addition, we use $i$, $j$ to label the antisymmetric indices, $i=(i_1, i_2, \cdots, i_{r})$ with $0\leq i_1<i_2<\cdots<i_r\leq (r+1)$, where $r$ is the dimension of $i$.
\subsection{Closed-Open Relations}
We first introduce the action of the Poisson-Sigma model
\begin{equation}
S_P = \int_\Sigma\ \left( A_\mu \wedge dX^\mu - \frac{1}{2} \Pi^{\mu\nu} A_\mu \wedge A_\nu\right), \qquad \Pi \equiv \frac{1}{2} \Pi^{\mu\nu}(X)\partial_\mu \wedge \partial_\nu ,
\end{equation}
where $X:\Sigma\rightarrow M$, $\Sigma$ is the two dimensional world-sheet and $M$ is the target space manifold. The one-form field $A(\sigma)$ is on $\Sigma$ and $\Pi$ is an antisymmetric tensor. From the equations of motion
\begin{eqnarray}
dX^{\mu}-\Pi^{\mu\nu}A_{\nu}=0,\qquad dA_{\mu}+\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\Pi^{\nu\rho}A_{\nu}\wedge A_{\rho}=0,
\end{eqnarray}
we show that the bi-vector $\Pi$ satisfies the Jacobi identity. These are the equations of motion for $A_\mu$ and $X^\mu$, respectively. We can add a metric term in the Poisson-Sigma model to obtain the non-topological generalized Poisson-Sigma model
\begin{equation} \label{genPoissonsigma}
S_P = \int_\Sigma\ \left( A_\mu \wedge dX^\mu - \frac{1}{2} \Pi^{\mu\nu} A_\mu \wedge A_\nu - \frac{1}{2} (G^{-1})^{\mu\nu} A_\mu \wedge *A_\nu \right) ,
\end{equation}
where $*A_{\nu}$ is the Hodge dual of $A_{\nu}$. The signature of the world-sheet is $(-,+)$ and volume form $d^2 \sigma \equiv d\sigma^0 \wedge d\sigma^1$. The $A_\mu \equiv A_{\mu w}(\sigma) d\sigma^w$ is an auxiliary field. By using the equation of motion of $A_\mu$, the action \eqref{genPoissonsigma} can be rewritten as the string sigma model action,
\begin{equation}
S_S = -\int_\Sigma\ \frac{1}{2} \left(g_{\mu\nu} dX^{\mu} \wedge *dX^{\nu} + B_{\mu\nu} dX^{\mu} \wedge dX^{\nu}\right) ,
\end{equation}
where the $g$ and $B$ are defined by the closed-open string relations
\begin{equation} \label{close-open-string}
\frac{1}{g+B} = G^{-1} + \Pi , \Rightarrow\qquad G=g-Bg^{-1}B,\qquad\Pi=-G^{-1}Bg^{-1}=-g^{-1}BG^{-1}.
\end{equation}
The action \eqref{genPoissonsigma} can also be rewritten in terms of the components of $\eta_\mu \equiv -A_{\mu 1}(\sigma)$ and $\tilde \eta_\nu \equiv A_{\nu 0}(\sigma)$, the action is
\begin{eqnarray} \label{poissonsigma_eta}
S_P = \int d^2\sigma\ \bigg[ -\frac{1}{2}
(G^{-1})^{\mu\nu} \eta_\mu \eta_\nu + \frac{1}{2} (G^{-1})^{\mu\nu} \tilde{\eta}_\mu \tilde{\eta}_\nu
+ \eta_\mu \partial_0 X^\mu + \tilde{\eta}_\mu \partial_1 X^\mu - \Pi^{\mu \nu} \eta_\mu \tilde{\eta}_\nu\bigg] .
\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
We can use matrix notation to rewrite the action by using
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta\equiv\eta_{\mu},\qquad\tilde{\eta}\equiv\tilde{\eta}_{\nu}, \qquad G\equiv G_{\mu\nu}, \qquad X\equiv X^{\mu}, \qquad\Pi\equiv\Pi^{\mu\nu}.
\end{eqnarray}
The action becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
S_P = \int d^2\sigma\ \bigg( -\frac{1}{2}
\eta^T G^{-1}\eta + \frac{1}{2} \tilde{\eta}^TG^{-1}\tilde{\eta}
+ \partial_0 X^T\eta+ \partial_1 X^T\tilde{\eta} - \eta^T\Pi\tilde{\eta}\bigg) ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the superscript $T$ indicates transpose of matrix. By using the matrix notation, it is easier to generalize the Poisson-Sigma model.
\subsection{Generalized Closed-Open Relations}
The Nambu-Sigma model is a generalization of the Poisson-Sigma model. The action is given by
\begin{equation} \label{NambuSigma}
S_N = \int d^{q+1}\sigma\ \bigg( -\frac{1}{2}
\eta^T G^{-1}\eta+ \frac{1}{2} \tilde{\eta}^T\tilde{G}^{-1} \tilde{\eta} + \partial_0 X^T\eta + \widetilde{\partial\! X}^T\tilde{\eta} - \eta\Pi^T \tilde{\eta}\bigg) ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{gtilde}
\tilde G_{ij} = \sum_{\pi } \mbox{\small sgn}}\def \dd {\dot{\delta}(\pi) G_{i_{\pi(1)} j_1} \cdots G_{i_{\pi(p)} j_q}
\end{equation}
with a permutation $\pi$. The antisymmetric product of partial derivatives is defined as
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{\partial\! X}^i \equiv \sum_{a_1, \ldots, a_q =1}^q \epsilon^{a_1 a_2 \ldots a_q} \partial_{a_1} X^{i_1} \cdots \partial_{a_q} X^{i_q},
\end{equation}
where $0\leq i_1 < \cdots < i_q\leq (q+1)$.
There are two types of the metrics $G$ and $\tilde{G}$, auxiliary fields $\eta$ and $\tilde{\eta}$, and an antisymmetric $(q+1)$-form tensor $\Pi$.
We can integrate out the fields $\eta$ and $\tilde{\eta}$. Then the resulting action is
\begin{equation}\label{gfmulti}
S_b = \frac{1}{2} \int d^{q+1} \sigma\ \bigg( \partial_0 X^T g \partial_0 X - \widetilde{\partial \! X}\tilde g \widetilde{\partial\! X}\bigg)
- \int d^{q+1}\sigma\ \partial_0 X^T C \widetilde{\partial\! X} ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
g\equiv g_{\mu\nu}, \qquad \tilde{g}\equiv \tilde{g}_{ij}, \qquad C\equiv C_{\mu i}.
\end{eqnarray}
We identify $g$, $\tilde{g}$ and $C$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
g = \bigg(G^{-1} + \Pi \tilde G \Pi^T\bigg)^{-1}, \qquad \tilde g = \bigg(\tilde G^{-1} + \Pi^T G \Pi\bigg)^{-1},\qquad
C = - g \Pi \tilde G = - G \Pi \tilde g .
\label{membrane rel}
\end{eqnarray}
In the case of $q=1$, these relations are reduced to the closed-open string relations \eqref{close-open-string}. We rewrite the action after the Wick rotation ($\sigma^0\rightarrow -i\sigma^0$) in the compact matrix form
\begin{equation}\label{gfmulti}
S_{bE} = \frac{1}{2} \int d^{q+1}\sigma \ V^{\dagger} \begin{pmatrix} g & C \\ -C^T & \tilde{g} \end{pmatrix} V ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\quad \exp(iS_b)=\exp(-S_{bE}), \qquad
V\equiv \left( \begin{array}{c} i\partial_0 X^{\mu} \\\widetilde{\partial\! X}^i \end{array} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
Let ${\cal G}$ denote the matrix
\begin{eqnarray}
\cal G \equiv \begin{pmatrix} g & C \\ -C^T & \tilde{g} \end{pmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray}
The inverse matrix is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal G}^{-1}=\begin{pmatrix} (g+C\tilde{g}^{-1}C^T)^{-1} & -(g+C\tilde{g}^{-1}C^T)^{-1}C\tilde{g}^{-1}
\\ \tilde{g}^{-1}C^T(g+C\tilde{g}^{-1}C^T)^{-1} & (\tilde{g}+C^Tg^{-1}C)^{-1} \end{pmatrix},
\end{eqnarray}
where we used the analytic inversion formula
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{pmatrix} a &b
\\ c & d \end{pmatrix}^{-1}&=&\begin{pmatrix} a^{-1}+a^{-1}b(d-ca^{-1}b)^{-1}ca^{-1} &-a^{-1}b(d-ca^{-1}b)^{-1}
\\ -(d-ca^{-1}b)^{-1}ca^{-1} & (d-ca^{-1}b)^{-1} \end{pmatrix}
\nonumber\\
&=&\begin{pmatrix} (a-bd^{-1}c)^{-1} &-(a-bd^{-1}c)^{-1}bd^{-1}
\\ -d^{-1}c(a-bd^{-1}c)^{-1} & d^{-1}+d^{-1}c(a-bd^{-1}c)^{-1}bd^{-1} \end{pmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray}
We also have
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H}&\equiv& \begin{pmatrix} G & \Phi
\\ -\Phi^T & \tilde{G} \end{pmatrix}^{-1}+ \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \Pi
\\ -\Pi^T & 0 \end{pmatrix}
\nonumber\\
&=&\begin{pmatrix} (G+\Phi\tilde{G}^{-1}\Phi^T)^{-1} & -(G+\Phi\tilde{G}^{-1}\Phi^T)^{-1}\Phi\tilde{G}^{-1}+\Pi
\\ \tilde{G}^{-1}\Phi^T(G+\Phi\tilde{G}^{-1}\Phi^T)^{-1}-\Pi^T & (\tilde{G}+\Phi^TG^{-1}\Phi)^{-1} \end{pmatrix}
.
\end{eqnarray}
Interestingly, we can get the relations, which is similar to the closed-open string relations by setting ${\cal G}^{-1}={\cal H}$. These relations are called generalized closed-open relations. These relations are
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{gco1}
g+C\tilde{g}^{-1}C^T=G+\Phi\tilde{G}^{-1}\Phi^T,\qquad \tilde{g}+C^Tg^{-1}C=\tilde{G}+\Phi^T G^{-1}\Phi,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{gco2}
g^{-1}C=G^{-1}\Phi-\Pi\bigg(\tilde{G}+\Phi^TG^{-1}\Phi\bigg),\qquad \Phi\tilde{G}^{-1}=C\tilde{g}^{-1}+\bigg(g+C\tilde{g}^{-1}C^T\bigg)\Pi.
\end{eqnarray}
These relations imply that we can interchange
\begin{eqnarray}
g\leftrightarrow G,\qquad \tilde{g}\leftrightarrow\tilde{G},\qquad C\leftrightarrow\Phi,\qquad \Pi\leftrightarrow -\Pi
\end{eqnarray}
to write the action in terms of $G$, $\Phi$ and $\Pi$. When $q=1$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{g+B}=\frac{1}{G+\Phi}+\Pi.
\end{eqnarray}
We use ${\cal G}={\cal H}^{-1}$ to get another form of the generalized closed-open relations as well.
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{pmatrix} g & C
\\ -C^T & \tilde{g} \end{pmatrix}={\cal H}^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
The results are
\begin{eqnarray}
g^{-1}&=&\bigg(1-\Phi\Pi^T\bigg)^TG^{-1}\bigg(1-\Phi\Pi^T\bigg)+\Pi\tilde{G}\Pi^T,
\nonumber\\
\tilde{g}^{-1}&=&\bigg(1-\Phi^T\Pi\bigg)^T\tilde{G}^{-1}\bigg(1-\Phi^T\Pi\bigg)+\Pi^T G\Pi,
\nonumber\\
C&=&\bigg\lbrack\bigg(1-\Phi\Pi^T\bigg)^TG^{-1}\bigg(1-\Phi\Pi^T\bigg)+\Pi\tilde{G}\Pi^T\bigg\rbrack^{-1}\bigg\lbrack\bigg(1-\Phi\Pi^T\bigg)^TG^{-1}\Phi-\Pi\tilde{G}\bigg\rbrack.
\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
Please refer to \ref{app1} for the detailed computations.
We can also use the generalized metric to derive the generalized closed-open relations. The generalized metric is exactly the matrix in the Hamiltonian. Starting from
\begin{equation}\label{gfmulti}
S_{bE} = \frac{1}{2} \int d^{q+1}\sigma\ V^{\dagger} \begin{pmatrix} g & C \\ -C^T & \tilde{g} \end{pmatrix} V ,
\end{equation}
we get the Hamiltonian
\begin{eqnarray}
H[X, P]&=&\int d^q\sigma\ \bigg( \partial_0 X^T P-S_{bE}\bigg)
\nonumber\\
&=&\int d^q\sigma\ \bigg\lbrack \partial_0 X^T\bigg(g\partial_0X-iC\widetilde{\partial X}\bigg)-\frac{1}{2}\partial_0 X^T g\partial_0 X-\frac{1}{2}\widetilde{\partial X}^T\tilde{g}\widetilde{\partial X}+i\partial_0 X^TC\widetilde{\partial X}\bigg\rbrack
\nonumber\\
&=&\int d^q\sigma\ \bigg(\frac{1}{2}\partial_0X^T g\partial_0 X-\frac{1}{2}\widetilde{\partial X}^T\tilde{g}\widetilde{\partial X}\bigg)
\nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{1}{2}\int d^q\sigma\ \left( \begin{array}{c} iP \\\widetilde{\partial\! X}^i \end{array} \right)^T \begin{pmatrix} g^{-1} & -g^{-1}C \\ -C^Tg^{-1} & \tilde{g}+C^Tg^{-1}C \end{pmatrix}\left( \begin{array}{c} iP \\\widetilde{\partial\! X}^i \end{array} \right),
\end{eqnarray}
where
$P$ is the canonical momentum corresponding to the field $X$, i.e., $P=g\partial_0 X-iC\widetilde{\partial X}$.
If we take $q=1$, the matrix in Hamiltonian is the usual generalized metric.
We can use another way to write the generalized metric
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\begin{pmatrix} 1 & \Pi
\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0
\\ -\Phi^T & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} G^{-1} & 0
\\ 0 & \tilde{G} \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & -\Phi
\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0
\\ \Pi^T & 1 \end{pmatrix}
\nonumber\\
&=&\begin{pmatrix} (1-\Pi\Phi^T)G^{-1}(1-\Phi\Pi^T)+\Pi\tilde{G}\Pi^T & -(1-\Pi\Phi^T)G^{-1}\Phi+\Pi\tilde{G}
\\ -\Phi^TG^{-1}(1-\Phi\Pi^{T})+\tilde{G}\Pi^T & \Phi^TG^{-1}\Phi+\tilde{G} \end{pmatrix}
\nonumber\\
&=&\begin{pmatrix} g^{-1} & -g^{-1}C
\\ -C^Tg^{-1} & \tilde{g}+C^Tg^{-1}C \end{pmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray}
We used \eqref{gco1} and \eqref{gco2} to get the second equality. In other words, we can get the generalized closed-open relations from the generalized metric.
\subsection{Membrane Action}
Starting from the action
\begin{equation}\label{NambuGoto}
S_M= -\int d^{q+1}\sigma\ \sqrt{-\det{} (g_{\mu\nu} \partial_A X^\mu \partial_B X^\nu)} ,
\end{equation}
we introduce an auxiliary field $h_{AB}$ and write a classically equivalent action
\begin{equation}\label{membranesigma}
S_{Mc} = -\frac{1}{2}\int d^{q+1} \sigma\ \sqrt{-\det{} h}\ \bigg(g_{\mu\nu} h^{AB} \partial_A X^\mu \partial_B X^\nu -(q-1)\bigg) .
\end{equation}
We used an equation of motion of $h^{AB}$
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{2}h_{AB}\bigg(h^{CD}\partial_{C}X^{\mu}\partial_D X^{\nu}g_{\mu\nu}-(q-1)\bigg)
=\partial_A X^{\mu}\partial_B X^{\nu} g_{\mu\nu}
\end{eqnarray}
to derive the equivalence. For $q\neq 1$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
h^{AB}\partial_A X^{\mu}\partial_B X^{\nu}g_{\mu\nu}=q+1.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, we get $h_{AB}=\partial_A X^{\mu}\partial_B X^{\nu} g_{\mu\nu}$. After fixing (by reparametrization invariance) the components $h_{a0}, h_{0b}$ and $h_{00}$ by choosing $h_{a0}= h_{0b}=0$ and $h_{00}= -\det (h_{a b})$, and using the equation of motion of $h^{ab}$
\begin{eqnarray}
h_{ab}\bigg(h^{cd}\partial_c X^{\mu}\partial_d X^{\nu}g_{\mu\nu}-(q-1)\bigg)=\partial_a X^{\mu}\partial_b X^{\nu} g_{\mu\nu} ,
\end{eqnarray}
we get the classical equivalence with the gauge fixing
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{gaugefixed}
S_{\mbox{gf}}= \frac{1}{2} \int d^{q+1} \sigma\ \bigg\lbrack g_{\mu\nu} \partial_0 X^\mu \partial_0 X^\nu - \det{}\bigg(g_{\mu\nu} \partial_a X^\mu \partial_b X^\nu\bigg)\bigg\rbrack .
\end{eqnarray}
The action \eqref{gaugefixed} can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{gfmulti}
S_{\mbox{gf}}= \frac{1}{2} \int d^{q+1}\sigma\ \bigg( \partial_0 Xg \partial_0 X - \widetilde{\partial \! X} \tilde g\widetilde{\partial\! X}\bigg) .
\end{equation}
We can add a $(q+1)$-form background term,
$\frac{1}{(q+1)!}C_{i_1i_2\cdots i_{q+1}} dx^{i_1} dx^{i_2} \cdots dx^{i_{q+1}}$. The action is
\begin{equation}\label{Cmulti}
S_C = - \int d^{q+1}\sigma\ \partial_0 X C \widetilde{\partial\! X} .
\end{equation}
We combine $S_{gf}$ with $S_C$ to get the same action as the Nambu-Sigma model.
\subsection{Generalized DBI}
Before we generalize the DBI action, we first review the well-known theory, DBI theory, which is an effective action for an open string ending on a D-brane. The action is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{BIaction}
-\frac{1}{g_s}\int d^{p+1} x \sqrt{-\det{}( g +B+F)}
= -\frac{1}{g_s}\int d^{p+1}x \bigg( -\det{} g\bigg)^{\frac{1}{4}} \bigg\lbrack- \det{} \bigg( g - (B+F)g^{-1}(B+F)\bigg)\bigg\rbrack^{\frac{1}{4}},
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $g_s$, $g$ and $B$ are closed string coupling constant, metric and two-form antisymmetric background. $F$ is the abelian field strength ($F\equiv dA$). Before showing the equivalence between the commutative and non-commutative descriptions, we shall discuss the relations between the closed and open string parameters. These are
\begin{eqnarray}
G_s=g_s\bigg(\frac{\det{}(G+\Phi)}{\det{}(g+B)}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{2}},
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
g-Bg^{-1}B=G-\Phi G^{-1}\Phi,\qquad
Bg^{-1}=\Phi G^{-1}-\bigg(G-\Phi G^{-1}\Phi\bigg)\Pi.
\end{eqnarray}
These relations imply that we can determine the open string variables from closed string variables by choosing $\Pi$. We can further rewrite $G_s$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
G_s=g_s\bigg(\frac{\det{}(G+\Phi)}{\det{}(g+B)}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{2}}=g_s\bigg(\frac{\det{} G} {\det{} g}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{4}}\bigg(\frac{\det{}(G-\Phi G^{-1}\Phi)}{\det{}(g-B g^{-1}B)}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{4}}=g_s\bigg(\frac{\det{} G} {\det{} g}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{4}}.
\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
Then we include the gauge field in the generalized metric
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\begin{pmatrix} 1 & F
\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & B
\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} g & 0
\\ 0 & g^{-1} \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0
\\ -B & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0
\\ -F & 1 \end{pmatrix}
\nonumber\\
&=&\begin{pmatrix}
g-(B+F)g^{-1}(B+F) & (B+F)g^{-1}
\\ -g^{-1}(B+F) & g^{-1} \end{pmatrix}
\nonumber\\
&=&\begin{pmatrix} 1 & F
\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0
\\ \Pi & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & \Phi
\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} G & 0
\\ 0 & G^{-1} \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0
\\ -\Phi & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & -\Pi
\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0
\\ -F & 1 \end{pmatrix}
\nonumber\\
&=&\begin{pmatrix} 1 & F
\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0
\\ \Pi & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & -F^{\prime}
\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & (\Phi+F^{\prime})
\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} G & 0
\\ 0 & G^{-1} \end{pmatrix}
\nonumber\\
&&\cdot\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0
\\ -(\Phi+F^{\prime}) & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0
\\ F^{\prime} & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & -\Pi
\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0
\\ -F & 1 \end{pmatrix}. \label{factorization}
\end{eqnarray}
We add one new block matrix $N$ to factorize the generalized metric. Later we will combine them to get the equivalence between the non-commutative and commutative descriptions.
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0
\\ \Pi^{\prime} & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} N^T & 0
\\ 0 & N^{-1} \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & \Phi^{\prime}
\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} G & 0
\\ 0 & G^{-1} \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0
\\ -\Phi^{\prime} & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} N & 0
\\ 0 & (N^{-1})^T \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & -\Pi^{\prime}
\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix},
\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Phi^{\prime}$=$\Phi+F^{\prime}$.
From
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0
\\ \Pi^{\prime} & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} N^T & 0
\\ 0 & N^{-1} \end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix} N^T & 0
\\ \Pi^{\prime}N^T & N^{-1} \end{pmatrix}
\nonumber\\
&=&\begin{pmatrix} 1 & F
\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0
\\ \Pi & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & -F^{\prime}
\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}
=\begin{pmatrix} 1+F\Pi & -(1+F\Pi)F^{\prime}+F
\\ \Pi & -\Pi F^{\prime}+1 \end{pmatrix},
\end{eqnarray}
we can obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi^{\prime}&=&(1+\Pi F)^{-1}\Pi=\Pi(1+F\Pi)^{-1},
\nonumber\\
F^{\prime}&=&F(1+\Pi F)^{-1}=(1+F\Pi)^{-1}F,
\nonumber\\
N&=&1+\Pi F.
\end{eqnarray}
We find useful formulae from
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0
\\ \Pi^{\prime} & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} N^T & 0
\\ 0 & N^{-1} \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & \Phi^{\prime}
\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} G & 0
\\ 0 & G^{-1} \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0
\\ -\Phi^{\prime} & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} N & 0
\\ 0 & (N^{-1})^{T} \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & -\Pi^{\prime}
\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}
\nonumber\\
&=&\begin{pmatrix}
g-(B+F)g^{-1}(B+F) & (B+F)g^{-1}
\\ -g^{-1}(B+F) & g^{-1} \end{pmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
g-(B+F)g^{-1}(B+F)&=&N^T\bigg(G-\Phi^{\prime}G^{-1}\Phi^{\prime}\bigg)N,
\nonumber\\
(B+F)g^{-1}&=&-N^T\bigg(G-\Phi^{\prime}G^{-1}\Phi^{\prime}\bigg)N\Pi^{\prime}+N^T\Phi^{\prime}G^{-1}(N^T)^{-1},
\nonumber\\
g^{-1}&=&-\Pi^{\prime}N^T GN\Pi^{\prime}+\bigg(\Pi^{\prime}N^T\Phi^{\prime}+N^{-1}\bigg)G^{-1}
\bigg(\Phi^{\prime}N\Pi^{\prime}+(N^T)^{-1}\bigg).
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\det{}\bigg(g-(B+F)g^{-1}(B+F)\bigg)&=&\det{}^2 {}(N)\det{}\bigg(G-\Phi^{\prime}G^{-1}\Phi^{\prime}\bigg),
\nonumber\\
(g+B+F)^{-1}&=&\Pi^{\prime}+\bigg(N^T(G+\Phi^{\prime})N\bigg)^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
The DBI action can be rewritten in terms of the closed string parameters instead of the open string parameters by using the above relations:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&-\frac{1}{g_s}\bigg(-\det{} (g+B+F) \bigg)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{1}{g_s}\bigg( -\det{} g\bigg)^{\frac{1}{4}} \bigg\lbrack-\det{} \bigg( g-(B+F)g^{-1}(B+F) \bigg) \bigg\rbrack^{\frac{1}{4}}
\nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{1}{g_s}\bigg( -\det{} g\bigg)^{\frac{1}{4}}\det{}^{\frac{1}{2}}\bigg(1+\Pi F\bigg) \bigg\lbrack -\det{}\bigg(G-\Phi^{\prime}G^{-1}\Phi^{\prime} \bigg) \bigg\rbrack^{\frac{1}{4}}
\nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{1}{G_s}\det{}^{\frac{1}{2}}\bigg(1+\Pi F\bigg)\bigg( -\det{}G\bigg)^{\frac{1}{4}}\bigg\lbrack -\det{} \bigg(G-\Phi^{\prime}G^{-1}\Phi^{\prime}\bigg) \bigg\rbrack^{\frac{1}{4}}
\nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{1}{G_s}\det{}^{\frac{1}{2}}\bigg(1+\Pi F\bigg) \bigg\lbrack-\det{}\bigg(G+\Phi^{\prime}\bigg)\bigg\rbrack^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Then we perform the Seiberg-Witten map to get
\begin{eqnarray}
-\int d^{p+1}x\ \frac{1}{g_s}\bigg(-\det{}(g+B+F) \bigg)^{\frac{1}{2}}=-\int d^{p+1}\hat{x}\frac{1}{\hat{G}_s}\det{}^{\frac{1}{2}}\bigg(\frac{\hat{\Pi}}{\Pi}\bigg)\bigg\lbrack-\det{}\bigg(\hat{G}+\hat{\Phi}^{\prime}\bigg)\bigg\rbrack^{\frac{1}{2}},
\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
where the superscript $\ \hat{}\ $ means that the fields are evaluated at the {\it covariant coordinates}, which comes from the change of coordinates, $x \mapsto \rho_A^*(x)=\hat x = x + \Pi \hat A\ $ induced by a map $\Pi \mapsto \Pi' = (1+\Pi F)^{-1}\Pi$. The coordinate $\hat x^\mu$ is called {\it covariant coordinate}. We used
\begin{eqnarray}
\det{}(1+\Pi F)=\det{}\bigg(\frac{\hat{\Pi}}{\Pi}\bigg)\det{}^2\bigg(\frac{\partial x}{\partial\hat{x}}\bigg)
\end{eqnarray}
to establish the equivalence between the non-commutative and commutative descriptions in the DBI theory.
We expect the generalization of the DBI theory can be done in the similar construction. The generalized DBI action is first proposed in \cite{Jurco:2012yv}. They use the equivalence between the non-commutative and commutative descriptions to construct the generalized DBI theory. In the generalized DBI theory, the antisymmetric background field is $(q+1)$-form rather than the 2-form antisymmetric background field in the DBI theory. When $q$=1, the generalized DBI action is naturally reduced to the DBI theory.
We include the details of the calculations in \ref{app2}. Among these, the two following formulae are crucial to determine the generalized DBI,
\begin{align}
& \det{}\bigg(g+(C+H)\tilde{g}^{-1}(C+H)^T\bigg)=\det{}^2\bigg(1-H\Pi^T\bigg)\det\bigg(G+\Phi^{\prime}\tilde{G}^{-1}\Phi^{\prime T}\bigg). \label{term1} \\
&\det{}\bigg(1-\Pi^T H\bigg)=\det{}\bigg(1-H\Pi^T\bigg)=\det{}\bigg(\frac{\hat{\Pi}}{\Pi}\bigg)\det{}^{q+1}\bigg(\frac{\partial x}{\partial\hat{x}}\bigg).
\end{align}
It is obvious that if there is a term like \eqref{term1}, we would get a term $\bigg(\det{}\frac{\partial x}{\partial \hat{x}}\bigg)^{2(q+1)}$ in the action. From this term, it can be postulated that the action can be
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{pDBI}
S_{GDBI} = -\int d^{p+1} x \ \frac{1}{g_b} \bigg(-\det {}g\bigg)^{\frac{q}{2(q+1)}} \bigg\lbrack- \det{}\bigg(g +(C+H) \tilde g^{-1} (C+H)^T \bigg)\bigg\rbrack^{\frac{1}{2(q+1)}}
\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
because the term $\bigg(\det{}\frac{\partial x}{\partial \hat{x}}\bigg)^{2(q+1)}$ cancels with the Jacobian which arises from coordinate transformation, such that the Lagrangian is an integral density.
The coupling constant $g_b$ is called closed brane coupling constant. We can also rewrite the open brane coupling constant $G_b$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
G_b=g_b\bigg(\frac{\det{} G} {\det{} g}\bigg)^{\frac{q}{2(q+1)}}\bigg(\frac{\det{}(G+\Phi \tilde{G}^{-1}\Phi^T)}{\det{}(g+C \tilde{g}^{-1}C^T)}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{2(q+1)}}=g_b\bigg(\frac{\det{} G} {\det{} g}\bigg)^{\frac{q}{2(q+1)}}.
\end{eqnarray}
We used
\begin{eqnarray}
G+\Phi\tilde{G}^{-1}\Phi^T=g+C\tilde{g}^{-1}C^T
\end{eqnarray}
in the last equality.
The action of the generalized DBI can be rewritten by using the open brane parameters.
\begin{eqnarray}
&&-\int d^{p+1} x \ \frac{1}{g_b} \bigg(-\det{}g\bigg)^{\frac{q}{2(q+1)}} \bigg\lbrack- \det{}\bigg(g +(C+H) \tilde g^{-1} (C+H)^T \bigg)\bigg\rbrack^{\frac{1}{2(q+1)}}
\nonumber\\
&=&-\int d^{p+1} x \ \frac{1}{G_b} \bigg(-\det {}G\bigg)^{\frac{q}{2(q+1)}} \bigg\lbrack- \det{}\bigg(g +(C+H) \tilde g^{-1} (C+H)^T \bigg)\bigg\rbrack^{\frac{1}{2(q+1)}}
\nonumber\\
&=&-\int d^{p+1}x\ \frac{1}{G_b} \bigg(-\det {}G\bigg)^{\frac{q}{2(q+1)}}\det{}^{\frac{1}{(q+1)}}\bigg(1-H\Pi^T \bigg)\bigg\lbrack-\det{}\bigg(G+\Phi^{\prime}\tilde{G}^{-1}\Phi^{\prime T}\bigg)\bigg\rbrack^{\frac{1}{2(q+1)}}
\nonumber\\
&=&-\int d^{p+1}\hat{x}\ \frac{1}{\hat{G}_b} \bigg(-\det{} \hat{G}\bigg)^{\frac{q}{2(q+1)}}\det{}^{\frac{1}{(q+1)}}\bigg(\frac{\hat{\Pi}}{\Pi}\bigg)\bigg\lbrack-\det{}\bigg(\hat{G}+\hat{\Phi}^{\prime}\hat{\tilde{G}}^{-1}\hat{\Phi}^{\prime T}\bigg)\bigg\rbrack^{\frac{1}{2(q+1)}}.
\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
This action is based on the equivalence between the non-commutative and commutative gauge theories. The
closed-open relations can be generalized from the generalized metric. On the other hand, it can also be derived from the Nambu-Sigma model. If we consider a 2-form background, it goes back to the DBI theory. If we choose a 3-form background and set $p$=5,
the action is
\begin{eqnarray}
S_\text{$5$-DBI} &=& - \int d^{6} x \ \frac{1}{g_b} \sqrt{-\det{}g}\ \det{}^{\frac{1}{6}}\bigg(1 +g^{-1}(C+H) \tilde g^{-1} (C+H)^T \bigg)
\nonumber\\
&\approx&-\int d^{6} x \ \frac{1}{g_b}\sqrt{-\det{} g}\ \bigg(1 +\frac{1}{3}\mbox{Tr} k-\frac{1}{6}\mbox{Tr}k^2+\frac{1}{18}(\mbox{Tr }k)^2+\cdots \bigg)^{\frac{1}{2}} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $k^{\mu}{}_{\nu}=\frac{1}{2}(H+C)^{\mu\rho\sigma}(H+C)_{\nu\rho\sigma}$. This action is consistent with \cite{Cederwall:1997gg} up to the second order. The supersymmetric extension and other formulations of the membrane theory are in \cite{Lee:2010ey, Park:2008qe}.
\section{Consistency of the Dimensional Reduction}
\label{3}
In this section, we discuss the dimensional reduction of the action \eqref{pDBI} without scalar fields. We first show the dimensional reduction from $(q+1)$-$(p+1)$ to $q$-$p$. We only consider flat spacetime, constant antisymmetric background, and $(q+1)$-form gauge field in $(q+1)$-dimensional worldvolume directions (without a time direction) in $q$-$p$ system. In other words, we have two types worldvolume directions. We use the non-dotted Greek letters to indicate the worldvolume directions without the antisymmetric background field and the dotted Greek letters to indicate the worldvolume directions with the antisymmetric background field.
For a consistent notation, we define $(\dot1, \dot2, \cdots, \dot{q})$ $\equiv$ ($p-q$, $p-q+1$,$\cdots$, $p-1$). The generalized DBI theory \eqref{pDBI} gives
\begin{align}
S_{q+1,p+1} &=- \int d^{p+2}x\ \frac{1}{g_b} \det{}^{\frac{1}{2(q+2)}}\bigg(\delta_A{}^B+ H_{Ai} \tilde{g}^{ij} H_{Cj} g^{CB}\bigg) \nonumber
\\
&=- \int d^{p+2}x\ \frac{1}{g_b} \exp\bigg\lbrack\frac{1}{2(q+2)} \mathrm{Tr} \ln \bigg(\delta_A{}^B+ H_{Ai} \tilde{g}^{ij} H_{Cj} g^{CB}\bigg) \bigg\rbrack \nonumber
\\
&=- \int d^{p+2}x\ \frac{1}{g_b} \exp\Bigg\lbrack\frac{1}{2(q+2)} \mathrm{Tr} \bigg(\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n}\big(H_{Ai} \tilde{g}^{ij} H_{Cj} g^{CB}\big)^n \bigg) \Bigg\rbrack \label{p+1_p'+1}.
\end{align}
We used
\begin{eqnarray}
\det{}^x(I+M)=\exp\bigg(x\mbox{Tr} \ln(I+M)\bigg), \qquad\ln(1-x)=-\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{x^n}{n}
\end{eqnarray}
to get the second and third equalities respectively. Then we calculate $ H_{Ai}\tilde{g}^{ij} H_{Cj} g^{CB}$
\begin{align*}
H_{Ai}\tilde{g}^{ij} H_{Cj} g^{CB} &= \frac{1}{\bigg((q+1)!\bigg)^2}H_{AC_1\cdots C_{q+1}}\sum_{\pi \in \sigma_{q+1}}\mbox{\small sgn}}\def \dd {\dot{\delta}(\pi)\bigg(g^{C_{\pi(1)}D_1}g^{C_{\pi(2)}D_2}\cdots g^{C_{\pi(q+1)}D_{q+1}}\bigg)H_{ED_1\cdots D_{q+1}}g^{EB}
\\
&=\frac{1}{\bigg((q+1)!\bigg)^2}\sum_{\pi \in \sigma_{q+1}}\mbox{\small sgn}}\def \dd {\dot{\delta}(\pi)H_A{}^{D_{\pi(1)}\cdots D_{\pi(q+1)}}H^B{}_{D_1...D_{q+1}}
\\
&=\frac{1}{(q+1)!}H_A{}^{D_1\cdots D_{q+1}}H^B{}_{D_1\cdots D_{q+1}}
\\
&\equiv \frac{1}{(q+1)!}(H^2)_A{}^B.
\end{align*}
The non-zero components in $(H^2)_A{}^B$ are
\begin{equation}
(H^2)_{p-q}{}^{p-q}=(H^2)_{p-q+1}{}^{p-q+1}=\cdots=(H^2)_{p+1}{}^{p+1}=(q+1)!(H^2_{p-q,p-q+1,\cdots, p+1}).
\end{equation}
Substituting the result and taking trace in the action \eqref{p+1_p'+1}, we get
\begin{align}
S_{q+1,p+1} &=- \int d^{p+2}x\ \frac{1}{g_m} \exp\bigg(\frac{1}{2(q+2)} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n} (q+2) (H_{p-q,p-q+1,\cdots, p+1})^{2n} \bigg) \nonumber
\\
\label{p+1_p'+1_result}
&=-\int d^{p+2}x\ \frac{1}{g_m} \sum_{m=0}^\infty \frac{1}{m!} \bigg( \frac{1}{2} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n} ( H_{p-q,p-q+1,\cdots, p+1})^{2n} \bigg)^m.
\end{align}
Now we discuss the consistent truncation before we do the dimensional reduction.
The equation of motion of the generalized DBI theory at the leading order is
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_AH^{Ai}=0.
\end{eqnarray}
We first fix the gauge such that a equation of motion of the generalized DBI theory becomes the wave equation at the leading order. When we compactify one direction, it becomes periodic.. The solution is proportional to $\exp({i\frac{n}{R}}y)$, where $R$ is radius of the compact torus, $n$ is the number of modes and y is the compacted coordinate. This periodic function gives a mass term in the equation of motion. When we shrink the radius to zero, the non-zero modes give the infinite mass and decouple from our theory consistently.
If we compactify one direction and shrink the radius to zero, the ($q$+1)-form field strength becomes the $q$-form field strength.
The expression \eqref{p+1_p'+1_result} simply becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{pp'_comp}
S_{q,p} =-
\int d^{p+1}x\ \frac{1}{g_m} \sum_{m=0}^\infty \frac{1}{m!} \Bigg( \frac{1}{2} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n} ( H_{p-q,p-q+1,\cdots, p})^{2n} \Bigg)^m.
\end{equation}
In conclusion, we start from a system of $(q+1)$-$(p+1)$, we can get an effective action for $q$-$p$ system by the dimensional reduction.
We want to emphasize that this is {\it not} a trivial check because the $2(q+1)$-th root in the action is so far predicted based on the equivalence between non-commutative and commutative gauge theories. This calculation in this simple example shows that the non-trivial power of this theory is also supported by the dimensional reduction.
\section{Comments on Pull-Back}
\label{4}
If we further require that the generalized DBI model can be reduced from $(q+1)$-$(p+1)$ to $q$-$p$ with scalar fields (by pull-back), the generalized DBI theory \eqref{pDBI} needs to include an one-form gauge potential for the $U(1)$ gauge symmetry. In the non-commutative gauge theory, we have these similar systems \cite{Ho:2013opa, Ho:2013paa, Ma:2012hc}. We discuss the possibility to extend the theory via the dimensional reduction. In this section, we show that inclusion of the one-form gauge field up to $H^2$ should be possible.
\subsection{Scalar Field and Gauge Potential}
When a worldvolume direction is compactified, the component of the compactified direction of a gauge potential $A^I$ gives a scalar field $X^I$,
\begin{align}
\label{compact}
A^I &\rightarrow X^I, \qquad
F^{AI} \rightarrow \partial^A X^I.
\end{align}
The scalar field $X^I$ correspond to the positions of a brane in the transverse directions.
We introduce a scalar field from the pull-back. In the static gauge and the case of flat spacetime, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{metric}
g_{AB}=\eta_{AB}+\partial_A X^I \partial_B X^I.
\end{equation}
The inverse of this metric is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{in_metric}
g^{AB}=\eta^{AB}+ \sum_{n=1}^\infty (-1)^{n} \bigg(\partial^A X^{I_1}\bigg) \bigg(\partial_{D_1} X^{I_1}\bigg) \bigg(\partial^{D_1} X^{I_2}\bigg)\cdots\bigg(\partial_{D_{n-1}} X^{I_{n-1}}\bigg)\bigg( \partial^{D_{n-1}} X^{I_n}\bigg)\bigg( \partial^B X^{I_n}\bigg),
\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
which indeed satisfies a condition $g_{AB}g^{BC}=\delta_A{}^C$.
We define
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega^{AB}\equiv\sum_{n=1}^\infty (-1)^{n} \bigg(\partial^A X^{I_1}\bigg)\bigg(\partial_{D_1} X^{I_1}\bigg)\bigg(\partial^{D_1} X^{I_2}\bigg)\cdots\bigg(\partial_{D_{n-1}} X^{I_{n-1}}\bigg)\bigg( \partial^{D_{n-1}} X^{I_n}\bigg)\bigg( \partial^B X^{I_n}\bigg)
\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
for convenience and it is symmetric under interchanging the indices, i.e., $\omega^{AB}=\omega^{BA}$.
\subsection{$(q+1)$-$(p+1)$$\rightarrow$ $q$-$p$}
We show that the effective action of a $q$-$p$ brane system without the one-form gauge potential can be deduced from the $(q+1)$-$(p+1)$ system up to $H^2$ order.
We also assume that only $\dot{\alpha}$ components of $H$ are turned on. The action is
\begin{align}
S_{q+1,p+1} &= -\int d^{p+2}x\ \frac{1}{g_b}\sqrt{-\det{} g}~ \det{}^{\frac{1}{2(q+2)}}\bigg(\delta_A{}^B+ H_{Ai} \tilde{g}^{ij} H_{Cj} g^{CB}\bigg) \nonumber
\\
\label{pp'_Sca}
&=- \int d^{p+2}x\ \frac{1}{g_b}\sqrt{-\det{} g}~ \exp \bigg[\frac{1}{2(q+2)} \mbox{Tr} \bigg(\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n}\big( H_{Ai} \tilde{g}^{ij} H_{Cj} g^{CB}\big)^n \bigg)\bigg] .
\end{align}
For $n=1$, we can obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{n=1_sca}
&&\mbox{Tr} \bigg( H_{Ai} \tilde{g}^{ij} H_{Cj} g^{CB} \bigg)
\nonumber\\
&=& H_{p-q, p-q+1,\cdots, p+1}^2\sum_{k=0}^{q+1} \sum_{\substack{\dot{\alpha}_k, \dot{\beta}_k, \dot{\gamma}_k=p-q}}^{p+1}\frac{q+2}{k!(q+2-k)!}
\nonumber\\
&& \times\epsilon_{\dot{\alpha}_1\dot{\alpha}_2\cdots \dot{\alpha}_k \dot{\gamma}_{k+1}\dot{\gamma}_{k+2}\cdots \dot{\gamma}_{q+2}}\epsilon_{\dot{\beta}_1\dot{\beta}_2\cdots \dot{\beta}_k \dot{\gamma}_{k+1}\dot{\gamma}_{k+2}\cdots \dot{\gamma}_{q+2}} \omega^{\dot{\alpha}_1 \dot{\beta}_1}\omega^{\dot{\alpha}_2\dot{\beta}_2}\cdots \omega^{\dot{\alpha}_k \dot{\beta}_k},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon_{\dot{\alpha}_1\dot{\alpha}_2\cdots \dot{\alpha}_k \dot{\gamma}_{k+1}\dot{\gamma}_{k+2}\cdots \dot{\gamma}_{q+2}}$ and $\epsilon_{\dot{\beta}_1\dot{\beta}_2\cdots \dot{\beta}_k \dot{\gamma}_{k+1}\dot{\gamma}_{k+2}\cdots \dot{\gamma}_{q+2}}$ are Levi-Civita symbols. The factorials $k!$ and $(q+2-k)!$ are used to cancel the factor of overcounting such that the coefficients of each term in the summation is simply unity. The expression \eqref{pp'_Sca} becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{pp'_final}
S_{q+1,p+1}
&=&- \int d^{p+1}x\ \frac{1}{g_b}\sqrt{-\det{} g}
\nonumber\\
&&\exp \bigg( \frac{1}{2}H_{p-q, p-q+1,\cdots,p+1}^2 \sum_{k=0}^{q+1} \sum_{\substack{\dot{\alpha}_k, \dot{\beta}_k, \dot{\gamma}_k=p-q}}^{p+1}\frac{1}{k!(q+2-k)!}
\nonumber\\
&&\times\epsilon_{\dot{\alpha}_1\dot{\alpha}_2\cdots \dot{\alpha}_k \dot{\gamma}_{k+1}\dot{\gamma}_{k+2}\cdots \dot{\gamma}_{q+2}}\epsilon_{\dot{\beta}_1\dot{\beta}_2\cdots \dot{\beta}_k \dot{\gamma}_{k+1}\dot{\gamma}_{k+2}\cdots \dot{\gamma}_{q+2}} \omega^{\dot{\alpha}_1 \dot{\beta}_1}\omega^{\dot{\alpha}_2\dot{\beta}_2}\cdots \omega^{\dot{\alpha}_k \dot{\beta}_k}+\cdots\bigg) \,.
\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
The factors $(q+2)$ in \eqref{pp'_Sca} and \eqref{n=1_sca} cancel out each other.
If we compactify one worldvolume direction with background, say $p+1$, and shrink the radius to zero, then all $\omega^{\dot{\alpha}({p+1})}\,$ vanish. This is equivalent to excluding $p+1$ in the summation, that is
\begin{align}
\sum_{\substack{\{\dot{\alpha}_k, \dot{\beta}_k, \dot{\gamma}_k=p-q\}}}^{p+1} &\rightarrow \sum_{\substack{\{\dot{\alpha}_k, \dot{\beta}_k,\dot{\gamma}_k=p-q\}}}^{p} \nonumber
\\
\sum_{k=0}^{q+1} &\rightarrow \sum_{k=0}^{q}
\end{align}
On the other hand, the Levi-Civita symbols should be modified to
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{\dot{\alpha}_1\dot{\alpha}_2\cdots \dot{\alpha}_k \dot{\gamma}_{k+1}\dot{\gamma}_{k+2}\cdots \dot{\gamma}_{q+2}}\epsilon_{\dot{\beta}_1\dot{\beta}_2\cdots \dot{\beta}_k \dot{\gamma}_{k+1}\dot{\gamma}_{k+2}\cdots \dot{\gamma}_{q+2}} \rightarrow (q+2-k)\epsilon_{\dot{\alpha}_1\dot{\alpha}_2\cdots \dot{\alpha}_k \dot{\gamma}_{k+1}\dot{\gamma}_{k+2}\cdots \dot{\gamma}_{q+1}}\epsilon_{\dot{\beta}_1\dot{\beta}_2\cdots \dot{\beta}_k \dot{\gamma}_{k+1}\dot{\gamma}_{k+2}\cdots \dot{\gamma}_{q+1}} .
\end{equation}
As a result, the action \eqref{pp'_final} becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{q,p}
&=& -\int d^{p+1}x\ \frac{1}{g_b}\sqrt{-\det{} g}
\nonumber \\
&&\times\exp \bigg( \frac{1}{2}H_{p-q, p-q+1,\cdots,p}^2 \sum_{k=0}^{q} \sum_{\substack{\dot{\alpha}_k, \dot{\beta}_k, \dot{\gamma}_k=p-q}}^{p}\frac{1}{k!(q+1-k)!}
\nonumber\\
&&\times\epsilon_{\dot{\alpha}_1\dot{\alpha}_2\cdots \dot{\alpha}_k \dot{\gamma}_{k+1}\dot{\gamma}_{k+2}\cdots \dot{\gamma}_{q+1}}\epsilon_{\dot{\beta}_1\dot{\beta}_2\cdots \dot{\beta}_k \dot{\gamma}_{k+1}\dot{\gamma}_{k+2}\cdots \dot{\gamma}_{q+1}} \omega^{\dot{\alpha}_1 \dot{\beta}_1}\omega^{\dot{\alpha}_2\dot{\beta}_2}\cdots \omega^{\dot{\alpha}_k \dot{\beta}_k}+\cdots\bigg) ,
\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
which is exactly the action \eqref{pp'_final} with $q+1$ and $p+1$ replaced by $q$ and $p$ respectively. This calculation shows the possibility to include the one-form gauge field in the theory up to $H^2$ order.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{5}
The generalized DBI is aimed for describing a $q$-brane ending on a $p$-brane. The most non-trivial feature of this action is the 2($q$+1)-th root, which is predicted by the existence of the equivalence between the commutative and non-commutative descriptions of the $q$-$p$ system. In this paper, we showed that the non-trivial power of the generalized DBI action can be consistent with the dimensional reduction. The calculation provides more evidences to the relation between 2-5 and M2-M5 system. In addition, we also find the possibility to extend the theory by adding the one-form gauge field in the presence of scalar fields from the dimensional reduction. We leave the full understanding of the dimensional reduction for ($q$+1)-($p$+1)$\rightarrow$ $q$-$p$ to the future. We can, of course, consider dimensional reduction along a direction orthogonal to the worldvolume directions. However, in our simple consideration, the background is not modified under this kind of the dimensional reduction. This should be trivial in this case. This direction should be a starting point to address the interesting issue of the duality structure of the higher-form fields. Although it is not a general study, we do not have many studies in the higher-form fields.
The supersymmetric extension of this theory should be able to give a direct link between the supergravity and generalized DBI theory. With the perturbative calculation up to the second order, we can obtain a similar form for the M5-brane \cite{Cederwall:1997gg}, which already has a supersymmetric extension. Although it is hard to find the supersymmetric theory for the DBI-form theory, we should be able to perform perturbative calculation order by order in principle.
So far, the relation between the generalized DBI theory and generalized geometry is unclear. However, the key point is that the generalized DBI theory is constructed by the equivalence between the commutative and non-commutative gauge theories. This equivalence is further governed by the generalized metric, which is always an important element in the generalized geometry. We expect that a generalized geometrical structure for $q>1$ can be found.
The most interesting extension should be the T-duality rule between the background fields. Of course, we still have the familiar Buscher\rq{}s rule for $q$=1 with different values of $p$. Certainly, study of the T-duality rule of the generalized DBI theory is a challenging and interesting problem. The T-duality of the generalized DBI theory should be interesting on higher dimensional field theories (larger than eleven dimensions).
Finally, we remark on one related direction--double field theory of the DBI. By now, we do not get any insight to put the one-form gauge field in the double field theory. This is still an open problem. The starting point is to find the gauge transformation related to the Courant bracket. This should offer an unique structure to constrain the DBI theory in the double field theory. One more interesting prospect related to the open string of the double field theory is to understand the string sigma model with the manifest Buscher's rule. It is a well-known fact that the DBI model is equivalent to the calculation of the one-loop $\beta$ function of the string sigma model. If we can include the strong constraints in the double field theory of the string sigma model, the one-loop $\beta$ function would be an important consistent check. Moreover, one-loop $\beta$ function of the Nambu-Sigma model is also an important problem. So far, we only used the generalized metric and equivalence between the commutative and non-commutative descriptions to understand the generalized DBI model. We expect that the one-loop $\beta$ function of the Nambu-Sigma model should lead to the generalized DBI theory.
|
\section{Introduction}
Adaptive space-time finite element method (FEM) approaches for solving systems of nonlinear equations present numerous numerical challenges while also enabling more asynchronous operation and the extraction of more parallelism when utilizing high performance computing resources. For certain formulations of partial differential equations (PDE), time-parallel preconditioners may also be successfully applied in space-time finite element simulations with substantial improvements in scalability. A space-time FEM increases concurrency on distributed memory machines by
permitting time-decomposition in addition to spatial-decomposition. This paper applies a space-time FEM previously introduced~\cite{AndersonJCP2007} to the semilinear wave equation with nonlinear term $p=7$. The semilinear wave equation with $p=7$ has been shown critical behavior
near singularity formation similar to
that found in black hole critical behavior~\cite{LieblingPRD2008, BizonNL2004, BizonNL2007} making it a good test problem for exploring this space-time FEM. Because of the many length and time
scales involved in solving the semilinear wave equation, this also presents an opportunity to examine space-time finite elements with a nonuniform space-time mesh as opposed to more conventional adaptive mesh refinement techniques.
In addition to the parallel computing benefits resulting from increased concurrency, space-time finite element approaches have
other advantages for numerical simulations. The space-time FEM explored here is a fully-implicit method, and it can
use time-varying computational domains, higher order approaches, and unstructured meshes. It has been extended for 2+1 and 3+1
dimensions with efficiency and accuracy~\cite{AndersonJCP2007}. The major disadvantage of the approach is the significant memory overhead requirement that the entire space-time problem must now fit in memory all at once. However, time parallel approaches with non-uniform meshes have not been generally used in the scientific computing community in the past and the increased concurrency benefits may outweigh the significant memory overhead challenges and other barriers to implementation.
The semilinear wave equation is a physically interesting system to investigate because of the emergence of singularities from smooth initial data in finite time. Reminiscent
of critical behavior in black hole formation discovered by Choptuik~\cite{ChoptuikPRL1993}, the semilinear wave equation provides a laboratory in which to investigate the
transition regions between singularity formation and search for critical behavior in a much simpler system than the Einstein equations. A number of past studies have done
precisely this~\cite{IsenbergJMP2002, BizonNL2001, LieblingJMP2002, BizonNL2000, LieblingPRAM2000, LieblingPRD2002, LieblingCQG2004} while using time-marching, finite-difference
based methods. Adaptive, high resolution methods are needed in general in order to properly resolve the transition region and find self-similar solutions.
The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, the work related to this is presented; in Section 3, a background on the semilinear wave equation is provided; in Section 4,
the numerical approach is provided, including the 1+1 space-time finite element discretization, a time parallelizable preconditioner based on the additive Schwarz method,
the boundary conditions, and mesh refinement; Section 5 presents results while Section 6 contains the conclusions.
\section{Related Work}
The threshold of singularity formation in the semilinear wave equation for different values of $p$ was explored in depth by Liebling~\cite{LieblingPRD2008}
using conventional finite difference techniques and Crank-Nicolson integration. The existence of self-similar solutions and singularity
formations in the semilinear wave equation with a focusing nonlinearity was examined in~\cite{BizonNL2004, BizonNL2007}. The space-time finite element method used for
this work was introduced in~\cite{AndersonJCP2007} where the space-time approach is implemented along with time decomposition methods for a nonhomogeneous wave equation.
Similarly, ~\cite{LimSURIO2013} implements the Klein-Gordon equation in 1(space)+1(time) dimensions also based on the numerical method in~\cite{AndersonJCP2007}. ~\cite{DonMC1996} presents continuous finite elements in time and space simultaneously to solve the wave equation.
While Continuous Galerkin approaches with space-time FEM can be found in several engineering examples,
including ~\cite{CsikIJNMF2002, KimJSME2001, IdeCM2001, GuddatiISS1999, KitIJNME1997}, they have not yet been applied to the semilinear wave equation and
investigating critical behavior apart from this work. Some efforts at discontinuous Garlerkin space-time finite element approaches have also been
investigated~\cite{RheJCP2008, AbeIJSS2011} though outside the context of critical behavior.
The semilinear wave equation has been studied in several ways. ~\cite{YangAMC2006} used a finite difference discretization and a shooting method as a solving technique. ~\cite{LieblingPRD2013} explored the semilinear equations in spherical symmetric AdS space to show nonlinear collapse. ~\cite{MikPRE2006}
focuses on variational solutions of the semilinear wave equation with space-time fractional Brownian noise. ~\cite{OliNM2004} presents the proof of a standard second order
finite difference uniform space discretization of the semilinear wave equation with periodic boundary conditions.
In general, the semilinear wave equation has proven to be a useful model for exploring the robustness of a numerical method
in many past studies.
\section{Model Problem}
\subsection{The Semilinear Wave Equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:semil}
\left(\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}-\nabla^2+\frac{m^2 c^2}{\hbar^2}\right)\Psi(\mathbf x,t) = \Psi^p(\mathbf x,t)
\end{equation}
The semilinear wave equation is given in Eqn~\ref{eqn:semil}. The
nonlinear term, $\Psi^p(\mathbf x,t)$, determines the singularity formation behavior.
To preserve the symmetry($\Psi \rightarrow -\Psi$), odd powers of $p$ are used;
previous work has examined the cases with $p=3,5,7$~\cite{LieblingPRD2008}.
The semilinear wave equation represents one of the
simplest nonlinear generalizations the wave equation,
and it shows interesting behavior at the threshold of singularity formation.
For the $p = 3$ case, the threshold could not be found while
for the $p = 5$ case, a critical solution is observed, and self-similar
solutions appear roughly, but there is no non-trivial self-similar solution.
Instead, the solutions approach scale evolving to static solutions.
For the $p = 7$ case, a critical solution is found which approaches
the self-similar solution in spherical symmetry. Consequently the $p=7$ case
is selected for further investigation using the space-time finite element
method.
Reference ~\cite{BizonNL2007} shows the existence of self-similar solutions of the semilinear wave equation. According to~\cite{BizonNL2004}, self-similar solutions can be found using time scale transformations:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:scalet}
\Psi(r,t)=(T-t)^{-\xi} U(\rho)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\xi=\frac{2}{p-1} \indent \rho=\frac{r}{T-t}
\label{eqn:transform}
\end{equation}
where $p$ is the nonlinear power term of this equation, and $T$ is a certain collapse time.
As shown in ~\cite{BizonNL2004}, self-similar solution can be obtained by rewriting the semilinear wave equation.
Substituting Eqn.~\ref{eqn:scalet} into Eqn.~\ref{eqn:semil2}, the ordinary differential equation shown in Eqn.~\ref{eqn:shoot} for finding the self-similar solution results.
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
(1-\rho^2)U''(\rho)+\left(\frac{2}{\rho}-(2+2\alpha)\rho \right)U'(\rho)-\alpha(\alpha+2)U(\rho) + U^p(\rho)=0
\label{eqn:shoot}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
Reference~\cite{BizonNL2004} solves Eqn.~\ref{eqn:shoot} using the shooting technique.
Applying this technique, Biz\'{o}n and Maison proved the existence for a countable set of parameters which
determine explicit self-similar solution $U_n(\rho)$.
This allows the numerical results presented here to be compared with solutions $U_1(\rho)$
provided from the previous study~\cite{BizonNL2004} for the $p=7$ case with the same time scale transformations
given in Eqn.~\ref{eqn:transform}.
\section{Numerical Approaches}
\subsection{Space-Time Finite Element Method}
A space-time finite element method using continuous approximation functions in both space and time is used to explore numerical singularity formation. The discretization of the semilinear wave equation in this paper is an extension
of the discretization of the nonhomogeneous wave equation presented in~\cite{AndersonJCP2007}.
The semilinear wave equation with natural units in 1+1 dimensions is
re-written in Eqn.~\ref{eqn:semil2}:
\begin {equation} \label{eqn:semil2}
\frac{\partial^2 \Psi}{\partial t^2}-\frac{\partial^2 \Psi}{\partial x^2}+\Psi=\Psi^7
\end {equation}
Space and time are discretized together for the entire domain
using a finite element space which does not discriminate between space and
time basis functions. Iterative solution methods in conjunction
with a time decomposition preconditioner are employed for the solution.
Introducing two new variables, $u=\Psi$ and
$v=\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t}$,
the system is re-written into first-order in time form, Eqn.~\ref{eqn:first_order}:
\begin {eqnarray}
-\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2}+\frac{\partial v}{\partial t} +u = u^7 \nonumber \\
-\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}+v=0 \label{eqn:first_order}
\end {eqnarray}
The finite element space is the space of piecewise polynomial functions $\phi : \Omega \times (0,T] \to \mathfrak{R}$.
In spherical symmetry, this equation is re-written with respect to one spherical coordinate, given in Eqns.~\ref{eqn:Klein-Gordon2}--\ref{eqn:Klein-Gordon3}.
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Klein-Gordon2}
\frac{\partial^2 \Psi}{\partial t^2} - \frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left( r^2 \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial r}\right)+\Psi = \Psi^7
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Klein-Gordon3}
\frac{\partial^2 \Psi}{\partial t^2} - \frac{\partial^2 \Psi}{\partial r^2} -\frac{2}{r}\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial r}+\Psi = \Psi^7
\end{equation}
Applying the auxiliary variables $u=\Psi$ and $v=\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t}$ to the system results in Eqns.~\ref{eqn:aux0}--\ref{eqn:aux}.
\begin {eqnarray}
\label{eqn:aux0}
-\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial r^2}-\frac{2}{r} \frac{\partial u}{\partial r}+\frac{\partial v}{\partial t} + u = u^7 \\
-\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}+v=0
\label{eqn:aux}
\end {eqnarray}
The weak form of these equations is shown in Eqns.~\ref{eqn:weak1}--\ref{eqn:weak2}:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:weak1}
K(u,v,\phi) = \int_{\Omega} \left(-\frac{\partial u}{\partial r} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial r} -\frac{2}{r}\frac{\partial u}{\partial r}\phi+\frac{\partial v}{\partial t} \phi +u\phi- u^7\phi \right) ds = 0 \\
\label{eqn:weak2}
G(u,v,\phi) = \int_{\Omega} \left(-\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} \phi + v \phi \right) ds = 0
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
For discretization, a single square element with rectangular basis functions is considered. The element stiffness matrix is used to assemble the stiffness matrix for the entire domain.
In the event there is no mesh refinement, all
the elements in the square of $\Omega$ are the same size and $A_j$
can be utilized for all elements by only having to adjust for the orientation
of the square. In mesh refinement case, the element matrices $A_j$
are assembled with respect to different basis functions within the
different mesh refined regions.
The basis functions are determined explicitly at the nodes:~\cite{AndersonJCP2007, LimSURIO2013}
\begin {eqnarray}
\phi_A = \frac{1}{h^2} xt-\frac{1}{h} x- \frac{1}{h} t +1 \\
\phi_B = -\frac{1}{h^2} xt +\frac{1}{h} x \\
\phi_C = \frac{1}{h^2} xt \\
\phi_ D= -\frac{1}{h^2} xt + \frac{1}{h}t
\end {eqnarray}
Using those basis functions the element stiffness matrix, $A_j$, is assembled. The element stiffness matrix for this singular element is represented as:
\begin{displaymath}
\mathbf{A_j}=
\left[ \begin{array}{cccc}
a_j(\phi_A,\phi_A) & a_j(\phi_A,\phi_B) & a_j(\phi_A,\phi_C) & a_j(\phi_A,\phi_D) \\
a_j(\phi_B,\phi_A) & a_j(\phi_B,\phi_B) & a_j(\phi_B,\phi_C) & a_j(\phi_B,\phi_D) \\
a_j(\phi_C,\phi_A) & a_j(\phi_C,\phi_B) & a_j(\phi_C,\phi_C) & a_j(\phi_C,\phi_D) \\
a_j(\phi_D,\phi_A) & a_j(\phi_D,\phi_B) & a_j(\phi_D,\phi_C) & a_j(\phi_D,\phi_D)
\end{array} \right]
\end{displaymath}
where each element of the matrix $A_j$ $(a_j(\phi_\alpha, \phi_\beta)$, and $\indent \alpha, \beta = A, B, C, D)$ can be calculated by integration of the weak form in Eqns.~\ref{eqn:weak1}--\ref{eqn:weak2}.
The stiffness matrix $A$ is an $N \times N$ matrix, where $N$ is the total number of nodes in the domain. In the unit square example, $N = W^2$ where $W$ is the number of collocation points in the mesh.\\
The stiffness matrix A is defined as:
\begin{eqnarray}
A=
\begin{bmatrix}
a(\phi_1, \phi_1) & \cdots & a(\phi_1, \phi_{W^2})\\
\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\\
a(\phi_{W^2}, \phi_1) & \cdots & a(\phi_{W^2}, \phi_{W^2}) \\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{eqnarray}
The stiffness matrix component in row $i$ and column $k$ as $a_{ik}$.
The stiffness matrix component in row $i$ and column $k$,
$a_{ik} = a(\phi_i, \phi_k)$ can be calculated by adding the effects
of all the square elements:
\begin{equation*}
a_{ik} =\sum \limits_{T_j \in \Omega} a_j (\phi_i, \phi_k).
\end{equation*}
Newton's method is used as a nonlinear solver. The Jacobian matrix
is constructed with the finite element space.
Then, a linear system of equations $Ax=b$ is constructed. Because of the large size of the discretized problems, iterative numerical methods based on Krylov subspace (KSP) methods are used. A proper preconditioner is also needed to help convergence and increase the speed of convergence. The additive Schwarz preconditioner (ASM)~\cite{saaditer, Toselli:2004:DDM, Smith:1996:DPM} is employed for the numerical simulation. Applying the ASM to space-time finite elements using a time decomposition method is an important aspect of the
solution of the space-time FEM approach used here.
\subsection{Additive Schwarz Method}
Domain Decomposition methods (DD) solve a boundary value problem by splitting it into smaller boundary value problems on subdomains and iterating to coordinate the solution between adjacent subdomains. The problems in the subdomains are independent, which makes domain decomposition methods suitable for parallel computing. Domain decomposition methods are typically used as preconditioners for Krylov space iterative methods, such as the conjugate gradient method or GMRES. Domain decomposition methods show large potential for a parallelization of finite element methods in general, and serve as a basis for distributed, parallel computations.
The time decomposition methods in this paper are a variant of the time additive Schwarz method (ASM).
For a domain $\Omega = \cup_i \Omega_i$, the ASM can be written
as Eqn.~\ref{eqn:asm}:
\begin{equation}
x^{n+1} = x^n + \sum_i B_i(f-Ax^n)
\label{eqn:asm}
\end{equation}
where $x$ is the solution vector of the linear system $Ax=b$, $A$ is the matrix representation of the system. And, let $R_i$ is the restriction to $\Omega_i$ and let $A_{\Omega_i} = R_i A R_i^T$ which is restricted operator for the interior grid points in $\Omega_i$. Then, $B_i=R_i^T A^{-1}_{\Omega_i} R_i$.
The additive Schwarz method may also be viewed as a generalization of block Jacobi methods~\cite{saaditer, Toselli:2004:DDM, Smith:1996:DPM}.
\subsection{Boundary Condition}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=RaggedRight}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figdo.png}
\caption{The general scheme of the domain with mesh refinement. Robin boundary conditions are applied at $r=0$ and $r=r'$. Several combinations of the two parameters, $\alpha$ and $\beta$, are explored for use at the different boundaries.}
\label{fig:figdo}
\end{figure}
In this problem, the semilinear wave equation is solved in spherical symmetry, resulting in a switch to spherical
coordinates as well as a difficulty with the $r=0$ boundary.
The Robin boundary condition is used for the boundaries
with parameters $\alpha$ for the $r=0$ boundary and $\beta$ for the outer boundary:
\begin{eqnarray}
u+\alpha \frac{\partial u}{\partial n} = 0 \indent u+ \beta \frac{\partial u}{\partial n} = 0
\end{eqnarray}
Figure~\ref{fig:figdo} shows the general scheme of this problem.
The appropriate values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are found empirically.
\subsection{Mesh Refinement}
An advantage of using space-time FEM is the ability to simulate the system in a non-uniform mesh.
Mesh refinement is used in order to improve computational efficiency.
Figure~\ref{fig:figdo} shows the strategy of mesh refinement employed here. Mesh refinement adds resolution to the mesh
when and when it is needed. As solution behavior near $r = 0$ shows the largest gradients and error, that region is discretized using a finer mesh than in other regions.
\section{Numerical Results}
\label{sec:results}
\subsection{Critical behavior}
PETSc~\cite{petsc-web-page} is used for implementing the time-additive Schwarz precondtioner and
for using GMRES. After performing a large
number of simulations exploring critical behavior, the results are compared with previous
research~\cite{LieblingPRD2008, BizonNL2004, BizonNL2007}. The existence of self-similar solutions in those
results are also explored.
A Gaussian pulse is used for initial data
\begin{equation}
\Psi(r,t)_{ini}=A e^{-(r-R)^2}
\label{eqn:gauss}
\end{equation}
where $A$ is the amplitude, and $R$ is the initial radius of the pulse. We observe critical behavior with $A=0.1720$ as an initial amplitude value, $\alpha = 0.01$ and $\beta=-100$ for Robin boundary values, and $R=8$ for an initial data radius.
The critical evolution describes that evolving smooth initial data within finite time. Types of evolution shown by the results of the semilinear wave equation show evolution of smooth initial data which can results in a singularity.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=RaggedRight}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{crit.eps}
\caption{Solution plots for time domain with different initial amplitude values $A$. Three different amplitude value families are created, defined as: $F_1= 0.1540$ and $0.1580$, $F_2=0.1600$ and $0.1640$, and $F_3 = 0.1680$ and $0.1720$. Each family has a small difference in amplitude values (at the 3 significant digits). In order to investigate the effects of initial data for the singularity formations, the value of $\Psi$ is plotted until the wave reaches the collapse time of $T \simeq8$ around the $r=0$ region ($r \simeq 10^{-3}$). The initial Gaussian pulse is the same as the equation (20) for the different families of initial amplitude values $A$.}
\label{fig:soltime}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:soltime} shows value of the $\Psi$ plotted as a function of time. For specific tests, amplitude ranges are selected near $A=0.1720$, and three families are created for a heuristic test. Solutions of $F_1$ and $F_2$ disperse before the collapse time, and the properties of the results are very similar. However, solutions of $F_3$ show different properties. $A=0.1680$ also does not show a critical evolution, but $A=0.1720$ presents a critical evolution near $r=0$.
The results indicate that the solutions of the semilinear wave equation with $p=7$ case disperse for some initial data and blow up for some other initial data even though those initial data are not very different. The determination of the threshold of singularity formation and the corresponding dynamics is a great interest for future studies.
For more specific views near critical behavior, Figure~\ref{fig:solnct} shows two near critical evolutions which occur near the collapse time $T \simeq 8$.
The supercritical solution (blue dotted) and subcritical solution (green solid) for the $p=7$ case can be observed to change with the initial amplitude values.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=RaggedRight}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{ncri.eps}
\caption{Plots of the near critical evolution region $r=0$. Simulations are performed using the same initial
data as in the previous Figure~\ref{fig:soltime} but with slightly different initial amplitude values. The maximum of the $\Psi$ field is
plotted versus time. The green solid line shows a slightly subcritical evolution, and the blue dotted line shows a slightly supercritical evolution that is close to critical evolution. In this study, critical collapse occurs at $T \simeq 8$.}
\label{fig:solnct}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=RaggedRight}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{ener.png}
\caption{Enery loss plots for the $p=7$ case based on different resolutions. The $h$ is a space resolution which can be obtained by dividing the \textit{physical domain size by the number of meshes}, or $15/2000 = 0.003$. The energy loss ($\Delta E(t) \equiv E(t) -E(t_0)$) is plotted until the initial data reaches the critical evolution time $t_c=T \simeq 8$. As the resolution increases, energy loss decreases. The results of the convergence test is $(\| \Delta E_{h/4} - \Delta E_{h/2} \|_2) / (\| \Delta E_{h/2} - \Delta E_{h} \|_2)=4.133$. This result indicates that the order of energy loss self convergence is second order.}
\label{fig:solener}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:solener} shows energy loss between initial time and critical evolution time. Ideally, the energy loss ($ | \Delta E(t)|$) should be zero. A convergence study to test this was undertaken where the same initial conditions were used but with different resolutions. The self convergence test is $(\| \Delta E_{h/4} - \Delta E_{h/2} \|_2) / (\| \Delta E_{h/2} - \Delta E_{h} \|_2)=4.133$ which indicates second order convergence.
\subsection{Self-Similarity}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=RaggedRight}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{ssode.eps}
\caption{Determination of a self-similar solution. The same initial data values as illustrated above (R=8, A=0.1720 with Robin boundary values: $\alpha=0.01$, $\beta=-100$) are chosen for the tests. The collapse time is $T \simeq8$. Different time scale transformations are performed that based on that information. Define $T-t=\epsilon$ as a small parameter for time differences where $T$ is the collapse time for this system. The simulations are performed with $\epsilon= 0.005, 0.01, 0.02$, and $0.03$. This figure also shows the compared results with a solution of the ordinary differential equation (23). The black solid line is the explicit self-similar solution $U_1(\rho)$ from the reference~\cite{BizonNL2004}. The log scale transformation for $U_1(\rho)$ is applied to obtain the compared results. The graphs show the results $-U_1(\ln \rho)$ with the numerical data time scale transformed
based on $T-t=\epsilon$}
\label{fig:ssode}
\end{figure}
Self-similar solutions are often found at the threshold of critical behavior.
We consider Eqn.~\ref{eqn:shoot} inside the critical behvior region $(t=T, r=0)$, that is in the interval $0 \leq \rho \leq 1$. The test problem is the $p=7$ case, and paper~\cite{BizonNL2004} shows solutions of the ODE by the shooting technique. Applying this technique, Biz\'{o}n and Maison proved the existence for a countable set of parameters $b_n (n = 0,1,...)$ which determine explicit self-similar solution $U_n(\rho)$ for $p=3$ and all odd $p \geq 7$.
Therefore, our numerical results can be compared with ODE solutions $U_1(\rho)$ from the previous study~\cite{BizonNL2004} for the $p=7$ case within the same time scale transformations in Figure~\ref{fig:ssode}.
Figure~\ref{fig:ssode} shows the compared results with a solution of the ODE. Four different solutions transformed using
Eqn.~\ref{eqn:scalet} are shown. The different time scaled transformation solutions coincide showing self-similarity. The time scale transformed solutions coincide with the $-U_1(\ln \rho)$, and this indicates that the solutions present self-similarity.
\subsection{Performance Tests}
Results from simulations using the space-time FEM both with and without
time decomposition are presented in this section. A self-similar solution
resulting from the space-time FEM simulations using mesh
refinement is also presented. Performance results were found using a cluster of
Intel Xeon E5-2690 2.90 Ghz processors.
In Tables~\ref{tbl:compm} and~\ref{tbl:convt}, comparisons
of performance and final solution value when solving the
semilinear wave equation using finite difference, space-time finite element
with uniform mesh, and space-time finite element with mesh refinement methods are
presented. The time preconditioner was not applied in Tables~\ref{tbl:compm} and~\ref{tbl:convt}
in order to provide a control case against which to compare the effectiveness of the preconditioner.
\begin{table}[t]
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.8}
\captionsetup{justification=RaggedRight}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
Numerical Methods & Execution time \\
\hline
Finite Difference Method & $5.2 \times 10^3$sec \\
\hline
FEM with uniform mesh & $5.0 \times 10^3$sec \\
\hline
FEM with mesh refinement & $3.9 \times 10^3$sec \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption {Execution time measured for different numerical methods employed
to solve the semilinear wave equation: the finite difference method,
the space-time FEM with a uniform mesh, and the space-time FEM
with mesh refinement. The same initial conditions as in Figure~\ref{fig:ssode} are applied to the tests.}
\label{tbl:compm}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{tbl:compm} compares the results from different numerical method simulations. The resolutions $(h=15/5000=0.003)$ are determined near the $r=0$ region. For testing the impact of performance, a high resolution, $h/4$ is chosen as a test case. The execution time of the finite difference method (FDM) is slightly slower than the uniform FEM. Results of the FEM with mesh refinement reach the desired residual, and it is faster than the other two methods. These results suggest a benefit in
numerical efficiency by using space-time FEM with mesh refinement.
\begin{table}[t]
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.8}
\captionsetup{justification=RaggedRight}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
Tests & Values\\
\hline
$\| \Psi_{FDM} - \Psi_{FEM} \|_2$ & $2.3 \times 10^{-4}$\\
\hline
$(\| \Psi_{h/4} - \Psi_{h/2} \|_2) / (\| \Psi_{h/2} - \Psi_{h} \|_2)$ & 4.712\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption {A comparison of the solution values obtained using the finite
difference method and the space-time FEM with mesh refinement at t=7.99.
The same conditions as in Table~\ref{tbl:compm} are used in the tests.
A self convergence test of the space-time FEM results with respect to whole
the space and time domain is also given, indicating second order convergence.
The $h$ is the same resolution size as in Figure~\ref{fig:solener}.}
\label{tbl:convt}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{tbl:convt} shows the compared solution values of FDM and FEM, and indicates that the solutions of FDM and FEM are extremely close.
The average value of the self-convergence factor for the FEM is $4.712$,
indicating second order convergence.
Table~\ref{tbl:mrconv} compares the results from the uniform mesh with the results from the mesh refinement simulations. The maximum iteration number is defined as $5,000$ and $1.0 \times 10^{-6}$ is the desired final residual. The residual results in Table~\ref{tbl:mrconv} indicate that using space-time FEM
with mesh refinement is able to solve the system stably and in fewer iterations
than the uniform mesh case. In the low resolution case (less than $h/2.5$), the solutions reach the desired residual within the maximum iteration number. In the high resolution case (greater than $h/5$), simulations with uniform meshes do not reach the desired residual within the maximum iteration number. They also require more time to obtain a converged result. However, simulations with mesh refinement reach the desired residual with few iterations.
Table~\ref{tbl:compn} compares the results from different time-parallel preconditionings. Results from using different numbers of time-subdomains in
the time decomposition method with refined meshes are
presented there. Each result reaches the desired residual. Increasing the
number of time subdomains generally decreases final iteration numbers and execution times. However, once six subdomains are used, the performance improvement
reverses itself. This suggests a limit in amount of concurrency that
the time decomposition approach can ultimately support while opening up a
new dimension for extracting parallelism in the computation.
\begin{table*}[t]
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.8}
\captionsetup{justification=RaggedRight}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Resolution and numerical methods & Iterations & Final Residual & Execution time(sec) \\
\hline
$h$ with uniform mesh & 891 & $1.0 \times 10^{-6}$ & $2.0 \times 10^2$ \\
\hline
$h$ with mesh refinement & 690 & $1.0 \times 10^{-6}$ & $1.8 \times 10^2$ \\
\hline
$h/2.5$ with uniform mesh & 3,879 & $1.0 \times 10^{-6}$ & $3.5 \times 10^3$ \\
\hline
$h/2.5$ with mesh refinement & 1,744 & $1.0 \times 10^{-6}$ & $1.3 \times 10^3$ \\
\hline
$h/5$ with uniform mesh & 5,000 & $1.0 \times 10^{-6}$ & $5.0 \times 10^3$ \\
\hline
$h/5$ with mesh refinement & 2,430 & $1.0 \times 10^{-6}$ & $1.8 \times 10^3$ \\
\hline
$h/7.5$ with uniform mesh & 5,000 & $1.0 \times 10^{-5}$ & $5.0 \times 10^3$ \\
\hline
$h/7.5$ with mesh refinement & 3,121 & $1.0 \times 10^{-6}$ & $2.8 \times 10^3$ \\
\hline
$h/10$ with uniform mesh & 5,000 & $1.0 \times 10^{-4}$ & $5.0 \times 10^3$ \\
\hline
$h/10$ with mesh refinement & 4,093 & $1.0 \times 10^{-6}$ & $3.9 \times 10^3$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption {Performance data comparing uniform mesh and mesh refinement
simulations. The same initial conditions as in Table~\ref{tbl:compm} with different resolutions are chosen for the tests. The additive Schwarz preconditioner
was not used for these tests. The resolution comparisons are based on the finest grid region (near $r=0$) for the whole tests. The $h$ is the space resolution which is calculated as in Figure~\ref{fig:solener}, yielding $15/2000=0.0075$.
The maximum number of allowed iterations was $5000$.}
\label{tbl:mrconv}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}[t]
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.8}
\captionsetup{justification=RaggedRight}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$\#$ of subdomains & Iterations & Final Residual & Execution time \\
\hline
1 & 4093 &$1.0 \times 10^{-6}$ & $3.9 \times 10^3$sec \\
\hline
2 & 3881 &$1.0 \times 10^{-6}$ & $2.8 \times 10^3$sec \\
\hline
4 & 2790 &$1.0 \times 10^{-6}$ & $1.0 \times 10^3$sec \\
\hline
6 & 2785 &$1.0 \times 10^{-6}$ & $1.0 \times 10^3$sec \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption {The performance impact of time-parallel preconditioning. The same initial conditions as in Table~\ref{tbl:mrconv} are applied, and the resolution of these tests is $h/10$ with different numbers of time subdomains. The tests are performed with mesh refinement using the time additive Schwarz preconditioner. The first case presented in the Table ($\#$ of subdomains = 1) means that time additive Schwarz preconditioner is not applied to the problem. The maximum iteration number is $5,000$ and $1.0 \times 10^{-6}$ is the desired final residual.}
\label{tbl:compn}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
The numerical tests of the semilinear wave equation with a $p = 7$ power are performed with the space-time FEM and time-decomposition methods. The results show critical behavior and self-similarity.
The problem is solved within space and time at once, and uses a fully implicit solve. Compared with previous research, the numerical method explored here
is easily adapted for non-uniform meshes and enables time parallel
decompositions for parallelization. This work also presents the first
use of the space-time FEM for a nonlinear problem.
As part of future work, the time decomposition precondition
is promising candidate for time-parallel simulations on distributed memory
machines. A Communicating Sequential Processes (CSP) approach would
suggest calculating a local problem with ideally only one time subdomain per
process concurrently with other time domains, thereby decomposing the problem in
both space and time and increasing concurrency. Such an approach would
be most appropriate in 2+1 and 3+1 where there are numerous open problems
left in critical phenomena.
\begin{acknowledgments}
The authors are very indebted to Dr. Steven Liebling for helpful
discussions and feedback on this work.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Intro}
Mergers of gas--rich galaxies are key events in hierarchical clustering models of cosmic structure formation.
Galaxy mergers are thought to $(i)$ be responsible of the formation of classical bulges
\citep[e.g.][and references therein]{kormendy13}, $(ii)$ trigger
intense bursts of nuclear star formation and AGN emission
\citep[e.g.][]{dimatteo05,daddi10, genzel10} with possible dual AGN
activity \citep[e.g.][]{callegari09, callegari11, vanwassenhove12,
blecha13}, $(iii)$
trigger the formation of massive black holes (MBH), possibly via direct collapse of gas
\citep[][]{mayer10, bonoli14}, or inducing the collapse of
pre-existing nuclear stellar clusters \citep{davies11,lupi14}, and
$(iv)$ build up a population of MBH binaries (MBHBs)
\citep[e.g.][and references therein for a detailed
discussion]{colpi11}, the main targets for future campaigns aimed at the detection of low--frequency gravitational waves \citep{lisa, PTA}.
When simulating MBHs in galaxy mergers,
a detailed treatment of the dynamics is of foremost importance, since it influences the MBH
ability to accrete gas (hence, its mass evolution and possible onset of AGN activity), the MBH spin evolution \citep[e.g.][]{dotti10},
and the formation and fate of MBHBs. The many physical processes involved require a detailed modelling of the dynamics of gas, stars, dark
matter and MBHs though, hence calling for high--resolution hydrodynamical simulations.
Hydro simulations can be divided into two classes:
smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH), in which the distribution of gas is
sampled by a number of particles, and grid codes, in which the gas
properties are mapped on a geometrical grid. SPH codes do not assume any a
priori geometry, and automatically allow larger resolution
in denser regions. Therefore, SPH codes are extensively
used in galaxy merger simulations \citep[see][and references
therein]{dotti12}.
Grid codes, in order to achieve high resolution only in a limited volume of the
simulation, can refine the mesh when and where
required by specified properties of the fluid \citep[adaptive mesh refinement, AMR][]{berger84,
berger89}. As an example, AMR allows to
evolve the dynamics of gas close to MBHs, and then, e.g., determine whether AGN
activity is to be expected or not, without increasing dramatically the
total numbers of grids and the computational cost of the run. In
principle, one can tailor the refinement criteria to obtain a
super--Lagrangian increase on the resolution, allowing, e.g., for a
better description of MBH sinking in late stages of galaxy mergers
\citep[see][]{chapon13}. Moreover, the resolution of the gravitational
interaction depends on the degree of refinement, and can change and
increase as the simulation proceeds, a feature not generally shared with SPH codes.
Thanks to AMR, a number of grid--based hydro simulations of the last
stages of galaxy mergers have been performed to date
\citep[][]{chapon13, dubois14a}. The two papers assume quite
different prescriptions. \cite{chapon13} assume a smoother IGM, not
affected by cooling, star formation (SF) and supernova (SNa)
feedback, while these effects are considered in \cite{dubois14a}. In
\cite{chapon13} the MBH dynamics depends strongly on the maximal
resolution of the simulation. In lower resolution runs ($\Delta
x_{\rm min}=3$ pc) the MBH evolution is significantly slower
(because of the underestimated effect of the resolution dependent
dynamical friction), and considerably more noisy (well above the
resolution level) than in the higher resolution cases ($\Delta
x_{\rm min}=0.1$ pc). A similar noisy evolution of the MBH orbits
has been observed by \cite{dubois14a}. In order to prevent spurious
oscillations of the MBH due to finite resolution effects, the authors
introduced an additional drag force onto the MBHs.
Interestingly, a noisy evolution of collisionless particle dynamics
(and, in particular, of MBHs) has been observed in high--resolution
AMR simulations of single isolated galaxies, in which the gas is only
subject to internal processes such as star formation, SNa feedback,
etc. \citep[e.g.][]{gabor13}. In their work, in order to limit
numerical MBH wandering, the authors propose two different
approaches. The first one consists in modelling the MBH as an extend
spherical structure, using few thousands evolving particles. Such
BH--forming particles are regenerated over a secondary, coarse time
grid. In this case the MBH moves out of the geometrical centre of the
galaxy by hundreds to thousands of pc depending on the amount of gas
simulated and the noisy effect is only reduced. The second one,
instead, consists in adding an artificial velocity component directed
toward the stellar centre of mass, which forces the MBH to orbit close
to the galaxy centre.
As noted by \cite{gabor13}, the noisy evolution of the MBH can be
either numerical (due to the limited and time varying spatial
resolution), or physical, if caused by interactions with massive and
dense gas clouds. This last possibility is particularly interesting
when the gas is allowed to cool and actually form significant compact
overdensities, as in the simulations discussed in \cite{gabor13} and
\cite{dubois14a}. Indeed, a physically motivated noisy orbital
evolution of MBHs is observed in SPH simulations \citep[see e.g.][for
a detailed and extensive discussion]{fiacconi13}. It is important to
notice that the effects of massive gas clumps on the MBH dynamics is
severely altered by the corrections proposed in works discussed above.
This is the first of a series of papers devoted at the study of MBHB
dynamics in the final stages of galaxy mergers. Here, we focus on the
technical aspects of numerical simulations of the physical system
under scrutiny, and propose a new adaptive refinement criterion for
AMR codes, suited to properly treat the physical interactions between
the MBHs and the gas clouds forming in the environment. In
forthcoming papers we will exploit our newly designed simulations,
exploring the parameters space, and addressing the many diverse
astrophysical and cosmological consequences.
The paper is organised as follows. In Section~2 we introduce the code
we developed to build our initial conditions, the simulations we have
ran, and our new implementation of an evolving geometrical refinement
that we implemented on the AMR code RAMSES \citep{teyssier02}, in
Section~3 we present the results of our test runs and compare them to
results obtained without implementing our new refinement
criterion. The conclusions are drawn in Section~4.
\section{Numerical methods}
\label{sec:ic}
\subsection{Initial conditions}
We simulated the merger of two circum--nuclear discs (CNDs) embedded in stellar nuclei, each hosting a MBH. Such system should be considered as an idealised model of the latest stages of a galaxy merger. We initially set each of the two merging nuclei in dynamical equilibrium, and assumed they are constituted by three different components:
\begin{itemize}
\item a stellar spherical structure (termed ``nucleus'' hereinafter) described by an Hernquist profile \citep{hernquist90}, defined in spherical coordinates as
\begin{equation}
\rho_b(r)=\frac{M_b}{2\pi}\frac{a}{r\left(r+a\right)^3},
\end{equation}
where $\rho_b(r)$ is the density as a function of radius $r$, $M_b=2\times 10^8 \rm {M_{\large \odot}}$ the total nucleus mass, and $a=100$ pc the nucleus scale radius.
\item an exponential gaseous disc with surface density profile defined in cylindrical coordinates as
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_d(R)=\frac{M_d}{2\pi R_d^2} \exp(-R/R_d),
\end{equation}
where $R$ is the disc radius, $R_d= 50$ pc the disc scale radius, and $M_d=10^8 \rm {M_{\large \odot}}$ the total disc mass.
\item a MBH with mass $M_{\rm BH}=10^7 \rm {M_{\large \odot}}$, at rest in the centre of the disc.
\end{itemize}
In order to ensure equilibrium, we iteratively calculated the vertical
density profile of the disc and, consequently, the velocity fields of
gas and stars by means of the dedicated code GD\_BASIC\footnote{The
code is publicly available at
\url{http://www.dfm.uninsubria.it/alupi/software.html}}. The code
samples gaseous and stellar particles, eventually used as the initial
condition for the SPH run (see next section~\ref{sec:suite}). GD\_BASIC solves the
disc hydrostatic equilibrium equations for a user-defined surface
density profile subject to the additional potentials of the Hernquist
nucleus and of the MBH. Defining the gas pressure as
\begin{equation}
P_d=(\gamma-1)\rho_d u,
\label{eq:poly}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ and $u$ are the gas polytropic index and internal energy respectively,
and assuming a single temperature disc (in our case, we adopted an initial fiducial value of $T=2\times 10^4$ K), the vertical equilibrium equation can then be written as
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\rho_d(R,z)}\frac{\partial P_d(R,z)}{\partial z}=-\frac{\partial \phi(R,z)}{\partial z},
\label{eq:vs}
\end{equation}
where $\phi(R,z)$ is the global gravitational potential of the system.
Using eq.~\ref{eq:poly}, eq.~\ref{eq:vs} can be solved for the disc surface density:
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_d(R)=\rho_d(R,0)\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\exp\left[-\frac{\phi_z(R,z)}{(\gamma-1)u}\right]dz,
\label{eq:rhoz}
\end{equation}
where $\phi_z(R,z) \equiv \phi(R,z)-\phi(R,0)$ is the vertical component of the global potential.
We further assumed the thin disc approximation, so that the Poisson equation can be simplified to
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2\phi_d}{\partial z^2} +\nabla^2 \phi_b =4\pi G[\rho_d(R,z)+\rho_b(r)],
\end{equation}
where $\phi_d$ and $\phi_b$ are the disc and the nucleus potentials, respectively.
Since $\nabla^2 \phi_b=4\pi G\rho_b$, we can write
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2\phi_{d,z}}{\partial z^2} =4\pi G\rho_d(R,z)=4\pi G \rho_d(R,0)\exp\left[-\frac{\phi_z(R,z)}{(\gamma-1)u}\right],
\label{eq:poisson}
\end{equation}
where we defined $\phi_{d,z}\equiv \phi_d(R,z)-\phi_d(R,0)$ as the vertical component of the disc potential.
We solved the above equations forcing the vertical hydrostatic equilibrium of the disc, assuming an exponential surface density profile as boundary condition.
We started solving eq.~\ref{eq:poisson} for $\phi_{d,z}$ by guessing an initial equatorial profile $\rho_d(R,0)$.
Then, we computed the total vertical potential $\phi_z$, and by means of eq.~\ref{eq:rhoz}, a new value for $\rho_d(R,0)$
that satisfies the boundary condition $\Sigma_d$ was derived. The procedure was iterated until convergence. From eq.~\ref{eq:poisson} we obtained
$\phi_{d,z}$ and, from eq.~\ref{eq:vs}, $\rho_d(R,z)$. As in the iterative procedure $\phi_d(R,0)$ is a free parameter, we assumed
a razor thin exponential disc (equation 2-168 in \citeauthor{binney08}). Finally, the velocity of the disc particles was evaluated by setting the radial component of the velocity equal to 0 (hydrostatic equilibrium assures that the vertical component is null as well), while the tangential velocity was obtained from the Euler equation in the case of a rotationally supported disc.
Concerning stellar-like particles, we evaluated the distribution function $f$ in the 6-dimensional phase-space. We initially considered the
Hernquist spherical structure subject only to its own potential and to the MBH potential
(i.e., $\phi=\phi_b+\phi_{\rm MBH}$), implying that $f$ depends only on the particle total energy in this case.
From the Eddington's formula (equation 4-140a in \citeauthor{binney08}) we have
\begin{equation}
f(\epsilon)=\frac{1}{2^{3/2}\pi^2}\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\int_\epsilon^0 \frac{d\rho_b}{d\phi}\frac{d\phi}{(\phi-\epsilon)^{1/2}},
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon$ is the particle energy per unit of mass, and $\rho_b$ can be expressed as a function of $\phi$ (being $\phi$ a monotonic function of $r$).
The distribution function was numerically evaluated and used to sample the nucleus particle energy density.
We then derived the particle speed $v=\sqrt{2(\epsilon-\phi)}$, where $\phi$ was computed at the particle position.
In order to correct for the neglected contribution of the disc to the global potential, we added to the spherically symmetric component of the potential the approximate contribution of the disc in the form
$\phi_d=GM_d(<r)/(3r)$, where $M_d(<r)$ is the mass of gas particles within $r$.
In order to test the stability of our initial conditions, we evolved each disc
in isolation for 10 Myr. The evolved disc surface density is shown in
fig.~\ref{fig:surfEvol} at different times. The profile changes in the inner
$\simeq20$ pc because of a gas instability developing after $\simeq 2$ Myr
from the start. In order to assess the origin of such instability, we
numerically estimated the Toomre parameter of the disc $Q$ at initial time
$t=0$ ($Q\equiv kc_s/(\pi\Sigma)$, where $k$ is the epicyclic frequency and
$c_s$ is the gas sound speed). Note that, strictly speaking, the initialised
disc is not infinitesimally thin, so that $Q$ as defined above represents a
lower limit. Fig.~\ref{fig:surfToomre} shows the Toomre parameter at $t=0$ as
a function of the radial distance $R$. We found $Q>2$ everywhere, with the
notable exception of the region $10\mathrel{\rlap{\lower 3pt \hbox{$\sim$}} \raise 2.0pt \hbox{$<$}} R \mathrel{\rlap{\lower 3pt \hbox{$\sim$}} \raise 2.0pt \hbox{$<$}} 150$ pc, where $1\mathrel{\rlap{\lower 3pt \hbox{$\sim$}} \raise 2.0pt \hbox{$<$}} Q
\mathrel{\rlap{\lower 3pt \hbox{$\sim$}} \raise 2.0pt \hbox{$<$}} 2$. The formation of transient spiral arms in this region, clearly seen
during the disc evolution, suggests a genuinely physical origin of the disc
instability. Such instability results in small changes in the surface density
profile in the $10\mathrel{\rlap{\lower 3pt \hbox{$\sim$}} \raise 2.0pt \hbox{$<$}} R \mathrel{\rlap{\lower 3pt \hbox{$\sim$}} \raise 2.0pt \hbox{$<$}} 150$ pc region. The system, now slightly out
of equilibrium, undergoes a re-adjustment of the gas distribution down to the
very central region of the disc, as observable in fig.~\ref{fig:surfEvol} down
to 5--10 pc from the MBH. Finally, no evidence of any fragmentation
instability during the overall evolution was seen, in agreement with $Q$ being
always $\mathrel{\rlap{\lower 3pt \hbox{$\sim$}} \raise 2.0pt \hbox{$>$}} 1$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Pictures/prof.eps}
\caption{\small Surface density profile for a disc evolved in isolation using Gadget-2. The solid black, dashed red and solid cyan curves are obtained from the gas particle distribution at $t=0, 5 $ and $10$ Myr, respectively. The dash--dotted blue curve is the profile calculated with the algorithm described in the text.}
\label{fig:surfEvol}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Pictures/toomre.eps}
\caption{\small Toomre parameter at $t=0$ Myr for the isolated disc using the thin disc approximation. The dashed red line corresponds to $Q=1$, while the dash--dotted blue one to $Q=2$. The y-axis has been limited in the interval between 0 and 10 to highlight the instability interval, corresponding to $Q<2$. The region within the inner 1 pc is not visible because of the very large values assumed by Q, outside the axis limits considered.}
\label{fig:surfToomre}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Simulation suite}
\label{sec:suite}
The procedure described above was then used to build two equal mass
co-rotating discs, each described by $10^5$ particles, at an initial
separation of $300$ pc. The initial conditions for the AMR runs have been
obtained mapping the gas particle distribution on the grid using the publicly
available code TIPGRID\footnote{The code is available at \url{http://www.astrosim.net/code/doku.php?id=home:code:analysistools:misctools}}. The discs were set on an initially
elliptical orbit with eccentricity $e=0.3$ and orbital angular momentum
antiparallel to the angular momentum of each disc. In order to test numerical
stability and assess the reliability of the system evolution, we decided to
run our simulation using two intrinsically different methodologies, using the
SPH code GADGET2 \citep{Springel05} and the AMR code RAMSES
\citep{teyssier02}, in their publicly available releases. We note that
GADGET2 public version does not include gas cooling, supernova feedback and
star formation, while the gas obeys a polytropic equation of state. On the
contrary, the available RAMSES release includes all the mentioned physical
processes\citep{teyssier02,rasera06,teyssier13}.
As described in \S\ref{sec:Intro}, several past AMR simulations similar to what we present here are reported to show a noisy evolution of the orbits of the two
MBHs, and different techniques have been proposed to solve the problem \citep{gabor13,dubois14a}. The reason behind numerical perturbations in the MBH motion lies most probably in the change of the gravitational force computation accuracy during the simulation, which is related to the change in the cell size.
We therefore developed a new refinement criterion aimed at ensuring a fixed accuracy when computing the gravitational force acting on the two MBHs. We implemented a new refinement criterion based on the identity and positions of selected particles, rather than on
the global geometry of the system. In our new implementation, refined grids
follow the positions of the two MBHs at each time-step. Surrounding cells within two specified, MBH-centered volumes are flagged for
further multi-level refinement. Up to seven concentric regions of increasing
resolution can be user-defined by setting the seven corresponding radii. For
example, in the runs discussed in this paper we enforced the maximum level of
refinement, with single cell linear sizes of 0.39 pc, within 10 pc from each
MBH. At larger distances from the MBHs the resolution degrades smoothly unless
another refinement criterion is matched. On the top of the newly implemented
criterion discussed, we use the standard Quasi-Lagrangian and Jeans criteria
already implemented in RAMSES~\citep{teyssier02}, as described below.
We performed a total of five simulations with RAMSES, in order to compare the
new refinement criterion with the standard one, and to test the reliability of
the dynamical evolution of the MBH binary under different assumptions
regarding the so-called ``sub-grid physics''. We also carried out a single
simulation with GADGET2, assuming a polytropic equation of state with index
$\gamma=7/5$. The spatial resolution for the SPH simulation is $0.2$ pc,
while the mass resolution is $10^3 \rm {M_{\large \odot}}$ and $2\times 10^3 \rm {M_{\large \odot}}$ for gas and
collisionless particles, respectively. The maximum spatial resolution (at the
highest refinement level) for all our AMR simulations is $\sim 0.39$ pc and
the mass resolution for stars is equal to that in the SPH run. The standard
Jeans criterion enforced in all the simulations (with and without our new
refinement implementation) ensures that the Jeans length is resolved with at
least 4 cells (14 in the highest refinement level) everywhere, so to avoid the
formation of spurious clumps due to resolution limits. The Quasi-Lagrangian
criterion, on the other hand, allows us to resolve a minimum gas mass of $10^3
\rm {M_{\large \odot}}$ everywhere, equal to the gas particle mass used in the SPH run."
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c|c}
& & Star & SNa & New \\
Run & Cooling & Formation & feedback & Refinement\\
\hline
\hline
Plain & No & No & No & No\\
Plain+ & No & No & No & Yes\\
Noblast & Yes & Yes & Yes & No\\
Blast & Yes & Yes & Yes & No\\
Blast+ & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\emph{The suite of RAMSES runs.}}
\label{tab:runs}
\end{table}
Table \ref{tab:runs} shows the suite of RAMSES simulations with the main features highlighted.
In runs ``Plain'' and ``Plain+'' no sub-grid physics is implemented, while in
the following three runs, termed ``Noblast'', ``Blast'' and ``Blast+'', we
included both gas cooling and star formation (with associated SNa
feedback). In these runs we assumed a density threshold for star formation
(SF) of $2\times 10^6$ cm$^{-3}$, and a typical (SF) timescale of $1.0$
Myr. We employed a SNa yield of 15\%. The specific energy budget from SNae,
$10^{50} \rm\, erg/M_\odot$, is totally released in the parent cell as thermal
energy. The subsequent SNa feedback was implemented in two different ways. The
first recipe (``Noblast'' run) assumes that gas starts to cool down
immediately after it is released in the SNa event. The second feedback scheme
used in the ``Blast'' and ``Blast+'' runs \citep{teyssier13} assumes that the
internal energy injected by SNae is decoupled from the standard gas cooling,
decaying exponentially on a timescale of 20 Myr. This second scheme implicitly
assumes the presence of non-thermal processes accelerating the SNa blast
wave. Such non thermal energy is characterised by much longer dissipation
time-scales than the thermal component \citep[see, e.g.][]{ensslin07}. We
finally note that typical timescale for the onset of SNae is much longer
compared to the typical gas inflow timescale in our simulations, i.e., SNae
would have little/negligible effects on MBH and gas dynamics. In order to
enhance feedback effects, we assumed no time delay for the onset of SNae after
star formation. No AGN feedback has been included in any of the runs. Our new
dynamic refinement criterion is implemented in the two ``+'' runs.
\section{Results}
The upper panels of Figure~\ref{fig:orbitPlain} show the MBH pair orbit in run
Plain compared to the SPH run. While the orbital evolution computed by GADGET2
shows a smooth orbital decay of the pair, run Plain shows an abrupt change in
the direction of motion of the two MBHs after $\sim 2-3$ Myr from the
beginning of the run. At this time the MBHs suddenly leave the gas (upper
panels in Figure~\ref{fig:mapPlain}) and stellar overdensities they
inhabited. Such an abrupt acceleration could, in principle, have a physical
explanation. For example, the sudden swerve could be the outcome of short
range encounters between the MBHs and compact massive clumps or stellar
clusters. We note, however, that such an interpretation is unlikely because of
two reasons: $(i)$ a strong gravitational perturbation would have affected the
gas and stellar nuclei as well as the MBHs, and $(ii)$ as described in
Section~\ref{sec:ic}, the gaseous discs in our simulations are initially
stable against fragmentation, and the gas distribution is expected to remain
smooth during the entire evolution in run Plain, in which no cooling
prescription is implemented. A search for gas and stellar clumps in the
snapshots of run Plain confirmed this expectation.
The peculiar and unexpected dynamical evolution of the MBHs in run Plain could
be a numerical artefact, due to the rapid variation of the spatial resolution
around the two MBHs. Figure~\ref{fig:level} shows the
number of cells at the maximum refinement level within 5 pc from each MBH.
The sudden drop of
resolution is caused by a density drop during the first stages of the
simulation. Such a gas readjustment is expected, since the initial
conditions were stable in isolation, and the two circum--nuclear discs are
initially set at a finite separation. We stress that, although this initial
gas evolution is driven by the procedure used to generate the initial
conditions, similar sudden resolution changes are expected also due to the
evolution of the gas subject to additional physics, such as SNa explosions,
as discussed below.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Pictures/level.eps}
\caption{\small Number of cells for the highest refinement level around
each of the two MBHs versus time for simulations Plain (blue dashed line), Noblast (red solid line) and Blast (black dotted line).}
\label{fig:level}
\end{figure*}
To check if the unexpected behaviour of the MBHs is a pure numerical effect we
ran the same simulation forcing the code to keep a high resolution close to
the moving MBHs, through our new refinement implementation. The MBH orbital
evolution resulting from this check (Run Plain+) is shown in
figure~\ref{fig:orbitPlain}. Run Plain+ shows a dynamical evolution closer to that
obtained in the SPH run, that by construction is not affected by any
significant fluctuation of the gravitational spatial resolution.
Figure~\ref{fig:mapPlain} shows that with our new refinement implementation the
MBHs do not decouple from the gas structure they are hosted in. We further
stress that an enhanced resolution close to the MBHs would facilitate the
formation of gas clumps as well as maximise the effect of their gravitational
interaction (if clumps would form) with the MBHs. The absence of abrupt kicks
in the MBH dynamics in run Plain+ proves that the MBH noisy motion observe in run
Plain is numerical and it is caused by poor/rapidly changing resolution in the
region surrounding the MBHs. Still some differences in the orbital evolution of the MBHs in run
Plain+ and SPH are observable.
The initial difference in the vertical motion is probably caused by the resolution increase occurring in the very early stages of the simulation, when the initial conditions (with a maximum resolution of $\sim 1.5$ pc) are further refined to reach the desired resolution of $\sim 0.39$ pc.
Furthermore, the MBH orbital decay after the first 3 Myr is faster in the the
Plain+ run with respect to the SPH run. We checked that this is due to the
different magnitude of the gas inflow toward the geometrical centre of the
system. Such inflows are caused by the angular momentum removal associated
with the shocks developing at the contact surface between the two merging
circum--nuclear discs (CNDs). The two numerical implementations (SPH and AMR) differ significantly in their treatment of the shocks, resulting in a different MBH dynamics. The detailed discussion of the physical evolution of the system and of its effect on the pairing of the MBHs will be discussed in Lupi et al. in prep.
\begin{figure}
\subfigure
{\includegraphics[width=0.238\textwidth]{Pictures/Plain/orbit.eps}}
\subfigure
{\includegraphics[width=0.232\textwidth]{Pictures/Plain/zorbit.eps}}
\subfigure
{\includegraphics[width=0.238\textwidth]{Pictures/PlainPlus/orbit.eps}}
\subfigure
{\includegraphics[width=0.232\textwidth]{Pictures/PlainPlus/zorbit.eps}}
\caption{\small Orbits for the two MBHs from RAMSES runs Plain and Plain+ , compared
with the SPH run. The panels on top show the orbits projected in the
face-on (on the left) and edge-on (on the right) views for run Plain, plotted
as red dashed lines and the SPH run, plotted as black solid lines. The
panels at the bottom are the same plots obtained from run Plain+ and the
SPH run. The points mark the MBH positions at $t=1$ and 3 Myr for the
runs considered.}
\label{fig:orbitPlain}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\subfigure
{\includegraphics[width=0.475\textwidth]{Pictures/Plain/gas_z-05-13.eps}}
\subfigure
{\includegraphics[width=0.475\textwidth]{Pictures/PlainPlus/gas_z-05-13.eps}}
\caption{\small Upper panels: Gas density map at $t=1$ Myr (left panels) and $t=3$ Myr (right
panels) for run Plain. The MBH positions are identified by the black bullseye symbols. Lower panel: same as upper panel for run Plain+.}
\label{fig:mapPlain}
\end{figure}
To study the effect of the refinement prescriptions onto the MBH dynamics in
less idealised simulations, we performed three runs (Noblast, Blast and
Blast+) allowing the gas to radiatively cool and form stars. As shown in the
following, the orbital evolution strongly depends on the different
implementation for the feedback by SNae. Figure~\ref{fig:orbitNoblast} shows the MBH
orbital evolution in run Noblast. The MBH dynamics does not show anything
similar to the huge kicks that decouple the MBH dynamics from the gas
distribution observed in run Plain. On the contrary, figure~\ref{fig:mapNoblast}
demonstrates that the MBHs are still well within the gas and stellar overdensities close to
the centres of the dramatically perturbed nuclear discs.
However, smaller swerves mainly limited to the disc plane are still observable
in the MBH orbits (figure~\ref{fig:orbitNoblast}). Figure~\ref{fig:level}
demonstrates that, in run Noblast, the wiggles in the orbits are
not related to a decrease of the spatial resolution. Indeed the resolution
around each MBH remains almost constant during the entire run, with a high
number of cells populating the maximum refinement level. Such a high
resolution is ensured by the formation of high density condensation of cooling
gas around the MBHs.
The peculiarities in the MBH orbits in run Noblast are due to close
interactions with massive clumps, forming in the disc when the gas is allowed
to cool. Indeed a large number of massive clumps form during the first stages
of the merger, especially along the gas shock surface between the two gaseous
discs, as observable in the left panel of figure~\ref{fig:mapNoblast}. These clumps
can lead to very energetic kicks to MBHs, unless they are destroyed before the
interaction by SNae. This is not the case for run Noblast, in which the large
thermal energy injected by SNae in the gas immediately starts to cool, thus
leaving clumps nearly unperturbed. As discussed above, this boosts the
probability of having a strong cloud/MBH interaction, and results in a high
resolution close to the MBHs (preventing spurious numerical wandering of the
MBHs). Figure~\ref{fig:clouds1} highlights a strong interaction between each MBH and a massive cloud in run Noblast, taking place at $t=5.8$ Myr. Figure~\ref{fig:clouds2} shows a later stage ($t=9$ Myr) of the evolution, when the two MBHs evolve in a smoother environment. In both cases the clouds have been identified extracting the cells with a density exceeding $8\times 10^5$ H/cc and then grouping together the adjacent cells.
The detailed analysis of the interactions between MBHs and clouds as well as a broader study of the effect of the gas dynamics onto the MBH pairing is deferred to a paper in preparation.
If instead the gas is unable to rapidly get rid of the energy injected by
SNae we expect a smaller incidence of MBH-cloud
interactions, but at the same time the SNae can strongly affect the densest
and intensely star-forming regions close to the MBHs. A SNa driven gas
depletion may result in a decreasing force resolution when the new refinement
discussed here is not implemented. Figure~\ref{fig:orbitBlast} shows a
comparison between the MBH dynamical evolution observed in runs Blast and
Blast+. A peculiar wandering of the two MBHs in the three dimensions is
observed in run Blast, similarly to what happens in run Plain. We stopped the
run after 2 Myr only, when the MBH motion had already been affected by the
numerical effect and MBHs had been scattered very far from the disc plane.
Again, the peculiar motion of MBHs in run Blast could either be a numerical
artefact or have a physical origin. We note that in both runs Blast and Blast+
the clumps are disrupted on short timescales by SNae. Hence, gas overdensities
are not expected to perturb significantly the dynamical evolution of
MBHs. Furthermore, the feedback are energetic enough to deplete the gas from
the nuclear regions of both discs, leaving the MBHs in an under-dense region
(see figure~\ref{fig:mapBlast}). The time evolution of the number of cells at
high resolution levels in the MBH vicinities is shown in Figure
\ref{fig:level}. This confirms that the energy injection from SNae drives a
significant resolution drop during the first 3 Myr, as also observed in run
Plain. In run Blast, however, the loss of resolution does not directly depends
on our realisation of the initial conditions, but it is a consequence of the
physical evolution of the system.
The different dynamical evolution observed in run Blast+ (lower panels in
figure~\ref{fig:orbitBlast}) finally proves that the jerks in the MBHs paths are
numerical artefacts. In facts, in this last case, the MBHs follows a very
smooth evolution over multiple orbital timescales, due to the little effect of
the transient gas overdensities onto the MBHs. The comparison between the
results of run Blast and run Blast+ proves the effectiveness of refinement
implementation discussed here in modelling massive particle dynamics in
rapidly evolving backgrounds.
\begin{figure}
\subfigure
{\includegraphics[width=0.238\textwidth]{Pictures/Noblast/orbit.eps}}
\subfigure
{\includegraphics[width=0.232\textwidth]{Pictures/Noblast/zorbit.eps}}
\caption{\small
Same as figure~\ref{fig:orbitPlain} for the Noblast/SPH runs comparison.
}
\label{fig:orbitNoblast}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\subfigure
{\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{Pictures/Noblast/gas_z-05-29.eps}}
\subfigure
{\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{Pictures/Noblast/stars.eps}}
\caption{\small Upper (lower) panel: gas (stellar) density map at $t=1$ and 3 Myr (left and right panel
respectively) in run Noblast.
All the notation is the same as in figure~\ref{fig:mapPlain}}
\label{fig:mapNoblast}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Pictures/Noblast/clumps/img_94.eps}
\caption{\small Strong interactions between the MBHs and massive gas clouds in run Noblast at time 5.8 Myr. The MBHs orbital path and current positions are marked with green lines and blue dots. The black regions highlight the cells forming the clouds, whose centre of mass is marked by the red empty circles (only for clouds formed by at least 10 cells).}
\label{fig:clouds1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Pictures/Noblast/clumps/img_153.eps}
\caption{\small Same as figure~\ref{fig:clouds1}, but at time $t=9$ Myr. The figure shows a final stage of the orbital evolution, when the MBHs are surrounded by gas overdensities and no significant MBH/cloud interactions are taking place.}
\label{fig:clouds2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\subfigure
{\includegraphics[width=0.238\textwidth]{Pictures/Blast/orbit.eps}}
\subfigure
{\includegraphics[width=0.232\textwidth]{Pictures/Blast/zorbit.eps}}
\subfigure
{\includegraphics[width=0.238\textwidth]{Pictures/BlastPlus/orbit.eps}}
\subfigure
{\includegraphics[width=0.232\textwidth]{Pictures/BlastPlus/zorbit.eps}}
\caption{\small Same as figure~\ref{fig:orbitPlain} for the comparison between run SPH and runs Blast and Blast+.}
\label{fig:orbitBlast}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\subfigure
{\includegraphics[width=0.475\textwidth]{Pictures/Blast/gas_z-05-19.eps}}
\subfigure
{\includegraphics[width=0.475\textwidth]{Pictures/BlastPlus/gas_z-16-53.eps}}
\caption{\small Same as figure~\ref{fig:mapPlain} for runs Blast and Blast+.}
\label{fig:mapBlast}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper we propose a new refinement criterion to follow in
details the motion of massive particles in AMR simulations with
RAMSES. The goal of our investigation is to achieve an accurate
dynamical evolution of MBHs under the influence of the evolving
gaseous and stellar background, as expected in the final stages of a
galaxy merger.
The accuracy in the computation of gravity force in AMR codes strictly
depends on the local resolution and thus on changes in the physical
properties of gas and particles during the runs. The refinement
prescriptions already implemented in RAMSES do not ensure a proper
description of the orbit of massive particles. Whenever the region
close to the MBHs is de-refined the MBHs can experience strong
spurious perturbations and then follow unphysical orbits, often leading out of the host nucleus.
We simulated the merger of two CND/stellar nucleus structures, each hosting a MBH. Such system should be considered as an idealised model of the latest stages of a galaxy merger, as we neglected possible galactic scale effects (e.g., large scale gas inflows). We ran a suite of simulations, including different sub-grid physics
prescriptions for the gas, in order to test the changes in the MBH
orbits with or without our additional refinement criterion. We demonstrated that
whenever the gas density near the MBHs is reduced, the simulations ran
without our new implementation result in unphysical orbits. Such MBH
wandering was observed in runs without gas cooling as well as in the
more complex case in which the gas in the two nuclei is allowed to
cool, form stars and be efficiently heated by stellar feedbacks. We
stress that the complex, violent and intrinsically dynamical nature of
the merger does not allow to predict whether and when a sudden drop in
resolution will occur. In order to trust the simulation results a
different refinement criterion, forcing a high and constant resolution
near the MBHs, is required. The prescription we designed enforces the
region around each massive particle to remain at the maximum
resolution allowed. Such region follows the MBHs along their orbits,
reducing the computational cost of the runs, and avoiding the spurious
effect caused by the resolution changes.
Other possible solutions to the numerical noise of massive particle
dynamics have been proposed in literature \citep{gabor13,dubois14a}. We
stress that our implementation has the ability of not altering the
physical evolution of the MBHs\footnote{During the final editing of this paper a new version of RAMSES has been released. In the new implementation the accelerations experienced by massive collisionless particles are computed through direct summation (R. Teyssier, private communication). The comparison between our refinement strategy and the new implementation
is postponed to a future investigation.}. As an example, we demonstrated that in our
implementation any close interaction between the MBHs and
gas clumps is properly modelled (at an equivalent/better
resolution than what would be achieved without our refinement
criterion). Hence, while our prescription removes the numerical
effects resulting in an artificially noisy orbital evolution, it
preserves all the non trivial physical processes that take place in
violent dynamical scenario such as the final stages of a galaxy
merger.
We plan to use the new refinement criterion in a larger suite of
simulations to accurately study the MBHs dynamics down to the
formation of a close binary, to constrain the ability of the MBHs to
accrete during their final pairing, and to properly trace the dynamics
of the fuelling gas. This is important since, e.g., accreting gas affects the MBH
spins and in case of mergers, the spin of the MBH remnant and its recoil velocity
\citep[see e.g.][and references therein]{Sesana14}. Our
study will complement the AMR runs discussed in, e.g.,
\cite{dubois14a,dubois14b}, constraining the effect of the MBH
numerical wandering on its feeding and its spin
evolution. Furthermore, the new simulation suite will serve as a
comparison to similar investigations performed with SPH simulations
\citep{escala05, dotti09, dotti10, hopkins12, maio13}, that do not
suffer the spurious MBH dynamical evolution (since the gravitational
resolution is fixed in time) but that have a completely different
implementation of the gas hydrodynamics.
Finally, our suite will also test whether (or under which conditions)
the strong perturbations due to the merger of the two host nuclei can
result in the condensation of huge and compact gas overdensities,
possible progenitors of MBHs \citep{mayer10, ferrara13, bonoli14}.
\section{Acknowledgements}
We thank R. Teyssier and L. Paredi for many fruitful discussions. We acknowledge financial support from italian MIUR, through PRIN 2010-2011. We also acknowledge the CINECA award under the ISCRA initiative, for the availability of high performance computing resources and support.
Part of the simulations were run on the LUCIA cluster at DiSAT, University of Insubria (Como).
\bibliographystyle{mn2e}
|
\section{Introduction}
Nadykto et al. \cite{Nadykto14} present Gibbs free energies of formation from density functional calculations for hydrates of the \ce{H2SO4*DMA} and \ce{(H2SO4)2*(DMA)_{1-2}} clusters incorporating up to 5 water molecules. This is a useful addition to their earlier publication \cite{Nadykto11}, where they presented data for the first two hydrates of these clusters. They also seem to have re-evaluated some of the earlier published clusters, although this is not explicitly stated.
A major fraction of the article is devoted to a critique of an earlier study by Paasonen et al. \cite{Paasonen12} and of the quantum chemistry methods used by Paasonen et al. \cite{Paasonen12} and Loukonen et al. \cite{Loukonen10}. The conclusion of Nadykto et al. that different quantum chemical methods may give even qualitatively different Gibbs free energies of formation for some clusters is by no means new and surprising, and has in fact been discussed on several occasions both by Nadykto et al. \cite{Nadykto11} and our group \cite{Kurten11nadykto,Kupiainen13}. By now, a number of far more extensive comparisons involving a large number of different methods are available, which found both the PW91 method used by Nadykto et al. and the B3LYP//RI-CC2 method used by our group to be unsatisfactory \cite{Leverentz13,Bork14}.
While the conclusion that different methods sometimes predict different results is entirely uncontroversial, Nadykto et al. have misrepresented and misquoted our work to an extent that we feel impelled to make a number of clarifications. Also, some conclusions drawn by Nadykto et al. seem unsupported and misleading, which is why we present results of cluster formation simulations using the quantum chemical data of Nadykto et al.
\section{Misrepresentation of earlier studies}
Nadykto et al. state that our group \cite{Paasonen12} has developed an ATHN (apparently standing for Amine Ternary Homogeneous Nucleation) theory. We certainly do not claim to have developed a new nucleation theory, but rather have presented a series of simulations probing how the particle formation rate depends on different factors such as base concentration, relative humidity (RH), temperature or the identity of the base (dimethylamine vs. trimethylamine).
According to Nadykto et al. we {\em conclude} that the clusters are not hydrated. On the contrary, we state clearly that most of the \ce{H2SO4*DMA} clusters are hydrated \cite{Paasonen12}. However, in some simulations we {\em assumed} that the hydration of larger clusters does not have a strong impact on particle formation rates, as hydration energies for those clusters were not available at the time. These have, however, been calculated later, and cluster formation simulations \cite{Almeida13} confirm that, according to our quantum chemical data, hydration does not have a strong effect on particle formation rates in the sulfuric acid/DMA system. A more detailed study of the computed hydrate distributions can be found in ref. \cite{Henschel14}.
Several details related to the computational chemistry methods used by Paasonen et al. \cite{Paasonen12} and Loukonen et al. \cite{Loukonen10} are presented incorrectly. It should be noted that, despite the unfortunate wording of Ortega et al. \cite{Ortega12} where the term “locally developed method” originates from, the combination of geometry optimizations and frequency calculations at one level with single-point energy calculations at a higher level is a standard approach in computational chemistry, see for example \cite{Foresman96}. Neither of the individual methods used by us (B3LYP/CBSB7 for geometry optimizations and frequencies and RI-CC2/aug-cc-pV(T+d)Z for electronic energies) are “locally developed” -- the only choice we have made is to combine these two standard methods. Especially B3LYP/CBSB7 is extremely well established and tested, as it is the method used for geometry and frequency calculations in the common CBS-QB3 combination method. The RI-CC2 method is admittedly less “conventional” for single-point energy calculations, as it is primarily developed for excitation energies -- we originally chose it because it represented the highest level of electron correlation at that time available in the cost-effective Turbomole program suite. However, as CC2 represents a (minor) improvement on the well-established MP2 method, the criticism of Nadykto et al. is excessive. Furthermore, in the study by Loukonen et al. \cite{Loukonen10}, the single-point energy is calculated using the RI-MP2 method, not the RI-CC2 method as claimed by Nadykto et al. Paasonen et al. \cite{Paasonen12} and later studies (e.g. \cite{Almeida13}) do not use scaling factors, unconventional or otherwise.
The statement of ``variations in the stepwise hydration free energies [being] ~ 7-10
kcal mol$^{-1}$'' in ref. \cite{Loukonen10} is misleading. Of the stepwise hydration free energies only two are between 7 and 8 kcal/mol but none are in the range 8--10 kcal/mol, and also the changes between consecutive stepwise hydration energies are mostly less than 7 kcal/mol. The values allegedly taken from ref. \cite{Paasonen12} that are presented in Figure 6 of Nadykto et al. \cite{Nadykto14} deviate somewhat from the values published in the original study. They also seem to be incorrect in Figure 5 of Nadykto et al. \cite{Nadykto14}, which, however, remains unclear due to the form of their presentation.
\section{Incomplete analysis of the data}
In Figure 3 of their article, Nadykto et al. \cite{Nadykto14} examine the hydrated fraction of each cluster type as a function of relative humidity. As both \ce{H2SO4*DMA} and \ce{(H2SO4)2*DMA} do indeed get hydrated to a considerable extent at atmospheric conditions, they infer that the presence of water affects cluster formation. The analysis made in their paper is, however, insufficient to determine {\em how} hydration affects cluster and particle formation.
Figure \ref{fig:JvsRH} of this Comment presents the RH dependence of the simulated formation rate of clusters containing at least 3 sulfuric acid and 2 DMA molecules using the thermochemical data of Nadykto et al. \cite{Nadykto14}. This formation rate is, from here on, denoted as $J_{1.3}$, as the \ce{(H2SO4)3*(DMA)2} cluster has a mobility diameter of about 1.3 nm. The simulation is similar to that presented in ref. \cite{Almeida13}, and a detailed explanation can be found there. The only difference is that since in the case presented here the growth proceeds in some conditions mostly by addition of single (possibly hydrated) acid and base molecules, the \ce{(H2SO4)3*(DMA)2} cluster is assumed to be the smallest stable cluster, while in the simulations based on our data in ref. \cite{Almeida13} the clusters grew mostly by addition of \ce{H2SO4*DMA*(H2O)_{1-5}} clusters and the criterion for particle formation was set to be the formation of \ce{(H2SO4)3*(DMA)3} clusters. As a comparison, we present also simulation results using our thermochemical data but the same formation criterion as for the data of Nadykto et al.
From the simulations presented in Figure \ref{fig:JvsRH}, it can be concluded that according to the data of Nadykto et al. \cite{Nadykto14} hydration certainly has an effect on cluster formation -- it inhibits it effectively. This, perhaps surprising, behavior is explained by the fact that according to the quantum chemical data of Nadykto et al. \cite{Nadykto14}, while the \ce{(H2SO4)2*DMA} and, to some extent, \ce{(H2SO4)2*(DMA)2} clusters are hydrated, hydration does not stabilize them with respect to evaporation of hydrated sulfuric acid molecules and \ce{H2SO4*DMA} clusters, but rather increases their effective evaporation rate. Our thermochemical data also predicts an increase in effective evaporation rates of the \ce{(H2SO4)2*(DMA)_{1-2}} clusters due to hydration. However, even the hydrated clusters are predicted to be so stable that the increase in collision rates due to increased cluster size dominates the overall effect of hydration on the cluster formation rate $J_{1.3}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{./J_vs_RH_09-Apr-2014.eps}
\caption{Simulated cluster formation rate $J_{1.3}$ as a function of RH, using the quantum chemical data of Nadykto et al. \cite{Nadykto14} (solid lines) and Almeida et al. \cite{Almeida13} (dashed lines), and the simulation methods described in ref. \cite{Almeida13}. The vapor concentrations are [\ce{H2SO4}] = $5\times10^6 \textrm{cm}^{-3}$ and [DMA] = 3 ppt (circles), 15 ppt (triangles) and 100 ppt (pentagrams).}
\label{fig:JvsRH}
\end{figure}
Nadykto et al. continue by analyzing the equilibrium concentrations of sulfuric acid---DMA clusters to assess the impact of DMA on sulfuric acid cluster formation. For the understanding of particle formation, this is, however, of limited value: if clusters are formed, they are not in equilibrium but at most in a steady state. The equilibrium cluster distribution can be very different from the steady-state distribution relevant to the atmosphere and especially to new-particle formation. The only situation where small clusters may exist in something resembling an equilibrium distribution is when the vapor concentrations are so low that the formation of larger clusters is negligible, and also external losses are so low that their effect on the cluster distribution can be neglected.
Furthermore, instead of evaluating the {\em relative} concentrations of \ce{H2SO4*(DMA)_{0-2}} clusters with different DMA content, the {\em absolute} steady-state concentration of clusters containing two \ce{H2SO4} molecules and any number of DMA molecules at varying DMA vapor concentrations would be a more informative measure for the effect of DMA on cluster formation.
\section{Comparison to experiments}
Though lamenting the lack of relevant experimental studies, Nadykto et al. fail to mention the recent measurements of sulfuric acid---DMA clusters presented by Almeida et al. \cite{Almeida13}, where formation rates of 1.7 nm clusters ($J_{1.7}$) as well as concentrations of neutral clusters containing two \ce{H2SO4} molecules (and an unknown number of DMA and \ce{H2O} molecules) were measured at different sulfuric acid and DMA vapor concentrations. We present here a comparison of the thermochemical data by Nadykto et al. \cite{Nadykto14} with these experimental findings, and with our thermochemical data \cite{Almeida13}. It should be noted that the simulation results corresponding to our cluster energies differ slightly from those presented in ref. \cite{Almeida13}, since we use here the same set of clusters and the same formation criterion as for the simulations with the data of Nadykto et al. Specifically, we have now left out the clusters with three and four sulfuric acid molecules as well as all charged clusters, but have on the other hand included the hydrates, which were only used in one test simulation in ref. \cite{Almeida13}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{./JvsA_09-Apr-2014.eps}
\caption{Comparison of measured formation rate of 1.7 nm clusters (big open symbols, \cite{Almeida13}) and simulated formation rates of 1.3 nm clusters (lines with small filled symbols) in conditions corresponding to the CLOUD chamber, using the quantum chemical data of Nadykto et al. \cite{Nadykto14} (solid lines) and Almeida et al. \cite{Almeida13} (dashed lines) and the ACDC dynamics code. The DMA concentrations of measurement points and simulations, respectively, are 1--5 or 3 ppt (circles), 5--10 or 8 ppt (crosses), 10--20 or 15 ppt (triangles), 20--30 or 25 ppt (squares) and 30--200 or 100 ppt (pentagrams). The relative humidity is 38\%.}
\label{fig:JvsA}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{./dimer_vs_monomer_278K_09-Apr-2014.eps}
\caption{Comparison of measured (big open symbols, \cite{Almeida13}) and simulated (lines with small filled symbols) concentrations of clusters containing two \ce{H2SO4} molecules. See Figure \ref{fig:JvsA} for the explanation of the symbols.}
\label{fig:dimers}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:JvsA} shows the measured formation rates $J_{1.7}$ of sulfuric acid---DMA clusters together with simulated formation rates $J_{1.3}$ using quantum chemical data from both Nadykto et al. \cite{Nadykto14} and Almeida et al. \cite{Almeida13}. The experimental formation rates were measured in the presence of ions produced by ambient background radiation at a rate of 4 ion pairs per second, but the effect of ions was concluded to be negligible based on the measurements.
Some qualitative agreement can be seen between the measured formation rates and simulations based on the thermochemical data of Nadykto et al. \cite{Nadykto14}, although the DMA dependence seems to be overestimated by the simulation. The simulations based on our cluster energies, on the other hand, capture the weak DMA dependence but overestimate the value of the cluster formation rate.
However, the simulated formation rate corresponds to neutral clusters with a mobility diameter of approximately 1.3 nm, and therefore cannot be directly compared to the experimental rate. As clusters between 1.3 nm and 1.7 nm may evaporate back to smaller sizes or be lost by deposition on walls before reaching the diameter of 1.7 nm, the formation rate of 1.7 nm-diameter particles is likely to be somewhat lower than the formation rate of 1.3 nm particles.
A more direct comparison between experiments and simulations can be achieved by examining the concentration of clusters of the type \ce{H2SO4*(DMA)_{0-2}*(H2O)_{0-5}}. As DMA and water molecules evaporate during the detection of the clusters, only a sum over all clusters containing two \ce{H2SO4} molecules can be obtained from the measurements.
Figure \ref{fig:dimers} presents a comparison of measured and simulated steady-state concentrations of these neutral two-acid clusters. Here the cluster formation energies presented by Nadykto et al. \cite{Nadykto14} fail to reproduce the experimental findings --- the simulated cluster concentrations are too low by up to a factor of approximately 100, suggesting that binding of the clusters is underestimated by the PW91 functional used by Nadykto et al.
\section{Conclusions}
We have here corrected a number of misrepresentations in the recent Letter by Nadykto et al. \cite{Nadykto14} criticizing our earlier work. We have also presented some cluster formation simulations using the thermochemical data published by Nadykto et al. and show that they predict a hindering effect of relative humidity on cluster formation. Furthermore, we have shown that although cluster formation rates predicted based on their data match reasonably well with experiments done at the CLOUD chamber, the stability of clusters containing two \ce{H2SO4} molecules is severely underestimated compared to experimental findings. We fully agree with Nadykto et al. that further experiments, especially reliable field measurements of amine concentrations, are needed to draw meaningful conclusions about the role of amines in atmospheric new-particle formation.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec1}
The optimistic limit of Kashaev invariant was naturally appeared in \cite{Kashaev97} when the volume conjecture first introduced.
It can be considered as an informal way to predict the actual limit of the Kashaev invariant using a potential function,
and it has been widely considered the actual limit by general Physicists.
After the appearance, many works have been done to provide a mathematically rigorous definition in
\cite{Cho09b}, \cite{Yokota10}, \cite{Cho13a} and \cite{Cho14a}.
Let $L$ be a link.
The author with several collaborators defined a potential function combinatorially from the link diagram in \cite{Cho13a}
and showed that the evaluation of the function
at a saddle point becomes complex volume of certain representation. Furthermore, it was shown in \cite{Cho14a} that,
if we modify the potential function slightly using the information of
a given boundary-parabolic representation\footnote{
Boundary-parabolic representation means the images of the meridians and the longitudes of the cusp tori are all parabolic elements
of ${\rm PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})$.}
$\rho:\pi_1(L)\rightarrow{\rm PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})$,
then the set of hyperbolicity equations always have the solution which induces $\rho$ up to conjugate.
This solution was directly constructed from the shadow-coloring of $\mathcal{P}$ induced by $\rho$,
where $\mathcal{P}$ is the conjugation quandle consists of parabolic elements of ${\rm PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})$.
On the other hand, the colored Jones polynomial was shown to be a generalization of the Kashaev invariant in \cite{Murakami01a},
and the optimistic limit of the colored Jones polynomial was also developed in
\cite{Thurston99}, \cite{Cho10a}, \cite{Cho13b} and \cite{Cho13c}.
Especially, following the idea of \cite{Cho13a}, another potential function $W(w_1,\ldots,w_n)$
from the optimistic limit of the colored Jones polynomial
was defined in \cite{Cho13c} combinatorially from the link diagram. At first, we fix the link diagram\footnote{
We always assume the diagram does not contain a trivial knot component which has only over-crossings or under-crossings or no crossing.
If it happens, then we change the diagram of the trivial component slightly.
For example, applying Reidemeister second move to make different types of crossings
or Reidemeister first move to add a kink is good enough.
This assumption is necessary to guarantee that
the five-term triangulation becomes a topological triangulation of $\mathbb{S}^3\backslash(L\cup\{\text{two points}\})$.} $D$.
Then we assign variables $w_1,\ldots,w_n$ to regions
of the diagram and define a potential function of a crossing $j$ as in Figure \ref{fig01}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\setlength{\unitlength}{0.4cm}
\subfigure[Positive crossing]{
\begin{picture}(35,6)\thicklines
\put(6,5){\vector(-1,-1){4}}
\put(2,5){\line(1,-1){1.8}}
\put(4.2,2.8){\vector(1,-1){1.8}}
\put(3.5,1){$w_a$}
\put(5.5,3){$w_b$}
\put(3.5,4.5){$w_c$}
\put(1.5,3){$w_d$}
\put(8,3){$\longrightarrow$}
\put(11,4){$W_j:=-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_c}{w_b})-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_c}{w_d})+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_a w_c}{w_b w_d})+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_b}{w_a})+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_d}{w_a})$}
\put(15,2){$-\frac{\pi^2}{6}+\log\frac{w_b}{w_a}\log\frac{w_d}{w_a}$}
\put(3.6,2){$j$}
\end{picture}}\\
\subfigure[Negative crossing]{
\begin{picture}(35,6)\thicklines
\put(2,5){\vector(1,-1){4}}
\put(6,5){\line(-1,-1){1.8}}
\put(3.8,2.8){\vector(-1,-1){1.8}}
\put(3.5,1){$w_a$}
\put(5.5,3){$w_b$}
\put(3.5,4.5){$w_c$}
\put(1.5,3){$w_d$}
\put(8,3){$\longrightarrow$}
\put(11,4){$W_j:={\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_c}{w_b})+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_c}{w_d})-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_a w_c}{w_b w_d})-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_b}{w_a})-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_d}{w_a})$}
\put(15,2){$+\frac{\pi^2}{6}-\log\frac{w_b}{w_a}\log\frac{w_d}{w_a}$}
\put(3.6,2){$j$}
\end{picture}}
\caption{Potential function of the crossing $j$}\label{fig01}
\end{figure}
Then the potential function of $D$ is defined by
$$W(w_1,\ldots,w_n):=\sum_{j\text{ : crossings}}W_j,$$
and we modify it to
\begin{equation*
W_0(w_1,\ldots,w_n):=W(w_1,\ldots,w_n)-\sum_{k=1}^n \left(w_k\frac{\partial W}{\partial w_k}\right)\log w_k.
\end{equation*}
Also, from the potential function $W(w_1,\ldots,w_n)$, we define a set of equations
\begin{equation*
\mathcal{I}:=\left\{\left.\exp\left(w_k\frac{\partial W}{\partial w_k}\right)=1\right|k=1,\ldots,n\right\}.
\end{equation*}
Then, from Proposition 1.1 of \cite{Cho13c}, $\mathcal{I}$ becomes the set of hyperbolicity equations of
the five-term triangulation of $\mathbb{S}^3\backslash (L\cup\{\text{two points}\})$ {in Figure \ref{fig06}}. Here, hyperbolicity equations
are the equations that determine the complete hyperbolic structure of the triangulation, which consist of
gluing equations of edges and completeness condition. According to Yoshida's construction in Section 4.5 of \cite{Tillmann13},
a solution $\bold w=(w_1,\ldots,w_n)$ of $\mathcal{I}$ determines the boundary-parabolic representation
\begin{equation*
\rho_{\bold{w}}:\pi_1(\mathbb{S}^3\backslash (L\cup\{\text{two points}\}))=\pi_1(\mathbb{S}^3\backslash L)\longrightarrow{\rm PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}).
\end{equation*}
Theorem 1.2 of \cite{Cho13c} shows that, for the solution $\bold w$ of $\mathcal{I}$,
\begin{equation}\label{W1}
W_0(\bold{w})\equiv i({\rm vol}(\rho_{\bold w})+i\,{\rm cs}(\rho_{\bold w}))~~({\rm mod}~\pi^2),
\end{equation}
where ${\rm vol}(\rho_{\bold w})$ and ${\rm cs}(\rho_{\bold w})$ are the volume and the Chern-Simons invariant of the representation
$\rho_{\bold w}$ defined in \cite{Zickert09}, respectively.
We call ${\rm vol}(\rho_{\bold w})+i\,{\rm cs}(\rho_{\bold w})$ {\it the complex volume of $\rho_{\bold w}$}.
Although the potential function in \cite{Cho13c} determines the complex volume very nicely, there are two major problems.
\begin{enumerate}
\item When $\mathcal{I}$ has no solution, we cannot do anything with the potential function $W$.
\item We do not know whether the set $\{\rho_{\bold w}\,\vert\, {\bold w}\text{ is a solution of }\mathcal{I}\}$ contains
all possible boundary-parabolic representations $\rho:\pi_1(L)\rightarrow{\rm PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})$.
\end{enumerate}
In the case of the optimistic limit of Kashaev invariant, we solved these problems in \cite{Cho14a} by using the shadow-coloring of
the conjugation quandle $\mathcal{P}$ defined in \cite{Kabaya14}.
The purpose of this article is to solve the above problems
by constructing a solution of $\mathcal{I}$ using the same method.
\begin{thm}\label{thm1}
For any boundary-parabolic representation $\rho:\pi_1(L)\rightarrow{\rm PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})$ and any link diagram $D$ of $L$,
there exists the solution $\bold w^{(0)}$ of $\mathcal{I}$ satisfying
$\rho_{\bold w^{(0)}}=\rho,$
up to conjugate.
\end{thm}
The exact formula of $\bold w^{(0)}$ is in (\ref{main}), which is amazingly simple.
Using this solution, we define
{\it the colored Jones version of the optimistic limit of} $\rho$ by $W_0({\bold w^{(0)}})$.
Then, from (\ref{W1}), the optimistic limit is always the complex volume of $\rho$.
The author believes calculating this optimistic limit is the most convenient method to obtain
the complex volume of a given boundary-parabolic representation
because everything is combinatorially obtained from the link diagram.
Note that, the potential function and the triangulation of the Kashaev version in \cite{Cho13a} was slightly modified in \cite{Cho14a}
according to the information of the representation $\rho$ so as to guarantee the existence of a solution.
However, we do not need any modification of the colored Jones version in \cite{Cho13c}, which is a major advantage of this article.
{ Actually, if a link diagram contains Figure \ref{nosol} or a kink, then the unmodified Kashaev version does not have
solutions. (See \cite{Cho13c} for the proof. The modification needs extra information other than the link diagram.)
Due to the existence of a solution of the colored Jones version for any diagram and any $\rho$,
several combinatorial applications are possible.
See \cite{Cho15b} and \cite{Cho15a} for those applications.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}\includegraphics[scale=1]{nosolution}\end{center}
\caption{Example that Kashaev version does not have a solution}\label{nosol}
\end{figure}}
\section{Construction of the solution}
\subsection{Reviews on shadow-coloring}
This section is a summary of definitions and properties we need.
For complete descriptions, see {\cite{Kabaya14}, especially Section 5}.
Let $\mathcal{P}$ be the set of parabolic elements of ${\rm PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})={\rm Isom^+}(\mathbb{H}^3)$.
We identify $\mathbb{C}^2\backslash\{0\}/\pm$ with $\mathcal{P}$ by
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\\beta\end{array}\right)
\longleftrightarrow\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\alpha\beta & -\alpha^2 \\ \beta^2& 1-\alpha\beta\end{array}\right),$$
and define operation $*$ by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\\beta\end{array}\right)*\left(\begin{array}{c}\gamma \\ \delta\end{array}\right)
=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\gamma\delta & -\gamma^2 \\ \delta^2& 1-\gamma\delta\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\\beta\end{array}\right)\in\mathcal{P},
\end{eqnarray*}
where this operation is actually induced by the conjugation as follows:
$$ \left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\\beta\end{array}\right)*\left(\begin{array}{c}\gamma \\ \delta\end{array}\right)\in\mathcal{P}
\longleftrightarrow \left(\begin{array}{c}\gamma \\\delta\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \beta\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}\gamma \\\delta\end{array}\right)^{-1}\in{\rm PSL}(2,\mathbb{C}).$$
The inverse operation $*^{-1}$ is expressed by
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\\beta\end{array}\right)*^{-1}\left(\begin{array}{c}\gamma \\ \delta\end{array}\right)
=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1-\gamma\delta & \gamma^2 \\ -\delta^2& 1+\gamma\delta\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\\beta\end{array}\right)\in\mathcal{P},$$
and $(\mathcal{P},*)$ becomes a conjugation quandle.
Here, quandle means, for any $a,b,c\in\mathcal{P}$, the map $*b:a\mapsto a*b$ is bijective and
$$a*a=a, ~(a*b)*c=(a*c)*(b*c)$$
hold.
We define {\it the Hopf map} $h:\mathcal{P}\rightarrow\mathbb{CP}^1=\mathbb{C}\cup\{\infty\}$ by
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\\beta\end{array}\right)\mapsto \frac{\alpha}{\beta}.$$
For an oriented link diagram $D$ of $L$ and the boundary-parabolic representation $\rho$, we assign {\it arc-colors}
$a_1,\ldots,a_n\in\mathcal{P}$ to arcs of $D$ so that each $a_k$ is the image of the meridian around the arc
under the representation $\rho$. Note that, in Figure \ref{fig02}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{ope}
a_m=a_l*a_k.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering \setlength{\unitlength}{0.6cm}\thicklines
\begin{picture}(4.5,5.5)(1.5,0.5)
\put(6,5){\vector(-1,-1){4}}
\put(2,5){\line(1,-1){1.8}}
\put(4.2,2.8){\line(1,-1){1.8}}
\put(6.2,5.2){$a_k$}
\put(1.5,0.5){$a_k$}
\put(1.3,5.2){$a_l$}
\put(6.2,0.5){$a_m$}
\end{picture}
\caption{Arc-coloring}\label{fig02}
\end{figure}
We also assign {\it region-colors} $s_1,\ldots,s_m\in\mathcal{P}$ to regions of $D$ satisfying the rule in Figure \ref{fig03}.
Note that, if an arc-coloring is given, then a choice of one region-color determines all the other region-colors.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering \setlength{\unitlength}{0.6cm}\thicklines
\begin{picture}(6,5)
\put(6,4){\vector(-1,-1){4}}
\put(1.5,2.2){$s$}
\put(5,1.5){$s*a_k$}
\put(6.2,4.2){$a_k$}
\end{picture}
\caption{Region-coloring}\label{fig03}
\end{figure}
\begin{lem}\label{lem}
Consider the arc-coloring induced by the boundary-parabolic representation $\rho:\pi_1(L)\rightarrow {\rm PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})$.
Then, for any triple $(a_k,s,s*a_k)$ of an arc-color $a_k$ and its surrounding region-colors $s, s*a_k$ as in Figure \ref{fig03},
there exists a region-coloring satisfying
\begin{equation*}
h(a_k)\neq h(s)\neq h(s*a_k)\neq h(a_k).
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Although it was already proved in Proposition 2 of \cite{Kabaya14} and Lemma 2.4 of \cite{Cho14a},
we write down the proof again for the reader's convenience.
For the given arc-colors $a_1,\ldots,a_n$, we choose region-colors $s_1,\ldots,s_m$ so that
\begin{equation}\label{exi}
\{h(s_1),\ldots,h(s_m)\}\cap\{h(a_1),\ldots,h(a_n)\}=\emptyset.
\end{equation}
This is always possible because, the number of $h(s_1)$ satisfying $h(s_1)\in\{h(a_1),\ldots,h(a_n)\}$ is finite, and $h(s_2),\ldots,h(s_m)$
are uniquely determined by $h(s_1)$. Therefore, the number of $h(s_1)$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\{h(s_1),\ldots,h(s_m)\}\cap\{h(a_1),\ldots,h(a_n)\}\neq\emptyset
\end{equation*}
is finite, but we have infinitely many choice of the value $h(s_1)\in\mathbb{CP}^1$.
Now consider Figure \ref{fig03} and assume
$h(s*a_k)=h(s)$. Then we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eqnh}
h(s*a_k)=\widehat{a_k}(h(s))=h(s),
\end{equation}
where $\widehat{a_k}:\mathbb{CP}^1\rightarrow\mathbb{CP}^1$ is the M\"{o}bius transformation
\begin{equation}\label{mob}
\widehat{a_k}(z)=\frac{(1+\alpha_k\beta_k)z-\alpha_k^2}{\beta_k^2 z+(1-\alpha_k\beta_k)}
\end{equation}
of $a_k=\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha_k \\\beta_k\end{array}\right)$. Then (\ref{eqnh}) implies
$h(s)$ is the fixed point of $\widehat{a_k}$, which means $h(a_k)=h(s)$ that contradicts (\ref{exi}).
\end{proof}
{We remark that Lemma \ref{lem} holds for any choice of region-colors with only finitely many exceptions.
Therefore, if we want to find a region-color explicitly,
we choose $h(s_1)\notin\{h(a_1),\ldots,h(a_n)\}$ and then decide $h(s_2), \ldots, h(s_m)$ using
$$h(s_1*a)=\widehat{a}(h(s_1)),~h(s_1*^{-1} a)=\widehat{a}^{-1}(h(s_1)).$$
If this choice does not satisfy Lemma \ref{lem}, then we change $h(s_1)$ and do the same process again.
This process is very simple and it ends in finite steps. If proper $h(s_1)$ is chosen, then we can easily
extend it to $s_1\in\mathcal{P}$ and decide proper region-coloring $\{s_1,\ldots,s_m\}$.}
The arc-coloring induced by $\rho$ together with the region-coloring satisfying Lemma \ref{lem}
is called {\it the shadow-coloring induced by} $\rho$.
We choose $p\in\mathcal{P}$ so that
\begin{equation}\label{p}
h(p)\notin\{h(a_1),\ldots,h(a_n), h(s_1),\ldots,h(s_m)\}.
\end{equation}
The geometric shape of the five-term triangulation will be determined by the shadow-coloring induced by $\rho$ and $p$
in the following section.
From now on, we fix the representatives of shadow-colors in $\mathbb{C}^2\backslash\{0\}$.
As mentioned in \cite{Cho14a}, the representatives of some arc-colors may satisfy (\ref{ope}) up to sign,
in other words, $a_m=\pm (a_l*a_k)$ {in Figure \ref{fig02}}.
However, the representatives of the region-colors are uniquely determined due to the fact $s*(\pm a)=s*a$
for any region-color $s$ and any arc-color $a$.
For $a=\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha_1 \\\alpha_2\end{array}\right)$ and $
b=\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta_1 \\\beta_2\end{array}\right)$ in $\mathbb{C}^2\backslash\{0\}$,
we define {\it determinant} $\det(a,b)$ by
\begin{equation*}
\det(a,b):=\det\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha_1 & \beta_1 \\\alpha_2 & \beta_2\end{array}\right)=\alpha_1 \beta_2-\beta_1 \alpha_2.
\end{equation*}
Then it satisfies
$\det(a*c,b*c)=\det(a,b)$
for any $a,b,c\in\mathbb{C}^2\backslash\{0\}$. Furthermore, for $v_0,\ldots,v_3\in\mathbb{C}^2\backslash \{0\}$,
the cross-ratio can be expressed using the determinant by
$$[h(v_0),h(v_1),h(v_2),h(v_3)]=\frac{\det(v_0,v_3)\det(v_1,v_2)}{\det(v_0,v_2)\det(v_1,v_3)}.$$
(For the proof of these, see {Lemma 2.9} of \cite{Cho14a}.)
\subsection{Geometric shape of the five-term triangulation}\label{sec22}
The five-term triangulation is obtained by placing octahedra on each crossings and subdivide them into five tetrahedra.
(See Section 3 of \cite{Cho13c} for exact description.)
Consider the crossing in Figure \ref{fig04} with the shadow-coloring induced by $\rho$, and let $w_a,\ldots,w_d$
be the variables assigned to regions of $D$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[Positive crossing]{\begin{picture}(6,5.5)
\setlength{\unitlength}{0.8cm}\thicklines
\put(6,5){\vector(-1,-1){4}}
\put(2,5){\line(1,-1){1.8}}
\put(4.2,2.8){\vector(1,-1){1.8}}
\put(6.2,5.2){$a_k$}
\put(1.3,0.8){$a_k$}
\put(1.3,5.2){$a_l$}
\put(6.2,0.8){$a_l*a_k$}
\put(3.5,4.7){$s*a_l$}
\put(3.9,4.2){$w_c$}
\put(2,3){$s$}
\put(1.9,2.5){$w_d$}
\put(5.5,3){\small $(s*a_l)*a_k$}
\put(6.5,2.5){$w_b$}
\put(3.5,1){$s*a_k$}
\put(3.9,0.5){$w_a$}
\end{picture}}
\subfigure[Negative crossing]{\begin{picture}(6,5.5)
\setlength{\unitlength}{0.8cm}\thicklines
\put(6,5){\vector(-1,-1){4}}
\put(3.8,3.2){\vector(-1,1){1.8}}
\put(4.2,2.8){\line(1,-1){1.8}}
\put(6.2,5.2){$a_k$}
\put(1.3,0.8){$a_k$}
\put(1.3,5.2){$a_l$}
\put(6.2,0.8){$a_l*a_k$}
\put(4,4.7){$s$}
\put(3.9,4.2){$w_d$}
\put(1.2,3){$s*a_l$}
\put(1.5,2.5){$w_a$}
\put(5.5,3){$s*a_k$}
\put(5.8,2.5){$w_c$}
\put(3,1){\small $(s*a_l)*a_k$}
\put(3.9,0.5){$w_b$}
\end{picture}}
\caption{Crossing with shadow-coloring and region variables}\label{fig04}
\end{figure}
We place tetrahedra at each crossings of $D$ and assign coordinates as in Figure \ref{fig05}
so as to make them hyperbolic ideal ones.
As a matter of fact, Figure \ref{fig05} is the same with Figure 11 of \cite{Cho14a} without orientations,
which was used only for a degenerate crossing.\footnote{
A crossing is called {\it degenerate} when $h(a_k)=h(a_l)$ holds
for the two arcs of the crossing with arc-colors $a_k$ and $a_l$.}
Interestingly, this subdivision is good enough for our purpose whether the crossing is degenerate or not.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[Positive crossing]{\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{pic5a}
\subfigure[Negative crossing]{\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{pic5b}}
\caption{Cooridnates of tetrahedra at the crossing in Figure \ref{fig04}}\label{fig05}
\end{figure}
\begin{lem}\label{lem2}
All the tetrahedra in Figure \ref{fig05} are non-degenerate.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It is trivial because the shadow-coloring we are considering satisfies Lemma \ref{lem},
and all endpoints of edges are adjacent, as $h(a_k), h(s), h(s*a_k)$ in Figure \ref{fig03}, or one of them is $h(p)$.
\end{proof}
According to Yoshida's construction in Section 4.5 of \cite{Tillmann13},
the shape of the triangulation according to the coordinates in Figure \ref{fig05} determines a boundary-parabolic representation
$\rho':\pi_1(L)\rightarrow{\rm PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})$. However, $\rho'$ equals to $\rho$ up to conjugate because,
due to the Poincar\'{e} polyhedron theorem, $\pi_1(L)$ is generated by face-pairing maps. In Figure \ref{fig05},
the face-pairing maps are the isomorphisms induced by M\"{o}bius transformations of ${a_1},\ldots,a_n\in{\rm PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})$.
Therefore, two representations $\rho$ and $\rho'$
send generators to the same elements $a_1,\ldots,a_n$, which means $\rho=\rho'$ up to conjugate.
To make the five-term triangulation, we glue the face $\{h(a_k), h(s), h(s*a_l)\}$ to $\{h(a_k), h(s*a_k), h((s*a_l)*a_k)\}$
by sending the tetrahedron $\{h(a_k), h(s), h(s*a_l), h(p)\}$ by the isomorphism induced by ${a}_k$.
After applying 2-3 move along the edge $\{h(p*a_k),h(p)\}$, we obtain Figure \ref{fig06}.
Here we assigned the vertex-orientation according to Figure 9 of \cite{Cho13c}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[Positive crossing]{\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{pic6a}
\subfigure[Negative crossing]{\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{pic6b}}
\caption{Five-term triangulation at the crossing in Figure \ref{fig04}}\label{fig06}
\end{figure}
\begin{pro}\label{pro} All the tetrahedra in Figure \ref{fig06} are non-degenerate.
\end{pro}
\begin{proof} All the edges of the tetrahedra were already appeared in Lemm \ref{lem2} expect $\{h(p*a_k),h(p)\}$,
so it is enough to show that $h(p*a_k)\neq h(a_k)$.
Assume $h(p*a_k)=h(a_k)$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{eqnh}
h(p*a_k)=\widehat{a_k}(h(p))=h(p),
\end{equation}
where $\widehat{a_k}:\mathbb{CP}^1\rightarrow\mathbb{CP}^1$ is the M\"{o}bius transformation
of $a_k$ defined in (\ref{mob}). Then (\ref{eqnh}) implies
$h(p)$ is the fixed point of $\widehat{a_k}$, which means $h(a_k)=h(p)$. This contradicts the definition (\ref{p}) of $p$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Formula of the solution ${\bold w}^{(0)}$}\label{sec23}
Consider the crossing in Figure \ref{fig04} and the tetrahedra in Figure \ref{fig06}. For the positive crossing,
we assign shape parameters to the edges as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\displaystyle\frac{w_d}{w_a}$ to $(h(a_k), h(s*a_k))$ of $(h(p*a_k),h(p),h(a_k), h(s*a_k))$,
\item $\displaystyle\frac{w_b}{w_c}$ to $(h(a_k), h((s*a_l)*a_k))$ of $-(h(p*a_k),h(p),h(a_k), h((s*a_l)*a_k))$,
\item $\displaystyle\frac{w_b}{w_a}$ to $(h(p), h(a_l*a_k))$ of $(h(p), h(a_l*a_k),h(s*a_k), h((s*a_l)*a_k))$ and
\item $\displaystyle\frac{w_d}{w_c}$ to $(h(p), h(a_l))$ of $-(h(p), h(a_l),h(s), h(s*a_l))$, respectively.
\end{itemize}
On the other hand, for the negative crossing,
we assign shape parameters to the edges as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\displaystyle\frac{w_a}{w_b}$ to $(h(a_k), h((s*a_l)*a_k))$ of $-(h(p),h(p*a_k),h(a_k), h((s*a_l)*a_k))$,
\item $\displaystyle\frac{w_c}{w_d}$ to $(h(a_k), h(s*a_k))$ of $(h(p),h(p*a_k),h(a_k), h(s*a_k))$,
\item $\displaystyle\frac{w_c}{w_b}$ to $(h(p), h(a_l*a_k))$ of $(h(p), h(a_l*a_k), h((s*a_l)*a_k),h(s*a_k))$ and
\item $\displaystyle\frac{w_a}{w_d}$ to $(h(p), h(a_l))$ of $-(h(p), h(a_l),h(s*a_l), h(s))$, respectively.
\end{itemize}
According to Proposition 1.1 of \cite{Cho13c}, $\mathcal{I}$ becomes the set of hyperbolicity equations
of the five-term triangulation with the above shape parameters.
For a region of $D$ with region-color $s_k$ and region-variable $w_k$, we define
\begin{equation}\label{main}
w_k^{(0)}:=\det(p,s_k).
\end{equation}
Then, by the definition of $p$, we know $w_k^{(0)}\not= 0$. Furthermore, direct calculation shows
${\bold w^{(0)}}=(w_1^{(0)},\ldots,w_n^{(0)})$ is a solution of $\mathcal{I}$.
Specifically, for the first two cases of the positive crossing, the shape parameters
assigned to edges $(h(a_k), h(s*a_k))$ and $(h(a_k), h((s*a_l)*a_k))$ are the cross-ratios
\begin{eqnarray*}
[h(p*a_k),h(p),h(a_k), h(s*a_k)]&=&\frac{\det(p*a_k,s*a_k)\det(p,a_k)}{\det(p*a_k,a_k)\det(p,s*a_k)}\\
&=&\frac{\det(p,s)\det(p,a_k)}{\det(p,a_k)\det(p,s*a_k)}=\frac{w_d^{(0)}}{w_a^{(0)}},\\
{[h}(p*a_k),h(p),h(a_k), h((s*a_l)*a_k)]^{-1}
&=&\frac{\det(p*a_k,a_k)\det(p,(s*a_l)*a_k)}{\det(p*a_k,(s*a_l)*a_k)\det(p,a_k)}\\
&=&\frac{\det(p,a_k)\det(p,(s*a_l)*a_k)}{\det(p,s*a_l)\det(p,a_k)}=\frac{w_b^{(0)}}{w_c^{(0)}},
\end{eqnarray*}
respectively, and all the other cases can be verified by the same way.
The proof of Theorem \ref{thm1} follows from the above and the discussion below Lemma \ref{lem2}.
\section{Examples}
We consider the same examples in Section 4 of \cite{Cho14a}.
\subsection{Figure-eight knot $4_1$}\label{sec31}
\begin{figure}[h]\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{4_1}
\caption{Figure-eight knot $4_1$ with parameters}\label{example1}
\end{figure}
For the figure-eight knot diagram in Figure \ref{example1},
let the representatives of the shadow-coloring be
\begin{align*}
a_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}0 \\t\end{array}\right),~a_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}1 \\0\end{array}\right),~
a_3=\left(\begin{array}{c}-t \\1+t\end{array}\right),~a_4=\left(\begin{array}{c}-t \\t\end{array}\right),\\
s_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}1 \\1\end{array}\right),~s_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}0 \\1\end{array}\right),~
s_3=\left(\begin{array}{c}-t-1 \\t+2\end{array}\right),~s_4=\left(\begin{array}{c}-2t-1 \\2t+3\end{array}\right),\\
s_5=\left(\begin{array}{c}-2t-1 \\t+4\end{array}\right),~s_6=\left(\begin{array}{c}1 \\t+2\end{array}\right),~
p=\left(\begin{array}{c}2 \\1\end{array}\right),
\end{align*}
where $t$ is a solution of $t^2+t+1=0$, and
let $\rho:\pi_1(4_1)\rightarrow{\rm PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})$ be the boundary-parabolic representation determined by $a_1,\ldots,a_4$.
The potential function $W(w_1,\ldots,w_6)$ of Figure \ref{example1} is
\begin{align*}
W=\left\{{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_1}{w_2})+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_1}{w_4})-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_1 w_3}{w_2 w_4})
-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_2}{w_3})-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_4}{w_3})+\frac{\pi^2}{6}-\log\frac{w_2}{w_3}\log\frac{w_4}{w_3}\right\}\\
+\left\{{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_3}{w_2})+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_3}{w_6})-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_1 w_3}{w_2 w_6})
-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_2}{w_1})-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_6}{w_1})+\frac{\pi^2}{6}-\log\frac{w_2}{w_1}\log\frac{w_6}{w_1}\right\}\\
+\left\{-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_4}{w_3})-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_4}{w_5})+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_4 w_6}{w_3 w_5})
+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_3}{w_6})+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_5}{w_6})-\frac{\pi^2}{6}+\log\frac{w_3}{w_6}\log\frac{w_5}{w_6}\right\}\\
+\left\{-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_6}{w_1})-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_6}{w_5})+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_4 w_6}{w_1 w_5})
+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_1}{w_4})+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_5}{w_4})-\frac{\pi^2}{6}+\log\frac{w_1}{w_4}\log\frac{w_5}{w_4}\right\}.
\end{align*}
Applying (\ref{main}), we obtain
\begin{align*}
w_1^{(0)}=\det(p,s_1)=1,~w_2^{(0)}=\det(p,s_2)=2,~w_3^{(0)}=\det(p,s_3)=3t+5,\\
w_4^{(0)}=\det(p,s_4)=6t+7,~w_5^{(0)}=\det(p,s_5)=4t+9,~w_6^{(0)}=\det(p,s_6)=2t+3,
\end{align*}
and $(w_1^{(0)},\ldots,w_6^{(0)})$ becomes a solution of
$\mathcal{I}=\{\exp(w_k\frac{\partial W}{\partial w_k})=1~|~k=1,\ldots,6\}$.
Applying (\ref{W1}), we obtain
\begin{equation*}
W_0(w_1^{(0)},\ldots,w_6^{(0)})\equiv i({\rm vol}(\rho)+i\,{\rm cs}(\rho))~~({\rm mod}~\pi^2),
\end{equation*}
and numerical calculation verifies it by
\begin{equation*}
W_0(w_1^{(0)},\ldots,w_6^{(0)})=
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}i(2.0299...+0\,i)=i({\rm vol}(4_1)+i\,{\rm cs}(4_1))&\text{ if }t=\frac{-1-\sqrt{3} \,i}{2}, \\
i(-2.0299...+0\,i)=i(-{\rm vol}(4_1)+i\,{\rm cs}(4_1))&\text{ if }t=\frac{-1+\sqrt{3}\,i}{2}. \end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
\subsection{Trefoil knot $3_1$}\label{sec32}
\begin{figure}[h]\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{3_1}
\caption{Trefoil knot $3_1$ with parameters}\label{example2}
\end{figure}
For the trefoil knot diagram in Figure \ref{example2},
let the representatives of the shadow-coloring be
\begin{align*}
a_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}1 \\0\end{array}\right),~a_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}0 \\1\end{array}\right),~
a_3=a_4=\left(\begin{array}{c}-1 \\1\end{array}\right),\\
s_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}-1 \\2\end{array}\right),~s_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}1 \\2\end{array}\right),~
s_3=\left(\begin{array}{c}-1 \\3\end{array}\right),~s_4=\left(\begin{array}{c}0 \\1\end{array}\right),\\
s_5=\left(\begin{array}{c}1 \\1\end{array}\right),s_6=\left(\begin{array}{c}-2 \\3\end{array}\right),
~p=\left(\begin{array}{c}2 \\1\end{array}\right),
\end{align*}
and let $\rho:\pi_1(3_1)\rightarrow{\rm PSL}(2,\mathbb{C})$
be the boundary-parabolic representation determined by $a_1,a_2,a_3, a_4$.
The potential function
$W(w_1,\ldots, w_6)$ of Figure \ref{example2} is
\begin{align*}
W=\left\{-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_3}{w_1})-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_3}{w_5})+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_2 w_3}{w_1 w_5})
+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_1}{w_2})+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_5}{w_2})-\frac{\pi^2}{6}+\log\frac{w_1}{w_2}\log\frac{w_5}{w_2}\right\}\\
+\left\{-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_2}{w_1})-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_2}{w_5})+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_2 w_4}{w_1 w_5})
+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_1}{w_4})+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_5}{w_4})-\frac{\pi^2}{6}+\log\frac{w_1}{w_4}\log\frac{w_5}{w_4}\right\}\\
+\left\{-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_4}{w_1})-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_4}{w_5})+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_3 w_4}{w_1 w_5})
+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_1}{w_3})+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_5}{w_3})-\frac{\pi^2}{6}+\log\frac{w_1}{w_3}\log\frac{w_5}{w_3}\right\}\\
+\left\{{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_1}{w_4})+{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_1}{w_6})-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_1^2}{w_4 w_6})
-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_4}{w_1})-{\rm Li}_2(\frac{w_6}{w_1})+\frac{\pi^2}{6}-\log\frac{w_4}{w_1}\log\frac{w_6}{w_1}\right\}.
\end{align*}
Applying (\ref{main}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
w_1^{(0)}=\det(p,s_1)=5,~w_2^{(0)}=\det(p,s_2)=3,~w_3^{(0)}=\det(p,s_3)=7,\\
w_4^{(0)}=\det(p,s_4)=2,~w_5^{(0)}=\det(p,s_5)=1,~w_6^{(0)}=\det(p,s_6)=8,
\end{eqnarray*}
and $(w_1^{(0)},\ldots,w_6^{(0)})$ becomes a solution of
$\mathcal{I}=\{\exp(w_k\frac{\partial W}{\partial w_k})=1~|~k=1,\ldots,6\}$.
Applying (\ref{W1}), we obtain
\begin{equation*}
W_0(w_1^{(0)},\ldots,w_6^{(0)})\equiv i({\rm vol}(\rho)+i\,{\rm cs}(\rho))~~({\rm mod}~\pi^2),
\end{equation*}
and numerical calculation verifies it by
\begin{equation*}
{W}_0(w_1^{(0)},\ldots,w_6^{(0)})=i(0+1.6449...i),
\end{equation*}
where ${\rm vol}(3_1)=0$ holds trivially and $1.6449...=\frac{\pi^2}{6}$ holds numerically.
\vspace{5mm}
\begin{ack}
The author appreciates Seonhwa Kim. He already predicted the existence of a solution
when the author defined the potential function of the colored Jones polynomial several years ago.
{This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
funded by the Ministry of Education (2014047764).}
\end{ack}
|
\section{Introduction}
Recently, Gill et al. introduce a new operator, the particle's
position-momentum dot product $\mathbf{x}\cdot\mathbf{p}$, or \textit{posmom}
as they called, and establish a \textit{posmometry} (the distribution
density of the posmom) for some atomic and molecular systems. \cit
{posmometry1,posmometry2} The \textit{posmom }operator in one of the
Cartesian axes, say, $x$ axis $Q_{x}\equiv(xp_{x}+p_{x}x)/2$, is an
essentially self-adjoint operator. \cite{winter,milburn} In Ref.
\onlinecite{liu141}], we developed this operator on the a two-dimensional
spherical surface $S^{2}$ and successfully worked out its distribution
densities for some molecular rotational states. In this Letter, we explore
the posmometry of quantum states on a circle which frequently model the
planar rigid rotor, molecular rotation constrained on a plane, etc..
As embedding $S^{1}$ in the two-dimensional flat space $R^{2}$, there are
two operators $Q_{i}$ $(i=x,y)$ that are respectively defined along two
Cartesian axes of coordinate respectively, which turn out to take following
form,
\begin{equation}
Q_{i}=\frac{1}{2}\left( x_{i}p_{i}+p_{i}x_{i}\right) ,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{x}=(r\cos\varphi,r\sin\varphi),\varphi\in(0,2\pi)$, and
p_{x}=i\hbar/r\left( \sin\varphi\partial_{\varphi}+\cos\varphi/2\right) $,
p_{y}=-i\hbar/r\left( \cos\varphi\partial_{\varphi}-\sin\varphi/2\right) $.
In fact, the momenta $p_{x}$ and $p_{y}$ are special case of the the
so-called geometric momentum $\mathbf{p}=-i\hbar(\nabla_{surf}+M\mathbf{n/}2)
$ \cite{liu133} on an $N$-dimensional surface which is embedded in $N+1$
dimensional Euclidean space, where $\nabla_{surf}$ is the gradient operator
on surface, and $M$ is the mean curvature and $\mathbf{n}$ is the normal
vector. \cite{liu133} The explicit forms of $Q_{x}$ and $Q_{y}$ are
\begin{equation}
Q_{x}=\frac{i\hbar}{2}(\sin2\varphi\frac{\partial}{\partial\varphi
+\cos2\varphi),\text{ }Q_{y}=-Q_{x}. \label{indep}
\end{equation}
In the following section II, I\ will present the elementary properties of
this operator. In section III, I will give the posmometry for eigenstates of
the $z$-component angular momentum $L_{z}:\Phi_{m}\left( \varphi\right)
=\exp(im\varphi)/\sqrt{2\pi}$, $m=0,\pm1,\pm2,...$. Final section VI is our
conclusions.
\section{Elementary properties of the posmom operator}
The following properties of the two posmom operators $Q_{i}$ $(i=1,2)$ are
easily attainable.
i) Since the geometric momentum $\mathbf{p}$ describes the motion
constrained on the surface $S^{1}$ and there is no motion along the normal
direction $\mathbf{n}$, which in quantum mechanics is expressed by $\mathbf
x\cdot p+p\cdot x}\equiv2(Q_{x}+Q_{y})=0$ while it is in classical mechanics
expressed by $\mathbf{x\cdot p}=0$. This is why two operators $Q_{x}$ and
Q_{y}$ are linearly dependent, as shown in Eq. (\ref{indep}). So it suffices
to study one of the them, and I\ will concentrate $Q_{x}$.
ii) The operator $Q_{x}$ has the reflection symmetry:
\begin{equation}
Q_{x}(\Theta\pm\varphi)=Q_{x}(\Theta+\varphi),\text{ }\Theta=0,\frac{\pi}{2
,\pi,\frac{3\pi}{2}.
\end{equation}
In other words, posmom $Q_{x}$ commutes with two parity operators $m_{x}$
and $m_{y}$ denoting two reflections about axes $x=0$, $y=0$ respectively,
and we have,
\begin{equation}
\left[ m_{x},Q_{x}\right] =\left[ m_{y},Q_{x}\right] =0.
\end{equation}
This mirror invariance is helpful in construction of the complete set of the
eigenfunctions on the circle once the eigenfunctions of $Q_{x}$ in four
quadrants\ $\varphi\in(0,\pi/2),$ $(\pi/2,\pi)$, $(\pi,3\pi/2)$ and
(3\pi/2,2\pi)$ are known, respectively.
iii) In the full circle\ $\varphi \in (0,2\pi )$, we have the solution to
the eigenvalue problem $Q_{x}\xi _{\lambda }(\varphi )=\hbar \lambda \xi
_{\lambda }(\varphi )$,
\begin{equation}
\xi _{\lambda }(\varphi )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\left\vert
\sin 2\varphi \right\vert }}\exp (-i\lambda \ln \left\vert \tan \varphi
\right\vert )\text{, }\lambda \in (-\infty ,\infty ),
\end{equation
which is delta function normalized in any one of four quadrants, say in the
first: $\int_{0}^{\pi /2}\xi _{\lambda ^{\prime }}^{\ast }(\varphi )\xi
_{\lambda }(\varphi )d\varphi =\delta (\lambda ^{\prime }-\lambda )$. For
convenience, we can use $\left\vert \xi _{\lambda }^{J}\right\rangle $ (
J=I,II,III,IV$) to denote the eigenfunctions defined within the $J$th
quadrants of the circle respectively.
iv) Note that $\left\vert \xi_{\lambda}^{J}\right\rangle $ is not the
simultaneous eigenfunction of operators $Q_{x}(\varphi)$, $m_{x}$ and $m_{y}
. The complete simultaneous eigenfunction set of operators $Q_{x}(\varphi)$,
$m_{x}$ and $m_{y}$ is given by,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\left\vert \psi_{\lambda}^{xy}\right\rangle & =\left( \left\vert
\xi_{\lambda}^{I}\right\rangle +\left\vert \xi_{\lambda}^{II}\right\rangle
+\left\vert \xi_{\lambda}^{III}\right\rangle +\left\vert
\xi_{\lambda}^{VI}\right\rangle \right) /2, \label{parity1} \\
\left\vert \psi_{\lambda}^{\overline{x}\overline{y}}\right\rangle & =\left(
\left\vert \xi_{\lambda}^{I}\right\rangle -\left\vert
\xi_{\lambda}^{II}\right\rangle +\left\vert \xi_{\lambda}^{III}\right\rangle
-\left\vert \xi_{\lambda}^{VI}\right\rangle \right) /2, \label{parity2} \\
\left\vert \psi_{\lambda}^{\overline{x}y}\right\rangle & =\left( \left\vert
\xi_{\lambda}^{I}\right\rangle +\left\vert \xi_{\lambda}^{II}\right\rangle
-\left\vert \xi_{\lambda}^{III}\right\rangle -\left\vert
\xi_{\lambda}^{VI}\right\rangle \right) /2, \label{parity3} \\
\left\vert \psi_{\lambda}^{x\overline{y}}\right\rangle & =\left( \left\vert
\xi_{\lambda}^{I}\right\rangle -\left\vert \xi_{\lambda}^{II}\right\rangle
-\left\vert \xi_{\lambda}^{III}\right\rangle +\left\vert
\xi_{\lambda}^{VI}\right\rangle \right) /2, \label{parity4}
\end{align}
where $x$ and $\overline{x}$ indicate even and odd parity respectively about
$x$-axis, and so on,
\end{subequations}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
m_{x}m_{y}\left\vert \psi_{\lambda}^{xy}\right\rangle & =m_{y}\left\vert
\psi_{\lambda}^{xy}\right\rangle =\left\vert
\psi_{\lambda}^{xy}\right\rangle ,m_{x}m_{y}\left\vert \psi_{\lambda}^
\overline{x}\overline{y}}\right\rangle =-m_{y}\left\vert \psi_{\lambda}^
\overline{x}\overline{y}}\right\rangle =\left\vert \psi_{\lambda}^{\overline
x}\overline{y}}\right\rangle , \\
m_{x}m_{y}\left\vert \psi_{\lambda}^{\overline{x}y}\right\rangle &
=m_{x}\left\vert \psi_{\lambda}^{\overline{x}y}\right\rangle =-\left\vert
\psi_{\lambda}^{\overline{x}y}\right\rangle ,m_{x}m_{y}\left\vert
\psi_{\lambda}^{x\overline{y}}\right\rangle =m_{y}\left\vert \psi_{\lambda
}^{x\overline{y}}\right\rangle =-\left\vert \psi_{\lambda}^{x\overline{y
}\right\rangle .
\end{align}
The orthonormality and completeness of the eigenfunction set (\ref{parity1
)-(\ref{parity4}) are satisfied. I.e., we have following two relations,
\end{subequations}
\begin{equation}
1,\text{ }\left\langle
\psi_{\lambda^{\prime}}^{i^{\prime}j^{\prime}}\left\vert
\psi_{\lambda}^{ij}\right\rangle \right. =\delta(\lambda^{\prime
}-\lambda)\delta_{i^{\prime}i}\delta_{j^{\prime}j},
\end{equation}
where $(i,j)$ standing for $x,y,\overline{x}$, and $\overline{y}$. For any
state $\Phi\left( \varphi\right) $ on the circle, we have,
\begin{equation}
2,\text{ }\Phi\left( \varphi\right) =\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\alpha\left(
\lambda\right) \psi_{\lambda}^{xy}\left( \varphi\right) d\lambda
+\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\beta\left( \lambda\right) \psi_{\lambda}^{\overline
x}\overline{y}}\left( \varphi\right) d\lambda+\int_{-\infty
}^{\infty}\mu\left( \lambda\right) \psi_{\lambda}^{\overline{x}y}\left(
\varphi\right) d\lambda+\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\upsilon\left( \lambda
\right) \psi_{\lambda}^{x\overline{y}}\left( \varphi\right) d\lambda ,
\label{complete2}
\end{equation}
where, $\int\left( \left\vert \alpha\left( \lambda\right) \right\vert
^{2}+\left\vert \beta\left( \lambda\right) \right\vert ^{2}+\left\vert
\mu\left( \lambda\right) \right\vert ^{2}+\left\vert \upsilon\left(
\lambda\right) \right\vert ^{2}\right) d\lambda=1$. This normalization
clearly states that for a given $\lambda$, the distribution density
p(\lambda)$ usually comes form four parts,
\begin{equation}
p(\lambda)=\left\vert \alpha\left( \lambda\right) \right\vert
^{2}+\left\vert \beta\left( \lambda\right) \right\vert ^{2}+\left\vert
\mu\left( \lambda\right) \right\vert ^{2}+\left\vert \upsilon\left(
\lambda\right) \right\vert ^{2}\text{.} \label{p}
\end{equation}
It means that for a given $\lambda$, the probability amplitude is from Eq.
\ref{complete2}) a four-valued function,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\alpha\left( \lambda\right) & =\int_{0}^{2\pi}\psi_{\lambda}^{xy\ast }\left(
\varphi\right) \Phi\left( \varphi\right) d\varphi,\text{ }\beta\left(
\lambda\right) =\int_{0}^{\pi/2}\psi_{\lambda}^{\overline {x}\overline{y
\ast}\left( \varphi\right) \Phi\left( \varphi\right) d\varphi, \\
\mu\left( \lambda\right) & =\int_{0}^{2\pi}\psi_{\lambda}^{\overline {x
y\ast}\left( \varphi\right) \Phi\left( \varphi\right) d\varphi,\text{
\upsilon\left( \lambda\right) =\int_{0}^{\pi/2}\psi_{\lambda}^{x\overline{y
\ast}\left( \varphi\right) \Phi\left( \varphi\right) d\varphi.
\end{align}
However, in the following section, we see that for the eigenstates $\Phi
_{m}\left( \varphi\right) =\exp(im\varphi)/\sqrt{2\pi}$ of the $z$-component
angular momentum $L_{z}$, the probability amplitude is in general
triple-valued.
\section{Posmometry for eigenstates of the $z$-component angular momentum
L_{z}$}
As is well known, the $z$-component angular momentum $L_{z}=-i\hbar \partial
_{\varphi }$ has a complete set of eigenfunctions $\Phi _{m}\left( \varphi
\right) =\exp (im\varphi )/\sqrt{2\pi }$ ($m=0$, $\pm 1$, $\pm 2$, ...) that
span a Hilbert space for analyzing any state on $S^{1}$. In general, we
have,
\end{subequations}
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\exp (im\varphi )=\int_{0}^{2\pi }\alpha _{m}\left(
\lambda \right) \psi _{\lambda }^{xy}d\lambda +\int_{0}^{2\pi }\beta
_{m}\left( \lambda \right) \psi _{\lambda }^{\overline{x}\overline{y
}d\lambda +\int_{0}^{2\pi }\mu _{m}\left( \lambda \right) \psi _{\lambda }^
\overline{x}y}d\lambda +\int_{0}^{2\pi }\upsilon _{m}\left( \lambda \right)
\psi _{\lambda }^{x\overline{y}}d\lambda
\end{equation*
where the expansion coefficients $\alpha _{m}\left( \lambda \right) $,
\beta _{m}\left( \lambda \right) $, $\mu _{m}\left( \lambda \right) $ and
\upsilon _{m}\left( \lambda \right) $ are given by,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\alpha _{m}\left( \lambda \right) & =\frac{1+(-1)^{m}}{2\pi \sqrt{2}}\left(
I_{m}\left( \lambda \right) +\exp \left( \frac{im\pi }{2}\right) I_{m}\left(
-\lambda \right) \right) , \\
\beta _{m}\left( \lambda \right) & =\frac{1+(-1)^{m}}{2\pi \sqrt{2}}\left(
I_{m}\left( \lambda \right) -\exp \left( \frac{im\pi }{2}\right) I_{m}\left(
-\lambda \right) \right) , \\
\mu _{m}\left( \lambda \right) & =\frac{1-(-1)^{m}}{2\pi \sqrt{2}}\left(
I_{m}\left( \lambda \right) +\exp \left( \frac{im\pi }{2}\right) I_{m}\left(
-\lambda \right) \right) , \\
\upsilon _{m}\left( \lambda \right) & =\frac{1-(-1)^{m}}{2\pi \sqrt{2}
\left( I_{m}\left( \lambda \right) -\exp \left( \frac{im\pi }{2}\right)
I_{m}\left( -\lambda \right) \right) ,
\end{align
with,
\end{subequations}
\begin{align}
I_{m}\left( \lambda \right) & =\int_{0}^{\pi /2}\frac{\exp (im\varphi )}
\sqrt{\sin 2\varphi }}\exp (i\lambda \ln \tan \varphi )d\varphi \\
=& \left( \frac{1}{2}+\frac{i}{2}\right) e^{-\frac{\pi \lambda }{2}}\Gamma
\left( \frac{m+1}{2}\right) \left\{ f(\lambda ,m)-i^{m+1}f^{\ast }(\lambda
,m)\right\} ,
\end{align
in which with $F(a,b;c;z)$ symbolizing the hypergeometric function,
\begin{equation}
f(\lambda ,m)=\frac{\Gamma \left( \frac{1}{2}+i\lambda \right) }{\Gamma
\left( \frac{m}{2}+1+i\lambda \right) }\,F\left( \frac{1}{2}+i\lambda ,\frac
m+1}{2};\frac{m}{2}+1+i\lambda ;-1\right) .
\end{equation
Because of the eigenfunctions $\Phi _{m}\left( \varphi \right) $ can be
decomposed into two parts according to mirror symmetry operators: $\exp
(im\varphi )/\sqrt{2\pi }=\left\{ \cos (m\varphi )+i\sin (m\varphi )\right\}
/\sqrt{2\pi }$, it is for our purpose sufficient to study the eigenfunctions
$\Phi _{m}\left( \varphi \right) $ with $m\succeq 0$. Evidently, for $m$
being a positive even number $m=2k$ ($k=1,2,3,...$), we obtain,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\alpha _{2k}\left( \lambda \right) & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi }\left(
I_{2k}\left( \lambda \right) +\left( -1\right) ^{k}I_{2k}\left( -\lambda
\right) \right) , \\
\beta _{2k}\left( \lambda \right) & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi }\left(
I_{2k}\left( \lambda \right) -\left( -1\right) ^{k}I_{2k}\left( -\lambda
\right) \right) , \\
\mu _{2k}\left( \lambda \right) & =\upsilon _{2k}\left( \lambda \right) =0.
\end{align
For $m$ being a positive odd number $m=2k+1$ ($k=1,2,3,...$), we obtain,
\end{subequations}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\mu _{2k+1}\left( \lambda \right) & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi }\left(
I_{2k+1}\left( \lambda \right) +i\left( -1\right) ^{k}I_{2k+1}\left(
-\lambda \right) \right) , \\
\upsilon _{2k+1}\left( \lambda \right) & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi }\left(
I_{2k+1}\left( \lambda \right) -i\left( -1\right) ^{k}I_{2k+1}\left(
-\lambda \right) \right) , \\
\alpha _{2k+1}\left( \lambda \right) & =\beta _{2k+1}\left( \lambda \right)
=0.
\end{align
So, we see that the probability amplitude is in general triple-valued.
Unfortunately, the expansion coefficients ($\alpha $, $\beta $, $\mu $,
\upsilon $), provided nontrivial, can not be all greatly simplified unless
m=0$ and $m$ being odd. For $m=0$ and $m=2k$, we have following relations,
\end{subequations}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\alpha _{0}\left( \lambda \right) & =\frac{\left\vert \Gamma \left(
1/4-i\lambda /2\right) \right\vert ^{2}}{2\pi ^{3/2}},\beta _{0}\left(
\lambda \right) =0, \\
\alpha _{2k}\left( \lambda \right) & \neq \beta _{2k}\left( \lambda \right) ,
\end{align
where $m=0$ is the only case the probability amplitude of the posmom is
double valued. For $m$ being odd we have $\left\vert \mu _{2k+1}\left(
\lambda \right) \right\vert ^{2}=\left\vert \upsilon _{2k+1}\left( \lambda
\right) \right\vert ^{2}$, and for $m=1,3,5$, we have explicitly,
\end{subequations}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\mu _{1}\left( \lambda \right) & =\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}\left( \cosh (\pi \lambda
/2)-i\sinh (\pi \lambda /2)\right) },\text{ }\upsilon _{1}\left( \lambda
\right) =-i\text{ }\mu _{1}^{\ast }\left( \lambda \right) ,\text{
p_{1}(\lambda )=\sec h(\lambda \pi ), \\
\mu _{3}\left( \lambda \right) & =\frac{\sqrt{2}\lambda }{\cosh \left( \pi
\lambda /2\right) -i\sinh \left( \pi \lambda /2\right) },\text{ }\upsilon
_{3}\left( \lambda \right) =-i\text{ }\mu _{3}^{\ast }\left( \lambda \right)
,\text{ }p_{3}(\lambda )=4\lambda ^{2}\sec h(\lambda \pi ), \\
\mu _{5}\left( \lambda \right) & =\frac{-(1-4\lambda ^{2})i}{2\sqrt{2}\left(
\cosh \left( \pi \lambda /2\right) -i\sinh \left( \pi \lambda /2\right)
\right) },\text{ }\upsilon _{5}\left( \lambda \right) =-i\text{ }\mu
_{5}^{\ast }\left( \lambda \right) ,\text{ }p_{5}(\lambda )=\frac{1}{4
\left( 1-4\lambda ^{2}\right) ^{2}\sec h(\lambda \pi ).
\end{align}
The probability distributions $p(\lambda )$ (\ref{p}) for rotational states
represented by $e^{im\varphi }/\sqrt{2\pi }$ with $m=0$ to $6,40,41$ are
plotted in Fig. 1 ($m=0,2$), Fig. 2 ($m=4$), Fig. 3 ($m=6$), Fig. 4 ($m=1,3,5
$), Fig. 6 ($m=40$) and Fig. 6 ($m=41$) respectively. On the whole, they are
similar to the momentum distributions of stationary states for the
one-dimensional simple harmonic oscillator. It is understandable from an
examination of the free motion on the circle. In classical mechanics for the
free motion with a frequency $\omega $, we have $x=r\cos (\omega t)$ and
p_{x}=-m\omega r\sin (\omega t)$ and therefore $xp_{x}=-(m\omega
r^{2}/2)\sin (2\omega t)$. Then, in a classical state, the posmom $xp_{x}$
has a half period as $x$ or $p_{x}$ has. In classical limit, whenever $m$
being even or odd number, the eigenstate $e^{im\varphi }/\sqrt{2\pi }$
behaves like a simple harmonic oscillator as seen from the posmom.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig1.EPS
\caption{Distribution density of $Q_{x}$ for the ground state $1/\protect\sqrt{2\protect\pi })$ (solid line with highest peak near at $1.4$), and
that for 2nd excited state $\exp {(2i\protect\varphi )}/\protect\sqrt{2\protect\pi })$ which is the sum of $|\protect\alpha (\protect\lambda )|^{2}$
(dotted) and $|\protect\beta (\protect\lambda )|^{2}(\neq |\protect\alpha (\protect\lambda )|^{2})$ (dashed). Neither has a node.
\label{figure 1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig2.EPS
\caption{Distribution density of $Q_{x}$ for the 4th excited state $\exp {(4i\protect\varphi )}/\protect\sqrt{2\protect\pi }$, which is the sum of $|\protect\alpha (\protect\lambda )|^{2}$ (dotted) and $|\protect\beta (\protect\lambda )|^{2}$ (dashed) but $|\protect\alpha (\protect\lambda )|^{2}
$ and $|\protect\beta (\protect\lambda )|^{2}$ differ appreciately only near
$\protect\lambda =0$. This density has no node either.}\label{figure 2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig3.EPS
\caption{Distribution density of $Q_{x}$ for the 6th excited state $\exp {(6i\protect\varphi )}/\protect\sqrt{2\protect\pi }$, which is the sum of $|\protect\alpha (\protect\lambda )|^{2}$ (dotted) and $|\protect\beta (\protect\lambda )|^{2}$ (dashed) and we see again that $|\protect\alpha (\protect\lambda )|^{2}$ and $|\protect\beta (\protect\lambda )|^{2}$ differ
appreciately only near $\protect\lambda =0$. The density exhibits no node
but two minimum points over interval of finite $\protect\lambda $ almost
reach the zero.}\label{figure 3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig4.EPS
\caption{Distribution density of $Q_{x}$ for the 1st (dashed), 3rd (dotted)
and 5th (solid) state $\exp {(im\protect\varphi )}/\protect\sqrt{2\protect\pi })$, $(m=1,3,5)$. These distribution densities and the momentum
distribution densities for the 0th, 1st and 2nd state of one-dimensional
simple harmonic oscillator (not shown), are respectively similar.}\labe
{figure 4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig5.EPS
\caption{Distribution density of $Q_x$ for the 40th excited state
$\exp{(40i\varphi)}/\sqrt {2\pi}$, which is symmetrical about $\lambda=0$ but
only portion over the postive $\lambda$ is depicted. It is the
sum of $|\alpha(\lambda)|^2$ (dotted) and $|\beta(\lambda)|^2$ (dashed) and
they differ only near point $\lambda=0$; both symmetrical about $\lambda=0$
but half portions over the negative $\lambda $ are plotted. This distribution density
has clearly $21$ peaks and $20$ minima in the interval of finite $|\lambda|<\infty $
but apparently $18$ nodes. To note that two minima near $\lambda=0$ appraoch closer as if
they are a single one. We can infer that in the limit of large $m$
that is even, it is more and more similar to the distribution density for
the $(m/2-1)$th state of one-dimensional simple harmonic oscillator.}\labe
{figure 5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig6.EPS
\caption{Distribution density of $Q_x$ for the 41th excited state
$\exp{(41i\varphi)}/\sqrt {2\pi})$, which is the sum of two identical part
$|\alpha(\lambda)|^2$ and $|\beta(\lambda)|^2$.
The distribution density and the momentum distribution density for
the $20$th excited state of one-dimensional simple harmonic oscillator (not shown),
are almost the same. So, we can infer that in the limit of large $m$
that is odd, it becomes more and more similar to the distribution density for
the $\{(m-1)/2\}$th state of one-dimensional simple harmonic oscillator.
\label{figure 6}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
The posmom offers a new way to understand the quantum motions, constrained
or not. This study explores the posmom on a circular circle, and identify
that the momentum in it is the geometric momentum that is recently proposed
to properly describe of the momentum for the motions constrained on the
curved surface.\ For construction of the complete basis, we need to resort
to the mutual commutativity between posmom and parity operators, and then
obtain the satisfactory bases each of them is in general four-valued. The
posmometry of the eigenstates of the $z$-axis component of the angular
momentum is worked out, and is found to be similar to the momentum
distributions of stationary states for the one-dimensional simple harmonic
oscillators. Then any states on the circle can thus go through the
posmometry analysis. Once the posmometer is successfully designed and built
up, the ground state of the planar rotation of some molecules, which can be
easily prepared, can be visualized via the distribution of density of the
posmom.
The present exploration riches not only our appreciation of the quantum
dynamical behavior, but also our understanding of the fundamental aspect of
the quantum mechanics.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work is financially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of
China under Grant No. 11175063.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Adaptive polynomial expansions}
\label{sec:algorithm}
This section describes our new learning algorithm, \alg, which is
based on stochastic gradient descent and explicit feature expansions
that are adaptively defined. The specific feature expansion
strategy used in \alg is justified in some simple
examples, and the use of stochastic gradient descent is backed by a
new regret analysis for shifting comparators.
\subsection{Algorithm description}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Adaptive Polynomial Expansion (\alg)}
\label{alg:main}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\renewcommand{\algorithmicrequire}{\textbf{input}}
\REQUIRE
Initial features $S_1 = \{x_1,\ldots,x_d\}$,
expansion sizes $(s_k)$,
epoch schedule $(\tau_k)$,
stepsizes $(\eta_t)$.
\STATE Initial weights $\vw_1 := \v0$, initial epoch $k := 1$,
parent set $\ensuremath{P}_1 := \emptyset$.
\FOR{$t = 1,2,\dotsc$:}
\STATE Receive stochastic gradient $\vg_t$.
\STATE Update weights:
\quad $\vw_{t+1} := \vw_t - \eta_t [\vg_t]_{S_k}$, \\
where $[\cdot]_{S_k}$ denotes restriction to monomials in the
feature set $S_k$.
\IF{$t = \tau_k$}
\STATE Let $M_k \subseteq S_k$ be the top $s_k$ monomials
$m(\vx) \in S_k$ such that $m(\vx) \notin \ensuremath{P}_k$, ordered
from highest-to-lowest by the weight magnitude in $\vw_{t+1}$.
\label{step:select}
\STATE Expand feature set:
\quad
$S_{k+1} := S_k \cup \{ x_i \cdot m(\vx) : i \in [d], m(\vx)
\in M_k \}$, \quad \mbox{and}\\
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad
$\ensuremath{P}_{k+1} := \ensuremath{P}_k \cup \{m(\vx) : m(\vx) \in M_k \}$.
\label{step:expand}
\STATE $k := k + 1$.
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The pseudocode for \alg is given in Algorithm~\ref{alg:main}. We
regard weight vectors $\vw_t$ and gradients $\vg_t$ as members of a
vector space with coordinate basis corresponding to monomials over the
base variables $\vx = (x_1, x_2, \dotsc, x_d)$, up to some large but
finite maximum degree.
The algorithm proceeds as stochastic gradient descent over the current
feature set to update a weight vector. At specified times $\tau_k$,
the feature set $S_k$ is expanded to $S_{k+1}$ by taking the top
monomials in the current feature set, ordered by weight magnitude in
the current weight vector, and creating interaction features between
these monomials and $\vx$. Care is exercised to not
repeatedly pick the same monomial for creating higher order monomial
by tracking a parent set $\ensuremath{P}_k$, the set of all monomials for
which higher degree terms have been expanded.
We provide more
intuition for our choice of this feature growing heuristic in
Section~\ref{sec:heuristics}.
There are two benefits to this staged process.
Computationally, the stages allow us to amortize the cost of the
adding of monomials---which is implemented as an expensive dense
operation---over several other (possibly sparse) operations.
Statistically, using
stages guarantees that the monomials added in the previous stage have
an opportunity to have their corresponding parameters converge.
We have found it empirically effective to set $s_k := \operatorname{average}
\norm{[\vg_t]_{S_1}}_0$, and to update the feature set at a constant
number of equally-spaced times over the entire course of learning. In
this case, the number of updates (plus one) bounds the maximum degree
of any monomial in the final feature set.
\subsection{Shifting comparators and a regret bound for regularized objectives}
\label{sec:regret}
Standard regret bounds compare the cumulative loss of an online
learner to the cumulative loss of a \emph{single} predictor (comparator) from
a fixed comparison class. \emph{Shifting regret} is a more general
notion of regret, where the learner is compared to a
\emph{sequence} of comparators $\vu_1, \vu_2, \dotsc, \vu_T$.
Existing shifting regret bounds can be used to loosely
justify the use of online gradient descent methods over expanding
feature spaces~\cite{Zin03}.
These bounds are roughly of the form
$\sum_{t=1}^T f_t(\vw_t) - f_t(\vu_t) \lesssim \sqrt{T \sum_{t<T} \norm{\vu_t - \vu_{t+1}}}$,
where $\vu_t$ is allowed
to use the same features available to $\vw_t$, and $f_t$ is the convex cost function in step $t$.
This suggests a relatively high cost for
a substantial total change in the comparator, and thus in the feature space.
Given a budget, one could either do a liberal expansion a small number of
times, or opt for including a small number of carefully chosen
monomials more frequently.
We have found that the
computational cost of carefully picking a small number
of high quality monomials is often quite high.
With computational considerations at the forefront,
we will prefer a more liberal but infrequent expansion.
This also effectively exposes the
learning algorithm to a large number of nonlinearities quickly,
allowing their parameters to jointly converge between the stages.
It is natural to ask if better guarantees are possible under some
structure on the learning problem. Here, we consider the
stochastic setting (rather than the harsher adversarial setting
of~\cite{Zin03}), and further assume that our objective takes the
form
\begin{equation}
f(\vw) := \bbE[\ell(\ip{\vw}{\vx y})] + \lambda\|\vw\|^2/2,
\label{eqn:reg-linear}
\end{equation}
where the expectation is under the (unknown) data generating
distribution $D$ over $(\vx,y) \in S \times \bbR$, and $\ell$ is some
convex loss function on which suitable restrictions will be
placed. Here $S$ is such that $S_1 \subseteq S_2 \subseteq \ldots
\subseteq S$, based on the largest degree monomials we intend to
expand. We assume that in round $t$, we observe a stochastic gradient
of the objective $f$, which is typically done by first sampling
$(\vx_t, y_t) \sim D$ and then evaluating the gradient of the
regularized objective on this sample.
This setting has some interesting
structural implications over the general setting of online learning
with shifting comparators.
First, the fixed objective $f$ gives us a more direct way of tracking
the change in comparator through $f(\vu_{t}) - f(\vu_{t+1})$,
which might often be milder than $\norm{\vu_{t} - \vu_{t+1}}$.
In particular, if $\vu_t = \arg\min_{\vu \in S_k} f(\vu)$ in epoch $k$,
for a nested subspace sequence $S_k$, then we immediately obtain
$f(\vu_{t+1}) \leq f(\vu_t)$.
Second, the strong convexity of the regularized objective enables the
possibility of faster $O(1/T)$ rates than prior work~\cite{Zin03}.
Indeed, in this setting, we obtain the following stronger
result.
We use the
shorthand $\bbE_t[\cdot]$ to denote the conditional expectation at
time $t$, conditioning over
the data from rounds $1,\ldots,t-1$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{fact:tracking:fancier}
Let a distribution over $(\vx,y)$, twice differentiable convex
loss $\ell$ with $\ell \geq 0 $ and $\max\{\ell',\ell''\}\leq 1$,
and a regularization parameter $\lambda > 0$ be given. Recall the
definition~\eqref{eqn:reg-linear} of the objective $f$. Let
$(\vw_t, \vg_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be as specified by \alg with step size
$\eta_t := 1/(\lambda(t+1))$,
where $\bbE_t([\vg_t]_{\FS{t}}) = [\nabla f(\vw_t)]_{\FS{t}}$
and $\FS{t}$ is the support set corresponding to
epoch $k_t$ at time $t$ in \alg.
Then for any comparator sequence
$(\vu_t)_{t=1}^\infty$ satisfying $\vu_t \in \FS{t}$, for any fixed
$T\geq 1$,
\begin{align*}
\bbE\left(
f(\vw_{T+1})
-
\frac{\sum_{t=1}^{T} (t+2)f(\vu_{t})}{\sum_{t=1}^T (t+2)}
\right)
&\leq \frac {1}{T+1}\left(
\frac {(X^2+\lambda)(X+\lambda D)^2}{2\lambda^2}
\right),
\end{align*}
where $X\geq \max_t\|\vx_ty_t\|$ and $D \geq \max_t\max\{\|\vw_t\|,\|\vu_t\|\}$.
\end{theorem}
Quite remarkably, the result exhibits no dependence on the cumulative
shifting of the comparators unlike existing bounds~\cite{Zin03}. This
is the first result of this sort amongst shifting bounds to the best
of our knowledge, and the only one that yields $1/T$ rates of
convergence even with strong convexity, something that the standard
analysis fails to do. Of course, we limit ourselves to the stochastic
setting for this improvement, and prove expected regret guarantees on
the final predictor $\vw_T$ as opposed to a bound on
$\sum_{t=1}^Tf(\vw_t)/T$ which is often studied even in stochastic
settings.
A curious distinction is our comparator, which we believe gives us
intuition for the source of our improved result. Note that standard
shifting regret bounds~\cite{Zin03} can be thought of as comparing
$f(\vw_t)$ to $f(\vu_t)$, which is a harder comparison than the
weighted average of $f(\vu_t)$ that we compare to---we discuss the
particular non-uniform weighting in the next paragraph. Critically,
averages are slower moving objects and hence the yardsticks at time
$t$ and $t+1$ differ only by $O(1/t)$. This observation can be
immediately combined with the known results of Zinkevich~\cite{Zin03}
to show a $O(\sqrt{T})$ \emph{cumulative regret} bound against an
averaged comparator sequence, without needing any strong convexity or
smoothness assumptions on $f$. However, it does not immediately
yield rates on the individual iterates $f(\vw_t)$ even after making
these additional assumptions. Given the way our algorithm utilizes the
weights to grow the support sets, such a guarantee is necessary and
hence establish the result in Theorem~\ref{fact:tracking:fancier}.
As mentioned above,
our comparator is a \emph{weighted average} of $f(\vu_t)$ as
opposed to the more standard uniform average.
Supposing again that $f(\vu_{t+1}) \leq f(\vu_t)$, the weighted average comparator
is a \emph{strictly
harder benchmark} than an unweighted average and overemphasizes the
later comparator terms which are based on larger support sets. Indeed,
this is a nice compromise between competing against $\vu_T$, which is
the hardest yardstick, and $\vu_1$, which is what a standard
non-shifting analysis compares to. Overall, this result demonstrates
that in our setting, while there is generally a cost to be paid for
shifting the comparator too much, it can still be effectively
controlled in favorable cases. One problem for future work is to
establish these fast $1/T$ rates also with high probability;
as detailed in \Cref{sec:proofs} (which moreover contains the proof of \Cref{fact:tracking:fancier}),
existing techniques yield only an $O(\sqrt{T})$ bound on the deviation
term.
\subsection{Feature expansion heuristics}
\label{sec:heuristics}
Previous work on learning sparse polynomials~\cite{SSM92} suggests
that it is possible to anticipate the utility of interaction features
before even evaluating them. For instance, one of the algorithms
from~\cite{SSM92} orders monomials $m(\vx)$ by an estimate of $\bbE[
r(\vx)^2 m(\vx)^2 ] / \bbE[ m(\vx)^2 ]$,
where $r(\vx) = \bbE[y|\vx] - \hat{f}(\vx)$ is the residual of the
current predictor $\hat{f}$ (for least-squares prediction of the label
$y$). Such an index is shown to be related to the potential error
reduction by polynomials with $m(\vx)$ as a factor.
We call this the SSM heuristic
(after the authors of~\cite{SSM92},
though it differs from their original algorithm).
Another plausible heuristic, which we use in
Algorithm~\ref{alg:main}, simply orders the monomials in $S_k$ by
their weight magnitude in the current weight vector.
We can justify this weight heuristic in the following simple example.
Suppose a target function $\bbE[y|\vx]$ is just a single monomial in
$\vx$, say, $m(\vx) := \prod_{i \in M} x_i$ for some $M \subseteq
[d]$, and that $\vx$ has a product distribution over $\{0,1\}^d$ with
$0 < \bbE[x_i] =: p \leq 1/2$ for all $i \in [d]$. Suppose we
repeatedly perform $1$-sparse regression with the current feature set
$S_k$, and pick the top weight magnitude monomial for inclusion in the
parent set $\ensuremath{P}_{k+1}$. It is easy to show that the weight on a
degree $\ell$ sub-monomial of $m(\vx)$ in this regression is $p^{|M| -
\ell}$, and the weight is strictly smaller for any term which is not a
proper sub-monomial of $m(\vx)$. Thus we repeatedly pick the largest
available sub-monomial of $m(\vx)$ and expand it,
eventually discovering $m(\vx)$. After $k$ stages of the algorithm, we
have at most $kd$ features in our regression here, and hence we find
$m(\vx)$ with a total of $d|M|$ variables in our regression, as
opposed to $d^{|M|}$ which typical feature selection approaches would
need. This intuition can be extended more generally to scenarios where
we do not necessarily do a sparse regression and beyond product
distributions, but we find that even this simplest example illustrates
the basic motivations underlying our choice---we want to
parsimoniously expand on top of a base feature set, while still
making progress towards a good polynomial for our data.
\subsection{Fall-back risk-consistency}
Neither the SSM heuristic nor the weight heuristic is rigorously
analyzed (in any generality). Despite this, the basic algorithm \alg
can be easily modified to guarantee a form of risk consistency,
regardless of which feature expansion heuristic is used. Consider the
following variant of the support update rule in the algorithm
\alg. Given the current feature budget $s_k$, we add $s_{k}-1$
monomials ordered by weight magnitudes as in
Step~\ref{step:expand}. We also pick a monomial $m(\vx)$ of the
smallest degree such that $m(\vx) \notin \ensuremath{P}_k$. Intuitively, this
ensures that all degree 1 terms are in $\ensuremath{P}_k$ after $d$ stages,
all degree 2 terms are in $\ensuremath{P}_k$ after $k = O(d^2)$ stages and so
on. In general, it is easily seen that $k = O(d^{\ell-1})$ ensures
that all degree $\ell-1$ monomials are in $\ensuremath{P}_k$ and hence all
degree $\ell$ monomials are in $S_k$. For ease of exposition, let us
assume that $s_k$ is set to be a constant $s$ independent of $k$. Then
the total number of monomials in $\ensuremath{P}_k$ when $k = O(d^{\ell-1})$
is $O(sd^{\ell-1})$, which means the total number of features in $S_k$
is $O(sd^\ell)$.
Suppose we were interested in competing with all $\ensuremath{\gamma}$-sparse
polynomials of degree $\ell$. The most direct approach would be to
consider the explicit enumeration of all monomials of degree up
to $\ell$, and then perform $\ell_1$-regularized
regression~\cite{Tibshirani96b} or a greedy variable selection method
such as OMP~\cite{TroppGil07} as means of enforcing sparsity. This
ensures consistent estimation with $n = O(\ensuremath{\gamma}\log d^{\ell}) =
O(\ensuremath{\gamma}\ell\log d)$ examples. In contrast, we might need $n =
O(\ensuremath{\gamma}(\ell\log d + \log s))$ examples in the worst case using
this fall back rule, a minor overhead at best. However, in favorable
cases, we stand to gain a lot when the heuristic succeeds in finding
good monomials rapidly. Since this is really an empirical question, we
will address it with our empirical evaluation.
\if 0
\redline
\textbf{Alekh: Not sure this para below is needed at all now that the
algorithm itself has a parent set}
The stage-wise method can be implemented efficiently as follows. Note
that the support expansion step simply chooses an existing support
element with high score, henceforth called a \emph{parent}, and
includes all monomials with degree exactly one higher. Consequently,
the support update step can simply mark monomials as parents;
henceforth, given a new example $(x,y)$, constructing its monomial
expansion $M(x)$ can be conducted in time equal to the size of the
monomial simply via DFS (where a monomial's children are considered
iff it is a parent). Since the support updates themselves are
infrequent, one may simply traverse the $N$ nonzero elements of the
support, keeping track of the $k := |S_{t+1}| - |S_t|$ highest scoring
elements in a heap, marking them as parents following traversal; this
takes $N\log(k)$ time per support update, which is reasonable when the
number of stages is small relative to the number of examples.
\fi
\section{Experimental study}
\label{sec:experiments}
We now describe our empirical evaluation of \alg.
\subsection{Implementation, experimental setup, and performance
metrics}
In order to assess the effectiveness of our algorithm, it is critical
to build on top of an efficient learning framework that can handle
large, high-dimensional datasets. To this end, we implemented \alg in
the Vowpal Wabbit (henceforth VW) open source machine learning
software\footnote{%
Please see
\url{https://github.com/JohnLangford/vowpal\_wabbit}
and the associated git repository, where
\texttt{--stage\_poly} and related command line options
execute \alg.%
}.
VW is a good framework
for us, since it also natively supports quadratic and cubic expansions
on top of the base features.
These expansions are done dynamically at run-time, rather than being
stored and read from disk in the expanded form for computational
considerations. To deal with these dynamically enumerated features, VW
uses hashing to associate features with indices, mapping each feature
to a $b$-bit index, where $b$ is a parameter. The core learning
algorithm is an online algorithm as assumed in \alg, but uses
refinements of the basic stochastic gradient descent update
(e.g.,~\cite{DuchiHS2011,McMahanS2010,KarampatziakisL2011,RossML2013}).
We implemented \alg such that the total number of epochs was always 6
(meaning 5 rounds of adding new features). At the end of each epoch,
the non-parent monomials with largest magnitude weights were marked as
parents. Recall that the number of parents is modulated at $s^\alpha$
for some $\alpha > 0$, with $s$ being the average number of non-zero
features per example in the dataset so far. We will present
experimental results with different choices of $\alpha$, and we found
$\alpha = 1$ to be a reliable default. Upon seeing an example,
the features are enumerated on-the-fly by recursively expanding the
marked parents, taking products with base monomials. These operations
are done in a way to respect the sparsity (in terms of base
features) of examples which many of our datasets exhibit.
Since the benefits of nonlinear learning over linear learning
themselves are very dataset dependent, and furthermore can vary
greatly for different heuristics based on the problem at hand, we
found it important to experiment with a large testbed consisting of a
diverse collection of medium and large-scale datasets. To this end, we
compiled a collection of 30 publicly available datasets, across a
number of KDDCup challenges, UCI repository and other common resources
(detailed in the appendix). For all the datasets, we tuned the
learning rate for each learning algorithm based on the
progressive validation error (which is typically a reliable bound on
test error)~\cite{BlumKL1999}. The number of bits in hashing was set
to 18 for all algorithms, apart from cubic polynomials, where using 24
bits for hashing was found to be important for good statistical
performance. For each dataset, we performed a random split with 80\%
of the data used for training and the remainder for testing. For all
datasets, we used squared-loss to train, and $0$-$1$/squared-loss for
evaluation in classification/regression problems. We also experimented
with $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ regularization, but these did not help
much. The remaining settings were left to their VW defaults.
For aggregating performance across 30 diverse datasets, it was
important to use error and running time measures on a scale
independent of the dataset. Let $\ensuremath{\mathtt{\ell}}$, $\ensuremath{\mathtt{q}}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathtt{c}}$
refer to the test errors of linear, quadratic and cubic baselines
respectively (with \ensuremath{\mathtt{lin}}\xspace, \ensuremath{\mathtt{quad}}\xspace, and \ensuremath{\mathtt{cubic}}\xspace used to denote the
baseline algorithms themselves). For an algorithm $\ensuremath{\mathtt{alg}}$, we compute the
\emph{relative (test) error}:
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\mathrm{rel\,err}}(\ensuremath{\mathtt{alg}}) = \frac{\mathrm{err}(\ensuremath{\mathtt{alg}}) - \min(\ensuremath{\mathtt{\ell}}, \ensuremath{\mathtt{q}},
\ensuremath{\mathtt{c}})}{\max(\ensuremath{\mathtt{\ell}}, \ensuremath{\mathtt{q}}, \ensuremath{\mathtt{c}}) - \min(\ensuremath{\mathtt{\ell}}, \ensuremath{\mathtt{q}},
\ensuremath{\mathtt{c}})},
\label{eq:rel-error}
\end{equation}
where $\min(\ensuremath{\mathtt{\ell}}, \ensuremath{\mathtt{q}}, \ensuremath{\mathtt{c}})$ is the smallest error
among the three baselines on the dataset, and
$\max(\ensuremath{\mathtt{\ell}}, \ensuremath{\mathtt{q}}, \ensuremath{\mathtt{c}})$ is similarly defined. We also
define the \emph{relative (training)
time} as the ratio to running time of $\ensuremath{\mathtt{lin}}\xspace$:
$\ensuremath{\mathrm{rel\,time}}(\ensuremath{\mathtt{alg}}) = \ensuremath{\mathrm{time}}(\ensuremath{\mathtt{alg}})/\ensuremath{\mathrm{time}}(\ensuremath{\mathtt{lin}}\xspace)$.
With these definitions, the aggregated
plots of relative errors and relative times for the various baselines
and our methods are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cdfs-full}. For each
method, the plots show a cumulative distribution function (CDF) across
datasets: an entry $(a,b)$ on the left plot indicates that
the relative error for $b$ datasets was at most $a$. The plots include
the baselines $\ensuremath{\mathtt{lin}}\xspace, \ensuremath{\mathtt{quad}}\xspace, \ensuremath{\mathtt{cubic}}\xspace$, as well as a variant of \alg
(called \ensuremath{\mathtt{ssm}}\xspace) that
replaces the weight heuristic with the SSM heuristic,
as described in
Section~\ref{sec:heuristics}.
For \alg and \ensuremath{\mathtt{ssm}}\xspace,
the plot shows the results with the fixed setting of $\alpha = 1$, as
well as the best setting chosen per dataset from $\alpha \in \{0.125,
0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1\}$ (referred to as \alg-best and \ensuremath{\mathtt{ssm}}\xspace-best).
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}c@{}}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{cdf_all_error_2.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{cdf_all_time_3.pdf}\\
(a) & (b)
\end{tabular}
\caption{%
Dataset CDFs across all 30 datasets: (a) relative test error, (b)
relative training time (log scale). $\{\alg, \ensuremath{\mathtt{ssm}}\xspace\}$ refer to the
$\alpha = 1$ default; $\{\alg,\ensuremath{\mathtt{ssm}}\xspace\}$-best picks best $\alpha$ per
dataset.%
}
\label{fig:cdfs-full}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Results}
In this section, we present some aggregate results. Detailed results
with full plots and tables are presented in the appendix. In the
Figure~\ref{fig:cdfs-full}(a), the relative error for all of \ensuremath{\mathtt{lin}}\xspace,
\ensuremath{\mathtt{quad}}\xspace and \ensuremath{\mathtt{cubic}}\xspace is always to the right of 0 (due to the definition of
$\ensuremath{\mathrm{rel\,err}}$). In this plot, a curve enclosing a larger area indicates, in
some sense, that one method uniformly dominates another. Since \alg
uniformly dominates \ensuremath{\mathtt{ssm}}\xspace statistically (with only slightly longer
running times), we restrict the remainder of our study to comparing
\alg to the baselines \ensuremath{\mathtt{lin}}\xspace, \ensuremath{\mathtt{quad}}\xspace and \ensuremath{\mathtt{cubic}}\xspace. We found that on 12 of
the 30 datasets, the relative error was negative, meaning that \alg
beats all the baselines. A relative error of 0.5 indicates that we
cover at least half the gap between $\min(\ensuremath{\mathtt{\ell}}, \ensuremath{\mathtt{q}},
\ensuremath{\mathtt{c}})$ and $\max(\ensuremath{\mathtt{\ell}}, \ensuremath{\mathtt{q}}, \ensuremath{\mathtt{c}})$. We find that we are
below 0.5 on 27 out of 30 datasets for \alg-best, and 26 out of the 30
datasets for the setting $\alpha = 1$. This is particularly striking
since the error $\min(\ensuremath{\mathtt{\ell}}, \ensuremath{\mathtt{q}}, \ensuremath{\mathtt{c}})$ is attained by
\ensuremath{\mathtt{cubic}}\xspace on a majority of the datasets (17 out of 30), where the relative
error of \ensuremath{\mathtt{cubic}}\xspace is 0. Hence, statistically \alg often outperforms even
\ensuremath{\mathtt{cubic}}\xspace, while typically using a much smaller number of features. To
support this claim, we include in the appendix a plot of the average
number of features per example generated by each method, for all
datasets. Overall, we find the statistical performance of \alg from
Figure~\ref{fig:cdfs-full} to be quite encouraging across this large
collection of diverse datasets.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}c@{}}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{cdf_filt_error_2.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{cdf_filt_time_2.pdf}\\
(a) & (b)
\end{tabular}
\caption{%
Dataset CDFs across 13 datasets where $\ensuremath{\mathrm{time}}(\ensuremath{\mathtt{quad}}\xspace) \geq
2 \ensuremath{\mathrm{time}}(\ensuremath{\mathtt{lin}}\xspace)$:
(a) relative test error,
(b) relative training time (log scale).%
}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{fig:cdfs-filt}
\end{figure*}
The running time performance of \alg is also extremely good.
Figure~\ref{fig:cdfs-full}(b) shows that the running time of
\alg is within a factor of 10 of \ensuremath{\mathtt{lin}}\xspace for almost all datasets, which
is quite impressive considering that we generate a potentially much
larger number of features. The gap between \ensuremath{\mathtt{lin}}\xspace and \alg is
particularly small for several large datasets, where the examples are
sparse and high-dimensional. In these cases, all algorithms are
typically I/O-bottlenecked, which is the same for all algorithms due
to the dynamic feature expansions used. It is easily seen that the
statistically efficient baseline of \ensuremath{\mathtt{cubic}}\xspace is typically computationally
infeasible, with the relative time often being as large as $10^2$ and
$10^5$ on the biggest dataset. Overall,
the statistical performance of \alg is competitive with and
often better than $\min(\ensuremath{\mathtt{\ell}}, \ensuremath{\mathtt{q}}, \ensuremath{\mathtt{c}})$, and offers
a nice intermediate in computational complexity.
A surprise in Figure~\ref{fig:cdfs-full}(b) is that \ensuremath{\mathtt{quad}}\xspace
appears to computationally outperform \alg for a relatively large
number of datasets, at least in aggregate.
This is due to the extremely efficient implementation of \ensuremath{\mathtt{quad}}\xspace in VW: on 17 of 30 datasets, the
running time of \ensuremath{\mathtt{quad}}\xspace is less than twice that of \ensuremath{\mathtt{lin}}\xspace. While we often
statistically outperform \ensuremath{\mathtt{quad}}\xspace on many of these smaller datasets, we
are primarily interested in
the larger datasets where the relative
cost of nonlinear expansions (as in \ensuremath{\mathtt{quad}}\xspace) is high.
In Figure~\ref{fig:cdfs-filt}, we restrict attention to the 13
datasets where $\ensuremath{\mathrm{time}}(\ensuremath{\mathtt{quad}}\xspace) / \ensuremath{\mathrm{time}}(\ensuremath{\mathtt{lin}}\xspace) \geq 2$. On these
larger datasets, our statistical performance seems to dominate all the
baselines (at least in terms of the CDFs, more on individual datasets
will be said later). In terms of computational time, we see that we
are often much better than \ensuremath{\mathtt{quad}}\xspace, and \ensuremath{\mathtt{cubic}}\xspace is essentially infeasible
on most of these datasets. This demonstrates our key intuition that
such adaptively chosen monomials are key to effective nonlinear
learning in large, high-dimensional datasets.
We also experimented with \emph{picky} algorithms of the sort
mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:regret}. We tried the original
algorithm from~\cite{SSM92}, which tests a candidate monomial before
adding it to the feature set $S_k$, rather than just testing candidate
parent monomials for inclusion in $\ensuremath{P}_k$; and also a picky
algorithm based on our weight heuristic. Both algorithms were
extremely computationally expensive, even when implemented using VW as
a base: the explicit testing for inclusion in $S_k$ (on a per-example
basis) caused too much overhead. We ruled out other baselines such as
polynomial kernels for similar computational reasons.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}c@{}}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{featurest_error_2.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{featurest_time_2.pdf}\\
(a) & (b)
\end{tabular}
\caption{%
Comparison of different methods on the top 6 datasets by non-zero
features per example:
(a) relative test errors,
(b) relative training times.%
}
\label{fig:hists-topfeats}
\end{figure*}
To provide more intuition, we also show individual results for
the top 6 datasets with the highest average number of non-zero
features per example---a key factor determining the
computational cost of all approaches. In
Figure~\ref{fig:hists-topfeats}, we show the performance of the \ensuremath{\mathtt{lin}}\xspace,
\ensuremath{\mathtt{quad}}\xspace, \ensuremath{\mathtt{cubic}}\xspace baselines, as well as \alg with 5 different parameter
settings in terms of relative error
(Figure~\ref{fig:hists-topfeats}(a)) and relative time
(Figure~\ref{fig:hists-topfeats}(b)). The results are overall quite
positive. We see that on 3 of the datasets, we improve upon all the
baselines statistically, and even on other 3 the performance is quite
close to the best of the baselines with the exception of the
\texttt{cup98} dataset. In terms of running time, we find \ensuremath{\mathtt{cubic}}\xspace to be
extremely expensive in all the cases. We are typically faster than
\ensuremath{\mathtt{quad}}\xspace, and in the few cases where we take longer, we also obtain
a statistical improvement for the slight increase in computational
cost. On larger datasets, the performance
of our method is quite desirable and in line with our
expectations.
Finally, we also implemented a parallel version of our algorithm,
building on the repeated averaging approach~\cite{HallGiMa2010,
ACDL14}, using the built-in AllReduce communication mechanism of VW,
and ran an experiment using an
internal advertising dataset consisting of
approximately 690M training examples, with roughly 318 non-zero
features per example. The task is the prediction of
\texttt{click/no-click} events. The data was stored in a large Hadoop
cluster, split over 100 partitions. We implemented the \ensuremath{\mathtt{lin}}\xspace baseline,
using 5 passes of online learning with repeated averaging on this
dataset, but could not run full \ensuremath{\mathtt{quad}}\xspace or \ensuremath{\mathtt{cubic}}\xspace baselines due to the
prohibitive computational cost. As an intermediate, we generated
$\mathtt{bigram}$ features, which only doubles the number of non-zero
features per example.
We parallelized
\alg as
follows. In the first pass over the data, each one of the 100 nodes
locally selects the promising features over 6 epochs, as in our
single-machine setting. We then take the union of all the parents
locally found across all nodes, and freeze that to be the parent set
for the rest of training. The remaining 4 passes are now done with
this fixed feature set, repeatedly averaging local weights. We then
ran \alg, on top of both \ensuremath{\mathtt{lin}}\xspace as well as $\mathtt{bigram}$ as the base
features to obtain maximally expressive features. The test error was
measured in terms of the area under ROC curve (AUC), since this is a
highly imbalanced dataset. The error and time results, reported in
Table~\ref{tbl:parallel}, show that using nonlinear features does
lead to non-trivial improvements in AUC, albeit at an increased
computational cost. Once again, this should be put in perspective with
the full \ensuremath{\mathtt{quad}}\xspace baseline, which did not finish in over a day on this
dataset.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
~&$\ensuremath{\mathtt{lin}}\xspace$&$\ensuremath{\mathtt{lin}}\xspace+\alg$&$\ensuremath{\mathtt{bigram}}\xspace$&$\ensuremath{\mathtt{bigram}}\xspace+\alg$\\ \hline
Test AUC & 0.81664 & 0.81712 & 0.81757 & 0.81796\\ \hline
Training time (in s) & 1282 & 2727 & 2755 & 7378\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Test error and training times for different methods in a
large-scale distributed setting. For $\{\ensuremath{\mathtt{lin}}\xspace,\ensuremath{\mathtt{bigram}}\xspace\}+\alg$, we
used $\alpha = 0.25$.}
\label{tbl:parallel}
\end{table}
\section{Summary of datasets}
Below, $n$ is the number of examples, $d$ is the number of base
features, and $s$ is the average number of non-zero base features per
example.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c||c|c|c|c}
Dataset & $n$ & $s$ & $d$ & problem
\\
\hline
\hline
20news & 18845 & 93.8854 & 101631 & binary
\\
a9a & 48841 & 13.8676 & 123 & binary
\\
abalone & 4176 & 8 & 8 & binary
\\
abalone & 4177 & 7.99952 & 10 & regression
\\
activity & 165632 & 18.5489 & 20 & binary
\\
adult & 48842 & 11.9967 & 105 & binary
\\
bio & 145750 & 73.4184 & 74 & binary
\\
cal-housing & 20639 & 8 & 8 & regression
\\
census & 299284 & 32.0072 & 401 & binary
\\
comp-activ-harder & 8191 & 11.5848 & 12 & regression
\\
covtype & 581011 & 11.8789 & 54 & binary
\\
cup98-target & 95411 & 310.982 & 10825 & binary
\\
eeg-eye-state & 14980 & 13.9901 & 14 & binary
\\
ijcnn1& 24995 & 13 & 22 & binary
\\
kdda& 8407751 & 36.349 & 19306083 & binary
\\
kddcup2009 & 50000 & 58.4353 & 71652 & binary
\\
letter & 20000 & 15.5807 & 16 & binary
\\
magic04 & 19020 & 9.98728 & 10 & binary
\\
maptaskcoref & 158546 & 40.4558 & 5944 & binary
\\
mushroom & 8124 & 22 & 117 & binary
\\
nomao & 34465 & 82.3306 & 174 & binary
\\
poker& 946799 & 10 & 10 & binary
\\
rcv1& 781265 & 75.7171 & 43001 & binary
\\
shuttle& 43500 & 7.04984 & 9 & binary
\\
skin & 245057 & 2.948 & 3 & binary
\\
slice& 53500 & 134.575 & 384 & regression
\\
titanic & 2201 & 3 & 8 & binary
\\
vehv2binary & 299254 & 48.5652 & 105 & binary
\\
w8a & 49749 & 11.6502 & 300 & binary
\\
year& 463715 & 90 & 90 & regression
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\section{Further experimental results}
We will show three more sets of results in the appendix. The first set
contains a bar plot detailing the performance of the \ensuremath{\mathtt{lin}}\xspace, \ensuremath{\mathtt{quad}}\xspace and
\ensuremath{\mathtt{cubic}}\xspace baselines, as well as \alg with $\alpha \in \{0.125, 0.25, 0.5,
0.75, 1\}$ on all of our 30 datasets. For each method, we present the
relative error~\eqref{eq:rel-error} in Figure~\ref{fig:full-error}.
Since the statistical error by itself only tells half the story, we
also include a similar plot for relative running times in
Figure~\ref{fig:full-time}.
Finally, we also want to highlight that despite the competitive
statistical performance, our adaptive methods indeed generate a much
smaller number of monomials. To this end, we compute the average
number of non-zero features per example on all datasets for all
methods. These plots are presented in Figure~\ref{fig:nfeatures}, with
the same color coding used for algorithms as the previous two plots.
We include tables with all the (non-relative) errors and times in
Table~\ref{table:summary1} and
Table~\ref{table:summary2}.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=\textheight]{full_error_2}
\caption{Relative error plots for \alg and baselines on all 30
datasets. Should be viewed in color.}
\label{fig:full-error}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=\textheight]{full_time_2}
\caption{Relative time plots for \alg and baselines on all 30
datasets. Should be viewed in color.}
\label{fig:full-time}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=\textheight]{nfeatures_2}
\caption{Relative time plots for \alg and baselines on all 30
datasets. Should be viewed in color.}
\label{fig:nfeatures}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{small}
\input{summary_small_2-a}
\end{small}
\caption{Errors (first row) and running time in seconds (second row)
for each dataset for the baselines and \alg variants (first 15 datasets).}
\label{table:summary1}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{small}
\input{summary_small_2-b}
\end{small}
\caption{Errors (first row) and running time in seconds (second row)
for each dataset for the baselines and \alg variants (last 15 datasets).}
\label{table:summary2}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
When faced with large datasets, it is commonly observed that using all
the data with a simpler algorithm is superior to using a small
fraction of the data with a more computationally intense but possibly
more effective algorithm. The question becomes: What is the most
sophisticated algorithm that can be executed given a computational
constraint?
At the largest scales, Na\"ive Bayes approaches offer a simple, easily
distributed single-pass algorithm. A more computationally difficult,
but commonly better-performing approach is large scale linear
regression, which has been effectively parallelized in several ways on
real-world large scale datasets~\cite{MCFS13,ACDL14}. Is there a
modestly more computationally difficult approach that allows us to
commonly achieve superior statistical performance?
The approach developed here starts with a fast parallelized online
learning algorithm for linear models, and explicitly
and adaptively adds higher-order interaction features over the
course of training, using the learned weights as a guide.
The resulting space of polynomial functions
increases the approximation power over the base linear
representation at a modest increase in computational cost.
Several natural folklore baselines exist. For example, it is common
to enrich feature spaces with $n$-grams or low-order interactions.
These approaches are naturally computationally appealing, because
these nonlinear features can be computed on-the-fly avoiding I/O
bottlenecks. With I/O bottlenecked datasets, this can sometimes even
be done so efficiently that the additional computational complexity is
negligible, so improving over this baseline is quite challenging.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{error_vs_time_2}
\end{center}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption
Computation/prediction tradeoff points using non-adaptive
polynomial expansions and adaptive polynomial expansions (\alg).
The markers are positioned at the coordinate-wise median of
$(\mathtt{relative\ error},\mathtt{relative\ time})$ over $30$
datasets, with bars extending to $25$th and $75$th percentiles.
See Section~\ref{sec:experiments} for definition of relative error
and relative time used here.}
\label{fig:error_vs_time}
\end{figure}
The design of our algorithm
is heavily influenced by considerations for computational efficiency,
as discussed further in Section~\ref{sec:algorithm}. Several alternative
designs are plausible but fail to provide
adequate computation/prediction tradeoffs or even outperform the
aforementioned folklore baselines. An extensive experimental study
in Section~\ref{sec:experiments} compares efficient implementations of
these baselines with the proposed mechanism and gives strong evidence
of the latter's dominant computation/prediction tradeoff ability (see
Figure~\ref{fig:error_vs_time} for an illustrative summary).
Although it is notoriously difficult to analyze nonlinear algorithms,
it turns out that two aspects of this algorithm are amenable to
analysis. First, we prove a regret bound showing that we can
effectively compete with a growing feature set. Second, we exhibit
simple problems where this algorithm is effective, and discuss a
worst-case consistent variant.
\paragraph{Related work.}
This work considers methods for enabling nonlinear learning directly
in a highly-scalable learning algorithm. Starting with a fast
algorithm is desirable because it more naturally allows one to improve
statistical power by spending more computational resources until a
computational budget is exhausted. In contrast, many existing
techniques start with a (comparably) slow method (e.g., kernel
SVM~\cite{WS01}, batch PCA~\cite{Mahoney11}, batch
least-squares regression~\cite{Mahoney11}), and speed it up by
sacrificing statistical power, often just to allow the algorithm to
run at all on massive data sets.
Similar challenges also arise in
exploring the tradeoffs with boosting~\cite{FS97}, where typical
weak learners involve either exhaustive search or batch algorithms
(e.g., decision tree induction~\cite{Friedman99,JZ14}) that present
their own challenges in scaling and parallelization.
A standard alternative to explicit polynomial expansions is to employ
polynomial kernels with the kernel trick~\cite{SS02}. While kernel
methods generally have computation scaling at least quadratically with
the number of training examples, a number of approximations schemes
have been developed to enable a better tradeoff. The Nystr\"om method
(and related techniques) can be used to approximate the kernel matrix
while permitting faster training~\cite{WS01}. However, these methods
still suffer from the drawback that the model size after $n$ examples
is typically $O(n)$. As a result, even single pass online
implementations~\cite{BordesEWB2005} typically suffer from $O(n^2)$
training and $O(n)$ testing time complexity.
Another class of approximation schemes for kernel methods involves
random embeddings into a high (but finite) dimensional Euclidean space
such that the standard inner product there approximates the kernel
function~\cite{RR08,KK12,PP13,HGXD14}. Recently, such schemes have
been developed for polynomial kernels~\cite{KK12,PP13,HGXD14} with
computational scaling roughly linear in the polynomial
degree. However, for many sparse, high-dimensional datasets (such as
text data), the embedding of~\cite{PP13} creates dense, high
dimensional examples, which leads to a substantial increase in
computational complexity. Moreover, neither of the embeddings
from~\cite{KK12,PP13} exhibits good statistical performance unless
combined with dense linear dimension reduction~\cite{HGXD14}, which
again results in dense vector computations. Such feature construction
schemes are also typically unsupervised, while the method proposed
here makes use of label information.
Learning sparse polynomial functions is primarily a computational
challenge.
This is because the na\"ive approach of combining explicit,
non-adaptive polynomial expansions with sparse regression is
statistically sound; the problem is its running time, which scales
with $d^\ell$ for degree-$\ell$ polynomials in $d$ dimensions.
Among methods proposed for beating this $d^\ell$ running
time~\cite{Ivakhnenko71,SSM92,KST09,APVZ14,DKKS14}, all
but~\cite{SSM92} are batch algorithms (and suffer from similar
drawbacks as boosting).
The method of~\cite{SSM92} uses online optimization together with an
adaptive rule for creating interaction features.
A variant of this is discussed in Section~\ref{sec:algorithm} and is
used in the experimental study in Section~\ref{sec:experiments} as a
baseline.
\section{Proofs and other technical material}
\label{sec:proofs}
The generic statement behind \Cref{fact:tracking:fancier} is as follows;
note that it neither makes specific requirements upon the form of the features (i.e., they need not be monomials),
nor upon how support set $\FS{t+1}$ is derived from $\FS{t}$ (i.e., it only needs to satisfy
the containment $\FS{t+1} \supseteq \FS{t}$).
\begin{theorem}
\label{fact:tracking:fancy} Let convex function $f$ be given with
respective strong convexity and strong smoothness parameters
$\lambda>0$ and $\beta<\infty$. Let $(\vw_t, \vg_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be
as specified by \alg with step size $\eta_t := 1/(\lambda(t+1))$,
where $\bbE_t([\vg_t]_{\FS{t}}) = [\nabla f(\vw_t)]_{\FS{t}}$,
and $\FS{t}$ is the support set corresponding to
epoch $k_t$ at time $t$ in \alg,
with $\FS{t} \subseteq \FS{t+1}$ and $w_1 \in \FS{0}$.
Then for any comparator sequence $(\vu_t)_{t=1}^\infty$ satisfying
$\vu_t \in \FS{t}$, for any fixed $T\geq 1$,
\begin{align*}
f(\vw_{T+1})
-
\frac{\sum_{t=1}^{T} (t+2)f(\vu_{t})}{\sum_{t=1}^T (t+2)}
&\leq \frac {1}{T+1}\left(
\frac {\beta G^2}{2\lambda^2}
+
\frac 1 {\lambda}\sum_{t=1}^T\textup{dev}_t
\right),
\end{align*}
where $G := \max_{t\leq T} \|\vg_t\|$, and the random variable
\[
\textup{dev}_t := \left(\frac {t+2}{T+2}\right)
\ip{[\nabla f(\vw_t)]_{\FS{t}} - [\vg_t]_{\FS{t}}}{\nabla f(\vw_t)}
\]
satisfies $\bbE(\sum_{t=1}^T\textup{dev}_t) = 0$ and, with probability at least $1-\delta$ over
the draw of $\{\vg_t\}_{t=1}^T$,
$\sum_{t=1}^T\textup{dev}_t \leq 4G^2\sqrt{T\ln(1/\delta)}$.
\end{theorem}
As discussed in the main text, the existence of a single target function $f$ (rather than
a new function each round) suggests its use in tracking the progress of the algorithm;
indeed, the proof directly decreases
$f(\vw_{T+1})-\sum_{t=1}^{T} (t+2)f(\vu_{t}) / \sum_{t=1}^T (t+2)$,
rather than passing through a surrogate such as measuring parameter distance $\|\vw_t - \vu_t\|$.
The invocation of smoothness and strong convexity at the core of the argument
(see the display with \cref{eq:fw_ish})
is similar to the analogous invocation of smoothness and boundedness of the domain in the convergence guarantee
for the Frank-Wolfe method~\cite[Theorem 3.4]{Bubeck14}.
This bound is on the
last iterate, whereas the standard proof scheme for subgradient descent, most naturally stated
for averaged iterates~\cite[Theorem 3.1]{Bubeck14}, requires some work for the last
iterate~\cite[Theorem 1]{ShamirZhang13}; on the other hand, the approach here incurs an extra factor $\beta/\lambda$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \Cref{fact:tracking:fancy}]
Let $r_T\in\mathbb R$ be a parameter (dependent on $T$) left temporarily
unspecified, and set the quantities
\begin{align*}
\VE{1}{t}
&:= 2\lambda\left(f(\vu_{t}) - r_T\right),
&\forall t\geq 1,
\\
\VE{2}{t}
&:= \ip{[\nabla f(\vw_t)]_{\FS{t}} - [\vg_t]_{\FS{t}}}{\nabla f(\vw_t)},
&\forall t\geq 1,
\\
c
&:= \frac {\beta G^2}{2\lambda^2}.
\end{align*}
To prove the desired bound, it will first be shown, for any $t\geq
1$, that
\begin{equation}
f(\vw_{t+1}) - r_T
\leq \left(\frac {t-1}{t+1}\right)\left(f(\vw_t) - r_T\right)
+ \frac {\eta_t^2 \beta G^2}{2}
+ \eta_t\left(\VE{1}{t} + \VE{2}{t}\right).
\label{eq:sc:1}
\end{equation}
Let $t\geq 1$ be arbitrary, and note by strong convexity,
for any $\vw$ with $\vw \in \FS{t}$,
since $\vw_t\in \FS{t-1}\subseteq \FS{t}$ and thus $\vw - \vw_t \in \FS{t}$,
\begin{align*}
f(\vw)
&\geq f(\vw_t) + \ip{\nabla f(\vw_t)}{\vw-\vw_t} + \frac
{\lambda\|\vw-\vw_t\|_2^2}{2}
\\
&= f(\vw_t) + \ip{[\nabla f(\vw_t)]_{\FS{t}}}{\vw-\vw_t} + \frac
{\lambda\|\vw-\vw_t\|_2^2}{2}.
\end{align*}
The right hand side, as a function of $\vw$,
is a strongly convex quadratic over $\FS{t}$, minimized at
$\vw_t - [\nabla f(\vw_t)]_{\FS{t}}/\lambda$. Plugging this back in,
\[
f(\vw) \geq f(\vw_t) - \frac {\|[\nabla f(\vw_t)]_{\FS{t}}\|_2^2}{2\lambda},
\]
which in particular holds for $\vw = \vu_{t}$
(which satisfies $\vu_{t}\in \FS{t}$), meaning
\[
f(\vu_{t}) \geq f(\vw_t) - \frac {\|[\nabla f(\vw_t)]_{\FS{t}}\|_2^2}{2\lambda}.
\]
Combining this with smoothness and the definition of $\vw_{t+1}$,
\begin{align}
f(\vw_{t+1})
-r_T
&
\leq f(\vw_t) - r_T
+ \ip{\nabla f(\vw_t)}{-\eta_t [\vg_t]_{\FS{t}}}
+ \frac {\eta_t^2 \beta \| [\vg_t]_{\FS{t}}\|_2^2}{2}
\notag\\
&
= f(\vw_t) - r_T
+ \ip{[\nabla f(\vw_t)]_{\FS{t}}}{-\eta_t [\vg_t]_{\FS{t}}}
+ \frac {\eta_t^2 \beta \|[\vg_t]_{\FS{t}}\|_2^2}{2}
\notag\\
&
= f(\vw_t) - r_T
- \eta_t\ip{[\nabla f(\vw_t)]_{\FS{t}}}{[\nabla f(\vw_t)]_{\FS{t}}}
+ \eta_t \VE{2}{t}
+ \frac {\eta_t^2 \beta \|[\vg_t]_{\FS{t}}\|_2^2}{2}
\notag\\
&
\leq f(\vw_t) - r_T
+ 2\lambda\eta_t(f(\vu_{t}) -r_T + r_T - f(\vw_t))
+ \eta_t \VE{2}{t}
+ \frac {\eta_t^2 \beta G^2}{2}
\notag\\
&
= \left(1- 2\lambda \eta_t\right)\left(f(\vw_t) - r_T\right)
+ \frac {\eta_t^2 \beta G^2}{2}
+ \eta_t\left(\VE{1}{t} + \VE{2}{t}\right),
\label{eq:fw_ish}
\end{align}
thus establishing \cref{eq:sc:1} since $2\lambda\eta_t = 2/(t+1)$.
Next it will be proved by induction that, for any $t\geq 1$,
\begin{equation}
f(\vw_{t+1}) - r_T
\leq \frac {c} {t+1}
+ \sum_{j=1}^{t} \eta_j(\VE{1}{j} + \VE{2}{j}) \prod_{l=j+1}^{t} \frac{l}{l+2},
\label{eq:sc:2}
\end{equation}
where the convention $\prod_{l=j+1}^{t} l / (l+2) = 1$ is adopted for $t < j+1$.
For the base case $t=1$, \cref{eq:sc:1} grants
\begin{align*}
f(\vw_{t+1}) - r_T
&\leq
\underbrace{\left(\frac {t-1}{t+1}\right)}_{=0}\left(f(\vw_t) - r_T\right)
+ \frac {\eta_t^2 \beta G^2}{2}
+ \eta_t\left(\VE{1}{t} + \VE{2}{t}\right)
\\
&\leq
\frac {c}{t+1}
+ \sum_{j=1}^{t} \eta_j(\VE{1}{j} + \VE{2}{j}) \underbrace{\prod_{l=j+1}^{t} \frac l {l+2}}_{=1}.
\end{align*}
On other other hand, in the case $t > 1$, once again starting from \cref{eq:sc:1},
\begin{align*}
f(\vw_{t+1})
-r_T
&
\leq \left(\frac{t-1}{t+1}\right)\left(f(\vw_t) - r_T\right)
+ \frac {\eta_t^2 \beta G^2}{2}
+ \eta_t\left(\VE{1}{t} + \VE{2}{t}\right)
\\
&
\leq \left(\frac{t-1}{t+1}\right)\left(
\frac {c}{t}
+ \sum_{j=1}^{t-1} \eta_j(\VE{1}{j} + \VE{2}{j}) \prod_{l=j+1}^{t-1} \frac l {l+2}
\right)
+ \frac {\eta_t^2 \beta G^2}{2}
+ \eta_t\left(\VE{1}{t} + \VE{2}{t}\right)
\\
&
= \frac {t-1} {t+1}
\left( \frac {c}{t} + \frac {\beta G^2}{2\lambda^2(t-1)(t+1)}\right)
+ \sum_{j=1}^{t} \eta_j(\VE{1}{j} + \VE{2}{j}) \prod_{l=j+1}^{t} \frac{l}{l+2},
\end{align*}
thus completing the proof of \cref{eq:sc:2}.
To simplify the error term of \cref{eq:sc:2}, note
\begin{align*}
j = t
&\qquad\Longrightarrow\qquad
\prod_{l=j+1}^{t} \frac {l}{l+2}
= 1
= \frac {(j+1)(j+2)}{(t+1)(t+2)},
\\
j = t - 1
&\qquad\Longrightarrow\qquad
\prod_{l=j+1}^{t} \frac {l}{l+2}
= \frac {t}{t+2}
= \frac {(j+1)(j+2)}{(t+1)(t+2)},
\\
j < t - 1
&\qquad\Longrightarrow\qquad
\prod_{l=j+1}^{t} \frac {l}{l+2}
= \frac {(j+1)(j+2)}{(t+1)(t+2)}\prod_{l=j+3}^{t} \frac {l}{l}
= \frac {(j+1)(j+2)}{(t+1)(t+2)};
\end{align*}
thus, for any $t\geq 1$ and $1 \leq j \leq t$,
\[
\eta_j \prod_{l=j+1}^{t} \frac {l}{l+2}
= \frac {j+2}{\lambda (t+1) (t+2)}.
\]
Plugging this simplification back into \cref{eq:sc:2}, for $t\geq 1$,
\begin{align}
f(\vw_{t+1}) - r_T
&\leq
\frac {c} {t+1}
+ \sum_{j=1}^{t} \eta_j(\VE{1}{j} + \VE{2}{j}) \prod_{l=j+1}^{t} \frac{l}{l+2}
\notag\\
&=
\frac {c} {t+1}
+ \frac {1}{\lambda (t+1)(t+2)}\sum_{j=1}^{t} (j+2)(\VE{1}{j} + \VE{2}{j}).
\label{eq:sc:3}
\end{align}
Next, to instantiate the comparator $r$, consider the choice
\[
r_T := \frac{ \sum_{j=1}^{T} (j+2)f(\vu_{j})}{\sum_{j=1}^T (j+2)}.
\]
By construction, this provides
\[
\frac 1 {2\lambda}\sum_{j=1}^{T} (j+2) \VE{1}{j}
=
\sum_{j=1}^{T} (j+2) f(\vu_{j})
- r_T \sum_{j=1}^{T} (j+2)
=
\sum_{j=1}^{T} (j+2) f(\vu_{j})
- \sum_{j=1}^{T} (j+2) f(\vu_{j})
= 0.
\]
Consequently, \cref{eq:sc:3} simplifies to
\begin{equation}
f(\vw_{T+1}) -
\frac{ \sum_{j=1}^{T} (j+2)f(\vu_{j})}{\sum_{j=1}^T (j+2)}
\leq
\frac {1}{T+1}
\left(c
+ \frac 1 {\lambda(T+2)}\sum_{j=1}^{T} (j+2)\VE{2}{j}
\right),
\label{eq:sc:4}
\end{equation}
which is the first part of the desired statement.
For the final desired statement, it remains to control $\VE{2}{j}$ within
\cref{eq:sc:4}. For the expected value, let $\cF_j$ be the $\sigma$-algebra
of information up to time $j$; then
\begin{align*}
\bbE\left(
\sum_{j=1}^{T} \frac {j+2}{T+2}\VE{2}{j}
\right)
&=
\bbE\left(
\cdots
\bbE\left(
\bbE\left(
\sum_{j=1}^{T} \frac {j+2}{T+2}\VE{2}{j}
\Big|\cF_1
\right)
\Big|\cF_2
\right)
\cdots
\Big| \cF_T\right)
\\
&=
\sum_{j=1}^T\bbE\left(
\frac {j+2}{T+2}\VE{2}{j}
\Big|\cF_j
\right)
\\
&= 0.
\end{align*}
%
Here the last equality holds since
\begin{align*}
\bbE\left(
\VE{2}{j} \Big|\cF_j
\right)
&= \bbE\left(
\ip{[\nabla f(\vw_j)]_{\FS{j}} - [\vg_j]_{\FS{j}}}{\nabla f(\vw_j)}
\Big| \cF_j \right) \\
&=
\ip{
\bbE\left(
[\nabla f(\vw_j)]_{\FS{j}} - [\vg_j]_{\FS{j}}
\Big| \cF_j \right)
}{\nabla f(\vw_j)}
\\
&= 0,
\end{align*}
%
which used the fact that $\nabla f(\vw_j)$ is constant in the
$\sigma$-field $\cF_j$. This yields the expectation bound.
For the high probability bound, by Azuma-Hoeffding, with
probability at least $1-\delta$,
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j=1}^{T} \frac {j+2}{T+2}\VE{2}{j}
&= \sum_{j=1}^{T}\frac {j+2}{T+2}\ip{[\nabla f(\vw_j)]_{\FS{j}} -
[\vg_j]_{\FS{j}}}{\nabla f(\vw_j)}
\\
&\leq \sqrt{2 \ln(1/\delta) \sum_{j=1}^{T} 4G^4 (j+2)^2 / (T+2)^2}
\\
&\leq 4G^2 \sqrt{T\ln(1/\delta)}.
\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
With the proof of \Cref{fact:tracking:fancy} out of the way, the proof of
\Cref{fact:tracking:fancier} follows easily.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \Cref{fact:tracking:fancier}]
By the assumptions, $\ell(\ip{\vw}{\vx y})$ is bounded for any
$\|\vw\|\leq D$ and $\|\vx y\|\leq X$, and since
$\vw\mapsto \ell(\ip{\vw}{\vx y})$ is continuous, it follows that
$\nabla f(\vw) = \bbE[\nabla \ell(\ip{\vw}{\vx y})]$, meaning in
particular that
\begin{align*}
\|\nabla f(\vw)\|
&\leq \|\bbE[\vx y\ell'(\ip{\vw}{\vx y})]\| + \lambda \|\vw\|
\leq X + \lambda D,
\\
\|\nabla^2 f(\vw)\|
&\leq \|\bbE[\vx y\ell''(\ip{\vw}{\vx y})\vx^\top y]\| + \lambda
\leq X^2 + \lambda.
\end{align*}
Expanding these Lipschitz and smoothness terms
in \Cref{fact:tracking:fancy} gives the desired result.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
\noindent The combination of advanced neurobiology and engineering creates a new pathway, namely a brain computer interface (BCI). The BCI provides a bridge connecting the human brain to the outside world \cite{ortiz2013brain}. This means that people do not have to rely on the conventional pathway of an intent initialized in the brain being passed to muscles through peripheral nerves, and are able to interact directly with the external environment \cite{wolpaw2000brain}. Due to the lack of involvement of peripheral nerves and muscles, with the aid of a BCI system, disabled people could restore their abilities of communication \cite{muller2008machine} and the degenerated motor function \cite{li2013design, pfurtscheller2003thought}. During the past two decades, a variety of BCI systems have been created for different applications. These BCI systems are generally divided into two types: active BCI and passive BCI, according to the level of interaction with external stimuli. In the case of a passive BCI, when using a steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP) BCI \cite{bin2009online}, the user may, for example, simply stare at an intended digital number shown on a screen to dial a phone number. When a steady-state flicker is replaced with an occasional flicker, a different type of BCI called P300 can be used to output letters by hierarchical selections \cite{muller2008machine}. Compared to the passive BCI, the active BCI is more natural. Users can express their intents whenever they want to, rather than according to a predefined timing arrangement or external cooperation, as with the passive BCI. For instance, people with paraplegia can regain movement in a wheelchair by motor imagery \cite{li2013design}, or can control a computer cursor in virtual 2D \cite{mcfarland1993eeg} or 3D \cite{mcfarland2010electroencephalographic} environments through brain modulation. Moreover, BCI is also used to develop prostheses, with which disabled people can, for example, move an object \cite{muller2005eeg} or drink a cup of coffee \cite{hochberg2012reach}. More recently, BCI has been applied to facilitate rehabilitation \cite{daly2008brain, liu2014tensor}. Besides applications for disabled people, BCI also has promising applications for healthy persons, especially in the field of entertainment. BCI is employed to control video games instead of conventional inputs such as a keyboard and joystick \cite{li2013competitive}. In this way, healthy people can enjoy the experience of manipulating virtual objects in a manner different from that used in daily life.
\\
\noindent From the application point of view, the user experience is very important. This requires smoothness in the manipulation of the BCI system. In order to meet this requirement, the BCI system needs to translate brain activities into output information continuously without any interruption. In other words, this requires all the EEG segments to be present for the decoding. If some of the EEG segments are discarded due to extreme noise contamination, the BCI cannot generate the corresponding output during that period. Hence, it would be good to be able to utilize the remaining portion of the affected EEG segment, after only removing the part directly affected by noise.
In general, spectral power features are usually utilized to distinguish different motor imageries (e.g., left-hand and right-hand motor imageries) \cite{palaniappan2006utilizing, pfurtscheller2000brain, li2010bilateral, li2012active}, as they are considered to be robust for the representation of the contents of motor imageries. If the segment is complete (continuous), the Fourier transform can be well used to transform temporal data points into the spectral domain. This fails in the case of incomplete data, such as an EEG segment with a portion (or portions) of data removed (unevenly spaced). In order still to utilize such segments of EEG with arbitrary portions of data removed and provide users with an experience of smooth manipulation, we employ the Lomb-Scargle periodogram to estimate the spectral power \cite{lomb1976least, stoica2009spectral}, and Denoising Autoencoder (DAE) \cite{vincent2008extracting,vincent2010stacked} based neural network or support vector machine (SVM) \cite{vapnik2000nature, hearst1998support} to predict the classes of motor imageries. The results show that the proposed method is suitable for decoding incomplete EEG in a BCI system.
\section{Methodology}
\noindent We first employed the Lomb-Scargle periodogram \cite{lomb1976least, stoica2009spectral} to estimate band powers from incomplete EEG signals. Next, the extracted features were used to train an unsupervised DAE \cite{vincent2008extracting,vincent2010stacked} or a supervised SVM with Radial Basis Function (RBF) kernel \cite{vapnik2000nature, hearst1998support}. In the case of DAE, the mapping weights of DAE were used to initialize a neural network. After fine-tuning the weights, this trained neural network was used to recognize the classes of motor imageries. Fig. \ref{schematic} illustrates the proposed method.
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{schematic-eps-converted-to}
\caption{\label{schematic} Schematic depiction of the proposed method.}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Lomb-Scargle Periodogram}
\noindent A four-second trial is divided into 25 segments of one-second length with an overlap of 87.5\%. A segment is denoted by $X$, which is $N$ by $T$ matrix, where $N$ is the number of channels, and $T$ is the number of sampling points. The spectral power of each channel time series $y({t_i})$ is estimated by the Lomb-Scargle periodogram \cite{lomb1976least, stoica2009spectral}. The estimated spectral power at frequency ${\Omega_f}$ can be obtained by minimizing the following sum of difference squares:
\begin{equation}
\label{equation1}
\mathop {\min }\limits_{\scriptstyle\;\;\;\;a > 0\hfill\atop
\scriptstyle\phi \in [0,\;2\pi ]\hfill} \;\sum\limits_{i = 1}^T {{{(y({t_i}) - \alpha \cos ({\Omega_f}{t_i} + \phi ))}^2}}\;.
\end{equation}
\noindent Let
\begin{equation}
a = \alpha \cos \phi
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
b = - \alpha \sin \phi \;.
\end{equation}
\noindent We can then rewrite equation (\ref{equation1}) as:
\begin{equation}
\label{equation4}
\mathop {\min }\limits_{a,\;b} \;\sum\limits_{i = 1}^T {{{(y({t_i}) - a\cos ({\Omega_f}{t_i}) - b\sin ({\Omega_f}{t_i}))}^2}} .
\end{equation}
The optimal parameters $\hat{a}$ and $\hat{b}$ can be obtained through minimizing equation (\ref{equation4})
\begin{equation}
\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\hat{a}}\\
{\hat{b}}
\end{array}} \right] = {R^{ - 1}}r,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
R = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^T {\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\cos ({\Omega_f}{t_i})}\\
{\sin ({\Omega_f}{t_i})}
\end{array}} \right]} \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\cos ({\Omega_f}{t_i})}&{\sin ({\Omega_f}{t_i})}
\end{array}} \right],
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
r = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^T {\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\cos ({\Omega_f}{t_i})}\\
{\sin ({\Omega_f}{t_i})}
\end{array}} \right]} \;y({t_i})\;.
\end{equation}
The power of specific frequency ${\Omega_f}$ is then estimated with respect to optimal parameters $\hat{a}$, $\hat{b}$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\frac{1}{T}{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^T {\left( {\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\hat{a}}&{\hat{b}}
\end{array}} \right]\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\cos (\Omega{}_f{t_i})}\\
{\sin (\Omega{}_f{t_i})}
\end{array}} \right]} \right)} ^2}\\
\quad = \frac{1}{T}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\hat{a}}&{\hat{b}}
\end{array}} \right]\;R\;\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\hat{a}}\\
{\hat{b}}
\end{array}} \right]\\
\quad = \frac{1}{T}{r^{\rm T}}({\Omega_f}){R^{ - 1}}({\Omega_f})r({\Omega_f})\;.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\noindent Similarly, the minimization of squares mentioned above is used to estimate spectral powers at all frequencies. After that, spectral estimation for one channel is completed. These steps are repeated for all channels and all segments to obtain the spectral powers. Because the frequency range of 8-30 Hz is mostly related to the motor imagery task \cite{li2012active}, we divided this band into four subbands with a bandwidth of 5 Hz (i.e., 8-12 Hz, 13-17 Hz, 18-22 Hz, and 23-27 Hz). Subband powers were obtained by averaging spectral powers within the corresponding frequency band range for each channel. Then, subband powers (four features for each channel) for all channels were concatenated into a feature vector:
\begin{equation}
F = {[{f_{11}},\;{f_{12}},\;{f_{13}},\;{f_{14}},\;{f_{21}},\;{f_{22}},\;{f_{23}},\;{f_{24}}, \cdots ,\;{f_{N1}},\;{f_{N2}},\;{f_{N3}},\;{f_{N4}}]^{\rm T}}\;,
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the number of channels. Subsequently, features were normalized as:
\begin{equation}
{f_{qp}} = \log \left( {\frac{{{f_{qp}}}}{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^4 {{f_{ij}}} } }}} \right)\;.
\end{equation}
The normalized features were then fed into a neural network with DAE initialization, or into an SVM classifier to distinguish which class the current EEG segment belongs to.
\subsection{DAE-based neural network}
\noindent For a time, neural networks were less frequently used due to the drawback that they easily became stuck in the local minima, so more use was made of SVM classifier. However, recently neural networks have regained popularity, in particular when using a pre-training strategy \cite{vincent2010stacked, erhan2010does, glorot2011domain}. In this paper, we construct a three-layer neural network with DAE initialization (A neural network with more layers might possibly achieve a better performance through in-depth feature learning).
\\
\noindent The power features extracted by Lomb-Scargle Periodogram was first corrupted, denoted as $\hat{f}$, by means of a stochastic mapping $\hat{f} \thicksim q_\mathrm{\mathcal{{D}}}(\hat{f}|f)$. The part enclosed by the orange rectangle in Fig. \ref{schematic} shows a schematic diagram of the DAE. We set the corrupted elements to 0. Then, the corrupted features were mapped to a hidden representation (120 units) by the sigmoid function
\begin{equation}
y = g_{1,\;\theta }(\hat{f}) = s(W \cdot \hat{f} + b).
\end{equation}
Consequently, we reconstructed the uncorrupted $z$ as
\begin{equation}
z=g_{2,\;{\theta ^\prime }}(y).
\end{equation}
The objective was to train parameters $\theta = \{ W, b \}$ and $\theta^{\prime} = \{ W^{\prime}, b^{\prime} \}$ for minimization of the average reconstruction error over a training set. In other words, to find the parameters to let $z$ be as close as possible to $f$, we performed the following optimization:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
[{\theta^*},{\theta^{{\prime}\;*}}] = \mathop {\arg \min }\limits_{\theta ,\;{\theta^{\prime}}} \frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^n {L({f^{(i)}},\;{z^{(i)}})} \\
\quad \quad \quad \quad = \mathop {\arg \min }\limits_{\theta ,\;{\theta^{\prime}}} \frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^n {L({f^{(i)}},\;{g_{2,\;{\theta^{\prime}}}}({g_{1,\;\theta }}({\hat{f}^{(i)}})))},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $L$ is a squared error loss function $L(f,z) = {\left\| {f - z} \right\|^2}$, n is the number of training samples, and ${\theta^*},{\theta^{{\prime}\;*}}$ are the optimal values of ${\theta ^{}},{\theta^{\prime}}$. Once the optimal parameters were obtained, we were able to use those parameters to initialize a neural network. A top layer was added onto the neural network. After that, the parameters were fine-tuned in a supervised way.
\section{Evaluation Data}
\noindent Two different categories of data are used to prove the feasibility of the proposed method. One is the simulated data and the other is the two-class motor imagery data. We use simulated data to illustrate systematically that spectral power can be correctly estimated when the data become unevenly spaced after removing some data points from them. Further, we use real motor imagery data to demonstrate that classification accuracy does not dramatically decrease when increasing the percentage of data within the segment that has been removed, so that the proposed method is useful to process incomplete data in a BCI system.
\\
\noindent The simulated data were generated by mixing two sinusoidal signals, which were 3 Hz and 6 Hz, respectively. The maximal amplitude of the 3 Hz sinusoidal signal was 1.5 times that of the 6 Hz sinusoidal signal. The motor imagery data came from three subjects. Fourteen electrodes (shown with a green background in the scalp illustration in Fig. \ref{schematic}) were used to record the EEG signal on the sensorimotor cortex while the subject was conducting motor imagery at a sampling rate of 250 Hz. Those electrodes were referenced at the mastoids behind the ears and grounded at AFz. Each subject participated in four sessions. Each session consisted of 15 trials, each of which was four seconds long. The subject conducted either left hand motor imagery or right hand motor imagery according to the cue shown on the computer monitor.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Simulated data}
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{simulation_SinPlot-eps-converted-to}
\caption{\label{SimulatedPlot} Spectral power estimations for the complete signal and signals after data point removal.}
\end{figure*}
\noindent We first evaluated the performance of the spectral power estimation on simulated data. The simulated data was mixed with two sinusoidal signals, which were 3 Hz and 6 Hz, respectively. The spectral power estimated from the complete signal, and the incomplete signals with different proportional removal of data points (from 10\% to 80\% with an interval of 10\%) are shown in Fig. \ref{SimulatedPlot}. The data points were removed at random. In order to keep the same scale over cases with different proportional data removal to facilitate comparisons between them, the powers shown in Fig. \ref{SimulatedPlot} were normalized by dividing by a proportional factor (1-p, where p is the percentage of data removed). For example, the estimated power is divided by a factor of 0.7 when 30\% of data points are removed from the signal. From Fig. \ref{SimulatedPlot}, we can see that the components at 3 Hz and 6 Hz can be well estimated in all cases with different proportions of data removal, even up to removal of 80\% of data points.
\subsection{Real motor imagery data}
\begin{figure*}[!b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{PointIllu60removal-eps-converted-to}
\caption{\label{Point60Rem} An example of data point removal. The data points shown with a grey background are removed while data points shown with a white background are retained.}
\end{figure*}
\noindent In general, BCI encounters a common problem that there is no output when the whole segment has to be discarded due to partial noise contamination in that segment. If a method can obtain comparable recognition accuracy (the same or slightly worse) by using only the remaining portion of the segment (the portion from which noise contamination has been removed), this method is considered as an effective solution to the aforementioned problem.
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{BlockIllu60removal-eps-converted-to}
\caption{\label{Block60Rem} An example of block point removal. The data points shown with a grey background are removed, while data points shown with a white background are retained.}
\end{figure*}
\noindent For real motor imagery data, two ways were used to randomly remove the partial data from the segment. One is that data points within a segment were randomly removed (see Fig. \ref{Point60Rem} for an example). The other is that data blocks within a segment were randomly removed (see Fig. \ref{Block60Rem} for an example). The width of the blocks removed was generated according to a normal distribution with a mean of 20 and a standard deviation of 10.
\begin{figure*}[!thb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Acc_Points-eps-converted-to}
\caption{\label{AccPoint} Classification accuracies for the form of data point removal. The thin red lines represent trial accuracies, and the bold blue lines represent sliding time window accuracies.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Acc_Block-eps-converted-to}
\caption{\label{AccBlock} Classification accuracies for the form of block point removal. The thin red lines represent trial accuracies, and the bold blue lines represent sliding time window accuracies.}
\end{figure*}
\noindent We used the data from the preceding session to train the SVM classifier with a RBF kernel, and tested it with the data from the following session. Two approaches were used for the evaluation of the accuracy (i.e., sliding time window accuracy and trial accuracy). Sliding time window accuracies were calculated as the number of segments classified as correct divided by the total number of segments. A trial was classified as belonging to the class to which most of the sliding time windows within that trial belonged. Then trial accuracies were obtained according to the ratio of trials classified as correct. Fig. \ref{AccPoint} and Fig. \ref{AccBlock} show test accuracies for the conditions of data point removal and data block removal, respectively. In general, the accuracies for all sessions of all subjects did not dramatically decrease. Trial accuracies varied more than sliding time window accuracies across different proportional sections of data removal. This is because a trial was classified as correct even if the number of sliding time windows in the trial classified as correct was only one more than the number of sliding time windows classified as incorrect. Likewise, trials with one more incorrect sliding time window than correct sliding time window were classified as incorrect. Therefore, in some cases, the trial accuracy changed greatly while the accuracy of
the sliding time widows did not change much. A comparable classification accuracy could be achieved even when 80\% of data were removed. High accuracies were retained no matter how many data points were removed - in the range from 10\% to 80\% - for subject 1, especially for sessions 2 and 3. The accuracies for 80\% data removal were substantially worse than those for 70\% data removal for subject 1 in the condition of block data removal. It appears that our method is relatively sensitive to data removal in block form.
\subsection{Comparison between DAE and SVM}
\noindent In this section, we show a comparison between DAE and SVM in terms of classification accuracy
of sliding time windows. SVM has been widely adopted since its conception and has been successfully applied in many fields. Deep learning is a promising and burgeoning method. DAE is utilized as a building brick to compose a deep learning network. It is meaningful to illustrate the effectiveness of this for EEG feature recognition using our paradigm. The parameters used in the training are listed in Table \ref{Paras}. Fig. \ref{AccComPoint} shows the accuracy difference between DAE and SVM for each session of each subject under the condition of data point removal. Asterisks located above the zero horizontal line mean that the accuracy of DAE is higher than that of SVM. The bars shown on the right of each sub-plot are the average differences. The bottom right plot illustrates the overall difference averaged across all sessions of all subjects. From Fig. \ref{AccComPoint}, we can see that there is no clear winner - the DAE is better than the SVM in a number of sessions but turns out to be worse in other sessions. The overall average accuracy of DAE is still better than that of SVM. Fig. \ref{AccComBlock} shows the accuracy comparison under the condition of block point removal. The result is similar to the condition of data point removal. The overall average accuracy of DAE is higher than that of SVM under the condition of block point removal, but the increase in accuracy of DAE compared with SVM is less than the case of data point removal.
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\caption{Parameter Settings}
\label{Paras}
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
Parameters & Values\\ \hline
Corrupted fraction & 0.3\\
Mini-batch size & 25\\
Learning rate for pre-training & 0.9\\
Number of pre-training epochs & 20\\
Learning rate for fine-tuning & 0.9\\
Number of fine-tuning epochs & 50\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[!hbt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{AccComPoint-eps-converted-to}
\caption{\label{AccComPoint} Accuracy comparison between DAE and SVM under the condition of data point removal. Each asterisk represents an accuracy difference between the DAE and the SVM. The difference is calculated by the DAE accuracy minus the corresponding SVM accuracy. The bar at the right of each plot illustrates the average difference in a session.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{AccComBlock-eps-converted-to}
\caption{\label{AccComBlock} Accuracy comparison between DAE and SVM under the condition of block point removal. Graphical symbol expressions are the same as in Fig. \ref{AccComPoint}.}
\end{figure*}
\noindent From the results of comparisons, the DAE is shown to be comparable to the SVM. However, it is possible that the DAE can outperform the SVM when more layers are used and parameters are better tuned. It is not yet clear whether the DAE can significantly exceed the SVM in terms of EEG classification, but there has been a report that stacked DAE (i.e., multiple DAEs combined together to obtain deeper learning of features) performed better than the SVM on the image benchmark dataset named MNIST \cite{vincent2008extracting}.
\section{Conclusion}
\noindent We propose the combination of the Lomb-Scargle periodogram and either SVM or DAE to distinguish incomplete EEG segments (i.e., segments from which a portion of data has been removed due to noise contamination). The results indicate that classification accuracy is not dramatically decreased when different percentages of data are removed. Therefore, the classification performance using the proposed method for incomplete segments is acceptable for a BCI application system. This means that the segment with noise contamination can still be utilized to output commands after only removing the noisy portion, instead of discarding the whole segment, as is conventionally done in BCI systems. In brief, the proposed method can achieve comparable classification performance even when most of the data points in a segment have been removed. It provides an alternative solution for the frequent problem occurring in a BCI system that there is no output when a segment is discarded.
\section{Acknowledgments}
\noindent The work of Liqing Zhang was supported by the national natural science foundation of China (Grant No. 91120305, 61272251).
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec-intr}
Proximal-gradient splitting methods are powerful techniques used in order to solve optimization problems
where the objective to be minimized is the sum of a finite collection of smooth and/or nonsmooth functions. The main feature
of this class of algorithmic schemes is the fact that they access each function separately, either by a gradient step
if this is smooth or by a proximal step if it is nonsmooth.
In the convex case (when all the functions involved are convex), these methods are well understood, see for example
\cite{bauschke-book}, where the reader can find a presentation of the most prominent methods, like the forward-backward, forward-backward-forward and
the Douglas-Rachford splitting algorithms.
On the other hand, the nonconvex case is less understood, one of the main difficulties coming from the fact that the proximal point operator is in general not anymore single-valued. However,
one can observe a considerably progress in this direction when the functions in the objective have the \textit{Kurdyka-\L{}ojasiewicz property} (so-called \textit{KL functions}), as it is the case for the ones
with different analytic features. This applies for both the forward-backward algorithm (see \cite{b-sab-teb}, \cite{att-b-sv2013}) and the forward-backward-forward algorithm (see \cite{b-c-inertial-nonc-ts}). We refer
the reader also to \cite{attouch-bolte2009, att-b-red-soub2010, c-pesquet-r, f-g-peyp, h-l-s-t, ipiano} for literature concerning
proximal-gradient splitting methods in the nonconvex case relying on the \textit{Kurdyka-\L{}ojasiewicz property}.
A particular class of the proximal-gradient splitting methods are the ones with inertial/memory effects. These iterative schemes have their origins in the time discretization of some differential
inclusions of second order type (see \cite{alvarez2000, alvarez-attouch2001}) and share the feature that the new iterate is defined by using the previous two iterates. The increasing interest in this class of algorithms is emphasized by a considerable number of papers written in the last fifteen years on this topic, see
\cite{alvarez2000, alvarez-attouch2001, alvarez2004, att-peyp-red, b-c-inertial, b-c-inertial-admm, b-c-inertialhybrid, b-c-inertial-nonc-ts, b-c-h-inertial, mainge2008, mainge-moudafi2008, moudafi-oliny2003, cabot-frankel2011, pesq-pust, chen-ma-yang, chan-ma-yang}.
Recently, an inertial forward-backward type algorithm has been proposed and analyzed in \cite{ipiano} in the nonconvex setting, by assuming that the nonsmooth part of the objective function is convex,
while the smooth counterpart is allowed to be nonconvex. It is the aim of this paper to introduce an inertial forward-backward algorithm in the full nonconvex setting and to study its convergence properties.
The techniques for proving the convergence of the numerical scheme use the same three main ingredients, as other algorithms for nonconvex optimization problems involving
KL functions. More precisely, we show a sufficient decrease property for the iterates, the existence of a subgradient lower bound for the iterates gap and, finally, we use the analytic features of the objective function in order
to obtain convergence, see \cite{b-sab-teb, att-b-sv2013}. The {\it limiting (Mordukhovich) subdifferential} and its properties play an important role in the analysis. The main result of this paper shows that,
provided an appropriate regularization of the objective satisfies the Kurdyka-\L{}ojasiewicz property, the convergence of the inertial forward-backward algorithm is guaranteed. As a particular instance,
we also treat the case when the objective function is semi-algebraic and present the convergence properties of the algorithm.
In the last section of the paper we consider two numerical experiments. The first one has an academic character and shows the ability of
algorithms with inertial/memory effects to detect optimal solutions which are not found by the non-inertial versions (similar allegations can be found also in \cite[Section 5.1]{ipiano} and
\cite[Example 1.3.9]{bertsekas}). The second one concerns the restoration of a noisy blurred image by using a nonconvex misfit functional with nonconvex regularization.
\section{Preliminaries}
In this section we recall some notions and results which are needed throughout this paper. Let $\N= \{0,1,2,...\}$ be the set of nonnegative integers. For $m\geq 1$, the Euclidean scalar product and the induced norm on $\R^m$
are denoted by $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ and $\|\cdot\|$, respectively. Notice that all the finite-dimensional spaces considered in the
manuscript are endowed with the topology induced by the Euclidean norm.
The {\it domain} of the function $f:\R^m\rightarrow (-\infty,+\infty]$ is defined by $\dom f=\{x\in\R^m:f(x)<+\infty\}$. We say that $f$ is {\it proper} if $\dom f\neq\emptyset$.
For the following generalized subdifferential notions and their basic properties we refer to \cite{boris-carte, rock-wets}.
Let $f:\R^m\rightarrow (-\infty,+\infty]$ be a proper and lower semicontinuous function. If $x\in\dom f$, we consider the {\it Fr\'{e}chet (viscosity)
subdifferential} of $f$ at $x$ as the set $$\hat{\partial}f(x)= \left \{v\in\R^m: \liminf_{y\rightarrow x}\frac{f(y)-f(x)-\<v,y-x\>}{\|y-x\|}\geq 0 \right \}.$$ For
$x\notin\dom f$ we set $\hat{\partial}f(x):=\emptyset$. The {\it limiting (Mordukhovich) subdifferential} is defined at $x\in \dom f$ by
$$\partial f(x)=\{v\in\R^m:\exists x_n\rightarrow x,f(x_n)\rightarrow f(x)\mbox{ and }\exists v_n\in\hat{\partial}f(x_n),v_n\rightarrow v \mbox{ as }n\rightarrow+\infty\},$$
while for $x \notin \dom f$, one takes $\partial f(x) :=\emptyset$.
Notice that in case $f$ is convex, these notions coincide with the {\it convex subdifferential}, which means that
$\hat\partial f(x)=\partial f(x)=\{v\in\R^m:f(y)\geq f(x)+\<v,y-x\> \ \forall y\in \R^m\}$ for all $x\in\dom f$.
Notice the inclusion $\hat\partial f(x)\subseteq\partial f(x)$ for each $x\in\R^m$. We will use the following closedness criteria
concerning the graph of the limiting subdifferential: if $(x_n)_{n\in\N}$ and $(v_n)_{n\in\N}$ are sequences in $\R^m$ such that
$v_n\in\partial f(x_n)$ for all $n\in\N$, $(x_n,v_n)\rightarrow (x,v)$ and $f(x_n)\rightarrow f(x)$ as $n\rightarrow+\infty$, then
$v\in\partial f(x)$.
The Fermat rule reads in this nonsmooth setting as: if $x\in\R^m$ is a local minimizer of $f$, then $0\in\partial f(x)$. Notice that
in case $f$ is continuously differentiable around $x \in \R^m$ we have $\partial f(x)=\{\nabla f(x)\}$. Let us denote by
$$\crit(f)=\{x\in\R^m: 0\in\partial f(x)\}$$ the set of {\it (limiting)-critical points} of $f$. Let us mention also the following subdifferential rule:
if $f:\R^m\rightarrow(-\infty,+\infty]$ is proper and lower semicontinuous and $h:\R^m\rightarrow \R$ is a continuously differentiable function, then $\partial (f+h)(x)=\partial f(x)+\nabla h(x)$ for all $x\in\R^m$.
We turn now our attention to functions satisfying the {\it Kurdyka-\L{}ojasiewicz property}. This class of functions will play
a crucial role when proving the convergence of the proposed inertial algorithm. For $\eta\in(0,+\infty]$, we denote by $\Theta_{\eta}$ the class of concave and continuous functions
$\varphi:[0,\eta)\rightarrow [0,+\infty)$ such that $\varphi(0)=0$, $\varphi$ is continuously differentiable on $(0,\eta)$, continuous at $0$ and $\varphi'(s)>0$ for all
$s\in(0, \eta)$. In the following definition (see \cite{att-b-red-soub2010, b-sab-teb}) we use also the {\it distance function} to a set, defined for $A\subseteq\R^m$ as $\dist(x,A)=\inf_{y\in A}\|x-y\|$
for all $x\in\R^m$.
\begin{definition}\label{KL-property} \rm({\it Kurdyka-\L{}ojasiewicz property}) Let $f:\R^m\rightarrow(-\infty,+\infty]$ be a proper and lower semicontinuous
function. We say that $f$ satisfies the {\it Kurdyka-\L{}ojasiewicz (KL) property} at $\ol x\in \dom\partial f=\{x\in\R^m:\partial f(x)\neq\emptyset\}$
if there exists $\eta \in(0,+\infty]$, a neighborhood $U$ of $\ol x$ and a function $\varphi\in \Theta_{\eta}$ such that for all $x$ in the
intersection
$$U\cap \{x\in\R^m: f(\ol x)<f(x)<f(\ol x)+\eta\}$$ the following inequality holds
$$\varphi'(f(x)-f(\ol x))\dist(0,\partial f(x))\geq 1.$$
If $f$ satisfies the KL property at each point in $\dom\partial f$, then $f$ is called a {\it KL function}.
\end{definition}
The origins of this notion go back to the pioneering work of \L{}ojasiewicz \cite{lojasiewicz1963}, where it is proved that for a real-analytic function
$f:\R^m\rightarrow\R$ and a critical point $\ol x\in\R^m$ (that is $\nabla f(\ol x)=0$), there exists $\theta\in[1/2,1)$ such that the function
$|f-f(\ol x)|\|\nabla f\|^{-1}$ is bounded around $\ol x$. This corresponds to the situation when $\varphi(s)=s^{1-\theta}$. The result of
\L{}ojasiewicz allows the interpretation of the KL property as a reparametrization of the function values in order to avoid flatness around the
critical points. Kurdyka \cite{kurdyka1998} extended this property to differentiable functions definable in an o-minimal structure.
Further extensions to the nonsmooth setting can be found in \cite{b-d-l2006, att-b-red-soub2010, b-d-l-s2007, b-d-l-m2010}.
One of the remarkable properties of the KL functions is their ubiquitous in applications, according to \cite{b-sab-teb}. To the class of KL functions belong semi-algebraic, real sub-analytic, semiconvex, uniformly convex and
convex functions satisfying a growth condition. We refer the reader to
\cite{b-d-l2006, att-b-red-soub2010, b-d-l-m2010, b-sab-teb, b-d-l-s2007, att-b-sv2013, attouch-bolte2009} and the references therein for more details regarding all the classes mentioned above and illustrating examples.
An important role in our convergence analysis will be played by the following uniformized KL property given in \cite[Lemma 6]{b-sab-teb}.
\begin{lemma}\label{unif-KL-property} Let $\Omega\subseteq \R^m$ be a compact set and let $f:\R^m\rightarrow(-\infty,+\infty]$ be a proper
and lower semicontinuous function. Assume that $f$ is constant on $\Omega$ and $f$ satisfies the KL property at each point of $\Omega$.
Then there exist $\varepsilon,\eta >0$ and $\varphi\in \Theta_{\eta}$ such that for all $\ol x\in\Omega$ and for all $x$ in the intersection
\begin{equation}\label{int} \{x\in\R^m: \dist(x,\Omega)<\varepsilon\}\cap \{x\in\R^m: f(\ol x)<f(x)<f(\ol x)+\eta\}\end{equation}
the following inequality holds \begin{equation}\label{KL-ineq}\varphi'(f(x)-f(\ol x))\dist(0,\partial f(x))\geq 1.\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
We close this section by presenting two convergence results which will play a determined role in the proof of the results we provide in the next section. The first one was often used in the literature
in the context of Fej\'{e}r monotonicity techniques for proving convergence results of classical algorithms for convex optimization problems or more generally for monotone inclusion problems (see \cite{bauschke-book}).
The second one is probably also known, see for example \cite{b-c-inertial-nonc-ts}.
\begin{lemma}\label{fejer1} Let $(a_n)_{n\in\N}$ and $(b_n)_{n\in\N}$ be real sequences such that $b_n\geq 0$ for all $n\in\N$,
$(a_n)_{n\in\N}$ is bounded below and $a_{n+1}+b_n\leq a_n$ for all $n\in\N$. Then $(a_n)_{n\in\N}$ is a monotically decreasing and convergent
sequence and $\sum_{n\in \N}b_n< + \infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{fejer2} Let $(a_n)_{n\in\N}$ and $(b_n)_{n\in\N}$ be nonnegative real sequences, such that
$\sum_{n\in\N}b_n<+\infty$ and $a_{n+1}\le a\cdot a_n+b\cdot a_{n-1} +b_n$ for all $n\ge 1$, where $a\in\R$, $b\ge 0$ and $a+b<1.$ Then $\sum_{n\in\N}a_n<+\infty.$
\end{lemma}
\section{A forward-backward algorithm}
In this section we present an inertial forward-backward algorithm for a fully nonconvex optimization problem and study its convergence properties. The problem under investigation has the following formulation. \vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent {\bf Problem 1.} Let $f:\R^m\to (-\infty,+\infty]$ be a proper, lower semicontinuous function which is bounded below and let $g:\R^m\to \R$ be a Fr\'{e}chet
differentiable function with Lipschitz continuous gradient, i.e. there exists $L_{{\nabla} g}\ge 0$ such that $\|{\nabla} g(x)-{\nabla} g(y)\|\le L_{{\nabla} g}\|x-y\|$ for all $x,y\in\R^m.$ We deal with the optimization problem
\begin{equation}\label{opt-pb} (P) \ \inf_{x\in\R^m}[f(x)+g(x)]. \end{equation}
In the iterative scheme we propose below, we use also the function
$F:\R^m\to\R$, assumed to be $\sigma-$strongly convex, i.e. $F - \frac{\sigma}{2}\|\cdot\|^2$ is convex, Fr\'{e}chet differentiable and such that ${\nabla} F$ is $L_{{\nabla} F}$-Lipschitz continuous, where $\sigma,L_{{\nabla} F}>0$.
The {\it Bregman distance} to $F$, denoted by $D_F:\R^m\times\R^m\to \R$, is defined as
$$D_F(x,y)=F(x)-F(y)-\<{\nabla} F(y),x-y\> \ \forall (x,y)\in\R^m\times\R^m.$$
Notice that the properties of the function $F$ ensure the following inequalities
\begin{equation}\label{l0}
\frac{\sigma}{2}\|x-y\|^2\le D_F(x,y)\le \frac{L_{{\nabla} F}}{2}\|x-y\|^2 \ \forall x,y\in\R^m.
\end{equation}
We propose the following iterative scheme. \vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent{\bf Algorithm 1.} Chose $x_0,x_1\in\R^m$, $\ul\alpha,\ol\alpha > 0$, $\beta\geq 0$ and the sequences
$(\alpha_n)_{n\geq 1},(\beta_n)_{n\geq 1}$ fulfilling $$0<\ul\alpha\leq\alpha_n\leq\ol\alpha \ \forall n\geq 1$$ and
$$0\leq\beta_n\leq\beta \ \forall n\geq 1.$$
Consider the iterative scheme
\begin{equation}\label{alg}(\forall n\geq 1)\hspace{0.2cm}
x_{n+1}\in\argmin_{u\in \R^m}\left\{D_F(u,x_n)+\alpha_n\<u,{\nabla} g(x_n)\>+\beta_n\<u,x_{n-1}-x_n\>+\alpha_n f(u)\right\}.\end{equation}
Due to the subdfferential sum formula mentioned in the previous section, one can see that the sequence generated by this algorithm satisfies the relation
\begin{equation}\label{alg1}
x_{n+1}\in({\nabla} F+\alpha_n{\partial} f)^{-1}({\nabla} F(x_n)-\alpha_n{\nabla} g(x_n)+\beta_n(x_n-x_{n-1})) \ \forall n\geq 1.
\end{equation}
Further, since $f$ is proper, lower semicontinuous and bounded from below and $D_F$ is coercive in its first argument
(that is $\lim_{\|x\|\rightarrow+\infty}D_F(x,y)=+\infty$ for all $y\in\R^m$), the iterative scheme is well-defined, meaning
that the existence of $x_n$ is guaranteed for each $n \geq 2$, since the objective function in the minimization problem to be solved at each iteration is coercive.
\begin{remark}\label{prox-nevid} The condition that $f$ should be bounded below is imposed in order to ensure that in each iteration one can chose at least one $x_n$
(that is the $\argmin$ in \eqref{alg} is nonempty). One can replace this requirement by asking that the objective function in the minimization problem
considered in \eqref{alg} is coercive and the theory presented below still remains valid. This observation is useful when dealing with optimization problems as the ones considered in Subsection 4.1.
\end{remark}
Before proceeding with the convergence analysis, we discuss the relation of our scheme to other algorithms from the literature. Let us take first $F(x)=\frac{1}{2}\|x\|^2$ for all $x\in\R^m$.
In this case $D_F(x,y)=\frac{1}{2}\|x-y\|^2$ for all $(x,y)\in\R^m\times\R^m$ and $\sigma=L_{\nabla F}=1$. The iterative scheme becomes
\begin{equation}\label{alg2}(\forall n\geq 1)\hspace{0.2cm}x_{n+1}\in\argmin_{u\in \R^m}\left\{\frac{\|u-(x_n-\alpha_n{\nabla} g(x_n)+\beta_n(x_n-x_{n-1}))\|^2}{2\alpha_n}+f(u)\right\}.
\end{equation}
A similar inertial type algorithm has been analyzed in \cite{ipiano}, however in the restrictive case when $f$ is convex.
If we take in addition $\beta=0$, which enforces $\beta_n=0$ for all $n\geq 1$, then \eqref{alg2} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{alg3}(\forall n\geq 1)\hspace{0.2cm}x_{n+1}\in\argmin_{u\in \R^m}\left\{\frac{\|u-(x_n-\alpha_n{\nabla} g(x_n))\|^2}{2\alpha_n}+f(u)\right\},
\end{equation}
the convergence of which has been investigated in \cite{b-sab-teb} in the full nonconvex setting. Notice that forward-backward algorithms
with variable metrics for KL functions have been proposed in \cite{f-g-peyp, c-pesquet-r}.
On the other hand, if we take $g(x)=0$ for all $x\in\R^m$, the iterative scheme in \eqref{alg2} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{alg4} \
(\forall n\geq 1)\hspace{0.2cm}x_{n+1}\in\argmin_{u\in \R^m}\left\{\frac{\|u-(x_n+\beta_n(x_n-x_{n-1}))\|^2}{2\alpha_n}+f(u)\right\},
\end{equation} which is a proximal point algorithm with inertial/memory effects formulated in the nonconvex setting designed for finding the critical points
of $f$. The iterative scheme without the inertial term, that is when $\beta=0$ and, so, $\beta_n=0$ for all $n \geq 1$, has been considered in the context of KL functions in \cite{attouch-bolte2009}.
Let us mention that in the full convex setting, which means that $f$ and $g$ are convex
functions, in which case for all $n\geq 2$, $x_n$ is uniquely determined and can be expressed via the {\it proximal operator} of $f$, \eqref{alg2} can be
derived from the iterative scheme proposed in \cite{moudafi-oliny2003}, \eqref{alg3} is the classical forward-backward algorithm (see for example
\cite{bauschke-book} or \cite{combettes}) and \eqref{alg4} has been analyzed in \cite{alvarez-attouch2001} in the more general context of
monotone inclusion problems.
In the convergence analysis of the algorithm the following result will be useful (see for example \cite[Lemma 1.2.3]{nes}).
\begin{lemma}\label{l3} Let $g:\R^m\to\R$ be Fr\'echet differentiable with $L_{{\nabla} g}$-Lipschitz continuous gradient. Then
$$g(y)\le g(x)+\<{\nabla} g(x),y-x\>+\frac{L_{{\nabla} g}}{2}\|y-x\|^2,\,\forall x,y\in\R^m.$$
\end{lemma}
\noindent Let us start now with the investigation of the convergence of the proposed algorithm.
\begin{lemma}\label{l4} In the setting of Problem 1, let $(x_n)_{n\in\N}$ be the sequence generated by Algorithm 1. Then for every $\mu>0$ one has
$$(f+g)(x_{n+1})+M_1\|x_n-x_{n+1}\|^2\le (f+g)(x_{n})+M_2\|x_{n-1}-x_{n}\|^2 \ \forall n\geq 1,$$
where
\begin{equation}\label{M1M2}
M_1=\displaystyle\frac{\sigma-\overline{\alpha} L_{{\nabla} g}}{2\overline{\alpha}}-\frac{\mu\beta}{2\underline{\alpha}} \ \mbox{and} \ M_2=\displaystyle\frac{\beta}{2\mu\underline{\alpha}}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, for $\mu>0$ and $\underline{\alpha},\beta$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{mu-sigma}\mu(\sigma-L_{{\nabla} g}\underline{\alpha})>\beta(\mu^2+1)\end{equation} one can chose $\underline{\alpha} < \overline{\alpha}$ such that $M_1>M_2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let us consider $\mu>0$ and fix $n\ge 1$. Due to \eqref{alg} we have
$$D_F(x_{n+1},x_n)+\alpha_n\<x_{n+1},{\nabla} g(x_n)\>+\beta_n\<x_{n+1},x_{n-1}-x_n\>+\alpha_n f(x_{n+1})\le$$
$$D_F(x_n,x_n)+\alpha_n\<x_n,{\nabla} g(x_n)\>+\beta_n\<x_n,x_{n-1}-x_n\>+\alpha_n f(x_n)$$
or, equivalently,
\begin{equation}\label{e2}
D_F(x_{n+1},x_n)+\<x_{n+1}-x_n,\alpha_n{\nabla} g(x_n)-\beta_n(x_n-x_{n-1})\>+\alpha_n f(x_{n+1})\le \alpha_n f(x_{n}).
\end{equation}
On the other hand, by Lemma \ref{l3} we have
$$\<{\nabla} g(x_n),x_{n+1}-x_n\>\ge g(x_{n+1})-g(x_n)-\frac{L_{{\nabla} g}}{2}\|x_n-x_{n+1}\|^2.$$
At the same time
$$\<x_{n+1}-x_n,x_{n-1}-x_n\>\ge -\left(\frac{\mu}{2}\|x_n-x_{n+1}\|^2+\frac{1}{2\mu}\|x_{n-1}-x_n\|^2\right),$$
and from (\ref{l0}) we have
$$\frac{\sigma}{2}\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2\le D_F(x_{n+1},x_n).$$
Hence, $(\ref{e2})$ leads to
\begin{equation}\label{e3}
(f+g)(x_{n+1})+\frac{\sigma-L_{{\nabla} g}\alpha_n-\mu\beta_n}{2\alpha_n}\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2\le (f+g)(x_n)+\frac{\beta_n}{2\mu\alpha_n}\|x_{n-1}-x_n\|^2.
\end{equation}
Obviously $M_1=\frac{\sigma-L_{{\nabla} g}\overline{\alpha}}{2\overline{\alpha}}-\frac{\mu\beta}{2\underline{\alpha}}\le \frac{\sigma-L_{{\nabla} g}\alpha_n-\mu\beta_n}{2\alpha_n}$ and $M_2=\frac{\beta}{2\mu\underline{\alpha}}\ge \frac{\beta_n}{2\mu\alpha_n}$ thus,
$$(f+g)(x_{n+1})+M_1\|x_n-x_{n+1}\|^2\le (f+g)(x_{n})+M_2\|x_{n-1}-x_{n}\|^2$$
and the first part of the lemma is proved.
Let now $\mu>0$ and $\underline{\alpha},\beta$ be such that $\mu(\sigma-L_{{\nabla} g}\underline{\alpha})>\beta(\mu^2+1)$. Then
$$\frac{\mu\underline{\alpha}\sigma}{L_{{\nabla} g}\mu\underline{\alpha}+\beta(\mu^2+1)}>\underline{\alpha}.$$
Let $$\underline{\alpha}<\overline{\alpha}<\frac{\mu\underline{\alpha}\sigma}{L_{{\nabla} g}\mu\underline{\alpha}+\beta(\mu^2+1)}.$$
Then $$\frac{1}{\overline{\alpha}}>\frac{L_{{\nabla} g}}{\sigma}+\frac{\beta(\mu^2+1)}{\mu\underline{\alpha}\sigma}\Leftrightarrow \frac{\sigma-L_{{\nabla} g}\overline{\alpha}}{2\overline{\alpha}}>\frac{\beta(\mu^2+1)}{2\mu\underline{\alpha}}\Leftrightarrow \frac{\sigma-L_{{\nabla} g}\overline{\alpha}}{2\overline{\alpha}}-\frac{\mu\beta}{2\underline{\alpha}}>\frac{\beta}{2\mu\underline{\alpha}}\Leftrightarrow$$
$$M_1>M_2$$ and the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{p1} In the setting of Problem 1, chose $\mu,\underline{\alpha}, \beta$ satisfying \eqref{mu-sigma}, $M_1, M_2$ satisfying \eqref{M1M2} and $\underline{\alpha} < \overline{\alpha}$ such that $M_1 > M_2$. Assume that $f+g$ is bounded from below.
Then the following statements hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\sum_{n\geq 1}\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|^2<+\infty$;
\item[(b)] the sequence $((f+g)(x_n)+M_2\|x_{n-1}-x_n\|^2)_{n\geq 1}$ is monotonically decreasing and convergent;
\item[(c)] the sequence $((f+g)(x_n))_{n\in\N}$ is convergent.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} For every $n\geq 1$, set $a_n=(f+g)(x_n)+M_2\|x_{n-1}-x_n\|^2$ and $ b_n=(M_1-M_2)\|x_n-x_{n+1}\|^2.$ Then obviously from Lemma \ref{l4} one has
for every $n\geq 1$
$$a_{n+1}+b_n=(f+g)(x_{n+1})+M_1\|x_n-x_{n+1}\|^2\le (f+g)(x_n)+M_2\|x_{n-1}-x_n\|^2=a_n.$$
The conclusion follows now from Lemma \ref{fejer1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{subdiff} In the setting of Problem 1, consider the sequences generated by Algorithm 1. For every $n \geq 1$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{y-n-in-subdiff}y_{n+1}\in\partial (f+g)(x_{n+1}),\end{equation}
where
$$y_{n+1} = \frac{{\nabla} F(x_{n})-{\nabla} F(x_{n+1})}{\alpha_{n}}+{\nabla} g(x_{n+1})-{\nabla} g(x_{n})+\frac{\beta_{n}}{\alpha_{n}}(x_{n}-x_{n-1}).$$
Moreover,
\begin{equation}\label{ineq-y_n}\|y_{n+1}\|\leq \frac{L_{{\nabla} F}+\alpha_{n}L_{{\nabla} g}}{\alpha_{n}}\|x_{n}-x_{n+1}\|+\frac{\beta_n}{\alpha_n}\|x_{n}-x_{n-1}\| \ \forall n\geq 1\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let us fix $n\geq 1$. From (\ref{alg1}) we have that
$$\frac{{\nabla} F(x_{n})-{\nabla} F(x_{n+1})}{\alpha_{n}}-{\nabla} g(x_{n})+\frac{\beta_{n}}{\alpha_{n}}(x_{n}-x_{n-1})\in{\partial} f(x_{n+1}),$$
or, equivalently,
$$y_{n+1}-{\nabla} g(x_{n+1})\in {\partial} f(x_{n+1}),$$
which shows that $y_{n+1}\in{\partial}(f+g)(x_{n+1}).$
The inequality \eqref{ineq-y_n} follows now from the definition of $y_{n+1}$ and the triangle inequality.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{l5} In the setting of Problem 1, chose $\mu,\underline{\alpha}, \beta$ satisfying \eqref{mu-sigma}, $M_1, M_2$ satisfying \eqref{M1M2} and $\underline{\alpha} < \overline{\alpha}$ such that $M_1 > M_2$. Assume that $f+g$ is coercive, i.e.
$$\lim_{\|x\|\to+\infty}(f+g)(x)=+\infty.$$
Then the sequence $(x_n)_{n\in\N}$ generated by Algorithm 1 has a subsequence convergent to a critical point of $f+g.$ Actually every cluster point
of $(x_n)_{n\in\N}$ is a critical point of $f+g.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Since $f+g$ is a proper, lower semicontinuous and coercive function, it follows that $\inf_{x\in\R^m}[f(x)+g(x)]$ is finite and the infimum is attained.
Hence $f+g$ is bounded from below.
(i) According to Proposition \ref{p1}(b), we have $$(f+g)(x_n)\leq (f+g)(x_n)+M_2\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|^2\leq (f+g)(x_1)+M_2\|x_1-x_0\|^2 \ \forall n\geq 1.$$
Since the function $f+g$ is coercive, its lower level sets are bounded, thus the sequence $(x_n)_{n\in\N}$ is bounded.
Let $x$ be a cluster point of $(x_n)_{n\in\N}$. Then there exists a subsequence $(x_{n_k})_{k\in\N}$ such that $x_{n_k}\rightarrow \ol x$ as $k\rightarrow+\infty$.
We show that $(f+g)(x_{n_k})\to (f+g)(x)$ as $k\to+\infty$ and that $x$ is a critical point
of $f+g$, that is $0\in{\partial}(f+g)(x).$
We show first that $f(x_{n_k})\to f(x)$ as $k\to+\infty.$
Since $f$ is lower semicontinuous one has
$$\liminf_{k\to+\infty}f(x_{n_k})\ge f(x).$$
On the other hand, from (\ref{alg}) we have for every $n \geq 1$
\begin{align*}
D_F(x_{n+1},x_n)+\alpha_n\<x_{n+1},{\nabla} g(x_n)\>+\beta_n\<x_{n+1},x_{n-1}-x_n\>+\alpha_n f(x_{n+1}) & \le\\
D_F(x,x_n)+\alpha_n\<x,{\nabla} g(x_n)\>+\beta_n\<x,x_{n-1}-x_n\>+\alpha_n f(x), &
\end{align*}
which leads to
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{\alpha_{n_k-1}}\left(D_F(x_{n_k},x_{n_k-1})-D_F(x,x_{n_k-1}) \right) + &\\
\frac{1}{\alpha_{n_k-1}}\left(\<x_{n_k}-x,\alpha_{n_k-1}{\nabla} g(x_{n_k-1})-\beta_{n_k-1}(x_{n_k-1}-x_{n_k-2})\>\right)+&\\
f(x_{n_k}) & \le f(x) \ \forall k\geq 2.
\end{align*}
The latter combined with Proposition \ref{p1}(a) and \eqref{l0} shows that $\limsup_{k\to+\infty}f(x_{n_k})\le f(x)$,
hence $\lim_{k\to +\infty} f(x_{n_k})=f(x).$ Since $g$ is continuous, obviously $g(x_{n_k})\to g(x)$ as $k\to+\infty,$ thus
$(f+g)(x_{n_k})\to (f+g)(x)$ as $k\to+\infty.$
Further, by using the notations from Lemma \ref{subdiff}, we have $y_{n_k}\in{\partial} f(x_{n_k})$ for every $k \geq 2$.
By Proposition \ref{p1}(a) and Lemma \ref{subdiff} we get $y_{n_k}\to 0$ as $k\to+\infty.$
Concluding, we have:
$$y_{n_k}\in{\partial} (f+g)(x_{n_k}) \ \forall k \geq 2,$$
$$(x_{n_k},y_{n_k})\to (x,0),\,k\to +\infty$$
$$(f+g)(x_{n_k})\to (f+g)(x),\,k\to +\infty.$$
Hence $0\in{\partial}(f+g)(x),$ that is, $x$ is a critical point of $f+g.$
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{l6} In the setting of Problem 1, chose $\mu,\underline{\alpha}, \beta$ satisfying \eqref{mu-sigma}, $M_1, M_2$ satisfying \eqref{M1M2} and $\underline{\alpha} < \overline{\alpha}$ such that $M_1 > M_2$. Assume that $f+g$ is coercive and
consider the function
$$H:\R^m\times\R^m\to(-\infty,+\infty],\, H(x,y)=(f+g)(x)+M_2\|x-y\|^2 \ \forall (x,y)\in\R^m\times\R^m.$$
Let $(x_n)_{n\in\N}$ be the sequence generated by Algorithm 1. Then there exist $M,N>0$ such that the following statements hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[($H_1$)] $H(x_{n+1},x_{n})+M\|x_{n+1}-x_{n}\|^2\le H(x_{n},x_{n-1})$ for all $n\geq 1$;
\item[($H_2$)] for all $n\geq 1,$ there exists $w_{n+1}\in {\partial} H(x_{n+1},x_n)$ such that $\|w_{n+1}\|\le N(\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|+\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|)$;
\item[($H_3$)] if $(x_{n_k})_{k\in\N}$ is a subsequence such that $x_{n_k}\to x$ as $k\to+\infty$, then $H(x_{n_k}, x_{n_k-1})\to H(x,x)$ as $k\to+\infty$
(there exists at least one subsequence with this property).
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} For ($H_1$) just take $M=M_1-M_2$ and the conclusion follows from Lemma \ref{l4}.
Let us prove ($H_2$). For every $n\geq 1$ we define $$w_{n+1}=(y_{n+1}+2M_2(x_{n+1}-x_n),2M_2(x_n-x_{n+1})),$$
where $(y_n)_{n \geq 2}$ is the sequence introduced in Lemma \ref{subdiff}.
The fact that $w_{n+1}\in {\partial} H(x_{n+1},x_n)$ follows from Lemma \ref{subdiff} and the relation
\begin{equation}\label{H-subdiff}\partial H(x,y)=\big(\partial (f+h)(x)+2M_2(x-y)\big)\times \{2M_2(y-x)\} \ \forall (x,y)\in\R^m\times\R^m.\end{equation}
Further, one has (see also Lemma \ref{subdiff}) $$\|w_{n+1}\|\le \|y_{n+1}+2M_2(x_{n+1}-x_n)\|+\|2M_2(x_n-x_{n+1})\|\le $$
$$\left(\frac{L_{{\nabla} F}}{\alpha_n}+L_{{\nabla} g}+4M_2\right)\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|+\frac{\beta_n}{\alpha_n}\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|.$$
Since $0<\underline{\alpha}\le\alpha_n\le\overline{\alpha}$ and $0\le\beta_n\le\beta$ for all $n\geq 1$, one can chose
$$N=\sup_{n\geq 1}\left\{\frac{L_{{\nabla} F}}{\alpha_n}+L_{{\nabla} g}+4M_2, \frac{\beta_n}{\alpha_n}\right\}<+\infty$$ and the conclusion follows.
For ($H_3$), consider $(x_{n_k})_{k\in\N}$ a subsequence such that $x_{n_k}\to x$ as $k\to+\infty$.
We have shown in the proof of Lemma \ref{l5} that $(f+g)(x_{n_k})\to (f+g)(x)$ as $k\to+\infty.$ From Proposition \ref{p1}(a) and
the definition of $H$ we easily derive that $H(x_{n_k}, x_{n_k-1})\to H(x,x)=(f+g)(x)$ as $k\to+\infty.$ The existence of such a sequence follows from
Lemma \ref{l5}.
\end{proof}
In the following we denote by $\omega((x_n)_{n\in\N})$ the set of cluster points of the sequence $(x_n)_{n\in\N}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{l7} In the setting of Problem 1, chose $\mu,\underline{\alpha}, \beta$ satisfying \eqref{mu-sigma}, $M_1, M_2$ satisfying \eqref{M1M2} and $\underline{\alpha} < \overline{\alpha}$ such that $M_1 > M_2$. Assume that $f+g$ is coercive and
consider the function
$$H:\R^m\times\R^m\to(-\infty,+\infty],\, H(x,y)=(f+g)(x)+M_2\|x-y\|^2 \ \forall (x,y)\in\R^m\times\R^m.$$
Let $(x_n)_{n\in\N}$ be the sequence generated by Algorithm 1. Then the following statements are true:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\omega((x_n,x_{n-1})_{n\geq 1})\subseteq \crit(H)=\{(x,x)\in\R^m\times\R^m:x\in \crit(f+g)\}$;
\item[(b)] $\lim_{n\to\infty}\dist((x_n,x_{n-1}),\omega((x_n,x_{n-1}))_{n\geq 1})=0$;
\item[(c)] $\omega((x_n,x_{n-1})_{n\geq 1})$ is nonempty, compact and connected;
\item[(d)] $H$ is finite and constant on $\omega((x_n,x_{n-1})_{n\geq 1}).$
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} (a) According to Lemma \ref{l5} and Proposition \ref{p1}(a) we have
$\omega((x_n,x_{n-1})_{n\geq 1})\subseteq \{(x,x)\in\R^m\times\R^m:x\in \crit(f+g)\}.$ The equality $\crit(H)=\{(x,x)\in\R^m\times\R^m:x\in \crit(f+g)\}$
follows from \eqref{H-subdiff}.
(b) and (c) can be shown as in \cite[Lemma 5]{b-sab-teb}, by also taking into consideration \cite[Remark 5]{b-sab-teb}, where it is noticed
that the properties (b) and (c) are generic for sequences satisfying $x_{n+1}-x_n\rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow+\infty$.
(d) According to Proposition \ref{p1}, the sequence $((f+g)(x_n))_{n\in\N}$ is convergent, i.e. $\lim_{n\to+\infty}(f+g)(x_n)=l\in\R.$ Take an arbitrary
$(x,x)\in\omega((x_n,x_{n-1})_{n\geq 1})$, where $x\in\crit(f+g)$ (we took statement (a) into consideration). From Lemma \ref{l6}($H_3$) it follows that there exists a
subsequence $(x_{n_k})_{k\in\N}$ such that $x_{n_k}\to x$ as $k\to+\infty$ and
$H(x_{n_k}, x_{n_k-1})\to H(x,x)$ as $k\to+\infty$. Moreover, from Proposition \ref{p1} one has
$H(x,x)=\lim_{k\to+\infty}H(x_{n_k}, x_{n_k-1})=\lim_{k\to+\infty}(f+g)(x_{n_k})+M_2\|x_{n_k}-x_{n_k-1}\|^2=l$ and the conclusion follows.
\end{proof}
We give now the main result concerning the convergence of the whole sequence $(x_n)_{n\in\N}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{t1} In the setting of Problem 1, chose $\mu,\underline{\alpha}, \beta$ satisfying \eqref{mu-sigma}, $M_1, M_2$ satisfying \eqref{M1M2} and $\underline{\alpha} < \overline{\alpha}$ such that $M_1 > M_2$. Assume that $f+g$ is coercive and that
$$H:\R^m\times\R^m\to(-\infty,+\infty],\, H(x,y)=(f+g)(x)+M_2\|x-y\|^2 \ \forall (x,y)\in\R^m\times\R^m$$
is a KL function. Let $(x_n)_{n\in\N}$ be the sequence generated by Algorithm 1. Then the following statements are true:\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\sum_{n\in\N}\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|<+\infty$;
\item[(b)] there exists $x\in\crit(f+g)$ such that $\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}x_n=x$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} (a) According to Lemma \ref{l7} we can consider an element $\ol x\in\crit(f+g)$ such that $(\ol x, \ol x) \in \omega ((x_n,x_{n-1})_{n\geq 1})$.
In analogy to the proof of Lemma \ref{l6} (by taking into account also the decrease property (H1)) one can
easily show that $\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}H(x_n,x_{n-1})=H(\ol x,\ol x)$. We separately treat the following two cases.
I. There exists $\ol n\in\N$ such that $H(x_{\ol n},x_{\ol n-1})=H(\ol x,\ol x)$. The decrease property in Lemma \ref{l6}(H1) implies
$H(x_{n},x_{n-1})=H(\ol x,\ol x)$ for every $n\geq \ol n$. One can show inductively that the sequence $(x_n,x_{n-1})_{n\geq \ol n}$ is constant and the
conclusion follows.
II. For all $n\geq 1$ we have $H(x_n,x_{n-1})>H(\ol x,\ol x)$. Take $\Omega:=\omega ((x_n,x_{n-1})_{n\geq 1})$.
In virtue of Lemma \ref{l7}(c) and (d) and Lemma \ref{unif-KL-property}, the KL property of $H$ leads to the existence of positive numbers $\epsilon$ and $\eta$ and
a concave function $\varphi\in\Phi_{\eta}$ such that for all
\begin{align}\label{int-H}
(x,y)\in & \{(u,v)\in\R^m\times\R^m: \dist((u,v),\Omega)<\epsilon\} \nonumber \\
& \cap\{(u,v)\in\R^m\times\R^m:H(\ol x,\ol x)<H(u,v)<H(\ol x,\ol x)+\eta\}\end{align}
one has
\begin{equation}\label{ineq-H}\varphi'(H(x,y)-H(\ol x,\ol x))\dist((0,0),{\partial} H(x,y))\ge 1.\end{equation}
Let $n_1\in\N$ such that $H(x_n,x_{n-1})<H(\ol x,\ol x)+\eta$ for all $n\geq n_1.$
According to Lemma \ref{l7}(b), there exists $n_2\in \N$ such that $\dist((x_n,x_{n-1}),\Omega)<\epsilon$ for all $n\ge n_2.$
Hence the sequence $(x_n,x_{n-1})_{n\geq \ol n}$ where $\ol n=\max\{n_1,n_2\}$, belongs to the intersection \eqref{int-H}. So we have (see \eqref{ineq-H})
$$\varphi'(H(x_n,x_{n-1})-H(\ol x,\ol x))\dist((0,0),{\partial} H(x_n,x_{n-1}))\ge 1 \ \forall n\geq\ol n.$$
Since $\varphi$ is concave, it holds
\begin{align*}
\varphi(H(x_n,x_{n-1})-H(\ol x,\ol x))-\varphi(H(x_{n+1},x_{n})-H(\ol x,\ol x)) & \ge \\
\varphi'(H(x_n,x_{n-1})-H(\ol x,\ol x))\cdot(H(x_n,x_{n-1})-H(x_{n+1},x_{n})) & \ge \\
\frac{H(x_n,x_{n-1})-H(x_{n+1},x_{n})}{\dist((0,0),{\partial} H(x_n,x_{n-1}))} & \ \forall n\geq \ol n.
\end{align*}
Let $M,N > 0$ be the real numbers furnished by Lemma \ref{l6}. According to Lemma \ref{l6}($H_2$) there exists $w_{n}\in {\partial} H(x_{n},x_{n-1})$ such that $\|w_{n}\|\le N(\|x_{n}-x_{n-1}\|+\|x_{n-1}-x_{n-2}\|)$ for all
$n\geq 2$. Then obviously $\dist((0,0),{\partial} H(x_n,x_{n-1}))\le\|w_n\|,$ hence
\begin{align*}
\varphi(H(x_n,x_{n-1})-H(x^0,x^0))-\varphi(H(x_{n+1},x_{n})-H(x^0,x^0)) & \ge \\
\frac{H(x_n,x_{n-1})-H(x_{n+1},x_{n})}{\|w_n\|} & \ge \\
\frac{H(x_n,x_{n-1})-H(x_{n+1},x_{n})}{N(\|x_{n}-x_{n-1}\|+\|x_{n-1}-x_{n-2}\|)} & \ \forall n\geq \ol n.
\end{align*}
On the other hand, from Lemma \ref{l6}($H_1$) we obtain that $$H(x_n,x_{n-1})-H(x_{n+1},x_{n})\ge M\|x_{n+1}-x_{n}\|^2 \ \forall n\geq 1.$$
Hence, one has
\begin{align*}
\varphi(H(x_n,x_{n-1})-H(x^0,x^0))-\varphi(H(x_{n+1},x_{n})-H(x^0,x^0)) & \ge \\
\frac{M\|x_{n+1}-x_{n}\|^2}{N(\|x_{n}-x_{n-1}\|+\|x_{n-1}-x_{n-2}\|)} & \ \forall n\geq \ol n.
\end{align*}
For all $n\geq 1$, let us denote $\frac{N}{M}(\varphi(H(x_n,x_{n-1})-H(\ol x,\ol x))-\varphi(H(x_{n+1},x_{n})-H(\ol x,\ol x)))=\epsilon_n$ and $\|x_{n}-x_{n-1}\|=a_n.$
Then the last inequality becomes
\begin{equation}\label{ineq-e-a}\epsilon_n\ge\frac{a_{n+1}^2}{a_n+a_{n-1}} \ \forall n\geq\ol n.\end{equation}
Obviously, since $\varphi\geq 0$, for $S\geq 1$ we have
$\sum_{n=1}^S\epsilon_n=(N/M)(\varphi(H(x_1,x_{0})-H(\ol x,\ol x))-\varphi(H(x_{S+1},x_{S})-H(\ol x,\ol x)))\leq (N/M)(\varphi(H(x_1,x_{0})-H(\ol x,\ol x)))$,
hence $\sum_{n\geq 1}\epsilon_n<+\infty.$
On the other hand, from \eqref{ineq-e-a} we derive
$$a_{n+1}=\sqrt{\epsilon_n(a_n+a_{n-1})}\le \frac{1}{4}(a_n+a_{n-1})+\epsilon_n \ \forall n\geq\ol n.$$
Hence, according to Lemma \ref{fejer2}, $\sum_{n\geq 1}a_n<+\infty$, that is $\sum_{n\in\N}\|x_n-x_{n+1}\|<+\infty.$
(b) It follows from (a) that $(x_n)_{n\in\N}$ is a Cauchy sequence, hence it is convergent. Applying Lemma \ref{l5}, there exists $x\in\crit(f+g)$ such that
$\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}x_n=x$.
\end{proof}
Since the class of semi-algebraic functions is closed under addition (see for example \cite{b-sab-teb}) and
$(x,y) \mapsto c\|x-y\|^2$ is semi-algebraic for $c>0$, we obtain also the following direct consequence.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor-f+g} In the setting of Problem 1, chose $\mu,\underline{\alpha}, \beta$ satisfying \eqref{mu-sigma}, $M_1, M_2$ satisfying \eqref{M1M2} and $\underline{\alpha} < \overline{\alpha}$ such that $M_1 > M_2$. Assume that $f+g$ is coercive and
semi-algebraic. Let $(x_n)_{n\in\N}$ be the sequence generated by Algorithm 1. Then the following statements are true:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\sum_{n\in\N}\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|<+\infty$;
\item[(b)] there exists $x\in\crit(f+g)$ such that $\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}x_n=x$.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}\label{necoercive} As one can notice by taking a closer look at the proof of Lemma \ref{l5}, the conclusion of this statement as the ones of
Lemma \ref{l6}, Lemma \ref{l7}, Theorem \ref{t1} and Corollary \ref{cor-f+g} remain true, if instead of imposing that $f+g$ is coercive, we assume that
$f+g$ is bounded from below and the sequence $(x_n)_{n\in\N}$ generated by Algorithm 1 is bounded. This observation is useful when dealing with
optimization problems as the ones considered in Subsection 4.2.
\end{remark}
\section{Numerical experiments}
This section is devoted to the presentation of two numerical experiments which illustrate the applicability of the algorithm proposed in this work. In both numerical experiments
we considered $F = \frac{1}{2}\|\cdot\|^2$ and set $\mu=\sigma=1$.
\subsection{Detecting minimizers of nonconvex optimization problems}
As emphasized in \cite[Section 5.1]{ipiano} and \cite[Exercise 1.3.9]{bertsekas} one of the aspects which makes algorithms with inertial/memory effects
useful is given by the fact that they are able to detect optimal solutions of minimization problems which cannot be found by their non-inertial variants.
In this subsection we show that this phenomenon arises even when solving problems of type \eqref{ex-opt-pb}, where the nonsmooth function $f$ is nonconvex. A similar situation has
been addressed in \cite{ipiano}, however, by assuming that $f$ is convex.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\captionsetup[subfigure]{position=top}
\subfloat[Contour plot]{\includegraphics*[viewport= 78 210 540 580, width=0.48\textwidth]{level.pdf}} \hspace{0.3mm}
\subfloat[Graph]{\includegraphics*[viewport= 8 149 595 644, width=0.48\textwidth]{3D.pdf}} \hspace{0.3mm}
\caption{\small Contour plot and graph of the objective function in \eqref{ex-opt-pb}. The two global optimal
solutions $(0,0.5)$ and $(0,-0.5)$ are marked on the first image.}
\label{fig:lev-3d}
\end{figure}
Consider the optimization problem
\begin{equation}\label{ex-opt-pb} \ \inf_{(x_1,x_2)\in\R^2} |x_1|-|x_2| + x_1^2-\log(1+x_1^2)+x_2^2 . \end{equation}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\captionsetup[subfigure]{position=top}
\subfloat[$x_0=(-8,-8), \beta =0$]{\includegraphics*[viewport= 124 250 490 550, width=0.32\textwidth]{mm.pdf}} \hspace{0.3mm}
\subfloat[$x_0=(-8,-8), \beta =1.99$]{\includegraphics*[viewport= 124 250 490 550, width=0.32\textwidth]{mmin1.pdf}} \hspace{0.3mm}
\subfloat[$x_0=(-8,-8), \beta =2.99$]{\includegraphics*[viewport= 124 250 490 550, width=0.32\textwidth]{mmin2.pdf}}\\
\subfloat[$x_0=(-8,8), \beta =0$]{\includegraphics*[viewport= 124 250 490 550, width=0.32\textwidth]{mp.pdf}} \hspace{0.3mm}
\subfloat[$x_0=(-8,8), \beta =1.99$]{\includegraphics*[viewport= 124 250 490 550, width=0.32\textwidth]{mpin1.pdf}} \hspace{0.3mm}
\subfloat[$x_0=(-8,8), \beta =2.99$]{\includegraphics*[viewport= 124 250 490 550, width=0.32\textwidth]{mpin2.pdf}}\\
\subfloat[$x_0=(8,-8), \beta =0$]{\includegraphics*[viewport= 124 250 490 550, width=0.32\textwidth]{pm.pdf}} \hspace{0.3mm}
\subfloat[$x_0=(8,-8), \beta =1.99$]{\includegraphics*[viewport= 124 250 490 550, width=0.32\textwidth]{pmin1.pdf}} \hspace{0.3mm}
\subfloat[$x_0=(8,-8), \beta =2.99$]{\includegraphics*[viewport= 124 250 490 550, width=0.32\textwidth]{pmin2.pdf}}\\
\subfloat[$x_0=(8,8), \beta =0$]{\includegraphics*[viewport= 124 250 490 550, width=0.32\textwidth]{pp.pdf}} \hspace{0.3mm}
\subfloat[$x_0=(8,8), \beta =1.99$]{\includegraphics*[viewport= 124 250 490 550, width=0.32\textwidth]{ppin1.pdf}} \hspace{0.3mm}
\subfloat[$x_0=(8,8), \beta =2.99$]{\includegraphics*[viewport= 124 250 490 550, width=0.32\textwidth]{ppin2.pdf}}
\caption{\small Algorithm 1 after $100$ iterations and with starting points $(-8,-8), (-8,8), (8,-8)$ and $(8,8)$, respectively: the first column shows the iterates of the non-inertial version ($\beta_n=\beta = 0$ for all
$n\geq 1$), the second column the ones of the inertial version with $\beta_n= \beta = 1.99$ for all $n\geq 1$ and the third column the ones of the inertial version with $\beta_n=\beta = 2.99$ for all $n\geq 1$.}
\label{fig:mm}
\end{figure}
The function $f : \R^2\rightarrow\R, f(x_1,x_2)= |x_1|-|x_2|,$ is nonconvex and continuous, the function $g : \R^2\rightarrow\R, g(x_1,x_2)=x_1^2-\log(1+x_1^2)+x_2^2,$
is continuously differentiable with Lipschitz continuous gradient with Lipschitz constant $L_{\nabla g}=9/4$ and one can easily prove that $f+g$ is coercive. Furthermore, combining \cite[the remarks after Definition 4.1]{att-b-red-soub2010}, \cite[Remark 5(iii)]{b-d-l-s2007} and
\cite[Section 5: Example 4 and Theorem 3]{b-sab-teb}, one can easily conclude that $H$ in Theorem \ref{t1} is a KL function.
By considering the first order optimality conditions
$$-\nabla g(x_1,x_2)\in\partial f(x_1,x_2)=\partial (|\cdot|)(x_1)\times\partial (-|\cdot|)(x_2)$$
and by noticing that for all $x\in\R$ we have $$\partial(|\cdot|)(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \mbox {if } x>0\\
-1, & \mbox {if } x<0\\
$[-1,1]$, & \mbox {if } x=0
\end{array}\right. \mbox{ and } \partial(-|\cdot|)(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-1, & \mbox {if } x>0,\\
1, & \mbox {if } x<0,\\
\{-1,1\}, & \mbox {if } x=0,
\end{array}\right.$$
(for the latter, see for example \cite{boris-carte}), one can easily determine the two critical points $(0,1/2)$ and $(0,-1/2)$ of \eqref{ex-opt-pb}, which are actually
both optimal solutions of this minimization problem. In Figure \ref{fig:lev-3d} the level sets and the graph of the objective function in \eqref{ex-opt-pb} are represented.
For $\gamma>0$ and $x=(x_1,x_2)\in\R^2$ we have (see Remark \ref{prox-nevid})
$$\prox\nolimits_{\gamma f}(x)=\argmin_{u\in \R^2}\left\{\frac{\|u-x\|^2}{2\gamma}+f(u)\right\} =\prox\nolimits_{\gamma |\cdot|}(x_1)\times \prox\nolimits_{\gamma (-|\cdot|)}(x_2),$$
where in the first component one has the well-known shrinkage operator
$$\prox\nolimits_{\gamma |\cdot|}(x_1)=x_1-\sgn(x_1)\cdot\min\{|x_1|,\gamma\},$$ while
for the proximal operator in the second component the following formula can be proven
$$\prox\nolimits_{\gamma (-|\cdot|)}(x_2)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
x_2+\gamma, & \mbox {if } x_2>0\\
x_2-\gamma, & \mbox {if } x_2<0\\
\{-\gamma,\gamma\}, & \mbox {if } x_2=0.
\end{array}\right.$$
We implemented Algorithm 1 by choosing $\beta_n=\beta=0$ for all $n\geq 1$ (which corresponds to the non-inertial version), $\beta_n=\beta=0.199$ for all $n \geq 1$ and
$\beta_n=\beta=0.299$ for all $n\geq 1$, respectively, and by setting $\alpha_n=(0.99999-2\beta_n)/L_{\nabla g}$ for all $n\geq 1$. As starting points we considered the
corners of the box generated by the points $(\pm 8,\pm 8)$. Figure \ref{fig:mm} shows that independently of the four starting points we have the following phenomenon: the non-inertial version
recovers only one of the two optimal solutions, situation which persists even when changing the value of $\alpha_n$; on the other hand, the inertial version is capable to
find both optimal solutions, namely, one for $\beta = 0.199$ and the other one for $\beta=0.299$.
\subsection{Restoration of noisy blurred images}
The following numerical experiment concerns the restoration of a noisy blurred image by using a nonconvex misfit functional with nonconvex regularization.
For a given matrix $A \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times m}$ describing a blur operator and a
given vector $b \in \R^m$ representing the blurred and noisy image, the task is to estimate the unknown original image
$\ol x\in\R^m$ fulfilling
$$A\ol x=b.$$
To this end we solve the following regularized nonconvex minimization problem
\begin{equation}\label{probimageproc-stud-zer-norm-wav}
\inf_{x \in \R^m} \left\{ \sum_{k=1}^M\sum_{l=1}^N\varphi\big((Ax-b)_{kl}\big) + \lambda \|Wx\|_0 \right\},
\end{equation}
where $\varphi:\R\rightarrow\R$, $\varphi(t)=\log(1+t^2),$ is derived form the Student's t distribution,
$\lambda >0$ is a regularization parameter,
$W:\R^m\rightarrow\R^m$ is a discrete Haar wavelet transform with
four levels and $\|y\|_0=\sum_{i=1}^m|y_i|_0$ ($|\cdot|_0 = |\sgn(\cdot)|$) furnishes the number of nonzero entries of the vector $y=(y_1,...,y_m)\in\R^m$. In this context, $x \in \R^m$
represents the vectorized image $X\in\R^{M\times N}$, where $m = M\cdot N$ and $x_{i,j}$
denotes the normalized value of the pixel located in the $i$-th row and the $j$-th column, for
$i=1,\ldots,M$ and $j=1,\ldots,N$.
It is immediate that \eqref{probimageproc-stud-zer-norm-wav} can be written in the form \eqref{opt-pb}, by defining
$f(x)= \lambda \|Wx\|_0$ and $g(x)= \sum_{k=1}^M\sum_{l=1}^N\varphi\big((Ax-b)_{kl}\big)$ for all $x\in\R^m$.
By using that $W W^* = W^* W = I_m$, one can prove the following formula concerning the proximal operator of $f$
$$\prox\nolimits_{\gamma f}(x)=W^*\prox\nolimits_{\lambda\gamma\|\cdot\|_0}(Wx) \ \forall x \in \R^m \ \forall \gamma >0,$$
where for all $u=(u_1,...,u_m)$ we have (see \cite[Example 5.4(a)]{att-b-sv2013})
$$\prox\nolimits_{\lambda\gamma\|\cdot\|_0}(u)=(\prox\nolimits_{\lambda\gamma|\cdot|_0}(u_1),...,\prox\nolimits_{\lambda\gamma|\cdot|_0}(u_m))$$
and for all $t\in\R$ $$\prox\nolimits_{\lambda\gamma|\cdot|_0}(t)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
t, & \mbox {if } |t|>\sqrt{2\lambda\gamma},\\
\{0,t\}, & \mbox {if } |t|=\sqrt{2\lambda\gamma},\\
0, & \mbox {otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$$
For the experiments we used the $256 \times 256$ boat test image which we first blurred by using a Gaussian
blur operator of size $9 \times 9$ and standard deviation $4$ and to which we afterward added a zero-mean white
Gaussian noise with standard deviation $10^{-6}$. In the first row of Figure \ref{fig:boat} the original boat test image and the blurred and noisy one are represented, while in the second row
one has the reconstructed images by means of the non-inertial (for $\beta_n = \beta = 0$ for all $n\geq 1$) and inertial versions (for $\beta_n= \beta = 10^{-7}$ for all $n \geq 1$) of Algorithm 1, respectively.
We took as regularization parameter $\lambda=10^{-5}$ and set $\alpha_n=(0.999999 - 2\beta_n)/L_{\nabla g}$ for all $n \geq 1$, whereby the Lipschitz constant of the gradient of the smooth misfit function is
$L_{\nabla g} = 2$.
We compared the quality of the recovered images for $\beta_n = \beta$ for all $n\geq 1$ and different values of $\beta$ by making use of the improvement in signal-to-noise ratio
(ISNR), which is defined as
$$ \text{ISNR}(n) = 10 \log_{10}\left( \frac{\left\|x-b\right\|^2}{\left\|x-x_n\right\|^2} \right),$$
where $x$, $b$ and $x_n$ denote the original, observed and estimated image at iteration $n$, respectively.
In the table below we list the values of the ISNR-function after $300$ iterations, whereby the case $\beta = 0$ corresponds to the non-inertial version of the algorithm.
One can notice that for $\beta$ taking very small values, the inertial version is competitive with the non-inertial one (actually it slightly outperforms it).
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\toprule
$\beta$ & $0.4$ & $0.2$ & $0.01$ & $0.0001$ & $10^{-7}$ & $0$\\
\midrule
ISNR(300) & $2.081946$ & $3.101028$ & $3.492989$ & $3.499428$ & $3.511135$ & $3.511134$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{The ISNR values after 300 iterations for different choices of $\beta$.}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\captionsetup[subfigure]{position=top}
{\includegraphics*[viewport= 112 224 526 601, width=0.8\textwidth]{boat.pdf}}
\caption{\small The first row shows the original $256\times 256$ boat test image and the blurred and noisy one and the second row the reconstructed images after 300 iterations.}
\label{fig:boat}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}
The initial BICEP2 high-sensitivity measurements of B-mode polarization in the
microwave sky on large angular scales ($\ell \lesssim 300$) have generated a great deal of excitement \citep{Ade:2014xna}.
This result was originally seen as a clear detection of primordial B-modes, which can be interpreted
as the imprint of gravitational radiation from the epoch of inflation (see, for example, \citealt{Ade:2014xna} and \citealt{Martin:2014lra}, for a review of different models).
These potential primordial B-modes could also be interpreted
as the signature of alternatives to inflation (\citealt{Brandenberger:2014faa}; \citealt{Cai:2014xxa}; \citealt{Gerbino:2014eqa}; \citealt{Wang:2014kqa})
or as the signature of
topological defects (\citealt{Lizarraga:2014eaa}; \citealt{Moss:2014cra}).
Subsequent work has shown the strong possibility that the BICEP2 signal can be explained by Galactic dust
(\citealt{Flauger:2014qra}; \citealt{Mortonson:2014bja}; \citealt{Adam:2014bub}).
While the excess B-modes seen by BICEP2 have been confirmed by deeper measurements from the \textit{Keck Array} \citep{2015arXiv150200643A} over the same patch of sky, a joint analysis of the BICEP2, \textit{Keck Array} and \textit{Planck} maps finds that the significance of the residual signal after subtraction of the Galactic dust emission is too low to constitute a robust detection of primordial B-modes \citep{2015PhRvL.114j1301B}.
It is not yet clear whether the BICEP2 signal is due entirely to dust or has a significant primordial contribution. If the signal really is primordial, it would be interesting to measure the scale dependence of these tensor fluctuations (henceforth called ``tensor tilt'') using future polarization measurements.
Figure~\ref{fig:pspec} shows the effect of varying the tensor tilt $n_T$ on the theoretical power spectrum of the primordial B modes for a fixed value of the tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$.
The $r=0.2$ power spectra have been normalized at $\ell=100$, an angular scale well probed by the BICEP2 experiment, although for the results presented in Section \ref{sec:results} the pivot scale at which $r$ is taken will be held to $k_0 = 0.002 \, \text{Mpc}^{-1}$.
This choice of pivot scale affects the quoted values of $r$ but not the r-marginalized constraints on $n_T$ \citep{Boyle:2014kba}.
\begin{figure}[tp]
\label{fig:pspec}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure_1.pdf}
\caption{Theoretical power spectrum of the gravitational waves B-mode polarization and lensing B-mode polarization along with the
BICEP2/\textit{Keck Array} \citep{2015arXiv150200643A},
SPTpol \citep{2015arXiv150302315K} and
POLARBEAR \citep{Ade:2014afa} measurements.
The shaded region illustrates the tilt imprinted on a $r = 0.2$ primordial power spectrum from $n_T = -0.5$ (purple) to $n_T = 0.5$ (green). All tensor power spectra are for $r$ defined at $\ell=100$.}
\end{figure}
A serious impediment to measuring the tensor tilt will be noise coming from gravitational
lensing of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) polarization fluctuations generated by scalar
fluctuations.
Removing this signal is possible, using a procedure
known as ``delensing'' (\citealt{Kesden:2002ku}; \citealt{Knox:2002pe}).
In principle, with sufficiently high signal-to-noise measurements and in the absence of any primordial B-mode signal
this delensing procedure can be done with arbitrarily high precision \citep{Seljak:2003pn}.
The ability to remove the lensing signal requires
a good map of the polarization fluctuations from the scalars (E-mode
polarization anisotropies) and a good estimate of the intervening
projected gravitational potential. E-mode polarization maps can be
obtained only from sensitive CMB polarization measurements on the relevant
angular scales, while the gravitational potential can either be
estimated from the CMB data or obtained using astronomical sources as
tracers of the potential.
One of the most promising CMB lensing potential tracers is the cosmic infrared background (CIB).
The CIB is an extragalactic radiation field generated by the unresolved emission from star-forming galaxies (\citealt{Dole:2006aqw}, and references therein).
It is generated by dust which is heated by the UV light from young stars and then reradiates thermally in the infrared with a graybody spectrum of $T\sim30K$.
Due to its higher temperature, fluctuations in the CIB dominate over the CMB on most angular scales at frequencies $\nu \gtrsim 300$GHz.
The CIB contains approximately half of the total extragalactic stellar flux, and has long been predicted to have excellent redshift overlap with the CMB lensing potential \citep{Song:2002sg}.
Recent measurements of the cross-correlation between the lensing potential and high signal-to-noise measurements of the CIB fluctuations from the {\it Planck} and {\it Herschel} satellites have upheld these predictions (\citealt{Hanson:2013hsb}; \citealt{Holder:2013hqu}; \citealt{Ade:2013aro}; \citealt{Ade:2013hjl}).
In this paper, we evaluate prospective constraints on $n_T$ using both the CMB and the CIB to estimate the lensing potential.
A similar study uses delensing to obtain constraints on the tensor-to-scalar ratio, for $r$ values much smaller than the BICEP2 initial claim of $r=0.2$ \citep{2015arXiv150205356S}.
We refer the reader to this work for a thorough investigation
of the optimal use of CIB data for delensing purposes, alone or in combination with the CMB.
The paper is divided as follow: in Sect.~\ref{sec:method} we quantify the noise levels associated with these tracers of the lensing potential and E modes and describe the forecasting method used to delens the B-mode power. In Sect.~\ref{sec:results} we present the resulting constraints and our conclusions are summarized in Sect.~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
Throughout this work, we use the Planck/WP/highL fiducial cosmology \citep{Ade:2013zuv} for all cosmological parameters except $r$ and $n_T$.
We take the fiducial values of the tensor power spectrum parameters to follow the consistency relation $n_T = -r/8$, characteristic of the single-field slow-roll inflation models \citep{1992PhLB..291..391L}.
The CMB temperature, CMB polarization and lensing potential power spectrum have been computed using the CLASS Boltzmann code \citep{blas:2011cos}.
\section{Forecasting Method}
\label{sec:method}
We discuss here the tools we used to achieve CMB delensing and to compute forecasted errors on the parameters describing the primordial B modes.
Gravitational lensing deflects CMB temperature and polarization primordial anisotropies according to \citep{Lewis:2006fu}:
\begin{align} \label{eq:remap}
T^{\text{len}}(\mathbf{\hat{n}}) \, &= T^{\text{unl}}( \mathbf{\hat{n}} + \nabla\phi(\mathbf{\hat{n}}) ) \nonumber \\
\left( Q \pm iU \right)^{\text{len}}(\mathbf{\hat{n}}) \, &= \, \left( Q \pm iU \right)^{\text{unl}}( \mathbf{\hat{n}} + \nabla\phi(\mathbf{\hat{n}}) ).
\end{align}
The lensing potential $\phi(\mathbf{\hat{n}})$ can be expressed as a line of sight integral:
\begin{align} \label{eq:phi_los}
\phi (\mathbf{\hat{n}}) \,=\, -2 &\int_0^{z_{\text{rec}}} \frac{dz}{H(z)} \Psi \left(z,D(z) \, \mathbf{\hat{n}} \right) \\
&\times \left( \frac{1}{D(z)} - \frac{1}{D(z_{\text{rec}})} \right), \nonumber
\end{align}
where $H(z)$ is the Hubble factor, $\Psi(z, \mathbf{x})$ the Newtonian gravitational potential and $D(z)$ the comoving distance to the redshift $z$. A flat universe has been assumed in writing expression (\ref{eq:phi_los}).
Rewriting the right-hand side of Equation (\ref{eq:remap}) in the E modes and B modes CMB polarization formalism \citep{Zaldarriaga:1996xe} and expanding it up to first order in the lensing potential, we get the following approximation for the lensed B modes \citep{Hu:2000ee}:
\begin{align} \label{eq:b_lens}
B^{\, \text{len}}_{\ell m} \, \approx \, &B^{\, \text{unl}}_{\ell m} \\
& + \sum_{\ell' m'} \sum_{LM} \, f_{\ell \ell' L} \, E^{\, \text{unl}*}_{\ell' m'}
\begin{pmatrix}
\ell & \ell' & L \\
m & m' & M
\end{pmatrix}
\phi^*_{LM}. \nonumber
\end{align}
The $f_{\ell \ell' L}$ couplings are given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:f_coupling}
f_{\ell \ell' L} \, = \, \frac{F^{-2}_{\ell \ell' L} - F^{2}_{\ell \ell' L}}{2i},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align} \label{eq:F_coupling}
F^{s}_{\ell \ell' L} \, = & \; \frac{1}{2} \left[ -\ell(\ell + 1) + \ell'(\ell' + 1) + L(L + 1) \right] \\
&\times \, \sqrt{ \frac{(2\ell + 1)(2\ell' + 1)(2L + 1)}{4\pi}} \notag
\begin{pmatrix}
\ell & \ell' & L \\
-s & s & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align}
Taking the power spectrum of Equation (\ref{eq:b_lens}), we obtain:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:clbb_len}
C^{\text{B},\text{len}}_{\ell} \, \approx \, C^{\text{B},\text{unl}}_{\ell} \, + \, \frac{1}{2\ell + 1} \sum_{\ell' L} \left| f_{\ell \ell' L} \right|^2 C^{\text{E},\text{unl}}_{\ell'} \, C^{\phi}_{L}.
\end{equation}
It is useful to gain an intuitive
understanding of which scales in E-mode polarization and the lensing potential
source the lensing B modes.
\begin{figure}[tp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure_2a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure_2b.pdf}
\caption{Source terms for the lensed B modes.
We have plotted $\ell_B (\partial C_{\ell_B}^{B} / \partial C_{\ell_X}^{X})C_{\ell_X}^{X}$ where
$X \in \{ E, \phi \}$ such that the color along each column gives the fraction
contribution per multipole to the lensed B modes from the corresponding source.
The lensing B modes at $l_B=600$, for example, are sourced largely by contributions
from the lensing potential at $l_{\phi}\approx175$ and $l_E \approx 650$.
Delensing can be performed if one has measurements of these two fields
in the corresponding multipole ranges.}
\label{fig:which_scales}
\end{figure}
For this purpose, in Fig.~\ref{fig:which_scales}, we have plotted the kernel
for the lensing B-mode power spectrum, broken into contributions from
$C_{\ell}^{\text{E},\text{unl}}$ and $C_L^{\phi}$.
It can be seen that in general the
important E modes contributing to a given $\ell$ in lensing B modes are
those from a scale that is just slightly smaller (larger in $\ell$).
Thus, to delens B modes up to $\ell \sim 500$ it is only required to
accurately measure E modes up to $\ell \sim 1000$, given a good map
of the gravitational potential.
Obtaining accurate E-mode measurements on these scales is relatively
straightforward: current ground-based CMB experiments such as
SPTpol \citep{2012SPIE.8452E..1EA}, ACTpol \citep{2010SPIE.7741E..1SN}, and PolarBear \citep{2012SPIE.8452E..1CK} make sample-variance limited measurements
of the E-mode polarization on these scales.
For the lensing potential, most of the lensing
B modes are generated by gravitational potential fluctuations on half-degree
scales or larger ($\ell \la 500$).
There are again a number of possible tracers for these modes.
CMB lensing measurements can
be used, although polarization-based lensing measurements
require high sensitivity and sensitivity to smaller angular scales than
are required for large-scale tensor B-mode experiments (such as BICEP2).
Alternatively, astrophysical tracers could be used to estimate the
potential, provided they are sufficiently correlated with the lensing potential.
The idea behind delensing is to build a noisy estimate of the lensing B modes using Wiener-filtered E modes and lensing potential $\phi$. This estimate is then subtracted from the perfectly reconstructed B modes, leaving as a difference the residual B modes:
\begin{align} \label{eq:clbb_res}
C^{\text{B},\text{res}}_{\ell} \, = & \; \frac{1}{2\ell + 1} \sum_{\ell_1 \ell_2} \left| f_{\ell \, \ell_1 \ell_2} \right|^2 \Bigg[ C^{\text{E},\text{len}}_{\ell_1} \, C^{\phi}_{\ell_2} \\
&- \Bigg( \frac{ \big( C^{\text{E},\text{len}}_{\ell_1} \big)^2 }{C^{\text{E},\text{len}}_{\ell_1} + N^{\text{E}}_{\ell_1}} \Bigg) \Bigg( \frac{ \big( C^{\phi}_{\ell_2} \big)^2 }{C^{\phi}_{\ell_2} + N^{\phi}_{\ell_2}} \Bigg) \Bigg]. \notag
\end{align}
A formal derivation of this expression can be found in \citet{Smith:2008an}.
In writing Equation (\ref{eq:clbb_res}), we have substituted the \emph{unlensed} E-mode power spectrum coming from the derivation of Equation (\ref{eq:clbb_len}) by the \emph{lensed} E-mode power spectrum, which has been shown by \citet{Lewis:2011dfg} to produce an estimated lensed B-mode power spectrum effectively accurate to higher order.
The experimental noise power spectrum can be written as \citep{Knox:1995dq}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:noise_pspec}
N^{E}_{\ell} \, = \, N^{B}_{\ell} \, = \, \Delta^2_P \, \exp \left ( \frac{\ell \left(\ell+1\right)\theta^2_{\text{FWHM}}}{8 \ln 2} \right ),
\end{equation}
where $\Delta_P$ is the polarization pixel noise in [$\mu$K radian] and $\theta_{\text{FWHM}}$ is the FWHM of the beam, assuming this beam is Gaussian. We do not consider an additional foreground noise power spectrum.
The lensing reconstruction noise power spectrum $N^{\phi}_{\ell}$ can be obtained through the prevalent quadratic estimator method \citep{Hu:2000ee}. This technique builds an estimate of the lensing potential from the optimally filtered off-diagonal correlations between two lensed CMB fields $X, X' \in \{ T, E, B \}$.
We use the EB estimator which yields the best signal to noise ratio at high experimental sensitivities. The resulting quadratic lens reconstruction noise level can be expressed as \citep{Okamoto:2003zw}:
\begin{align} \label{eq:nlpp_eb}
N^{\phi}_{\ell} \, = \; &\Bigg[ \frac{1}{2\ell + 1} \sum_{\ell_1 \ell_2} \left| f^{\text{EB}}_{\ell \, \ell_1 \ell_2} \right|^2 \\
&\times \Bigg( \frac{1}{C^{\text{B},\text{len}}_{\ell_1} + N^{\text{B}}_{\ell_1}} \Bigg) \Bigg( \frac{ \big( C^{\text{E},\text{len}}_{\ell_2} \big)^2 }{C^{\text{E},\text{len}}_{\ell_2} + N^{\text{E}}_{\ell_2}} \Bigg) \Bigg]^{-1}. \notag
\end{align}
We used the fast real-space algorithm proposed by \cite{Smith:2012ghy} to compute the geometrical factors described in Equations (\ref{eq:f_coupling}) and (\ref{eq:F_coupling}) necessary for the numerical implementation of Equations (\ref{eq:clbb_res}) and (\ref{eq:nlpp_eb}).
It can be seen from Equation (\ref{eq:nlpp_eb}) that the lensing B modes act as a contaminant for the lensing reconstruction process.
Substituting the signal+noise lensed B modes of Equation (\ref{eq:nlpp_eb}) by delensed B modes, defined in this forecast as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:clbb_tot}
C^{\text{B},\text{del}}_{\ell} \, \approx \, C^{\text{B},\text{unl}}_{\ell} + C^{\text{B},\text{res}}_{\ell} + N^{\text{B}}_{\ell},
\end{equation}
one can estimate the lensing potential with higher signal-to-noise and then produce lower residual B modes.
Repeating these steps until convergence of $C^{\text{B},\text{del}}_{\ell}$ is referred to as iterative delensing \citep{Seljak:2003pn, Smith:2008an}. Quadratic delensing will indicate the use of a delensed power spectrum $C^{\text{B},\text{del}}_{\ell}$ computed through only one iteration.
Lensing reconstruction can also be achieved using large-scale structure \citep{Smith:2012ghy}.
We explore here the possibility of estimating the lensing potential by using its cross-correlation with the CIB, its best known tracer (\citealt{Hanson:2013hsb}; \citealt{Holder:2013hqu}; \citealt{Ade:2013aro}; \citealt{Ade:2013hjl}).
In this work,
we assume that high signal-to-noise CIB measurements are available,
and that the cross-correlation between the CIB and the lensing potential can be well-approximated as flat with a constant correlation coefficient
\begin{equation}\label{eq:f_corr}
f_{\text{corr}} = \frac{C^{\text{CIB} \times \phi}_{\ell}}{\sqrt{C^{\phi}_{\ell} C^{\text{CIB}}_{\ell}}}.
\end{equation}
This simple approximation is quite accurate (see for example Fig.~13 of \citealt{Ade:2013aro}).
Including the Poisson noise component to the CIB power spectrum in Equation (\ref{eq:f_corr}) causes $f_{\text{corr}}$ to fall off on small scales, but
on scales larger than $\ell \sim 500$ of interest for delensing, the flatness of the correlation factor is not substantially affected.
Although recent measurements have shown a correlation at the $f_{\text{corr}}=0.8$ level, we will pessimistically also consider delensing with correlation coefficients as low as $f_{\text{corr}}=0.4$.
This could effectively be the case, for example, in a region with comparable foreground and CIB power.
The introduction of this correlation coefficient results in a simple expression for the lensing estimate signal+noise power spectrum used in Equation \eqref{eq:clbb_res};
\begin{equation}
C^{\phi}_{\ell} + N^{\phi}_{\ell} = C^{\phi}_{\ell} / f^2_{\text{corr}}.
\end{equation}
Assuming Gaussianity of the likelihood function $\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{d} | \boldsymbol \theta)$ which gives the
probability distribution of a cosmological model $\boldsymbol \theta$ given some set of independent observations $\mathbf{d}$, we use the Fisher matrix formalism to compute forecasted errors on the tensor tilt. For the present analysis, the data covariance matrix will be reduced to the B-mode power spectrum since the constraining power on cosmological parameters such as $r$ and $n_T$ comes mainly from the B-mode signal.
Each element of the Fisher matrix reduces to \citep{Jungman:1995av}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fisher_ij}
F_{ij} = \sum^{\ell_{\text{max}}}_{\ell_{\text{min}}} \frac{\big( C^{\text{B}}_{\ell} \big)_{\!, \, i} \big( C^{\text{B}}_{\ell} \big)_{\!, \, j}}{ \left( \delta C^{\text{B}}_{\ell} \right)^2},
\end{equation}
where the expected 1$\sigma$ error on the measurement of the B-modes power spectrum is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:del_clbb}
\delta C^{\text{B}}_{\ell} = \sqrt{\frac{2}{(2\ell +1) f_{\text{sky}}}} C^{\text{B}}_{\ell}.
\end{equation}
The marginalized error on a given parameter of the model corresponds to
$\sigma(\theta_i) = \sqrt{\left(F^{-1} \right)_{ii} } $.
\section{Constraints on Tensor Tilt}
\label{sec:results}
\begin{figure}[tp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figure_3a.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figure_3b.pdf}
\caption{
\emph{Top panel:}
forecasted constraint on the tensor tilt $n_T$ marginalized over $r$ for $r_{fid}=0.2$ and varying polarization sensitivity.
\emph{Bottom panel:}
forecasted constraint on the tensor tilt $n_T$ marginalized over $r$ for $\Delta_P$=1 $\mu$K arcmin and varying fiducial values of $r$.
In both panels the black dashed line shows the absolute value of the tensor tilt given it is related to the fiducial value of $r$ through the consistency relation $n_T=-r/8$. The sky coverage has been fixed to $f_{\text{sky}}=0.5$ and the beamsize to 4 arcmin in both cases.
}
\label{fig:sigma_nt}
\end{figure}
We have computed the projected constraint on the tensor tilt assuming different delensing scenarios; results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sigma_nt}.
The two limiting cases correspond to a situation where no lensing B modes are removed (solid orange curves) and where the total B modes include no lensing B modes (solid light gray curves). The solid and dotted dark gray curves correspond to quadratic and iterative CMB delensing and the shaded regions correspond to delensing using the CIB, where the correlation factor $f_{\text{corr}}$ is comprised between 0.4 and 0.8.
For simplicity we will consider that the E-mode estimate and the lensing potential estimate are obtained through the same CMB experiment when considering CMB delensing, which makes the noise power spectra in Equations (\ref{eq:clbb_res}) and (\ref{eq:nlpp_eb}) parametrized by the same beam width and sensitivity. This forecast could be expanded to the case where a large-scale mission is used for the measurement of the E modes and a higher resolution experiment is used for estimating the lensing potential.
The beam width $\theta_{\text{FWHM}}$ has been fixed to 4 arcmin in both panels; it has been shown that beam size is not an important factor \citep{Boyle:2014kba, Dodelson:2014exa, Wu:2014hta}.
We have included modes between $l_{\text{min}} = 10$ and $l_{\text{max}} = 3000$ in the Fisher matrix calculation, although the large scale cutoff value does not affect significantly the projected constraints on $n_T$ \citep{Boyle:2014kba, Dodelson:2014exa}.
The sky coverage has been held to $f_{\text{sky}}=0.5$, knowing that for a high resolution experiment the results scale with $f_{\text{sky}}$ \citep{Dodelson:2014exa}.
The top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:sigma_nt} shows the forecasted error on $n_T$ as a function of the polarization experimental noise level. As $\Delta_P$ approaches $0$, no fundamental floor due to the iterative delensing procedure is found, in conformity with previous works \citep{Seljak:2003pn, Smith:2012ghy, Wu:2014hta}.
Better than linear improvement on $\sigma(n_T)$ is observed as polarization noise drops below $\Delta_P$=1 $\mu$K arcmin \citep{Caligiuri:2014sla}.
This noise level also represents the sensitivity required to probe the tensor tilt at a level that is interesting for testing inflationary models; around $\Delta_P$=1 $\mu$K arcmin, $\sigma(n_T)$ falls below the dashed line corresponding to the consistency relation.
Given the most optimistic case of correlation level between the CMB and the CIB, it appears that
CIB-based delensing will not be sufficient for measuring the tensor tilt. However, for the current next generation of CMB polarization experiments, CIB-based delensing will be of comparable utility.
The error on $n_T$ depends on the value of $r$ with which the B-modes power spectrum $C_{\ell}^B$ in Equations (\ref{eq:fisher_ij}) and (\ref{eq:del_clbb}) is computed. This dependence is plotted in the bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:sigma_nt}, for a fixed pixel noise of $\Delta_P$=1 $\mu$K arcmin.
The dashed black line shows the absolute value of $n_T$, given that $n_T$ and $r$ are related by the consistency relation. It can be seen that going from $r=0.2$ down to $r=0.1$ hinders the ability to distinguish between consistency relation and other models \citep{Caligiuri:2014sla, Dodelson:2014exa}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
We have tested the ability of different delensing techniques, namely EB quadratic delensing, EB iterative delensing and CIB-based delensing to constrain the tensor tilt.
For low CMB noise levels, CMB-based delensing would be able to probe inflation with a constraint on $n_T$ given the initial BICEP2 signal is entirely of cosmological origin.
This would require sensitivities on the order of 1 $\mu$K arcmin in polarized noise over roughly half the sky.
While ambitious, this is exactly the scale that is being considered
as Stage-IV CMB experiments like CMB-S4 (Abazajian et al. 2013).
CIB delensing cannot constrain $n_T$ to a level interesting for probing inflation, although it is competitive with near-future CMB delensing strategies.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
While this work was being achieved, the preprint of \cite{Boyle:2014kba} was released, which has strong overlaps with the results presented in this paper.
G. S. wishes to thank Ryan Keisler and Elisa G. M. Ferreira for useful discussions and comments.
We acknowledge the use of Kendrick Smith's implementation of the Gauss-Legendre quadrature method and of the Wigner-d matrix.
G. H. acknowledges funding from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Canada Research Chairs program.
D. H. is supported by the Lorne Trottier Chair in Astrophysics and Cosmology at McGill as well as a CITA National Fellowship.
G. S. acknowledges support from the Fonds de recherche du Qu\'ebec - Nature et technologies.
|
\section{Introduction and preliminaries}\label{csw-sec1}
The notion of linear-invariant family (hereafter $\mathcal{LIF}$) of holomorphic functions defined on the unit disk $
\ID := \{z\in \IC:\, |z| <1 \}$ was first introduced by Pommerenke in \cite{P} and showed
a number of important properties of such families.
Recall that if $\mathcal A$ denotes the family of all holomorphic functions $f$
on $\ID$ with the topology of uniform convergence of compact subsets of $\ID$, then a
subfamily $\mathcal F$ of $\mathcal A$ is called linear-invariant if it is closed
under the re-normalized composition with a conformal automorphism of $\ID$.
If the modulus of the second Taylor coefficient is bounded in $\mathcal F$, then the order $\alpha$
of the $\mathcal{LIF}$ is defined to be
$$\alpha := \sup\{|f''(0)|/2:\, f\in {\mathcal F}\}.
$$
Many properties of a $\mathcal{LIF}$ depends on the order of the
family. A universal $\mathcal{LIF}$ of order $\alpha$, denoted by
${\mathcal U}_\alpha$, is the union of all $\mathcal{LIF}$'s
$\mathcal F$ such that order of $\mathcal F$ less than or equal to
$\alpha$. The fact is that ${\mathcal U}_\alpha$ is empty if $\alpha
<1$ and ${\mathcal U}_1$ coincides with the family of all
normalized holomorphic functions $f$ which univalently map $\ID$
onto convex domains, see \cite{P}. Also, a $\mathcal{LIF}$ of order
$2$ is the family $\mathcal S$ of normalized univalent functions
from $\mathcal A$. Moreover, it has been proved that many
subfamilies of univalent mappings on $\ID$ are linearly invariant,
see for example \cite{koepf} and the references therein. For the
regularity growth of functions on ${\mathcal U}_\alpha$, we refer to
\cite{Cam,S1a,S1b}. The concept of linear invariance was generalized
by many authors in many different contexts and in 1997, Pfaltzgraff
\cite{Pf} extended this concept for locally holomorphic functions
defined on the unit ball of the complex Euclidean $n$-space
$\mathbb{C}^{n}$ and many properties were further discussed in
\cite{PS,PS2}. For our discussion, we need to deal with such
problems in the higher dimensional case.
As with the standard practice, for $z=(z_{1}~\cdots~z_{n})$ and
$w=(w_{1}~\cdots~w_{n})$ in $\mathbb{C}^{n}$, we let
$\overline{z}=(\overline{z}_{1}~\cdots~\overline{z}_{n} ),$ and
$\langle z,w\rangle := \sum_{k=1}^nz_k\overline{w}_k$ with the
associated Euclidean norm $ \|z\|:={\langle z,z\rangle}^{1/2}$ which
makes $\mathbb{C}^n$ into an $n$-dimensional complex Hilbert space.
Throughout the discussion an element $z\in \mathbb{C}^{n}$ is identified as an $n\times 1$
column vector.
For $a\in \mathbb{C}^n$ and $r>0$,
$$\IB^n(a,r)=\{z\in \mathbb{C}^{n}:\, \|z-a\|<r\}
$$
denotes the (open) ball of radius $r$ with center $a$. Also, we let
$\IB^n(r):=\IB^n(0,r)$ and use $\IB^n$ to denote the unit ball
$\IB^n(1)$, and $\mathbb{D}=\mathbb{B}^1$.
A continuous complex-valued function $f$ defined on a domain
$G\subset\mathbb{C}^{n}$ is said to be {\it pluriharmonic} if for
each fixed $z\in G$ and $\theta\in\partial\mathbb{B}^{n}$, the
function $f(z+\theta\zeta)$ is harmonic in $\{\zeta\in \IC:\;
\|\theta\zeta-z\|< d_{G}(z)\}$, where $d_{G}(z)$ denotes the
distance from $z$ to the boundary $\partial G$ of $G$. It follows
from \cite[Theorem 4.4.9]{R} that a real-valued function $u$ defined
on $G$ is pluriharmonic if and only if it is locally the real part
of a holomorphic function. If $\Omega$ is a simply connected domain
in $\mathbb{C}^{n}$, then it is clear that a mapping $f:\,\Omega\ra
\mathbb{C}$ is pluriharmonic if and only if $f$ has a representation
$f=h+\overline{g}$, where $h, g$ are holomorphic in $\Omega$ (cf.
\cite{Vl}). A {\it vector-valued mapping}
$f=(f_{1}~\cdots~f_{N})^{T}$
defined in $\mathbb{B}^{n}$ is said to be pluriharmonic, if each
component $f_{j}$ ($1\leq j\leq N$) is a pluriharmonic mapping from
$\mathbb{B}^{n}$ into $\mathbb{C}$, where $N$ is a positive integer
and $T$ is the transpose of a matrix.
We refer to
\cite{CPW-1,CPW-2,CPW-3,DHK,I,R} for further details and recent
investigations on pluriharmonic mappings.
For an $n\times n$ complex matrix $A$, we
introduce the {\it operator norm}
$$\|A\|=\sup_{z\neq0}\frac{\|Az\|}{\|z\|}=\max\left\{\|A\theta\|:\,\theta\in\partial\mathbb{B}^{n}\right\}.
$$
We use $L(\mathbb{C}^{n},\mathbb{C}^{m})$ to denote the space of
continuous {\it linear operators} from $\mathbb{C}^{n}$ into
$\mathbb{C}^{m}$ with the operator norm, and let $I_{n}$ be the {\it
identity operator} in $L(\mathbb{C}^{n},\mathbb{C}^{n})$.
We denote by $\mathcal{PH}(\mathbb{B}^{n}, \mathbb{C}^n)$ the set of
all {\it vector-valued pluriharmonic mappings} from $\mathbb{B}^{n}$
into $\mathbb{C}^n$. Then every $f\in\mathcal{PH}(\mathbb{B}^{n}, \mathbb{C}^n)$ can be written as
$f=h+\overline{g}$, where $h$ and $g$ are holomorphic in $\mathbb{B}^{n}$,
and this representation is unique when $g(0) = 0$. It is a simple exercise to see that the real
Jacobian determinant of $f$ can be written as
$$\det J_{f}=\det\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\ds Dh & \overline{Dg} \\
\ds Dg & \overline{Dh}
\end{array}\right)
$$
and if $h$ is locally biholomorphic (i.e. the complex Jacobian
matrix $J_{f}(z)$ of $f$ at each $z$ is invertible), then the
determinant of $J_{f}$ has the form \be\label{eq-ex2a} \det
J_{f}=|\det
Dh|^{2}\det\left(I_{n}-Dg[Dh]^{-1}\overline{Dg[Dh]^{-1}}\right).\ee
In the case
of a {\it planar harmonic mapping} $f=h+\overline{g}$, we find that
$$\det J_f=|h'|^2-|g'|^2,
$$
and so, $f$ is locally univalent and sense-preserving in $\ID$ if
and only if $|g'(z)|<|h'(z)|$ in $\ID$; or equivalently if $h'(z)
\neq0$ and the dilatation $\omega (z)=g'(z)/h'(z)$ is analytic in
$\ID$ and has the property that $|\omega (z)|<1$ in $\ID$ (see
\cite{Du,Lewy}). For
$f=h+\overline{g}\in\mathcal{PH}(\mathbb{B}^{n}, \mathbb{C}^n)$, the
condition $\|Dg[Dh]^{-1}\|<1$ is sufficient for $\det J_f$ to be
positive and hence for $f$ to be sense-preserving. This is indeed a
natural generalization of one-variable condition (cf. \cite{DHK}).
For motivation, consider the Taylor expansion of a function
$f=h+\overline{g}\in\mathcal{PH}(\mathbb{B}^{n}, \mathbb{C}^n)$ with
$h(0)=g(0)=0$, where
\beq\label{eqt-1}
h(z)&=&[Dh(0)]z+\frac{1}{2}[D^{2}h(0)](z,z)+\cdots+\frac{1}{m}[D^{m}h(0)](z,\ldots,z)+\cdots\\
\nonumber &=&A_{1}z+A_{2}(z,z)+A_{m}(z,\ldots,z)+\cdots
\eeq
and
\beq\label{eqt-2}
g(z)&=&[Dg(0)]z+\frac{1}{2}[D^{2}g(0)](z,z)+\cdots+\frac{1}{m}[D^{m}g(0)](z,\ldots,z)+\cdots\\
\nonumber &=&B_{1}z+B_{2}(z,z)+B_{m}(z,\ldots,z)+\cdots.
\eeq
As with one variable case, a $\mathcal{LIF}$ in
$\mathbb{B}^{n}$ is a family $\mathcal{M}$ of locally biholomorphic
mappings $f:\,\mathbb{B}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}^{n}$ such that if
$f\in\mathcal{M}$ then
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $f(0)=0,$ $Df(0)=I_{n}$ and
\item[(ii)] $\Lambda_{\phi}(f)\in\mathcal{M}$ for all
$\phi\in\mbox{Aut}(\mathbb{B}^{n})$, the holomorphic automorphism of
$\mathbb{B}^{n}$.
\end{enumerate}
Here $\Lambda_{\phi}(f)=[D\phi(0)]^{-1}[Df(\phi(0))]^{-1}[f(\phi(z))-f(\phi(0))]$
denotes the {\it Koebe transform} of $f$ (cf. \cite{PS,PS2}) and thus, the classical definition of the order
$\alpha$ of $\mathcal{LIF}$ introduced in the beginning is generalized as follows:
\begin{defn}
If $\mathcal{M}$ is a $\mathcal{LIF}$, then the {\it norm order} of
$\mathcal{M}$ is the quantity
$$\|{\rm ord}\|_{\mathcal{M}}=\sup\left\{\frac{1}{2}\|D^{2}f(0)\|:\,f\in\mathcal{M}\right\}=\alpha.
$$
\end{defn}
In \cite[Theorem 3.1]{PS}, it has been shown that $\alpha\geq1$. As in the planar case, the universal
linearly-invariant family $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}$ of order $\alpha$
is defined as the union of all linearly invariant families of order
less than or equal to $\alpha$ (cf. \cite{P}).
Our main aim of this paper is to extend the corresponding results of
\cite{S1} and \cite{S2} to higher dimensional case.
\section{Main results}
Let $\mathcal{PH}(\alpha,k)$ denote the set of all sense-preserving
mappings $f=h+\overline{g}\in\mathcal{PH}(\mathbb{B}^{n},
\mathbb{C}^n)$ with the normalization $h(0)=g(0)=0$,
$\|Dh(0)+\overline{Dg(0)}\|=1,$ $[Dh(0)]^{-1}h(z)\in
\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}$, and such that for $k\in[0,1)$,
$$\left\|Dg(z)[Dh(z)]^{-1}\right\|\leq k,
$$
where $h$ is locally biholomorphic and $g$ is holomorphic in $\mathbb{B}^{n}$.
Obviously, if $n=1$, then $\mathcal{PH}(\alpha,k)$ coincides with
the set $H(\alpha, K)$ of \cite{S1} and \cite{S2}. As a
generalization of \cite[Theorem 1]{S1}, we have.
\begin{thm}\label{thm-1}
For $\alpha<\infty$, the classes $\mathcal{PH}(\alpha,k)$ are
compact with respect to the topology of almost uniform convergence
in $\mathbb{B}^{n}$.
\end{thm}
The derivative of $f=h+\overline{g}\in\mathcal{PH}(\mathbb{B}^{n},
\mathbb{C}^n)$ in the direction of vector
$\theta\in\partial\mathbb{B}^{n}$ at the point $z$ will be denoted
by
$$\partial_{\theta}f(z)=\lim_{\rho\rightarrow0+}\frac{f(z+\rho\theta)-f(z)}{\rho}=Dh(z)\theta+\overline{Dg(z)\theta},
$$
where $h$ and $g$ are holomorphic in $\mathbb{B}^{n}.$ We use the standard notations:
$$ \Lambda_{f}=\max_{\theta\in\partial\mathbb{B}^{n}}\left\|\partial_{\theta}f\right\|\;\;
\mbox{ and }\;\; \lambda_{f}=\min_{ \theta\in\partial\mathbb{B}^{n}}\left\|\partial_{\theta}f\right\|.
$$
With this setting, we now present a generalization of \cite[Theorem 2]{S1}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm-2}
For $\alpha<\infty$, let
$f=h+\overline{g}\in\mathcal{PH}(\alpha,k)$. Then
\be\label{eq-2r}\frac{1-k}{\left\|[Dh(0)]^{-1}\right\|}\frac{(1-\|z\|)^{\alpha-1}}{(1+\|z\|)^{\alpha+1}}\leq\Lambda_{f}(z)
\leq \left (\frac{1+k}{1-k}\right
)\frac{(1+\|z\|)^{\alpha-1}}{(1-\|z\|)^{\alpha+1}} \ee and
\be\label{eq-2.1r}\|f(z)\|\leq\frac{1+k}{2\alpha(1-k)}\left\{\frac{(1+\|z\|)^{\alpha}}{(1-\|z\|)^{\alpha}}-1\right\}.
\ee
In particular,
if $n=1$, then the estimate of {\rm(\ref{eq-2r})} is sharp for
$\theta=\pm\frac{\pi}{2}$. Moreover, if $z=re^{it}$, then the
equality on the right of {\rm(\ref{eq-2r})} is obtained for
$f(z)=h(z)-k\overline{h(z)},$
$$h(z)=\frac{e^{it}}{2\alpha(1-k)}\left[\left(\frac{1+ze^{-it}}{1-ze^{-it}}\right )^{\alpha}-1\right]
$$
and the equality on the left of {\rm(\ref{eq-2r})} is obtained for $f(z)=h^{\ast}(z)+k\overline{h^{\ast}(z)}$,
$$h^{\ast}(z)=\frac{e^{it}}{2\alpha(1+k)}\left[\left (\frac{1-ze^{-it}}{1+ze^{-it}}\right )^{\alpha}-1\right].
$$
\end{thm}
The following result is a covering theorem of
$\mathcal{PH}(\alpha,k)$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm-4}
For $r\in(0,1]$ and $\alpha<\infty$, if
$f=h+\overline{g}\in\mathcal{PH}(\alpha,k)$, then
$f(\mathbb{B}^{n}(r))$ contains a univalent ball $\mathbb{B}^{n}(R)$
with
$$R\geq\frac{(1-k)|\det Dh(0)|}{\|Dh(0)\|^{n-1}}\int_{0}^{r}
\frac{(1-x)^{(2n-1)\alpha+(n-3)/2}}{(1+x)^{(2n-1)\alpha-(n-3)/2}}\,dx.
$$
In particular, if $n=1$, then
$R=(1-k)\left[1-\big(\frac{1-r}{1+r}\big)^{\alpha}\right]/[2\alpha(1+k)],$
and the extreme function $f=h+k\overline{h}$ shows that this
estimate is sharp, where
$$h(z)=\frac{\pm i}{2\alpha(1+k)}\left[\left(\frac{1\pm iz}{1\mp iz}\right )-1\right].
$$
\end{thm}
We remark that Theorem \ref{thm-4} is a generalization of \cite[Theorem 3]{S1}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm-5}
For $\alpha<\infty$, if
$f=h+\overline{g}\in\mathcal{PH}(\alpha,k)$, then
$$|\det J_{f}(z)|\geq \frac{(1-k^{2})^{n}}{\big(\det [Dh(0)]^{-1}\big)^{2}}\frac{\big(1-\|z\|\big)^{2n\alpha-n-1}}
{\big(1+\|z\|\big)^{2n\alpha+n+1}}.
$$
\end{thm}
For $r\in(0,1)$, a univalent mapping $f=h+\overline{g}\in\mathcal{PH}(\mathbb{B}^{n}, \mathbb{C}^n)$ with
$h(0)=g(0)=0$, $Dg(0)=0$ and
$$\big\|Dg[Dh]^{-1}\big\|<1
$$
is called {\it fully starlike} if it maps every ball
$\overline{\mathbb{B}^{n}(r)}$ onto a starlike domain with respect
to the origin, where $h$ is locally biholomorphic and $g$ is
holomorphic in $\mathbb{B}^{n}$ (cf. \cite{CDO}). The following
result is a generalization of \cite[Theorem 1.3]{CPW-4}.
\begin{thm}\label{th-7}
Let $r\in(0,1)$ and $f=h+\overline{g}\in\mathcal{PH}(\mathbb{B}^{n}, \mathbb{C}^n)$ be fully starlike, where $h$ is
locally biholomorphic and $g$ is holomorphic in $\mathbb{B}^{n}$. Then for all $z\in\overline{\mathbb{B}^{n}(r)}$,
$$\|h(z)\|\leq\frac{1}{1-r}\|f(z)\|.
$$
Furthermore, if $h\in\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}$, then
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm(a)] for $z\in\mathbb{B}^{n}(r_{0})$,
$$\|f(z)\|\geq r_{0}^{2}(1-r_{0})\frac{\|z\|}{(r_{0}+\|z\|)^{2}},
$$
where $r_{0}=4\alpha/(1+4\alpha^{2});$
\item[{\rm(b)}] $f$ differs from zero in $\mathbb{B}^{n}(r_{0})\backslash\{0\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
We remark that
$$\frac{4\alpha}{1+4\alpha^{2}}=\frac{1}{\alpha}-\frac{1}{\alpha(1+4\alpha^{2})}\thicksim\frac{1}{\alpha}
$$
as $\alpha\rightarrow\infty.$ Hence Theorem \ref{th-7}(b) is a generalization of \cite[Theorem 1]{S2}.
A continuous mapping $f:\ \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is called {\it
$K$-quasiregular} if $f\in W_{n,{\rm loc}}^{1}(\Omega)$ and
$$\|Df(x)\|^{n}\leq K\det J_{f}(x)\ \mbox{for almost every}\ x\in\Omega,
$$
where $K$ $(\geq1)$ is a constant. Here $f\in W_{n,{\rm loc}}^{1}(\Omega)$ means that the distributional derivatives
$\partial f_{j}/\partial x_{k}$ of the coordinates $f_{j}$ of $f$ are locally in $L^{n}(\Omega)$ and $J_{f}(x)$
denotes the Jacobian of $f$ (cf. \cite{V}).
Let $f=(f_{1}~\cdots~ f_{n})^{T}\in \mathcal{PH}(\mathbb{B}^{n},
\mathbb{C}^n)$. For $j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$, we let $z=(z_{1}~\cdots~
z_{n})^{T}$, $z_{j}=x_{j}+iy_{j}$ and $f_{j}(z)=u_{j}(z)+iv_{j}(z)$,
where $u_{j}$ and $v_{j}$ are real pluriharmonic functions from
$\mathbb{B}^{n}$ into $\mathbb{R}$. We denote the real Jacobian
matrix of $f$ by
$$J_{f}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\ds \frac{\partial u_{1}}{\partial x_{1}}\; \frac{\partial
u_{1}}{\partial y_{1}}\; \frac{\partial u_{1}}{\partial x_{2}}\;
\frac{\partial u_{1}}{\partial y_{2}}\;\cdots\;
\frac{\partial u_{1}}{\partial x_{n}}\; \frac{\partial u_{1}}{\partial y_{n}}\\[4mm]
\ds \frac{\partial v_{1}}{\partial x_{1}}\; \frac{\partial v_{1}}{\partial y_{1}}\;
\frac{\partial v_{1}}{\partial x_{2}}\; \frac{\partial
v_{1}}{\partial y_{2}}\;\cdots\;
\frac{\partial v_{1}}{\partial x_{n}}\; \frac{\partial v_{1}}{\partial y_{n}}\\[2mm]
\vdots \\[2mm]
\ds \frac{\partial u_{n}}{\partial x_{1}}\; \frac{\partial u_{n}}{\partial y_{1}}\;
\frac{\partial u_{n}}{\partial x_{2}}\; \frac{\partial
u_{n}}{\partial y_{2}}\;\cdots\;
\frac{\partial u_{n}}{\partial x_{n}}\; \frac{\partial u_{n}}{\partial y_{n}}\\[4mm]
\ds \frac{\partial v_{n}}{\partial x_{1}}\; \frac{\partial
v_{n}}{\partial y_{1}}\; \frac{\partial v_{n}}{\partial x_{2}}\;
\frac{\partial v_{n}}{\partial y_{2}}\;\cdots\;
\frac{\partial v_{n}}{\partial x_{n}}\; \frac{\partial v_{n}}{\partial y_{n}}
\end{array}\right).
$$
Let $\mathbb{B}^{2n}_{\mathbb{R}}$ denote the unit ball of
$\mathbb{R}^{2n}$. Then
$$\Lambda_{f}=\max_{\theta\in\partial\mathbb{B}^{2n}_{\mathbb{R}}}\|J_{f}\theta\|\
\mbox{and}\
\lambda_{f}=\min_{\theta\in\partial\mathbb{B}^{2n}_{\mathbb{R}}}\|J_{f}\theta\|.
$$
\begin{thm}\label{thm-6}
Let $f=h+\overline{g}\in \mathcal{PH}(\mathbb{B}^{n}, \mathbb{C}^n)$
with $\big\|Dg(z)[Dh(z)]^{-1}\big\|\leq c<1$ for
$z\in\mathbb{B}^{n}$, where $c$ is a positive constant. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm(a)] $f$ is a quasiregular mapping if and only if $h$ is a
quasiregular mapping;
\item[\rm(b)] $f(\mathbb{B}^{n})$ contains a univalent ball with the
radius
$$R\geq\frac{k_{n}\pi}{8m}\left(\frac{k_{n}\pi\sqrt{1-c}}{4K\sqrt{1+c}\log(1/(1-k_{n}))}\right)^{4n-1},
$$
where $m\approx4.2$, $\det J_{f}(0)=1$, $h$ is a $K$-quasiregular
mapping with $K\geq1$ and $0<k_{n}<1$ is a unique root such that
\be\label{eq-ex1} -4n\log(1-k_{n})=(4n-1)\frac{k_{n}}{1-k_{n}}. \ee
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
The roots $k_{n}$ in $(0,1)$ of the equation \eqref{eq-ex1} for the values of $n=1,2,3,4, 5$ are listed in Table \ref{tab1}
for a ready reference.
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
Value of $n$ & Value of $k_n$ \\
\hline
1 & 0.423166 \\
\hline
2 & 0.230006 \\
\hline
3 & 0.157659 \\
\hline
4 & 0.119898 \\
\hline
5 & 0.0967215 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{.2cm}
\caption{Values of $k_{n}$ of Equation \eqref{eq-ex1} for $n=1,2,3,4, 5$ \label{tab1}}
\end{table}
The proofs of Theorems \ref{thm-1}$-$\ref{thm-6} will be presented
in Section \ref{csw-sec2}.
\section{Proofs of the main theorems }\label{csw-sec2}
\subsection*{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm-1}}
Consider a sequence $f_{m}=h_{m}+\overline{g}_{m}\in\mathcal{PH}(\alpha,k).$ By definition, we have the conditions
$\|Dh_{m}(0)+\overline{Dg_{m}(0)}\|=1$ and $\left\|Dg_{m}(z)[Dh_{m}(z)]^{-1}\right\|\leq k,$ we see that
$$\|Dh_{m}(0)\|\leq 1+\|Dg_{m}(0)\|
$$
whereas the second condition gives
$$ \|Dg_{m}(0)\|=\left\|Dg_{m}(0)[Dh_{m}(0)]^{-1}[Dh_{m}(0)]\right\|
\leq k\|Dh_{m}(0)\|.
$$
Using the last two inequalities, we easily have
\be\label{eq-1.1}
\|Dg_{m}(0)\|\leq\frac{k}{1-k}~\mbox{ and }~\|Dh_{m}(0)\|\leq\frac{1}{1-k}.
\ee
By (\ref{eq-1.1}), $[Dh_{m}(0)]^{-1}h_{m}(z)\in \mathcal{M}_{\alpha}$ and thus by \cite[Theorem 4.1]{PS}, we obtain that
\be\label{eq-1.2}
\frac{(1-\|z\|)^{\alpha-1}}{(1+\|z\|)^{\alpha+1}}\leq\left\|[Dh_{m}(0)]^{-1}Dh_{m}(z)\right\|\leq
\frac{(1+\|z\|)^{\alpha-1}}{(1-\|z\|)^{\alpha+1}},
\ee
which implies
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|[Dh_{m}(z)]\|&=&\left\|Dh_{m}(0)[Dh_{m}(0)]^{-1}Dh_{m}(z)\right\|\\
&\leq&\left\|[Dh_{m}(0)]^{-1}Dh_{m}(z)\right\|\|Dh_{m}(0)\|\\
&\leq&\frac{1}{(1-k)}\frac{(1+\|z\|)^{\alpha-1}}{(1-\|z\|)^{\alpha+1}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Moreover, by the definition of $\mathcal{PH}(\alpha,k)$, it follows that
$$\|Dg_{m}(z)\|\leq k\|Dh_{m}(z)\|\leq\frac{k}{(1-k)}\frac{(1+\|z\|)^{\alpha-1}}{(1-\|z\|)^{\alpha+1}}.
$$
Hence $Dh_{m}(z)$ and $Dg_{m}(z)$ are uniformly bounded in compact
subsets of $\mathbb{B}^{n}$, which implies $\mathcal{PH}(\alpha,k)$
are compact. \hfill $\Box$
\subsection*{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm-2}} Let $f=h+\overline{g}\in \mathcal{PH}(\alpha,k)$ for some $\alpha<\infty$.
By the definition of directional derivatives, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\|\partial_{\theta}f(z)\right\|
&=&\left\|Dh(z)\theta+\overline{Dg(z)[Dh(z)]^{-1}Dh(z)\theta}\right\|\\
&\geq&\|Dh(z)\theta\|\left(1-\big\|Dg(z)[Dh(z)]^{-1}\big\|\right)\\
&\geq&(1-k)\|Dh(z)\theta\|
\end{eqnarray*}
and similarly,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\|\partial_{\theta}f(z)\right\|
&\leq&\|Dh(z)\theta\|\left(1+\big\|Dg(z)[Dh(z)]^{-1}\big\|\right)\\
&\leq&(1+k)\|Dh(z)\theta\|.
\end{eqnarray*}
It follows that
\be\label{eq-3}
(1-k)\|Dh(z)\|\leq\Lambda_{f}(z)=\max_{\theta\in\partial\mathbb{B}^{n}}
\left\|\partial_{\theta}f(z)\right\|\leq(1+k)\|Dh(z)\|.
\ee
Again, by elementary calculations, we have
$$\|Dh(z)\|=\left\|Dh(0)[Dh(0)]^{-1}Dh(z)\right\|\leq\left\|[Dh(0)]^{-1}Dh(z)\right\|\|Dh(0)\|,
$$
which gives
\be\label{eq-1.3}\frac{\|Dh(z)\|}{\|Dh(0)\|}\leq\left\|[Dh(0)]^{-1}Dh(z)\right\|\leq\|Dh(z)\|\left\|[Dh(0)]^{-1}\right\|.
\ee
By $[Dh(0)]^{-1}h(z)\in \mathcal{M}_{\alpha}$ and \cite[Theorem 4.1]{PS}, we deduce that
\be\label{eq-1.4}
\frac{(1-\|z\|)^{\alpha-1}}{(1+\|z\|)^{\alpha+1}}\leq\left\|[Dh(0)]^{-1}Dh(z)\right\|\leq
\frac{(1+\|z\|)^{\alpha-1}}{(1-\|z\|)^{\alpha+1}}.
\ee
By (\ref{eq-1.3}) and (\ref{eq-1.4}), we get
\be\label{eq-1.5}\frac{1}{\left\|[Dh(0)]^{-1}\right\|}\frac{(1-\|z\|)^{\alpha-1}}{(1+\|z\|)^{\alpha+1}}\leq\|Dh(z)\|\leq
\frac{(1+\|z\|)^{\alpha-1}}{(1-\|z\|)^{\alpha+1}}\|Dh(0)\|,\ee which
implies
\be\label{eq-1.6}
\frac{1-k}{\left\|[Dh(0)]^{-1}\right\|}\frac{(1-\|z\|)^{\alpha-1}}{(1+\|z\|)^{\alpha+1}}\leq\Lambda_{f}(z)
\leq \frac{(1+\|z\|)^{\alpha-1}}{(1-\|z\|)^{\alpha+1}}\|Dh(0)\|(1+k).
\ee
Applying (\ref{eq-1.6}) and the inequality,
\be\label{eqt}
\frac{1}{1+k}\leq\|Dh(0)\|\leq\frac{1}{1-k},
\ee
we conclude that
\be\label{eq2.2r}\frac{1-k}{\left\|[Dh(0)]^{-1}\right\|}\frac{(1-\|z\|)^{\alpha-1}}{(1+\|z\|)^{\alpha+1}}\leq\Lambda_{f}(z)
\leq
\frac{1+k}{(1-k)}\frac{(1+\|z\|)^{\alpha-1}}{(1-\|z\|)^{\alpha+1}}.
\ee
Now we prove (\ref{eq-2.1r}). Let $[0,z]$ be the segment from $0$ to
$z\in\mathbb{B}^{n}$. Then by using (\ref{eq2.2r}), we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|f(z)\|&=&\left\|\int_{[0,z]}df(\zeta)\right\|=\left\|\int_{[0,z]}Dh(\zeta)\,d\zeta+\overline{Dg(\zeta)\,d\zeta}\right\|\\
&\leq&\int_{[0,z]}\Lambda_{f}(\zeta)\|d\zeta\|\\
&=&\frac{1+k}{1-k}\int_{0}^{1}\frac{(1+t\|z\|)^{\alpha-1}}{(1-t\|z\|)^{\alpha+1}}\|z\|\,dt\\
&=&\frac{1+k}{2\alpha(1-k)}\left\{\frac{(1+\|z\|)^{\alpha}}{(1-\|z\|)^{\alpha}}-1\right\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The proof of this theorem is complete. \hfill $\Box$
\begin{Lem} {\rm (\cite[Lemma 4]{LX})}\label{Lem-A}
Let $A$ be an $n \times n$ complex $($real$)$ matrix with $\|A\|\neq0$. Then for all unit vector
$\theta\in\partial \mathbb{B}^{n}$, the inequality
$$\|A\theta\|\geq\frac{|\det A|}{\|A\|^{n-1}}
$$
holds.
\end{Lem}
\subsection*{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm-4}} Let $\rho$ be the radius of the largest univalence ball of
center $0$ and contained in $f(\mathbb{B}^{n}(r)).$ Then we have $\|f(z_{0})\|=\rho$ for some $z_{0}$ with $\|z_{0}\|=r$.
Let $[0,f(z_{0})]$ denote the segment from $0$ to $f(z_{0})$ and $\gamma$ be a curve joining $0$ and $z_{0}$ in $\mathbb{B}^{n}(r)$,
which is the preimage of $[0,f(z_{0})]$ for the mapping $f$. We use $\gamma(t)$ to denote a smooth parametrization of $\gamma$ with
$\gamma(0)=0$ and $\gamma(1)=z_{0},$ where $t\in[0,1].$
Applying \cite[Theorem 4.1 (4.2)]{PS} and Lemma \Ref{Lem-A}, we get
\beq\label{eq-y1}
\nonumber \left\|\partial_{\theta}f(z)\right\|&=&\left\|Dh(z)\theta+\overline{Dg(z)[Dh(z)]^{-1}Dh(z)\theta}\right\|\\
\nonumber &\geq&\|Dh(z)\theta\|\left(1-\big\|Dg(z)[Dh(z)]^{-1}\big\|\right)\\
\nonumber &\geq&(1-k)\|Dh(z)\theta\|\\
\nonumber &=&(1-k)\left\|Dh(0)\frac{[Dh(0)]^{-1}Dh(z)\theta}{\big\|[Dh(0)]^{-1}Dh(z)\theta\big\|}\right\|\big\|[Dh(0)]^{-1}Dh(z)\theta\big\|\\
\nonumber &\geq&(1-k)\frac{(1-\|z\|)^{(2n-1)\alpha+(n-3)/2}}{(1+\|z\|)^{(2n-1)\alpha-(n-3)/2}}
\min_{\xi\in\mathbb{B}^{n}}\|Dh(0)\xi\|
\eeq
which implies that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\rho&=&|f(z_{0})|=\left\|\int_{0}^{1}\frac{d}{dt}f\big(\gamma(t)\big)dt\right\|\\
&=&\int_{0}^{1}\left\|\frac{d}{dt}f\big(\gamma(t)\big)\right\|dt=\int_{0}^{1}
\left\|\partial_{\theta}f\big(\gamma(t)\big)\right\|\, |\gamma'(t)|\, dt\\
&\geq&(1-k)\min_{\theta\in\mathbb{B}^{n}}\|Dh(\gamma(0))\theta\|
\int_{0}^{1}\frac{(1-\|\gamma(t)\|)^{(2n-1)\alpha+(n-3)/2}}{(1+\|\gamma(t)\|)^{(2n-1)\alpha-(n-3)/2}}\|\,d\gamma(t)\|
\\
&\geq&(1-k)\min_{\theta\in\mathbb{B}^{n}}\|Dh(0)\theta\|\int_{0}^{r}
\frac{(1-\|z\|)^{(2n-1)\alpha+(n-3)/2}}{(1+\|z\|)^{(2n-1)\alpha-(n-3)/2}}\,d\|z\|\\
&\geq&\frac{(1-k)|\det Dh(0)|}{\|Dh(0)\|^{n-1}}\int_{0}^{r}
\frac{(1-\|z\|)^{(2n-1)\alpha+(n-3)/2}}{(1+\|z\|)^{(2n-1)\alpha-(n-3)/2}}\,d\|z\|,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\gamma'(t)=|\gamma'(t)|\theta.$
In particular, if $n=1$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\rho&\geq&(1-k)\min_{\xi\in\mathbb{B}^{n}}\|Dh(0)\xi\|\int_{0}^{r}
\frac{(1-\|z\|)^{(2n-1)\alpha+(n-3)/2}}{(1+\|z\|)^{(2n-1)\alpha-(n-3)/2}}\,d\|z\|\\
&\geq&\frac{1-k}{1+k}\int_{0}^{r}\frac{(1-x)^{\alpha-1}}{(1+x)^{\alpha+1}}dx\\
&=&\frac{1-k}{2\alpha(1+k)}\left[1-\left(\frac{1-r}{1+r}\right )^{\alpha}\right].
\end{eqnarray*}
The proof of the theorem is complete.
\hfill $\Box$
\begin{lem}\label{lem-1}
Suppose that $A=(a_{ij})$ is an $n\times n$ matrix. Then
$$\left(\min_{\theta\in\partial\mathbb{B}^{n}}\|A\theta\|\right)^{n}\leq|\det A|\leq \|A\|^{n}.
$$
\end{lem}
\bpf If $A^{\ast}=(\overline{a_{ji}}),$ then the product $A^{\ast}A$
is a positive semi-definite matrix. Let $\lambda_{1},\ldots,
\lambda_{n}\,(0\leq\lambda_{1}\leq\cdots\leq\lambda_{n})$ be the $n$
eigenvalues of the matrix $A^{\ast}A$. Then
$$\sqrt{\lambda_{n}}=\max\{\|A\theta\|:\,\theta\in\partial\mathbb{B}^{n}\}~\mbox{ and }~
\sqrt{\lambda_{1}}=\min\{\|A\theta\|:\,\theta\in\partial\mathbb{B}^{n}\},
$$
which implies that
$$\|A\|^{n}\geq|\det A|=\sqrt{\Pi_{k=1}^{n}\lambda_{k}}\geq\big(\sqrt{\lambda_{1}}\big)^{n}
=\left(\min_{\theta\in\partial\mathbb{B}^{n}}\|A\theta\|\right)^{n}.
$$
The proof of the lemma is complete. \epf
\subsection*{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm-5}} In view of Lemma \ref{lem-1} and \cite[Theorem 5.1]{Pf},
$J_f$ given by \eqref{eq-ex2a} shows that
\beq\label{eq-y2} \nonumber |\det J_{f}(z)|&=&|\det
Dh(z)|^{2}\det\left(I_{n}-Dg(z)[Dh(z)]^{-1}\overline{Dg(z)[Dh(z)]^{-1}}\right)\\
\nonumber
&\geq&|\det
Dh(z)|^{2}\min_{\theta\in\partial\mathbb{B}^{n}}\left\|\big(I_{n}-Dg(z)[Dh(z)]^{-1}\overline{Dg(z)[Dh(z)]^{-1}}\big)\theta\right\|^{n}\\
\nonumber &\geq&|\det Dh(z)|^{2}\left(1-\big\|Dg(z)[Dh(z)]^{-1}\big\|^{2}\right)^{n}\\
\nonumber &\geq&|\det Dh(z)|^{2}(1-k^{2})^{n}\\
\nonumber &=&\frac{\left|\det
\big([Dh(0)]^{-1}Dh(z)\big)\right|^{2}(1-k^{2})^{n}}{(\det[Dh(0)]^{-1})^{2}}\\
\nonumber &\geq&\frac{(1-k^{2})^{n}}{\big(\det
[Dh(0)]^{-1}\big)^{2}}\frac{\big(1-\|z\|\big)^{2n\alpha-n-1}}
{\big(1+\|z\|\big)^{2n\alpha+n+1}}.
\eeq
The proof of the theorem is complete. \hfill $\Box$
\subsection*{Proof of Theorem \ref{th-7}} By the inverse mapping theorem, we know that $f^{-1}$ is
differentiable. Let $f^{-1}=(\sigma_{1}~\cdots~\sigma_{n})^{T}$. Then for $j,~m\in\{1,\ldots, n\}$, we use
$Df^{-1}$ and $\overline{D}f^{-1}$ to denote the two $n\times n$ matrices
$\left(\partial \sigma_{j}/\partial z_{m}\right)_{n\times n}$ and
$\left(\partial \sigma_{j}/\partial \overline{z}_{m}\right)_{n\times n}$,
respectively.
Differentiation of the equation $f^{-1}(f(z))=z $ yields the following relations
$$\begin{cases}
\displaystyle Df^{-1} Dh+\overline{D}f^{-1} Dg=I_{n},\\
\displaystyle Df^{-1} \overline{Dg}+\overline{D}f^{-1}
\overline{Dh}=0,
\end{cases}
$$
which give
\be\label{eq-2f}
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle Dh Df^{-1}=\left(I_{n}-\overline{Dg}[\overline{Dh}]^{-1}Dg[Dh]^{-1}\right)^{-1},\\
\displaystyle
Dh\overline{D}f^{-1}=-\left(I_{n}-\overline{Dg}[\overline{Dh}]^{-1}Dg[Dh]^{-1}\right)^{-1}\overline{Dg}[\overline{Dh}]^{-1}.
\end{cases}
\ee By (\ref{eq-2f}), we get
\beq \label{eq-1f} \nonumber \|DhDf^{-1}\|+\|Dh\overline{D}f^{-1}\| &=&
\big\|\left(I_{n}-\overline{Dg}[\overline{Dh}]^{-1}Dg[Dh]^{-1}\right)^{-1}\big\|\\
\nonumber
&&+\big\|\left(I_{n}-\overline{Dg}[\overline{Dh}]^{-1}Dg[Dh]^{-1}\right)^{-1}\overline{Dg}[\overline{Dh}]^{-1}\big\|\\
\nonumber
&\leq&\big\|\left(I_{n}-\overline{Dg}[\overline{Dh}]^{-1}Dg[Dh]^{-1}\right)^{-1}\big\|
\left(1+\|Dg[Dh]^{-1}\|\right)\\
\nonumber&\leq&\frac{1+\|Dg[Dh]^{-1}\|}
{1-\big\|\overline{Dg}[\overline{Dh}]^{-1}Dg[Dh]^{-1}\big\|}\\
&\leq&\frac{1+\|Dg[Dh]^{-1}\|}{1-\|Dg[Dh]^{-1}\|^{2}} =
\frac{1}{1-\|Dg[Dh]^{-1}\|}.
\eeq
Since $\Omega=f(\overline{\mathbb{B}^{n}(r)})$ is starlike, for each point $z_{0}\in\overline{\mathbb{B}^{n}(r)}$
and $t\in[0,1]$, we have $\varphi(t)=tf(z_{0})\in\Omega, $ where $f=(f_{1}~\cdots~f_{n})^{T}$.
Let $\gamma=f^{-1}\circ\varphi$. For any fixed $\theta\in\partial\mathbb{B}^{n}$, let
$A_{\theta}=Dg[Dh]^{-1}\theta$. By Schwarz's lemma, for
$z\in\mathbb{B}^{n}(r)$, $\|A_{\theta}(z)\|\leq\|z\|$ if
$r\in(0,1)$. The arbitrariness of $\theta\in\partial\mathbb{B}^{n}$
gives \be\label{eq-3f} \|Dg(z)[Dh(z)]^{-1}\|\leq\|z\|\leq r \ee for
$z\in\mathbb{B}^{n}(r)$. As before, by (\ref{eq-1f}) and
(\ref{eq-3f}), we obtain that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|h(z_{0})\|
&=&\left\|\int_{0}^{1}Dh(\gamma(t))\,\frac{d}{dt}\gamma(t)\,dt\right\|\\
&=&\left\|\int_{0}^{1}Dh(\gamma(t))\left [Df^{-1}(\varphi(t))D\varphi(t)+
\overline{D}f^{-1}(\varphi(t))\overline{D\varphi(t)}\right ]\,dt\right\|\\
&\leq&\int_{0}^{1}\big(\|Dh(\gamma(t))Df^{-1}(\varphi(t))\|+\|Dh(\gamma(t))\overline{D}f^{-1}(\varphi(t))\|\big)\|D\varphi(t)\|\,dt\\
&\leq&\|f(z_{0})\|\int_{0}^{1}(1+\|Dg(\gamma(t))[Dh(\gamma(t))]^{-1}\|)\\
&&\times\left \|I_{n}-\overline{Dg(\gamma(t))}[\overline{Dh(\gamma(t))}]^{-1}
Dg(\gamma(t))[Dh(\gamma(t))]^{-1}\right \|\,dt\\
&\leq&\int_{0}^{1}\frac{1+\|Dg(\gamma(t))[Dh(\gamma(t))]^{-1}\|}
{1-\left \|\overline{Dg(\gamma(t))}[\overline{Dh(\gamma(t))}]^{-1}Dg(\gamma(t))[Dh(\gamma(t))]^{-1}\right\|}\,dt\\
&&\times\|f(z_{0})\|\\
&\leq&\|f(z_{0})\|\int_{0}^{1}\frac{1}{1-\left \|Dg(\gamma(t))[Dh(\gamma(t))]^{-1}\right \|}\,dt\\
&\leq&\frac{1}{1-r}\|f(z_{0})\|,
\end{eqnarray*}
where
$$D\varphi(t)=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
\ds f_{1}(z_{0})& 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\[2mm]
\ds 0& f_{2}(z_{0}) & 0&\cdots & 0\\[2mm]
\ds \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \cdots & \vdots \\[2mm]
\ds 0& 0 & \cdots &
f_{n-1}(z_{0})& 0\\[2mm]
\ds 0& 0& \cdots &
0& f_{n}(z_{0})
\end{array}\right)
$$
is a diagonal matrix.
Now we prove the second part of Theorem \ref{th-7}(a) and (b). By \cite[Theorem 5.7]{PS}, we know that
$h(\mathbb{B}^{n}(r_{0}))$ is starlike. For $\zeta\in\mathbb{B}^{n}$, let $H(\zeta)=h(r_{0}\zeta)/r_{0}$.
Applying \cite[Theorem 2.1]{Ba} to $H$, we know that for $\zeta\in\mathbb{B}^{n}$,
$$\|H(\zeta)\|\geq\frac{\|\zeta\|}{(1+\|\zeta\|)^{2}},
$$
which implies for $z\in\mathbb{B}^{n}(r_{0})$,
\be\label{eq-y}
\|h(z)\|\geq\frac{r_{0}^{2}\|z\|}{(r_{0}+\|z\|)^{2}}.
\ee
Then Theorem \ref{th-7} (a) follows from (\ref{eq-y}), and Theorem \ref{th-7} (b) easily
follows from Theorem \ref{th-7}(a). The proof of the theorem is complete.
\hfill $\Box$
\subsection*{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm-6}} We first prove the sufficiency of part (a). Without loss of generality, we
assume that
\be\label{eq-1.9}
\|Dh(z)\|\leq K|\det Dh(z) |^{\frac{1}{n}} ~\mbox{ for $z\in\mathbb{B}^{n}$},
\ee
where $K\geq1$ is a constant.
As in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm-5}, (\ref{eq-1.9}) and Lemma \ref{lem-1}, for $z\in\mathbb{B}^{n}$,
we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\det J_{f}(z)|
&\geq&|\det Dh(z)|^{2}(1-c^{2})^{n}
\end{eqnarray*}
so that
$$ |\det Dh(z)|^{\frac{1}{n}} \leq \frac{|\det J_{f}(z) |^{\frac{1}{2n}}}{\sqrt{1-c^2}}.
$$
Moreover,
$$\Lambda_{f}(z)=\max_{\theta\in\partial\mathbb{B}_{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}}\|J_{f}(z)\theta\|\leq\|Dh(z)\|
\left(1+\big\|Dg(z)[Dh(z)]^{-1}\big\|\right)\leq\|Dh(z)\|(1+c),
$$
which by the last inequality gives that
\be\label{eq-u1}
\Lambda_{f}(z)\leq K\sqrt{\frac{1+c}{1-c}}\, |\det J_{f}(z)|^{\frac{1}{2n}}
\ee
and hence, $f$ is a quasiregular mapping.
Next we prove the necessity of part (a). We assume that for $z\in\mathbb{B}^{n}$,
\be\label{eq-1.91}
\Lambda_{f}(z)\leq K_{1}|\det J_{f}(z) |^{\frac{1}{2n}},
\ee
where $K_{1}\geq1$ is a constant.
As in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm-5}, for $z\in\mathbb{B}^{n}$, by calculations and Lemma \ref{lem-1}, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\det J_{f}(z)|&=&|\det
Dh(z)|^{2}\left|\det\left(I_{n}-Dg(z)[Dh(z)]^{-1}\overline{Dg(z)[Dh(z)]^{-1}}\right )\right|\\
&\leq&|\det
Dh(z)|^{2}\left\|I_{n}-Dg(z)[Dh(z)]^{-1}\overline{Dg(z)[Dh(z)]^{-1}}\right\|^{n}\\
&\leq&|\det Dh(z)|^{2}\left(1+c^{2}\right)^{n}
\end{eqnarray*}
so that
$$ |\det Dh(z)|^{\frac{1}{n}} \geq \frac{|\det J_{f}(z) |^{\frac{1}{2n}}}{\sqrt{1+c^2}}.
$$
Furthermore,
$$\Lambda_{f}(z)=\max_{\theta\in\partial\mathbb{B}_{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}}\|J_{f}(z)\theta\|\geq\|Dh(z)\|
\left(1-\big\|Dg(z)[Dh(z)]^{-1}\big\|\right)\geq\|Dh(z)\|(1-c),
$$
which, by \eqref{eq-1.91}, implies that
$$\|Dh(z)\|(1-c)\leq\Lambda_{f}(z)\leq
K_{1}|\det J_{f}(z) |^{\frac{1}{2n}}\leq K_{1}\sqrt{1+c^{2}}\, |\det
Dh(z) |^{\frac{1}{n}}.
$$
Hence
$$\|Dh(z)\|\leq\frac{K_{1}\sqrt{1+c^{2}}}{1-c}|\det Dh(z) |^{\frac{1}{n}},
$$
which shows that $h$ is a quasiregular mapping.
Now we prove part (b). By (\ref{eq-u1}), we know that
$f$ is a pluriharmonic $K_{2}$-quasiregular mapping, where
$K_{2}=K\sqrt{\frac{1+c}{1-c}}$. Applying \cite[Theorem 6]{HG1}, we
know that $f(\mathbb{B}^{n})$ contains a univalent ball with the
radius $R$ with
$$R\geq\frac{k_{n}\pi}{8m}\left(\frac{k_{n}\pi}{4K_{2}\log(1/(1-k_{n}))}\right)^{4n-1},
$$
where $m\approx4.2$ and $0<k_{n}<1$ is a unique root such that
$$4n\log\frac{1}{1-k_{n}}=(4n-1)\frac{k_{n}}{1-k_{n}}.
$$
The proof of the theorem is complete. \hfill $\Box$
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
The research of the second author was supported by the project RUS/RFBR/P-163 under
Department of Science \& Technology and Russian Foundation for Basic Research and this
author is currently on leave from the Department of Mathematics,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai-600 036, India.
|
\section{Introduction}
It is often stated that the sensitivity of gravitational wave interferometers,
as currently operated, is limited to frequencies
above $\sim 40$ Hz because of ground vibration and other noise in the DC region.
Nevertheless, very low frequency gravity gradients acting on the interferometer
have been extracted from the data. Such observations can be facilitated by examining
the response of a sideband displaced from the carrier by one free spectral range,
$\nu_1 =\nu_0 + \nu_{fsr}$, where $\nu_{fsr} = c/2L$ with $L$ the length of the
interferometer arms. The observable signal is a phase difference due to the travel time
in the two arms, induced by either: (1) the motion of the ``free" end mirrors,
caused by the passage of an appropriately polarized gravitational wave, or
(2) the presence of differential gravity gradients in the two arms which modify the
phase velocity of the propagating light, or (3) geophysical effects that physically
displace the suspension of the end mirrors (test masses). In case (1) we speak
of the ``indirect" coupling of the GW to the
interferometer, while in (2) the gravitational potential (associated with the
gradient) couples ``directly" to the light circulating in the
arms. In GW interferometers, the induced time-dependent phase difference imposes
audio sidebands on the light circulating in the arms.
The circulating optical field can be either the carrier or the above mentioned $\nu_1$
sideband. The $\nu_1$ sideband has been chosen because it resonates in the arms
and its transfer function is the same as that of the carrier.
This is well known, and indicated in Fig.1 where the transfer function, from end-mirror motion
to the demodulated amplitude at the dark port of the interferometer, is shown for
both the carrier and the $\nu_1$ sideband, as a function of the excitation frequency.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=130mm,height=90mm]{Figure_101}
\caption{The transfer function, from end-mirror motion
to the demodulated amplitude at the dark port of the interferometer, for
both the carrier (red) and the $\nu_1$ sideband (green), as a function
of excitation frequency. The difference
in scale is due to the different power entering the
interferometer at the carrier and at the sideband frequencies.}
\end{figure}
The plots were generated with an excitation
of strain $h \sim 10^{-19}$ and as expected, the response is flat below $ f\sim 100$ Hz.
The difference in scale results from the different power entering the
interferometer at the two frequencies.\\
With the interferometer on a dark fringe, the audio sideband imposed on the carrier,
is detected by mixing (in the photodetector) the carrier with the radio frequency (rf)
sidebands, and then demodulating
the photocurrent at the rf frequency. If the photodetector output is sampled fast
enough, the spectrum of demodulated frequencies will extend beyond $\nu_{fsr}$. The light
at the sideband frequency, $\nu_1$, contains the audio sidebands just as does the carrier,
and the audio sidebands appear in the spectrum, symmetrically displaced about
the $\nu_{fsr}$ line. The audio sidebands can be extracted by demodulating the signal in the fsr region at
the injected $\nu_{fsr}$ frequency. Alternately, when the power in the demodulated signal in the $\nu_{fsr}$
region is plotted as a time series it will be amplitude modulated at the audio frequency.
Spectral analysis of the time series then reveals the frequency and amplitude of the audio
sidebands. The advantage of extracting the audio signal from the $\nu_{fsr}$ amplitude,
rather than from the carrier, is that the low frequency disturbances that dominate the demodulated
carrier signal at $\nu \lesssim 40$ Hz, are suppressed in the fsr region. Of course noise arising
from mirror motion will be present on both the carrier and on the fsr sideband.
However, since the interest is in low frequency periodic signals, when spectrally analyzing
the time record of the $\nu_{fsr}$ power to identify the audio sidebands, long integration times
can be used, further reducing low frequency random noise.
Signals at frequencies as low as $\nu \sim 10^{-8}$ Hz, have been identified.\\
The demodulated amplitude in the region of the fsr frequency is the sum of the amplitude
due to the fsr sideband $A_{fsr}$ and the audio sideband amplitude $A_{\omega}$ imposed
on it. Thus the power in the fsr frequency region
$$ P = |A_{fsr} + A_{\omega}|^2 = |A_{fsr}|^2 + 2|A_{fsr}||A_{\omega}|{\rm{cos}}(\omega t + \phi) + |A_{\omega}|^2,$$
modulated at the audio sideband frequency $\omega$. The modulation depth, $M$, is
$$ M = \frac{P_{max} - P_{min}}{P_{max} + P_{min}} = 2 \frac{|A_{fsr}||A_{\omega}|}
{|A_{fsr}|^2 + |A_{\omega}|^2}$$
is a measure of the audio amplitude since $|A_{fsr}|$ is fixed and can be directly measured.
For small values of $|A_{\omega}|/|A_{fsr}|$, such as prevailed during the S5 run,
$ M \approx 2|A_{\omega}|/|A_{fsr}|$. In this case,
to detect weak audio amplitudes $A_{\omega}$ it is desirable to keep $A_{fsr}$ as small
as possible.\\
To minimize $A_{fsr}$ at the detection port, the paths that the fsr sideband $A_{\nu 1}$ follows in
returning from the two arms to the photodiode
should lead to destructive interference. For the interferometer to be on a dark fringe for the
{\bf{fsr sideband}}, it is not sufficient for the carrier to be on a dark fringe, but it is also
necessary that the macroscopic difference between the two paths be null. The macroscopic
path difference is
$$ \Delta z = \delta l + N \Delta L,$$
where $\delta l$ is the imposed ``Schnupp" asymmetry in the recycling cavity, $\Delta L$ is the
length difference between the arms, typically of order 2 cm for the LIGO interferometers during the S5 run, and $N$
the effective number of round trips in the arms. If $\Delta z$ is different from zero, the fsr sidebands
arriving at the detection port will have a phase difference
$$ \Delta \phi_1= 2\pi \frac{\Delta z}{\lambda_1} = 2\pi\frac{\Delta z}{c}( \nu_0 \pm \nu_{fsr})
= \pm 2\pi\frac{\Delta z}{2L}$$
The last equality follows because, by definition, for the locked interferometer
$2\pi \Delta z/\lambda_0 =0$, modulo $2\pi$, and $\nu_{fsr}= c/2L$ with $L$ the length of the arms.
Reducing $\Delta \phi_1$ to null, is discussed in the following section.\\
Another concern is that if both the upper fsr sideband, $\nu_{1+}$, and the lower one, $\nu_{1-}$,
are present, the audio sidebands imposed on the fsr sidebands cancel at the detection port.
This can be seen in the ``phasor" diagram of Fig.2; here the vectors representing
the fsr sidebands are taken along the real axis and 180$^{\circ}$ out of phase, as is the case when
generated by an electro-optic modulator. The two induced audio sidebands,
the positive frequency (advanced) and the negative frequency (retarded),
are shown superimposed on both fsr sidebands. Thus, the real part of the phasors always cancel,
and so does the field at the audio frequency.
To study the audio signal imposed on $\nu_1$, it is necessary to inject only {\bf{a single}}
fsr sideband, for instance $\nu_1 = \nu_0 +\nu_{fsr}$.\\
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=60mm,height=45mm]{Figure_102}
\caption{Phasor diagram for the upper $\nu_{1+}$ and lower $\nu_{1-}$
fsr sidebands when aligned along the real axis, and with the
audio sidebands superimposed. When both fsr sidebands
are present, the real part of the audio phasor vanishes.}
\end{figure}
The modulation of the signal at the fsr sideband frequency, $\nu_{fsr}$ was observed by the LIGO
collaboration and has been discussed in the past \cite{MG12, Chad}. Attempts to address the issue
analytically can be found in \cite{Rudenko, Gusev}. However, given the complexity of the optical
fields in GW interferometers, it is advisable to carry out a numerical simulation such as presented here.\\
\section {The numerical simulation}
We have adopted the code FINESSE \cite{Finesse} which uses a standard matrix inversion algorithm
to solve for the fields in the interferometer, as also done in TWIDDLE \cite{Twiddle}.
FINESSE includes a wide range of useful options and is easy to
use. We simulated a ``standard" recycled interferometer with 4 km long Fabry-Perot cavities
in the arms, using the optical and other parameters of the H1 (Hanford) LIGO interferometer in the
configuration of the S5 run \cite{S5}. The layout of the elements of the interferometer, and the
labeling of the ``nodes" used in the code are shown in Fig.3. We have included rf sidebands
at $\nu_{rf} = 24.480954$ MHz, with modulation index 0.4, and a {\bf{single}} fsr sideband at
$\nu_{fsr} = 37.473$ kHz (as expected for an arm length of 4,000 m), with modulation index 0.3.
A Schnupp asymmetry of 278 mm (the nominal value for S5) is included.\\
The results of the simulation are shown as graphs generated by the code, either as fixed values
or as scans over some range of a particular parameter of an element in the interferometer.
In most cases we examine the signals at the detector (AS) port, and plot the demodulated power at
a specific frequency, after demodulating with one, two, or three frequencies. Occasionally, we
give field amplitudes at a particular frequency, or the total power at different points (nodes)
in the interferometer. Power is given in Watts, amplitudes in $\sqrt {\rm{W}}$, and the carrier
input from the laser was set to 1 W. The end mirrors (or any element) of the interferometer
can be moved sinusoidally (shaken) at a specified frequency and with specified amplitude; the driving amplitude is given
in degrees of phase, namely $\Delta x= \lambda /360 \approx 3\times 10^{-9}$ m,
which for the end mirrors is equivalent to strain $ h \approx 10^{-12}$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=130mm,height=90mm]{Figure_103}
\caption{Layout of the elements of the interferometer, and the
labeling of the ``nodes" as used in the simulation code }
\end{figure}
In the simulation the two end mirrors were shaken differentially. One feature of FINESSE is that
for the carrier the phase at any node is always zero (i.e. microscopically all distances are
taken to be integers of the carrier wavelength), unless specified otherwise by the user
through the addition of a phase at the particular node.\\
The interferometer is set on a dark fringe by choosing the phases of the cavity mirrors appropriately:
for the in-line arm, input mirror $\phi = 90^{\circ}$, end mirror $\phi = 270^{\circ}$; for the up-going
arm, input mirror $\phi = 0^{\circ}$ and end mirror $\phi = 180^{\circ}$. To place
the fsr sideband ($\nu 1$) on a dark fringe we adjust the length of the in-line arm to
minimize the $\nu 1$ amplitude at the detection port, which happens when
$L_{in-line}$ = 3999.998 m, namely
when the in-line cavity arm is shorter than the up-going arm by 2 mm. This is as expected
because it compensates for the Schnupp asymmetry which is set with the in-line recycling cavity arm
longer than the up-going arm by 278 mm. Taking the effective number of traversals in the arms
as $N \approx 140$, $\Delta z =\delta {\textit{l}} + N\Delta L \approx 0$.
This is indicated in Fig.4 where the
demodulated fsr power (at the detection port) is shown as a function of the arm-length
of the in-line cavity. We have limited the resolution of the scan to 1 mm, which can be maintained
during interferometer operation without active feedback.\\
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=130mm,height=90mm]{Figure_104}
\caption{Demodulated power of the fsr sideband at the detection
port as a function of the macroscopic length of the in-line arm}
\end{figure}
The field amplitudes and demodulated power at the detection port
for this particular tuning $\Delta L = L_{in} - L_{up} =-2$ mm, are given in Fig.5 . The red line
is the demodulated carrier power, and at -360 db it is indeed dark. The demodulated power of the fsr
sideband is shown by the blue line and at \mbox{ -160 db} it is adequately dark, given the 1 mm resolution chosen
for the setting of the macroscopic arm length difference. The green line shows the
amplitude of the single fsr sideband. These fields are present in the absence of a driving signal,
and with the interferometer in lock. We also checked that the simulation yields the correct power
gains in the arm cavities, $g^{arm}_0 = 141$ for the carrier, and $g^{arm}_1 = 140$ for the fsr sideband;
in the recycling cavity the carrier gain is $g^{rc}_0 = 111$, and for the fsr sideband $g^{rc}_1 = 100$.\\
To indicate how the fsr sideband is filtered by the arm cavities and the recycling cavity,
we show in Fig.6 the fsr sideband demodulated power at the detection port as a function of the frequecy
offset from the carrier. The dominant width of the response is due to the spectral width of the
arm cavities, the so called ``cavity pole". However at the exact fsr frequency, the effect of
the recycling cavity becomes important giving rise to the inverted narrower structure, referred to as
the ``double cavity" pole.\\
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=100mm,height=70mm]{Figure_105}
\caption{Field amplitude and demodulated power at the detection port
for optimal tuning and in the absence of excitation. Demodulated carrier
power (red), demodulated fsr sideband power(blue), amplitude of the
single fsr sideband (green).}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=100mm,height=70mm]{Figure_106}
\caption{The fsr demodulated power at the detection port as a function of
the frequency offset (from the carrier) of the injected sideband signal,
and for ``optimal tuning" of the arm length. See the text for details.}
\end{figure}
We now turn to the excitation of the interferometer by sinusoidally displacing the end mirror
of both cavities in a differential manner, that is with opposite phases, as expected
for a suitably polarized GW. We report the ``triply" demodulated power at the detection port.
By this we mean first demodulation at the rf frequency, followed by demodulation at
the fsr frequency, since we are interested in the audio signal superimposed on the fsr sideband; thirdly
we demodulate at the driving frequency, in order to obtain the response of the interferometer
to the imposed ``shaking" (excitation) of the end mirrors. In Fig.7 the red line gives the response when demodulating
the carrier (the usual signal), while the green line gives the response when demodulating
at the fsr sideband frequency. The horizontal axis is in degrees of phase angle at the end mirrors.
As already mentioned one degree corresponds to a strain $h \approx 10^{-12}$. Thus the horizontal scale spans
$h \sim 10^{-18}\ {\rm{to}}\ 10^{-16}$. On this scale the response is linearly dependent
on the excitation amplitude, and the fsr sideband carries the same information about
the excitation as does the carrier. The frequency of the excitation used to generate the signal amplitudes
shown in Fig.7 was 1 Hz, but as indicated in Fig.1
the response is flat below 10 Hz, for both the carrier and the fsr sideband.
The difference in scale between the carrier and the fsr
sideband is determined by the power injected at the two frequencies,
as already mentioned in relation to Fig.1. \\
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=100mm,height=70mm]{Figure_107}
\caption{Carrier demodulated power (red) and fsr sideband
demodulated power (green) as a
function of the excitation of the arm end mirrors for the range
of strain $h \sim 10^{-18}\ {\rm{to}}\ 10^{-16}$. The macroscopic arm length
difference is set to the optimal value $\Delta L$ = -2 mm.}
\end{figure}
As a check of our understanding, when both fsr sidebands are allowed in the simulation, the
demodulated fsr power, for the excitation used in Fig.7, is reduced by 200 db confirming
the conclusion drawn from the graph in Fig.2.\\
\section{Signal to Noise issues}
To extract the audio signal from the $\nu_1$ amplitude, we follow the approach described in
the introduction, and that was also used in the analysis of the S5 run data:
that is, we examine the modulation of the fsr power as a function of time.
In the introduction we considered the case $A_{\omega} << A_{fsr}$. However when the fsr
amplitude is minimized by adjusting the macroscopic arm length, the
opposite may be true, $A_{\omega} >> A_{fsr}$. The expression for the modulation
depth
$$ M = \frac{P_{max} - P_{min}}{P_{max} + P_{min}} = 2 \frac{|A_{fsr}||A_{\omega}|}
{|A_{fsr}|^2 + |A_{\omega}|^2}$$
is valid in either case.
When $A_{\omega} >> A_{fsr}$, the signal at the audio frequency dominates and it is
directly available. In Fig.8 we show the audio
amplitude (green), the fsr amplitude (red) and the modulation depth, $M$ (blue) for the same
range of excitation amplitudes as used in Fig.7, namely in the range
$h \sim 10^{-18}\ {\rm{to}}\ 10^{-16}$ and at $\nu_{audio} =1$ Hz. In the simulation, the
power at the fsr, is
obtained by demodulating the photocurrent, at the detection port, at the rf frequency (24.480954 MHz),
followed by demodulation at the fsr frequency (37.473 kHz). The power at the audio amplitude is
obtained by following the same procedure as above, and then demodulating for a third time at the
audio frequency used in the code to drive the end mirrors.
The resulting $A_{fsr}$ amplitude, is obviously independent of the external
drive, while the power at $A_{\omega}$ grows linearly with increasing excitation.
When the two amplitudes are equal there is 100 percent modulation, $M=1$.\\
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=100mm,height=65mm]{Figure_108}
\caption{ fsr sideband amplitude (red), audio amplitude (green), and
modulation depth (blue), as a function of the excitation of the arm
end mirrors for the range of strain $h \sim 10^{-18}\ {\rm{to}}\ 10^{-16}$.
When the amplitudes are equal, $M=1$.
The macroscopic arm length
difference is set to the optimal value \mbox{$\Delta L$ = -2 mm.}}
\end{figure}
The FINESSE code calculates the ``noise over signal" ratio, N/S, (or its inverse)
at any node in the interferometer by applying
the Schottky formula to the total optical power at the node and comparing the associated noise
power to the
signal power at the particular frequency of interest. We have adopted the convention
of presenting ``noise over signal", N/S, which is a spectral density and must
be multiplied by $\sqrt {\rm{BW}}$ with BW the bandwidth used in the measurement,
expressed in Hz. For the results presented here we use
BW=1 Hz. Once the N/S is known for $A_{\omega}$ and $A_{fsr}$ the errors can be
propagated to obtain the N/S for the modulation depth as well.\\
In these estimations we consider
{\bf{only shot noise}}, and this is justified because the photocurrent which is demodulated to
yield the power at $\nu = 37.473$ kHz is mainly free of the disturbances near DC.
Some of these disturbances are up-converted from the DC region to the fsr frequency region,
but the up-converted amplitudes are typically few percent of $A_{fsr}$ \cite{Butler}.
Up-converted discrete low frequency lines, such as due to the suspension of the
optics, can be separated from the audio signal. Random (white) noise, is further suppressed when
extracting the spectrum of periodic signals from a long time series of the power in the fsr
frequency range: during the S5 LIGO run the time record was 16 months long. \\
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=100mm,height=70mm]{Figure_109}
\caption{ N/S for the audio demodulated power (green), N/S for the
demodulated power at the fsr sideband
(red), and N/S for the modulation depth (blue), as a function
of the excitation of the arm end mirrors for the range of strain
$h \sim 10^{-18}\ {\rm{to}}\ 10^{-16}$. The macroscopic arm length
difference is set to the optimal value $\Delta L$ = -2 mm.
As explained in the text, the red and blue lines overlap.}
\end{figure}
In Fig.9 we plot the N/S for the demodulated power at he audio frequency (green),
the N/S for the power at the fsr sideband(red), and the N/S for the modulation
depth (blue), for the same range of signal excitation as in
Figs.7,8, namely for strain in the range $h \sim 10^{-18}\ {\rm{to}}\ 10^{-16}$.
The red curve is not seen in Fig.9
because it is overwritten by the blue N/S line of the modulation depth.
This is to be expected since for optimal tuning, $A_{fsr} << A_{\omega}$,
and the N/S for $A_{fsr}$ dominates the N/S for the modulation depth. For optimal
tuning of the interferometer, and for strain $ h=10^{-23}$ the signal
to noise ratio, due only to shot noise, is $S/N \approx 4$ for the signal extracted
from the sideband, while it is $S/N \approx 40$ for the signal extracted from the
carrier.\\
\section{Discussion}
The response of the detected fsr power to an external excitation was observed serendipitously during
the LIGO S5 run. In that run the fsr amplitude was recorded and demodulated as a separate
channel in the detection chain, to search for a high frequency gravitational signal. Instead,
the analysis of the fsr data revealed the slow modulation of the time
series of the fsr power at a frequency of $\sim 10^{-5}$ Hz. In the S5 run there
was no injection at the fsr sideband, but the sideband was spontaneously excited by parametric
conversion from a nearby thermal (acoustic) resonance in the test masses (mirrors).
The fsr sideband as well as the acoustic resonances can be seen in the first figure of \cite{MG12}.
The time series of the power
in the fsr channel (integrated over the line width) for a 16-month long record is plotted in Fig.10;
as seen in the inset it is modulated with a period of half a day and of one day.
In retrospect, the presence of modulation indicates that only one, and not both sidebands
are generated in the parametric conversion process\footnote{This can be attributed to the fact
that the frequency of the acoustic resonance is slightly higher than the fsr frequency.
Thus, preferentially only the upper sideband participates in the parametric conversion.}.
Spectral (Fourier) analysis
of the time record reveals 10 tidal lines, the observed frequencies being compared with
their known values \cite{Melchior} in Table 1. \\
The spectra of the integrated power at the fsr are shown in Fig.11 for the region of
diurnal frequencies and in Fig.12 for the semi-diurnal region.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=100mm,height=70mm]{Figure_110}
\caption{Integrated power in the free spectral range (fsr) region as a
function of time, April 2006 to July 2007. The data are for the H1 interferometer
and are sampled every \mbox{64 s.} Note the daily and twice-daily modulation
that can be seen in the inset. From \cite{MG12}.}
\end{figure}
\pagebreak
{\underline { Table I. \ \ Observed and known frequencies of the tidal
components (Hz)}}
\begin{tabular}{c l|l|l} \hline
\qquad Symbol \qquad \qquad & Measured \qquad \qquad & Predicted \qquad \qquad & L=lunar; S=solar\\
\hline\\[0.2ex]
{\underline {Long period }}\\
$\rm{Ss_a}$ & $6.536\times 10^{-8}$ & $6.338\times 10^{-8}$ & \rm{S declinational}\\[0.5ex]
{\underline {Diurnal }}\\
$\rm{O_1}$ & $1.07601\times 10^{-5}$ & $1.07585\times 10^{-5}$ & \rm{L principal lunar wave}\\
$\rm{P_1}$ & $1.15384\times 10^{-5}$ & $1.15424\times 10^{-5}$ & \rm{S solar principal wave}\\
$\rm{S_1}$ & $1.15741\times 10^{-5}$ & $1.15741\times 10^{-5}$ & \rm{S elliptic wave of} $\rm{^{s}K_1}$\\
$\rm{^{m}K_1,^{s}K_1}$ & $1.16216\times 10^{-5}$ & $1.16058\times 10^{-5}$ & \rm{L,S declinational waves}\\
[0.5ex]
{\underline {Twice-daily }}\\
$\rm{N_2}$ & $2.19240\times 10^{-5}$ & $2.19442\times 10^{-5}$ & \rm{L major elliptic wave of $\rm{M_2}$}\\
$\rm{M_2}$ & $2.23639\times 10^{-5}$ & $2.23643\times 10^{-5}$ & \rm{L principal wave}\\
$\rm{S_2}$ & $2.31482\times 10^{-5}$ & $2.31481\times 10^{-5}$ & \rm{S principal wave}\\
$\rm{^{m}K_2,^{s}K_2}$ & $2.31957\times 10^{-5}$ & $2.32115\times 10^{-5}$ & \rm{L,S declinational waves}\\
\end{tabular}\\
As seen in the Table the measured tidal frequencies are in excellent agreement
with their predicted value,
within the resolution of the measurement. The uncertainty
in the determination of the tidal frequencies is \mbox{$\Delta
\nu_{res}= 1/(4T_{total}) = 6 \times 10^{-9}$ Hz}, with $T_{total} = 4.2
\times 10^7$ seconds; the factor of 4 being included because in the
spectral analysis \cite{Lomb-Scargle} the data was oversampled by a factor of four.
Comparing the observed frequencies to the predicted ones, and using
$\Delta \nu_{res}$ as the measurement
error, yields $\chi^2$/DF = 1.86. The table also includes a long-term,
twice yearly, component which is evident by inspection of Fig.10.\\
The presence of the Earth tides is well known, and
to keep the interferometer in lock, the end test masses must be mechanically
displaced to correct for the tidal motion.
Any residual uncompensated motion is corrected by the
interferometer controls and can be observed in a
long term analysis of the trends of the differential arm control signal (DARM-CTRL). However,
the tidal acceleration has also a horizontal component along the arms, typically
$g_{hor} \approx 10^{-7} g \approx 10^{-6} \ {\mathrm{m\ s^{-2}}}$, and this component is time-dependent
at the tidal frequencies. This horizontal gravity gradient leads to a frequency shift of the light
propagating along the arms, and thus to a cumulative phase shift for every traversal. In the weak field approximation,
the presence of a gravitational potential $\Phi$ modifies the $g_{00}$ metric coefficient to
\begin{equation}
g_{00} = -(1 + 2\Phi/c^2)
\end{equation}
\noindent The departure of $g_{00}$ from its flat space value gives
rise to time dilation, or equivalently to a shift in the frequency
of light propagating through that gravitational field \cite{ Weinberg,
Hartle}.
\begin{equation}
\nu_A - \nu_B = - \frac{\Phi_A - \Phi_B}{c^2}\ \nu_{A} \qquad\qquad
{\rm{or}}\qquad\qquad \frac{\delta \nu}{\nu} = -\frac{\delta n}{n}
= -\frac{\delta \Phi}{c^2},
\end{equation}
where we also introduced the refractive index of the light $n =
c'/c$, which is often used in the literature. \\
A constant gradient
$g_{hor}$ along the $x$-direction can be described by a potential,
$\Phi = g_{hor}x$. Thus light executing a single round trip in an arm of
length $L$ acquires a phase shift (as compared to light traveling in
a field-free region) equal to
\begin{equation}
\delta \phi_t^{single} = 2\int \delta \omega dt = 4\pi\nu_0 \int^{L}_{0}
\frac{\delta \nu}{\nu} \frac{dx}{c} =
\frac{4\pi}{\lambda_0}
\int^{L}_{0} \frac{\Phi}{c^2} dx
= \frac{2\pi}{\lambda_0}\ \frac{ g_{hor} L^2}{c^2}.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=100mm,height=70mm]{Figure_111}
\caption{Frequency spectrum of the integrated fsr power in the
diurnal region, from \cite{MG12}. Note the fine structure.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=100mm,height=70mm]{Figure_112}
\caption{Frequency spectrum of the integrated fsr power in the
twice daily region, from \cite{MG12}. Note the fine structure.}
\end{figure}
\noindent Numerically, and without accounting for the multiple traversals, we find
$$\frac{\Delta \phi}{2 \pi} \sim 2\times 10^{-10}.$$
We can use this value to estimate the modulation depth expected for the LIGO S5
data. To this end we ran the simulation with a macroscopic arm length difference
of $\Delta L =2$ cm (best estimate for the S5 run \cite{Butler}), rather than the ``optimal" value
($\Delta L =- 2$ mm) used in the simulations discussed so far. By introducing an excitation
of $7\times 10^{-8}$ degrees, corresponding to the above value of $\Delta \phi$,
we find a modulation depth of $M=0.18$. This is in qualitative agreement with the data, and
is additional evidence that the observed signals are due to the gravity gradient
and not to uncompensated mirror motion. The advantage of using the modulation depth
as a measure of the induced phase shift, is that it does not depend on the power input
at the fsr sideband,
since both the $A_{fsr}$ and $A_{\omega}$ amplitudes scale by the same factor.\\
In previous attempts to explain the modulation of the fsr power, macroscopic mirror motion was
often considered \cite{Chad, Rudenko, Gusev}. Such motion, however, is compensated by the tidal servo and any remaining
displacement is corrected by the interferometer controls. Instead, we now see
that any external audio excitation, such as produced by the gravity
gradients will simultaneously impose audio sidebands on both the carrier and on the fsr
amplitude. The information carried by the fsr amplitude is the same as that
carried by the carrier, except that the audio signals are now superimposed on a
higher frequency signal which is displaced from the DC region where seismic noise and
similar disturbances are dominant. The tidal signals have also been extracted from
the minute trends of the signal controlling the differential arm separation
(DARM-CTRL) but in that case the frequencies of the dominant lines are
shifted by $d\nu/\nu \approx 0.005$ and the weaker lines are absent. This may be due to the higher
noise level when the low frequency signals are extracted from the carrier. Of course,
the demodulation in the DC region
performed on the carrier, is essential for sensing low frequency motion in order to keep the
interferometer in lock. But once the interferometer is locked, when searching for low frequency
audio signals, it is best to examine the demodulated power in the fsr amplitude.
\section {G.W. signals from close binaries}
As seen in Figs.11,12 the LIGO interferometers can detect weak signals at low frequencies
$\nu \sim 10^{-5}$ Hz, with excellent signal to noise ratio (SNR) .
While the horizontal tidal gradient is large, $\sim 10^{-6}\ {\rm m s^{-2}}$, it
is coupled to the interferometer through the ``direct" effect imposing only a very
small phase shift. An incoming GW (at a sufficiently high frequency)
that would produce the same phase shift by acting on the ``free"
mirrors, would have a strain $h=(\Delta \phi/2 \pi)(\lambda/ NL) \sim 5\times 10^{-22}$. Therefore
it may be possible to detect the gravitational signal from close binaries that have typical
periods of a fraction of a day or less. \\
The main difficulty is that at frequencies below the natural frequency
of the suspension the test masses can not any more be treated as free.
But not all is lost: the test masses respond to the tidal acceleration imposed by
the gravitational wave \cite{MTW, Rakhmanov}
$$ \ddot x = \frac{1}{2} \ddot h(t) x$$
which is counteracted by the restoring acceleration of the pendular suspension.
Letting $\Omega, h$ be the angular frequency and amplitude of the gravitational wave,
and $\omega_s$ the pendular angular frequency, a direct calculation for the
change in the arm length gives\footnote{The following equation has the inverse behavior
from that of the driven
oscillator because the driving acceleration is proportional to $\Omega^2$.}
\begin{equation}
\Delta L(t) = -\frac{h_0 L}{2} \frac{1}{(\omega_s/\Omega)^2 - 1}e^{i \Omega t}
\end{equation}
as compared to $\Delta L (t) = (h_0 L/2)e^{i \Omega t}$ when $\Omega >> \omega_s$, namely
when the mirrors are free.
We see that in calculating the phase shift in the interferometer, the
strain of a low frequency gravitational wave must be derated\footnote{The direct coupling is always present,
but the induced phase shift $\Delta \phi = (k h LN)(\Omega T)^2/6$, scales
as the square of the g.w. frequency.} by $(\Omega /\omega_s)^2$.\\
For the majority of binaries, $\Omega/2 \pi \sim 10^{-5}$ Hz, while for LIGO
$\omega_s = 0.75$ Hz and for VIRGO $\omega_s = 0.5$ Hz. Given the expected gravitational
wave strain produced by binaries, a large improvement in interferometer sensitivity
appears necessary to detect such sources. However, Brown et al. reported recently on a pair of detached white
dwarfs with a period of $T=12.75$ minutes ($\Omega /2 \pi =2.6 \times10^{-3}$ Hz)
\cite{Brown}. The binary is located at a distance of 1 kpc, and the calculated
gravitational wave strain at the Earth is $h = 10^{-22}$. To detect the source in
one year of observation, the required sensitivity of the interferometer is
$$ h/\sqrt {\rm{Hz}} = 10^{-22} (\Omega/\omega_s)^2
(6 \times 10^{-9})^{-1/2}
\sim 4\times 10^{-23}\sqrt {\rm{Hz}}$$
for $\omega_s = 0.5$ Hz. This seems achievable, and there may exist other binaries
with even shorter periods, that have not as yet been detected optically but
could be searched for, through their gravitational signal.
\section{Acknowledgements}
I wish to thank Daniel Sigg who designed and implemented the fsr read-out
channel, and Fred Raab for his support and hospitality at the Hanford
LIGO laboratory. Bill Butler, Chad Forrest, Tobin Fricke and Stefanos Giampanis
were instrumental in the analysis. The excellent quality of the data
is due to the dedicated efforts of the staff and operators at LHO, and of
the members of the LSC collaboration. I also thank Valentin Rudenko
of Moscow State University, for his encouragement and continuing
interest in this work. I am indebted to the team that wrote and
maintains the FINESSE code, and I thank Mark Bocko and Malik Rakhmanov for
insightful comments on an earlier version of this paper.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
For the investigation of pure spin transport phenomena, yttrium iron garnet (YIG) is shown to be a very suitable candidate. YIG is a ferrimagnetic insulating material having a low magnetization damping as well as a very low coercive field. In combination with a high spin-orbit coupling material such as platinum (Pt), many different experiments have been performed, showing spin-pumping\citep{HillebrandsSPmagnons,SpinPump,SaitohFreqDep,CastelPRB}, spin transport\citep{travellingSW,Kajiwara2010nature} and spin-wave manipulation\citep{AzevedoAPL2013,Kurebayashi2011nmat,AzevedoPRL2011} as well as the recently discovered spin-Hall magnetoresistance (SMR).\citep{BauerTheorySMR,AlthammerSMR,VlietstraSMR,BauerSMR,VlietstraSMR2,JamalTaPt}
Recently also experiments were performed showing the spin-Seebeck effect\citep{SSESaitoh,SSETheory,SSETheory2,reportSSE} (SSE) as well as the spin-Peltier effect\citep{PeltierYIG} in YIG/Pt systems. The SSE is observed when a temperature gradient is present over a ferromagnetic/non-magnetic interface. In a YIG/Pt system, this temperature gradient causes the creation of thermal magnons, resulting in transfer of angular momentum at the YIG/Pt interface, generating a pure spin-current into the Pt.\citep{reportSSE} This spin-current can then be detected electrically via the inverse spin-Hall effect (ISHE). So far, most experiments on the SSE are performed using external heating sources to create a temperature gradient over the device. Interestingly, Schreier et al.\citep{SSEGoennenwein} showed that a clear SSE signal can also be extracted from more easily performed current-induced heating experiments. In their experiments a temperature gradient is created by sending a charge current through the detection strip. A disadvantage of their measurement method is the presence of a much larger signal originated from the SMR, which should be subtracted to reveal the SSE signal.
In this paper we investigate both the SSE and SMR in a YIG-based device, showing the possibility to simultaneously, but separately, detect the SSE and SMR by using a lock-in detection technique. Whereas Schreier et al. only performed their measurements applying high magnetic fields, fully saturating the magnetization of the YIG, we show that when lowering the applied magnetic field, dynamic behavior of the magnetization of the YIG can be picked up as additional 2$^\textrm{nd}$ order signal. Only by using a lock-in detection technique these signals can be separately detected and analyzed. Having platinum (Pt) or tantalum (Ta) as detection layer, we investigate the evolution of the SSE and the SMR signal as a function of the magnitude and the direction of the applied field, focusing especially on their low-field behavior.
The first experiments described in this paper show SSE measurements where a temperature gradient is generated by externally heating the sample using a second Pt strip on top of the device. By using devices consisting of both Pt and Ta on YIG, we confirm the opposite sign of the spin-Hall angle for Ta and Pt.\citep{SHE-Ta,SHE-Metals} In the secondly shown experiments, the samples are heated by current-induced heating through the metal detection strip, such that both the SSE and SMR are present. Additionally detected 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic signals for low applied fields and high heating currents are discussed and ascribed to dynamic behavior of the magnetization of the YIG, caused by the applied AC-current. Finally, we derive a dynamic SMR term, which is used to explain the observed features.
The same kind of experiments could as well be used for detection of spin-transfer torque effects on the magnetization of the YIG, like the generation of spin-torque ferromagnetic resonance as formulated by Chiba et al.\citep{ChibaCurrent}. However, as will be shown in this paper, when applying low magnetic fields and high currents, the detected magnetization behavior is dominated by current-induced magnetic fields (like the Oersted field). So, to be able to detect any effect of the spin-transfer torque, its contribution should be increased, for example by decreasing the YIG thickness.
\section{Sample characteristics}
For the experiments shown in this paper, two Hall-bar shaped devices have been used, one consisting of a 5nm-thick Pt layer and the other of a 10nm-thick Ta layer. The Hall-bars have a length of 500$\upmu$m and a width of 50$\upmu$m, with side contacts of 10$\upmu$m width. Both Hall-bars are deposited on top of a 4x4mm$^2$ YIG sample, by dc sputtering.
The used sample consists of a 200nm thick layer of YIG, grown by liquid phase epitaxy on a single crystal (111)Gd$_3$Ga$_4$O$_{12}$ (GGG) substrate. The YIG magnetization shows isotropic behavior of the magnetization in the film plane, with a low coercive field of only 0.06mT.\citep{CastelPRB,VlietstraSMR}
For external heating experiments, a Ti/Pt bar of 5/40nm thick is deposited on top of both Hall-bars, separated from the main channel by a 80nm-thick insulating Al$_2$O$_3$ layer. The size of the heater is 400x25$\upmu$m$^2$. Finally, both Hall-bars and Pt heaters are contacted by thick Ti/Au pads [5/150nm]. All structures are patterned using electron-beam lithography. Before each fabrication step the sample has been cleaned by rinsing it in acetone, no further surface treatment has been carried out. A microscope image of the device is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig1}(a).
\section{Measurement methods}
To observe the SSE, two measurement methods have been investigated. At first, to generate a clear SSE signal, a temperature gradient is created using an external heating source to heat one side of the sample.
In our case, we have a Ti/Pt strip on top of the Hall-bar, electrically insulated from the detection channel, which can be used as an external heater. By sending a large current (up to 10mA) through the heater, the strip will be heated by Joule heating. Hereby, a temperature gradient will be formed over the YIG/Pt(Ta) stack, giving rise to the SSE.
A second method to generate the SSE, is the generation of a temperature gradient by current-induced heating through the detection strip. In this case a charge current is sent through the Hall-bar itself, which also leads to Joule heating, resulting in a temperature gradient over the YIG/Pt(Ta) stack. As the Hall-bar is directly in contact with the YIG, also the SMR will be present when using this heating method.
To separately detect the SSE and the SMR signals, a lock-in detection technique is used. Using up to three Stanford SR-830 Lock-in amplifiers, the 1$^\textrm{st}$, 2$^\textrm{nd}$ and higher harmonic voltage responses of the system are separately measured. As SMR scales linearly with the applied current, its contribution will be picked up as a 1$^\textrm{st}$ harmonic signal. Similarly, the SSE scales quadratically with current, so its contribution will be detected as a 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic signal. For lock-in detection an AC-current is used with a frequency of 17Hz. The magnitude of the applied AC-currents is defined by their rms values.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Fig1SSEheater
\caption{\label{fig:Fig1}
(a) Microscope image of the device structure, consisting of a Pt or Ta Hall-bar detector (bottom layer) and a Pt heater (top layer), separated by an insulating Al$_2$O$_3$ layer. Ti/Au pads are used for contacting the device. For external heating experiments, the device is contacted as marked. The applied field direction is given by $\alpha_0$, as defined in the figure. (b) 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic voltage signal generated by the SSE for a fixed magnetic field direction of $\alpha_0=90^\circ$ and (c) angular dependence of the SSE signal applying a magnetic field of 50mT, in both Pt and Ta.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{Fig2SMR
\caption{\label{fig:Fig2}
Current-induced heating experiments on the YIG/Pt sample. (a) Magnetic field dependence of the 1$^\textrm{st}$ order resistance for $\alpha_0=0^\circ$, showing the SMR signal for applied AC-currents of 4mA and 8mA. (b) Angular dependence of the 1$^\textrm{st}$ order SMR signal for I$_\textrm{ac}$=8mA, for applied magnetic fields of 0.9mT, 1.8mT and 100mT. (c) and (d) show the corresponding 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic voltage signals, respectively. For applied magnetic fields above 10mT, the 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic response only shows the SSE signal. For low applied magnetic fields an additional signal is observed on top of the SSE signal. The black symbols in both figures are a guide for the eye. They show equal measurement conditions comparing the results shown in both figures. The inset of (c) shows the used measurement configuration.
}
\end{figure*}
Evaluating the working mechanism of the lock-in detection technique in more detail (see appendix), shows that in order to obtain the linear response signal of the system, both the measured 1$^\textrm{st}$ harmonic signal as well as the 3$^\textrm{rd}$ harmonic signal have to be taken into account. Including both harmonic signals following the analysis explained in the appendix, we find the shown 1$^\textrm{st}$ order response. Note that the measured 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic signal is directly plotted, without any corrections.
In all experiments, an external magnetic field is applied to define the direction of the magnetization M of the YIG. The direction of the applied field is defined by $\alpha_0$, which is the in-plane angle between the current direction (along $x$) and the applied field direction, as it is marked in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig1}(a). Not only experiments at high saturation magnetic fields are performed, also the low field behavior is investigated. The applied magnetic field strength was measured by a LakeShore Gaussmeter (model 421) using a transverse Hall probe, to correct the set magnetic field for any present remnant field. All measurements are carried out at room temperature.
\section{Results and Discussion}
\subsection{Spin-Seebeck effect by external heating}
For the external heating experiment an AC-current is sent through the top Pt strip as marked in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig1}(a). By measuring the 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic voltage signals along the Hall-bar, the SSE is detected via the ISHE in Pt and Ta. Fig. \ref{fig:Fig1}(b) shows the typical SSE signals for both YIG/Pt and YIG/Ta samples for an applied field perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the Hall-bar ($\alpha_0=90^\circ$). Changing the sign of B (and thus M) changes the sign of the signal, as the spin-polarization direction of the pumped spin-current is reversed. Due to the low coercive field of YIG almost no hysteresis is observed for the reversed field sweep. For the YIG/Pt and YIG/Ta sample opposite magnetic field dependence is observed, proving the opposite sign of the spin-Hall angle for Pt versus Ta.
As the spin-polarization direction of the generated spin-current is dependent on the direction of the YIG magnetization, the SSE/ISHE voltage shows a sine shaped angular dependence with a period of 360$^\circ$. By rotating the sample in a constant applied magnetic field of 50mT, this angular dependence is detected as is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig1}(c). Also here the effect of the opposite sign of the spin-Hall angle, for Ta compared to Pt, is clearly visible.
From Fig. \ref{fig:Fig1} it is observed that the SSE signal for the YIG/Ta sample is almost a factor 10 smaller than for the YIG/Pt sample ($V_{SSE,Pt}/V_{SSE,Ta}=-9.8$). To compare, we calculate the expected ratio from the theoretical description of the SSE voltage, as reported by Schreier et al.\citep{SSETheory}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SSE}
V_{SSE}=C_{YIG} \cdot \Delta T_{me} G_r \Theta_{SH} \rho l \eta \frac{\lambda}{t} \tanh{\left( \frac{t}{2\lambda}\right) }
\end{equation}
where $C_{YIG}$ contains all parameters describing properties of YIG, including some physical constants (defined in ref.\citep{SSETheory}), so $C_{YIG}$ is constant for both the YIG/Pt and the YIG/Ta sample. $\Delta T_{me}$ is the temperature difference between the magnons and electrons at the YIG/metal interface. $\rho$, $\lambda$, $t$ and $l$ are the resistivity, spin-diffusion length, thickness of the normal metal layer (Pt/Ta) and the distance between the voltage contacts, respectively. $\eta$ is the backflow correction factor, defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:backflow}
\eta = \left[ 1 + G_r \rho \lambda \coth{\left(\frac{t}{\lambda}\right)} \right]^{-1}
\end{equation}
Previously, in ref.\citep{VlietstraSMR2}, we have determined the real part of the spin-mixing conductance at the YIG/Pt interface ($G_r=4.4\times10^{14} \Omega^{-1} \textrm{m}^{-2}$), the spin-Hall angle ($\Theta_{SH,Pt}=0.08$) and the spin-diffusion length ($\lambda_{Pt}=1.2$nm) of Pt. For the YIG/Ta sample we take the magnitude of these system parameters as reported by Hahn et al.\citep{JamalTaPt} ($G_r=2\times10^{13} \Omega^{-1} \textrm{m}^{-2}$, $\Theta_{SH,Ta}=-0.02$ and $\lambda_{Ta}=1.8$nm). As a check, we also used these parameter-values to calculate the 1$^\textrm{st}$ order SMR signals for Ta, and found good agreement with the measured signals (not shown).
To get an estimate for $V_{SSE,Pt}/V_{SSE,Ta}$ we assume $\Delta T_{me}$ to be constant for both samples. By inserting the values of the mentioned parameters, the dimensions of the Hall-bars and the measured resistivity of the Pt and Ta layers ($\rho_{Pt}=3.4\times10^{-7}\Omega$m and $\rho_{Ta}=3.5\times 10^{-6} \Omega$m, respectively), we find $V_{SSE,Pt}/V_{SSE,Ta}=-10.6$, which is close to the experimentally observed ratio.
\subsection{Current-induced spin-Seebeck effect}
The second method used to detect the SSE is by current-induced heating through the metal detection strip itself, as recently was reported by Schreier et al.\citep{SSEGoennenwein}. In this section we show that we can achieve more directly similar results, by using a lock-in detection technique. By this technique, the SSE signals can directly be detected as a 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic signal, fully separated from the SMR signal, which shows up in the 1$^\textrm{st}$ harmonic response. Furthermore, the lock-in detection technique enables us to reveal and investigate additional signals appearing when applying low magnetic fields.
The inset of Fig. \ref{fig:Fig2}(c) shows a microscope image of the sample, marking the position of the current and voltage probes for the current-induced heating experiments. The magnetic field direction is again defined by $\alpha_0$. This measurement configuration is similar to the method used to detect transverse SMR\citep{VlietstraSMR,VlietstraSMR2} and therefore we expect to observe SMR in the 1$^\textrm{st}$ order signal, as is shown in Figs. \ref{fig:Fig2}(a) and (b). In Fig. \ref{fig:Fig2}(b) it is observed that down to very low applied magnetic fields, the average magnetization direction of the YIG nicely follows the applied field direction, resulting in the $\textrm{sin}(2\alpha_0)$ angular dependence of the SMR.\citep{AlthammerSMR} Only for the lowest applied field of 0.9mT a small deviation of the signal around $\alpha_0=\pm90^\circ$ is observed, showing this field strength is not sufficient to assume M being (on average) fully along the applied field direction.
Similar to the external heating experiment, the SSE signal shows up in the 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic signal. Figs. \ref{fig:Fig2}(c) and (d) show the magnetic field dependence and angular dependence of the detected 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic signal, respectively. Comparing the shape of the 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic data of the external heating experiments (Fig. \ref{fig:Fig1}(b)) to the current-induced heating experiments (Fig. \ref{fig:Fig2}(c)), an enhanced signal is observed in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig2}(c) for fields of a few mT. This additional signal cannot be explained by the angular dependence of the SSE, neither by the rotation of M in the plane towards B (by which the 1$^\textrm{st}$ harmonic SMR peaks in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig2}(a) are explained\citep{VlietstraSMR}).
The angular dependence of this additional signal, as presented in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig2}(d), shows that besides an increased amplitude of the SSE signal (black symbols in Figs. \ref{fig:Fig2}(c) and (d)), also at $\alpha_0=\pm90^\circ$ additional peaks appear for low applied fields. By increasing the applied magnetic field, all extra signals disappear, leaving the expected SSE signal showing a 360$^\circ$ periodic angular dependence.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Fig3CurrentDep
\caption{\label{fig:Fig3}
AC-current dependence of the 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic voltage for an applied field of (a) 0.9mT and (b) 50mT. For the shown experiments, the transverse current-induced heating measurement configuration has been used. The vertical dashed lines mark the data plotted in (c), which shows the AC-current dependence of the magnitude of the signal at $\alpha_0=0^\circ$ for B=0.9mT (red dots) and B=50mT (black squares) and the average magnitude of the peaks (peak to peak) around $\alpha_0=\pm90^\circ$ for B=0.9mT (blue triangles). The dashed lines are a guide for the eye.
}
\end{figure}
To further characterize the additionally observed features at low applied magnetic fields, also their AC-current dependence has been measured and these results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig3}. It can be seen that the current dependence is very similar to the shown magnetic field dependence, giving maximal additional signals for low applied fields and high applied AC-currents. From Figs. \ref{fig:Fig3}(a) and (b), the magnitude of the signal at $\alpha_0=0^\circ$ is extracted and plotted separately in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig3}(c). As can be seen from this figure, for both the applied magnetic field of 0.9mT (Fig. \ref{fig:Fig3}(a)) and 50mT (Fig. \ref{fig:Fig3}(b)), the amplitude of the signal quadratically scales with the applied AC-current. The magnitude of the peaks around $\alpha_0=\pm90^\circ$, plotted in blue in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig3}(c), increases faster than quadratically, pointing to the presence of higher order effects.
To fully exclude the SSE being the origin of the additionally detected signals, the current-induced heating measurements were repeated on the YIG/Ta sample. Results of those measurements are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig4}. The applied current in those experiments is only 1.9mA, limited by the high resistance of the Ta bar ($\rho_{Ta}=3.5\times 10^{-6} \Omega \textrm{m}$). In both Fig. \ref{fig:Fig4}(a) and (b) it can be seen that the high-field signal nicely changes sign compared to the YIG/Pt data, as predicted for the SSE/ISHE, because of the opposite sign of the spin-Hall angle of Ta compared to Pt. Contrary, the low-field peak in the magnetic field sweep (Fig. \ref{fig:Fig4}(a)) keeps the same sign as in the YIG/Pt sample (Fig. \ref{fig:Fig2}(c)), showing the SSE cannot be the origin of this phenomenon. Furthermore, this result also excludes the observed feature being originated by any other effect linearly related to the spin-Hall angle of a material. So, possible deviations of M caused by spin-transfer torque, due to a spin-current created via the SHE, cannot directly be used to explain the observed features. Note that the SMR signal depends quadratically on the spin-Hall angle,\citep{BauerTheorySMR,VlietstraSMR2} which makes any effect related to the SMR a likely candidate for explaining the observed features.
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Fig4PtTa
\caption{\label{fig:Fig4}
2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic response of the transverse voltage for the YIG/Ta sample. (a) Magnetic field sweep for $\alpha_0=0^\circ$ and (b) angular dependence for two different applied magnetic fields (0.9mT and 50mT). The SSE signal (=signal at high field) has opposite sign compared to the YIG/Pt sample, whereas the low-field behavior is similar for both samples. The black symbols in the figures point out the equal measurement conditions comparing both figures.
}
\end{figure}
Summarizing, the current-induced heating experiments show that when applying a sufficiently high magnetic field ($>$10mT), the SMR and SSE can be simultaneously, but separately, detected using an AC-current combined with a lock-in detection technique. By this method the SSE can thus be very easily and directly detected, without being interfered with the SMR signal. Furthermore, it is observed that for low magnetic fields, and/or high heating currents, additional signals appear on top of the SSE. The origin of these additional signals might be related to the SMR-effect, which will be discussed in more detail in the next section.
\subsection{Dynamic Spin-Hall Magnetoresistance}
During the measurements, large AC-currents are sent through the Hall-bar structure, which can generate magnetic fields. One source of these magnetic fields will be Oersted fields (B$_{oe}$) generated around the Hall-bar, perpendicular to the current direction. As the Hall-bar structure is very thin compared to its lateral dimensions, the Oersted field above/below the center of the bar can be estimated using the infinite plane approximation: $B_{oe}=\frac{\mu_0I}{2w}$, where $\mu_0$ is the permeability in vacuum, $I$ is the applied current and $w$ is the width of the Pt bar. Note that the generated field in this case is independent of the distance from the plane, so the full thickness of the YIG below the Hall-bar will be exposed to this field.\footnote{This approximation was checked by modeling the system using COMSOL Multiphysics, showing indeed a nearly constant Oersted field at least several hundreds of nanometers above/below the plane} For example, for an applied current of 8mA, an Oersted field of 0.1mT will be generated, which is significant compared to an applied magnetic field of 0.9mT. Therefore, for low applied fields, the magnetization direction of the YIG will also be affected by the generated Oersted field.
As we are dealing with AC-currents, the generated Oersted field (and any other current-induced magnetic field) will continuously change sign, which might cause M to oscillate around the applied field direction.
In this case, $\alpha$ (defining the direction of M) is current-dependent,\citep{SOTnat} giving rise to dynamic equations for both the SMR and the SSE. The current-dependent behavior of the SMR signal is derived starting from the equation for transverse SMR\citep{BauerTheorySMR,VlietstraSMR2}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SMR}
V_{T,SMR}=IR_{T,SMR}=\Delta R_1Im_xm_y+\Delta R_2Im_z
\end{equation}
where $\Delta R_1$ and $\Delta R_2$ are resistance changes dependent on the spin-diffusion length, spin-Hall angle and spin-mixing conductance of the system, as defined in refs.\citep{BauerTheorySMR,VlietstraSMR2}. $m_{x,y,z}$ are the components of M pointing in respectively the x-, y-, and z-direction (where z is the out-of-plane direction). $m_x$ and $m_y$ can be expressed as $\sin(\alpha)$ and $\cos(\alpha)$, respectively. As the applied magnetic field is in-plane, as well as the generated Oersted field, combined with the large demagnetization field of YIG for out-of-plane directions, $m_z$ will be small and therefore neglected in further derivations.
Small oscillations of M, due to the presence of AC-current generated magnetic fields, result in a current-dependent SMR signal, which can be expressed in first order as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:1storder}
V_{T,SMR}(I) \approx V_{T,SMR} (\alpha_0)+I \left.\frac{\textrm{d}V_{T,SMR}}{\textrm{d}I} \right|_{\alpha_0}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_0$ gives the equilibrium direction of M around which it is oscillating (assuming it to be equal to the applied field direction, as concluded from the measured 1$^\textrm{st}$ harmonic SMR response). Calculating the derivative in Eq.(\ref{eq:1storder}), using Eq.(\ref{eq:SMR}), neglecting $m_z$ and keeping in mind that $\alpha$ is dependent on $I$, gives
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SMRder}
\left.\frac{\textrm{d}V_{T,SMR}}{\textrm{d}I}\right|_{\alpha_0}=\Delta R_1\sin(\alpha_0)\cos(\alpha_0)+\Delta R_1I\cos(2\alpha_0)\frac{\textrm{d}\alpha}{\textrm{d}I}
\end{equation}
The first term on the right side of Eq.(\ref{eq:SMRder}) describes the 1$^\textrm{st}$ order response (linear with $I$), showing the expected transverse SMR behavior (Eq.(\ref{eq:SMR})). The second term is a 2$^\textrm{nd}$ order response ($R_{2,SMR}$) and will therefore show up in addition to the expected SSE signal. $\frac{\textrm{d}\alpha}{\textrm{d}I}$ is the term which includes the deviation of M due to current-induced magnetic fields, and its magnitude is dependent on both $\alpha_0$ and the magnitude of the total magnetic field (applied field, coercive field and the current-induced fields). For large applied magnetic fields, the current-induced magnetic fields will have a negligible effect on M, so $\frac{\textrm{d}\alpha}{\textrm{d}I}$ goes to zero, leaving only the SSE signal in the 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic signal (as is observed). Note that also in the described external heating experiments Oersted fields are generated, influencing M, but there the dynamic SMR signal will not be detected, as the SMR itself is not present.
To find an expression for $\frac{\textrm{d}\alpha}{\textrm{d}I}$, first the direction of M (given by $\alpha$) is defined, taking into account the Oersted fields (causing $\Delta\alpha$):
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Mdir}
\alpha=\alpha_0+\Delta\alpha=\alpha_0+\textrm{atan}\left(\frac{B_{oe}}{B_{ex}}\right)\cos(\alpha_0)
\end{equation}
where $B_{ex}$ is the applied magnetic field and $\textrm{atan}(\frac{B_{oe}}{B_{ex}})$ is the maximum deviation of M from $\alpha_0$, which is the case for $\alpha_0=0^\circ$ ($B_{ex}$ perpendicular to $B_{oe}$, neglecting any other field contributions). From Eq.(\ref{eq:Mdir}) now $\frac{\textrm{d}\alpha}{\textrm{d}I}$ ($=\frac{\textrm{d}\alpha}{\textrm{d}B_{oe}}\frac{\textrm{d}B_{oe}}{\textrm{d}I}$) can be derived, finding
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dalpha}
\frac{\textrm{d}\alpha}{\textrm{d}I}=\frac{\mu_0}{2w}\frac{B_{ex}}{B_{ex}^2+B_{oe}^2}\cos(\alpha_0)
\end{equation}
Substituting the derived equation for $\frac{\textrm{d}\alpha}{\textrm{d}I}$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:SMRder}), we calculate the expected 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic SMR signal due to dynamic behavior of M, caused by the current-induced Oersted field as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:R2ndHarm}
R_{2,SMR}=\Delta R_1\frac{\mu_0}{2w}\frac{B_{ex}}{B_{ex}^2+B_{oe}^2}\cos(2\alpha_0)\cos(\alpha_0)
\end{equation}
Additional to $R_{2,SMR}$, also the SSE will be present as a 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic signal, showing $\cos(\alpha_0)$ behavior with an amplitude independent from the applied magnetic field strength. The amplitude of the SSE signal can be derived from the high-field measurements shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig3}(b) and Fig. \ref{fig:Fig4}(b).
Figures \ref{fig:Fig5}(a) and (b) show the total calculated 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic voltage signal for the YIG/Pt sample, taking into account both the SSE, extracted from the measurements, and the dynamic SMR term, given by Eq.(\ref{eq:R2ndHarm}) (where $V_{2,SMR}=(I^2/\sqrt{2})R_{2,SMR}$). For the calculation of $\Delta R_1$ system parameters from ref.\citep{VlietstraSMR2} are used. Both the calculated current dependence (Fig. \ref{fig:Fig5}(a)) as well as the calculated magnetic field dependence (Fig. \ref{fig:Fig5}(b)) show similar features as the measurements, only its magnitude and exact shape do not fully coincide. Following the explanation of the lock-in detection method as described in the appendix, we find that these discrepancies are mainly caused by the presence of a non-negligible 4$^\textrm{th}$ harmonic signal (and possibly even higher harmonics). When determining the 2$^\textrm{nd}$ order response of the system, taking into account the measured 2$^\textrm{nd}$ and 4$^\textrm{th}$ harmonic signals, the peaks observed around $\alpha_0=\pm90^\circ$ get wider and smoother, more closely reproducing the calculated signals as presented in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig5}.
The amplitude of the overall calculated signal is slightly larger than the measurements, up to a factor 1.6 (even after taking into account the 4$^\textrm{th}$ harmonic signal). One reason for this discrepancy might be that, for the calculations, only the applied magnetic field and the generated Oersted field are taken into account, neglecting any other present fields. For example, the coercive field of the YIG is assumed to be absent, as well as the effect of spin-torque and the presence of non-uniform magnetic fields. These additional fields will influence the amplitude of the oscillations of M, giving a different value for $\frac{\textrm{d}\alpha}{\textrm{d}I}$ than the assumed deviation from only $B_{oe}$ and $B_{ex}$. Furthermore, the assumed perfect $\cos(\alpha_0)$ behavior of $\frac{d\alpha}{dI}$ might also be disturbed by the presence of these other fields. Secondly, in the calculations it is assumed that M is fully aligned with the total magnetic field, which might not always be the case, as we investigate the system applying magnetic fields approaching the coercive field of the YIG. Therefore, the definition of $\alpha_0$ can be slightly off from the assumed ideal case. Full characterization of the magnetization dynamics of the system and the magnetic field distribution would be needed to be able to give a more complete theoretical analysis of the observed features.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Fig5Calculated
\caption{\label{fig:Fig5}
(a) Current dependence and (b) magnetic field dependence of the calculated 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic response, including the dynamic SMR (from Eq.(\ref{eq:R2ndHarm})) and the SSE for the YIG/Pt system. (c) Calculated 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic response for the YIG/Ta sample using a scaling factor for $\frac{\textrm{d}\alpha}{\textrm{d}I}$ of 0.5. For all calculations the SSE signal is extracted from the measurements.
}
\end{figure}
The same calculations have been repeated for the YIG/Ta system. The system parameters needed to calculate $\Delta R_1$ are taken from
ref.\citep{JamalTaPt}, as given in section IV A. As a check, these system parameters firstly were used to calculate the 1$^\textrm{st}$ order SMR signal, finding good agreement with the measured signals (not shown). For the calculated 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic signal again it is found that the amplitude of $\frac{\textrm{d}\alpha}{\textrm{d}I}$ has to be lowered to be able to reproduce the measured behavior. When lowering the calculated $\frac{\textrm{d}\alpha}{\textrm{d}I}$ by a chosen scaling factor of 0.5, results as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig5}(c) are obtained. Comparing the calculated angular dependence to the measurement as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig4}(b), good agreement is found in the observed behavior. Note that for the YIG/Ta system the contribution of the 4$^\textrm{th}$ harmonic term is much less pronounced, as the applied current is only 1.9mA (compared to 8mA for the YIG/Pt experiments).
Following the derivation of the dynamic SMR as explained above, also dynamic SSE signals can be expected. As the SSE is a 2$^\textrm{nd}$ order effect, any dynamic SSE signals are expected to appear as a 3$^\textrm{rd}$ order signal. Measurements of the 3$^\textrm{rd}$ harmonic signal indeed show additionally appearing signals at low applied magnetic fields, but these additional signals are one order of magnitude too large to be explained by the derived possible dynamic SSE signals. This shows that other higher harmonic effects are present, which makes it at this moment impossible to exclusively extract any contribution of possibly present dynamic SSE signals.
Concluding this section, the dynamic SMR is a good candidate for explaining the observed low-field 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic behavior. For both the YIG/Pt and YIG/Ta sample, the features observed in the experiments can be well reproduced by the dynamic SMR model. However, one has to keep in mind that more non-linear effects are present, such that higher harmonic signals need to be taken into account. Furthermore, the derived model is not sufficient to fully be able to reproduce the measured data. Further analysis of the magnetization dynamics in the YIG at low applied fields and high applied currents is necessary to be able to derive a more complete model.
\section{Summary}
We have shown the detection of the SSE in YIG/Pt and YIG/Ta samples by both external heating and current-induced heating. The external heating experiments directly show the SSE and clearly show the effect of the opposite spin-Hall angle for Ta compared to Pt. For the current-induced measurements, besides the SSE, the SMR is also present. By using a lock-in detection technique we are able to simultaneously, but separately, measure the SSE and SMR signals. Investigation of the low-field behavior of the SMR and SSE, reveals an additional 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic signal. This additional signal is explained by the presence of a dynamic SMR signal, caused by alternating Oersted fields. Calculations show reproducibility of the observed 2$^\textrm{nd}$ harmonic features, however further analysis of the magnetization dynamics in the YIG is needed to derive a more complete model of the system behavior.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to acknowledge M. de Roosz, H. Adema and J. G. Holstein for technical assistance. This work is supported by NanoNextNL, a micro and nanotechnology consortium of the Government of the Netherlands and 130 partners, by the Marie Curie Actions (Grant 256470-ITAMOSCINOM), the Basque Government (PhD fellowship BFI-2011-106), by NanoLab NL and by the Zernike Institute for Advanced Materials (Dieptestrategie program).
|
\section{Introduction}
We seek to posit a geochemical model for morphogenesis of eukaryotic
organisms that includes cellular details. Our aim is to describe the main laws underlying the morphogenetic processes during normal development as well as during possible perturbations resulting in creating structure de novo as in the course of regeneration \cite{lobo}.
In this inherently multi-scale context, we must
describe the nano-biology of the cell in its environment without unnecessary detail in a manner
compatible with macro-biological aspects of the geometrical shape
of an organ or entire organism.
Indeed, we shall proceed with a series of ans\"atze, one after another, the first group of which
are effectively axiomatic mathematical statements about the structure of cells and the organisms which they comprise.
Some aspects of this are inspired by biology as we shall discuss in detail, and others are nothing more than rather obvious but new mathematical formalizations of elementary biological structure. Indeed, for the mathematician and biologist reader alike, the depth of
certain ans\"atze may range from sublime to ridiculous--though likely quite differently for
the two fields as we shall comment in specific cases.
The second group of ans\"atze governs the ``morphogenetic field'', a term used by Ren\'e Thom \cite{thom}
with the concept carefully articulated by the first-named author with Misha Shubin in \cite{MS}
and discussed in some detail here, which determines the time-evolution of cell states.
In fact, our treatment here differs from \cite{MS} insofar as they consider four discrete cell events (apoptosis, division, movement, growth), whereas in our language,
the first two are represented by birth/death events (death alone or death with the birth of two daughters), and the latter two by continuous evolution as a path in a certain bundle (a Hilbert space\footnote{A Hilbert space
is a vector space with inner product which is complete as a metric space, and a product
of such is thus again a Hilbert space.} as fiber over a configuration of finitely many distinct points in three-space).
One profound contribution of \cite{MS} is what we shall call the ``Epigenetic Hypothesis'':
{\it the distribution of oligo sacchyride residues of glycoconjugates on
the cell surface determines the morphogenetic field via an as-yet unknown code.}
In fact, we are not so absolute as that and relax it here by allowing any other
distribution or gradient on the cell surface as well, notably protein or electromagnetic gradients for example.
One nice aspect of the mathematical formalism we have found is that such gradients on the cell surface
can be explicitly prescribed in terms of real-valued functions on the two-dimensional sphere.
Another notable aspect of the formalism here is the seamless jump in scale from cells to organisms provided by any
Gromov-Hausdorff type metric on measured metric spaces. Indeed, in our description, each cell has its explicit extent
in three-space, the union of which forms a metric subspace comprising the organism. Depending upon which features of the organism are to be emphasized, different measures on the cells yield different metrics on the space of organisms.
Our precarious multi-scale endeavor is only confounded by the first ansatz:
\begin{ansatz} \label{ansatz1}
No statement in biology is always true except this one.
\end{ansatz}
\section{Cells}\label{sec:cells}
We first describe the geometry of a single cell in mathematical detail
(based on the biologically sound assumption that cells are star-convex),
then the notion of cell state which captures certain epigenetic information
(and is succinctly described by a collection of real-valued functions
on the two-dimensional sphere ${\mathbb S}^2$ of unit radius centered at the origin in
space ${\mathbb R}^3$ owing to star-convexity)
and finally discuss cell trajectory, i.e., lifetime from birth to division or to final
apoptosis (programmed cell death) or necrosis (death from injury or disease).
The structure of a live cell includes the {\it Microtubule
Organizing Center} (MTOC) or {\it centrosome}, from which emanates a network of
microtubules forming the essential part of the cytoskeleton of the cell and holding in
place the cell surface just as a system of poles holds in place the surface of a circus tent.
Most animal and some plant MTOC, apart from its main gamma-tubulin content,
contain two cylindrical structures called centrioles meeting at a point; see Figure 1.
\begin{figure}[ht
\centerline{\epsfxsize=2in\epsfbox{img1.eps}~~~~~\epsfxsize=2in\epsfbox{img2.eps}}
\caption{Centrosome structure (from Wikipedia) on the left and the image of centrosomes in a cell (from wadsworth.org) on the right}
\label{fig:centro}
\end{figure}
Let us say that a cell is {\it centriolic} if its centrosome
indeed contains such a pair of centrioles, and likewise an organism if its cells are centriolic.
These organisms are especially amenable to our methods and analyses here since each cell $C$ has its distinguished {\it MTOC point} $p(C)\in C\subset {\mathbb R}^3$ given by the
point of contact of the two centrioles. This is a mere convenience though, and one may rather make the choice of an appropriate point within the centrosome or even an arbitrary point of star-convexity in general.
\subsection{Shape} \label{sec:shapes}
Even comprehending just the geometry
of a single cell within an organism already seems hopeless as suggested by Figure 2.
One has only to peruse for example protist organisms (which are unicellular eukaryotes)
depicted on the left to see a wild geometric diversity of detailed cell shapes. There are furthermore
anatomical anomalies such as meter-long human neuro skeletal cells as depicted on the right with
their dendritic extremities. Exotic examples abound.
Nevertheless modulo Ansatz \ref{ansatz1}, all cells do share a common geometric feature as follows.
Recall that in mathematics, one says that a region $K\subseteq {\mathbb R}^3$ of space
${\mathbb R}^3$ is
{\it star-convex} with respect to a point $p\in K$ provided that for each
point $q\in K$ the line segment $\overline{pq}$ connecting $p$ to $q$
also lies in $K$.
\begin{figure}[ht
\centerline{\epsfxsize=1.9in\epsfbox{img3.eps}~~\epsfxsize=2.5in\epsfbox{img4.eps}}
\caption{Cell shapes: collage of protists from \cite{Watson} on the left and a sketch of a multipolar neuron (from studyblue.com) on the right.}
\label{fig:protists}%
\end{figure}
\begin{ansatz}\label{ansatz2}
A cell $C$ is star-convex with respect to some point $p(C)\in C$ in its MTOC, and in particular
for a centriolic cell, we may take $p(C)$ as the point of contact between centrioles.
\end{ansatz}
It is a biological axiom, to the extent that such there be
in light of Ansatz \ref{ansatz1}, that the cytoskeleton of a cell is star-convex with respect to a point in its MTOC.
In our idealization of the geometry, we may consider the outer surface of the cytoskeleton
as a cell surface.
In reality, one would presumably take a small epsilon neighborhood of the star-convex cytoskeleton to
describe the cell shape, though many cells are star-convex already with epsilon equal to zero.
Indeed, we shall later consider only epsilon neighborhoods of cells anyway, so the geometric
idealization of Ansatz \ref{ansatz2} from cytoskeleton to cell is unimportant.
\begin{remark}
Fix in space the centrosome of a centriolic cell at some instant in time. Let $\vec u$ be the unit vector
in the direction along the cylindrical axis for the earlier-replicated centriole and $\vec v$ the unit vector
in the direction of the later-replicated one, with $\vec w=\vec u\times \vec v$. In each case, the direction
along the cylindrical axis is determined by the fact that the MTOC point of centriole contact occurs asymmetrically at
a preferred starting end of each cylinder. A centriolic cell thus determines a so-called positively oriented orthonormal
3-frame $(\vec u,\vec v,\vec w)$ describing the spatial orientation of each cell. We shall not in fact require this further extra structure,
but it is worth noting.
\end{remark}
Now, fix a cell $C$ with its MTOC point $p=p_C$. Given a unit vector $\vec \xi\in{\mathbb S}^2$, where ${\mathbb S}^2$ denotes the usual two-dimensional
sphere in ${\mathbb R}^3$ (comprised of endpoints of vectors of unit length based at the origin), there is a corresponding ray
from $p$ in the same direction of $\vec \xi$, and this ray meets the cell surface at a single point at some distance
$\rho(\vec \xi)\in {\mathbb R}_{> 0}$ from $p$ according to star-convexity. See Figure 3.
This assignment $\rho=\rho_C:{\mathbb S}^2\to{\mathbb R}_{> 0}$ of a positive real-valued function on the two-dimensional sphere
${\mathbb S}^2$ completely determines the shape of the cell $C$.
\begin{figure}[ht
\centerline{\epsfxsize=2in\epsfbox{img5.eps}}
\caption{Centrosome and shape function $\rho$.}
\label{fig:frames}%
\end{figure}
To recapitulate this section, given a eukaryotic cell $C$, there is an MTOC point $p=p_C\in C$,
which is well-defined without choice provided $C$ is centriolic, with respect to which $C$ is
star-convex together with a shape function $\rho=\rho_C:{\mathbb S}^2\to {\mathbb R}_{>0}$ which completely determines the geometrical cell
shape $$C=\{ q\in {\mathbb R}^3: ||q-p||\leq \rho({{q-p}\over{||q-p||}})\}\subseteq{\mathbb R}^3,$$
where $||\vec \eta||$ denotes the usual length of a vector $\vec\eta$ in ${\mathbb R}^3$.
There is furthermore a canonical identification of the standard sphere ${\mathbb S}^2$ with the cell surface $\partial{C}$
given by the mapping $R_C:\vec\xi\mapsto p_C+\rho_C(\vec\xi)\vec\xi$.
The volume $V$ of $C$ and its surface area $A$ are respectively given in terms of a sufficiently regular shape function $\rho_C$ as
$$\aligned
V(C)&=\int\int\int_C dV={1\over 3} \int\int_{{\mathbb S}^2} [\rho_C(\vec\xi)]^3~ dA,\cr
A(C)&=\int\int_{{\mathbb S}^2} \bigl | \nabla \rho_C(\vec\xi)\cdot\vec \xi \bigr |~dA,\cr
\endaligned$$
\subsection{Cell state}\label{sec:states}
What exactly constitutes a cell state for morphogenesis or any other purpose depends upon the implied internal structure of the cell and
must reflect the predictions and interactions of the theory that depend upon it.
One obvious aspect of cell state is the
shape function $\rho_C:{\mathbb S}^2\to{\mathbb R}_{>0}$ and another is
the spatial location of the
MTOC point $p_C$ introduced in the previous section. Taken together, these
determine the natural parametrization
$R_C:{\mathbb S}^2\to\partial{C}$ of the cell surface $\partial{C}$.
It follows from the existence of the parametrization that any real-valued function $\phi:\partial{C}\to{\mathbb R}$ can equivalently be specified
by simply pulling back
to a real-valued function $f:{\mathbb S}^2\to {\mathbb R}$, i.e., $\phi(q)=f(R_C^{-1}(q))$. In particular, the density of some
substance on the cell surface can be conveniently specified by just such a real-valued function on ${\mathbb S}^2$
\footnote{Of course, a surface density is not simply pulled-back, rather, it is scaled by the Jacobian of $R_C$ to account for area distortion}.
\begin{ansatz}
Cell state is determined by the shape function $f_0=\rho$ together with a collection $f_1,\ldots ,f_N$ of cell surface densities $f_i:{\mathbb S}^2\to{\mathbb R}$, for $i=1,\ldots ,N$.
\end{ansatz}
The collection $(f_1,\ldots ,f_N)$ of cell surface densities is called the {\it epigenetic spectrum}
of the the cell. We shall refer to the full $N+1$ tuple $F_C=(f_0,f_1,\ldots ,f_N)$ including the shape as the {\it (internal) cell state}.
In fact, the cell surface $\partial{C}$ is relatively fluid with sub-regions evolving in time to different shapes within the cell surface. Thus, we should expect the typical distribution
of substance on the cell surface to evolve continuously in time.
Of special interest are the distributions of oligo conjugates, small oligosaccharide residues of glycoconjugates\footnote{
The term ``glycoconjugates" means glyco-residues attached to either lipids or proteins lying inside the cell membrane or cell wall in the case of plants. }
on the cell surface. There are up to 12 varieties of monosaccharides and disaccharides in oligosaccharide residues of
glycoconjugates (six of hexose type). There have been numerous indications that these oligosaccharide residues are related to cellular
morphogenetic pathways as has been formulated as an Epigenetic Hypothesis in \cite{MS} and the references therein.
Thus, we propose that the cell state $F_C$ of $C$ includes both the cell shape
$f_0=\rho$ and the epigenetic spectrum of cell densities $f_1,f_2,\ldots , f_{12}$ of the corresponding number of ``coding" oligo conjugates, as per the Epigenetic Hypothesis, the nature and number of which should be determined experimentally. Here is an important point of contact between one aspect of our theoretical work and experimental determination.
We leave open the possibility of extending this minimal set of functions determining cell state with other molecular compounds or other factors such as protein or electromagnetic gradients defined on the cell surface, where recent works \cite{Levin} suggest the latter are central to morphogenesis.
Recall \cite{izzy} that there is a standard distance
between two tuples
$F=(f_0,f_1,\ldots ,f_N)$ and $G=(g_0,g_1,\ldots ,g_N)$ of functions
$f_i,g_i:{\mathbb S}^2\to{\mathbb R}$ given by their {\it $L^2$ distance}
$$d(F,G)=\sqrt{\int_{{\mathbb S}^2} (f_0-g_0)^2+(f_1-g_1)^2+\cdots +(f_N-g_N)^2 dA}.$$
Indeed, letting
$$L^2({\mathbb S}^2)=\{ f:{\mathbb S}^2\to{\mathbb R}:\int\int_{{\mathbb S}^2} f^2 dA <\infty\}$$
denote the so-called square integrable functions on ${\mathbb S}^2$, the distance $d$ gives the collection
$\bigl [ L^2({\mathbb S}^2)\bigr ]^{N+1}$ of all possible cell states $F_C$ the structure of a Hilbert space. Hardly worth mentioning mathematically, the next ansatz gives an explicit concept of distance between cell states.
\begin{ansatz}\label{a:L^2}
The natural distance\footnote{In fact, we mean this in the looser sense that the distance might differently weight different
component functions (a ``weighted $L^2$ space'') more generally taking $d_{\vec\alpha}(F,G)=\sqrt{\int\int_{{\mathbb S}^2} \sum_{i=0}^N \alpha_i (f_i-g_i)^2 dA}$, for
certain specified parameters $\alpha_i\in{\mathbb R}_{>0}$. }
between cell states $F=(f_0,f_1,\ldots ,f_N)$ and $G=(g_0,g_1,\ldots ,g_N)$
is the $L^2$ distance $d(F,G)$.
\end{ansatz}
\subsection{Trajectory}\label{sec:life}
The sperm-fertilized cell oocyte becomes the zygote,
the first cell $C({\emptyset})$ of the organism, which next
mitotically divides to ten or more generations in a highly organized paroxysm of cell divisions,
no time at all for diffusive or other equilibria to develop, no time for appreciable cell growth or motion and immediately generating all manner of steep gradients
across the early embryo.
Recall that the centrosome of a cell $C$ at interphase
replicates to create a pair of centrosomes. These centrosomes move to opposite ends of the cell and nucleate microtubules to help form the mitotic spindle separating the chromosomes into two sets, one copy for each daughter cell $C',C''$ together with one centrosome for each daughter cell.
One centrosome of $C'$ or $C''$ is inherited from the centrosome of $C$, which we call the mother centrosome, while the other, which we call the daughter centrosome since it is younger than its mother, has been assembled upon the mother centrosome before mitosis.
Insofar as the replicated centrosomes of $C$ are distinguishable, so too are its daughters $C'$ and $C''$. We can thus
label each cell in the organism by its phylogeny: a word in the alphabet $m$ and $d$, where $m$ indicates the daughter $C(m)$ that
inherits the mother centrosome from $C$ and $d$ the daughter $C(d)$ that inherits the daughter centrosome.
Each cell itself is determined by its {\it phylogeny}, a finite word $\omega$ in the two-letter alphabet $\{ m,d\}$,
including the empty word for the zygote. This labeling of cells by $m$ and $d$ is evidently equivalent to the usual structure of
embedded phylogenetic tree: a binary tree with gamete for root and with $m$ on the right (say) and $d$ on the left.
\begin{ansatz}\label{trajectory}
Each cell $C$ is born at some instant $s_C$ in time and terminates either through death or cell division at a
later instant $t_C$; each cell except for the gamete is born with exactly one distinguishable sister.
\end{ansatz}
Death may be apoptosis, necrosis or it may reflect some crisis for the organism such as amputation or disintegration. A somatic cell is always born with exactly one sister
and terminates either alone (by death) or in giving birth to its daughters (by division).
It is worth saying explicitly that Ansatz \ref{trajectory} is biologically tautological, no more than a self-evident remark but is a necessary aspect of axiomatic mathematical formulation. Indeed, in other important classical mathematical contexts, births as well as deaths can occur only in pairs. Biologically, the ansatz is trivial and can be ignored, for of course it is tautologically so.
Vertices of our phylogenetic tree other than the root are thus labeled by the cell event of death or cell division. Edges of the tree correspond to the lifetime of cells, and we will assign as a length of the edge labeled by the cell $C$ its lifetime $t_C-s_C$. In this manner, a point in an edge corresponds to the cell $C^t\subseteq {\mathbb R}^3$ at a particular instant $t$ in time, where $s_C\leq t\leq t_C$.
According to our assumptions, two sister cells $C'$ and $C''$ must share their
time of birth $s_{C'}=s_{C''}=t_C$ with the time of death of their mother (but see section \ref{sec:gap}).
For an extreme example such as a skeletal muscle cell $C$ or an eye lens cell $C$ which is fully differentiated
once and for all time already in the embryo and never divides again, we find $s_C$ at birth and $t_C$ after death of the organism. At another extreme are dermal cells with their profuse and nearly identical divisions.
The potency of a cell to produce progeny with different types of tissues and organs or simply to differentiate into many possible cell types is called a morphogenetic potency or just a potency. Thus in an organism there are totipotent, pluripotent, bipotent and fully differentiated cells.
Let us define the {\it potency} $\pi(C)$ of a cell $C$ to be zero if it does not divide at all, and if it does divide, say the daughters
have respective epigenetic spectra $F',F''\in[L^2({\mathbb S}^2)]^{N}$, then we compare the spectra defining
$\pi(C)=d(F',F'')$. Thus, the potency of a fully differentiated cell is nearly zero. In contrast, a bipotent stem cell,
for example, can have a large potency if its product cell line differs substantially in epigenetic spectrum from its stem cell line in the $L^2$ distance.
\section{Organisms}
We define an organism to be the collection of its constituent cells lying in space
as determined by a language over the two-letter alphabet given by following the centrosome. The collection of
constituent cell states determines a state of the organism at each
instant in time. A convenient mathematical formalism exists for this as a
configuration space of distinct points in space which evolve under time either continuously or through
specific rules of birth and death at certain event times together with a bundle over this base
space with fiber given by an $L^2$ space of functions on the two-dimensional sphere. All this is quite mathematically routine
given what has come before.
At a given moment in time, the cells $C$ underlying an organism comprise a metric
subspace which moreover can be further imbued with any function $\mu(C)$ chosen to reflect essential morphological or other parameters of $C$.
For example, we could take mass density of a cell, density of distribution of ion channels or other cell constituent concentrations. We may choose particular functions $\mu(C)$ for specific applications
A fundamental ansatz is that two organisms each at a given moment in time can be profitably compared using Gromov-Hausdorff (GH) type distances (cf.\ Appendix A) between corresponding measured metric spaces. This is precisely what allows us to finally pass from the cellular to the capacious scale in our investigations.
It is important to note that the comparison of ``two organisms" in this framework should be interpreted first of all as the comparison of the morphology of the same organism at different moments in time reflecting the laws of evolution of its shape. Equally, we consider the comparison of the differences between normal and ``crisis" developmental scenarios (that is, strong
perturbations of proper morphology)
for the same organism at some moment in time.
\subsection{Phylogeny}\label{sec:ophylo}
The zygote $C(\emptyset)$ comes into being at an instant $s_\emptyset=s_{C(\emptyset)}$ and then undergoes a sequence of
binary divisions, the first one occurring at the instant $t_\emptyset=t_{C(\emptyset)}$. At each division, there are distinguishable sister
cells produced, and the mother cell producing these progeny subsequently ceases to exist. And so it goes.
The mother of all cells of the organism is the zygote $C(\emptyset)$. For each subsequent offspring produced, i.e., each cell
that did, does or will or ever occur in the organism there is a well-defined
word $\omega$ in the two-letter alphabet $\{ m,d\}$ as discussed before, where the length of the word is the number of generations
from the zygote.
Not all words occur for a given organism, and the {\it phylogenetic language} of ${\mathcal O}$ is the collection
$\Omega_{\mathcal O}$ of words that do in fact
occur for the organism ${\mathcal O}$. Let $C(\omega)$ be the cell corresponding to the word $\omega\in{\Omega}_{\mathcal O}$
including the empty word for the zygote. Thus, each cell $C(\omega)$ is born and dies at respective specific times $s_\omega$ and $t_\omega>s_\omega$.
We shall let $C^t_\omega\subseteq{\mathbb R}^3$ denote the cell $C(\omega)$ labelled by $\omega$ at time $t$,
where $s_\omega\leq t\leq t_\omega$ with time-dependent cell state $F^t_\omega\in [L^2({\mathbb S}^2)]^{N+1}$, reflecting shape and epigenetic coding, and
MTOC point $p_\omega ^t\in{\mathbb R}^3$
with auxiliary measure $\mu^t_\omega\in{\mathbb R}_{>0}$.
\subsection{Organism state, configuration and trajectory}\label{sec:otraj}
We have the mathematical definitions of organism and state given by
the following biological tautology:
\begin{ansatz}
An organism $\mathcal O$ is determined by the collection of its constituent cells $\{ C(\omega):\omega\in\Omega_{\mathcal O}\}$ and its state by their respective states.
\end{ansatz}
Let us say that a cell $C^t_\omega$ {\it exists} at some time $t$ if $s_\omega\leq t\leq t_\omega$ for some $\omega\in\Omega_{\mathcal O}$.
It is convenient to suppress the birth/death times of a cell and write simply $C^t_\omega\subset {\mathbb R}^3$ to signify the cell at a time $t$ at which the cell exists and to signify the empty set otherwise. In the same way, let $F^t_\omega$ denote the cell state and $\mu^t_\omega$ the measure at a time $t$ between cell birth and death and to take constant value zero otherwise; finally,
$p^t_\omega$ denotes the MTOC point and $\rho_\omega^t$ the shape function if the cell
$C^t_\omega$ exists, and these are undefined otherwise.
Let $\Omega^t=\Omega^t_{\mathcal O} \subseteq \Omega_{\mathcal O}$ be the phylogenetic words of the
cells of the organism ${\mathcal O}$ that exist at time $t$.
The organism
$${\mathcal O}^t=\bigcup \{C^t_\omega:\omega\in\Omega^t\}\subseteq {\mathbb R}^3$$
at a time $t$ is the union of these cells, i.e., the constituent cells of the organism at the instant $t$.
Of course, ${\mathcal O}^t$ or any epsilon neighborhood of it inherits the structure of a metric subspace of ${\mathbb R}^3$,
and each cell comes with its measure $\mu^t_\omega$ which together give
the weighted sum
$$\mu^t=\mu^t_{\mathcal O}=\sum_\omega \mu^t_\omega \delta _{p^t_\omega}$$
of delta functions as a measure on ${\mathcal O}^t$.
The {\it state} of the weighted organism $({\mathcal O}^t,\mu^t)$ at time $t$ consists of the cell states $F^t_\omega$
of its constituent cells. The collection of MTOC points
$$\chi^t=\{p^t_{\omega_1},p^t_{\omega _2},\ldots , p^t_{\omega_{\#\Omega ^t}}\}$$
of cells that exist at time $t$ come in their prescribed lexicographic ordering (where, say $m<d$)
which we shall call the {\it (labelled) configuration} of the organism at time $t$.
Recall that if $X$ is a metric space, then a {\it (labelled) configuration} in $X$ of $n\geq 1$ points is a collection of $n$ distinct labelled points in $X$; see Appendix B for the barest thumbnail discussion tailored to our own needs and \cite{birman} for instance for further generalities. It is biologically clear that in fact the MTOC points $\chi^t$ do give a configuration in ${\mathbb R}^3$, lying in ${\mathcal O}^t$, i.e., the MTOC points of distinct cells never coincide. Indeed, we have the stronger:
\begin{ansatz}
The cells of an organism that exist at each instant in time have disjoint interiors in space ${\mathbb R}^3$.
\end{ansatz}
Again a biological tautology, this kind of ``steric'' constraint is commonplace in protein theory for instance. We do not intend to entirely rule out
gap or other cell junctions here, rather, let us consider adding that further layer of detail only later.
The number $\# \chi^t$ of MTOC points of the organism ${\mathcal O}^t$ is piecewise constant and
jumps at various times of lone death (one point disappears)
or birth (two new points appear and an old one disappears) of constituent cells according to Ansatz \ref{trajectory}. In fact, there may be finitely many coincidentally simultaneous birth or death times, but we make the following finiteness assumption:
\begin{ansatz} \label{a:wha}
For any fixed $t$, there is a {\rm finite} sequence of {\rm event times} $\tau_0=s_\emptyset<\tau_1<\tau_2<\cdots <\tau_M\leq t$
so that for each time $\tau_{i-1}<s<\tau_i$, for $i\geq 1$, the configurations $\chi^s$ are equinumerous and evolve continuously in time.
\end{ansatz}
The discussion of how exactly the cell state before determines the specific cell states after a birth event time is postponed until the more speculative considerations of the next section.
\section{Morphogenesis}\label{sec:morpho}
``The time has come'' the Walrus said,
``To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings.''\footnote{Lewis Carroll, The Walrus and The Carpenter (1872).}
This is just to say that now we must discuss things a bit more metaphorically in order to absorb the next ans\"atze.
\subsection{Organism shape}\label{sec:oshape}
As humans, we can perceive the natural
world on various levels. For instance, in pond water
one finds paramecia, which we might probe in the lab {\it in vivo}
or {\it in vitro} to discern further structure. Going to an extreme,
we might travel to CERN and uncover the constituent elementary particles.
As human observers, we do not even want to try to absorb the molecular let alone the atomic or stringy nature of a paramecium. With what has been\footnote{Ren\'e Thom, Semiophysics: a sketch (1989)} called ``willful ignorance''
and also\footnote{Claude Levi-Strauss, Tristes Tropiques (1955)} termed ``twice barbarism'', our vision in morphogenesis had better contain the required cellular and other data even if we shall ultimately and barbarically ignore this level of detail in the large.
To handle the need for minute detail in certain biological regards for cells,
we have already introduced the notion of cell state. We must somehow pass from this
data as we have formalized it, corpuscular by its very nature, to the context of continuous data of substantial spatial extent.
Naturally enough, we might take an epsilon neighborhood of the actual cells at each instant in time, that is, a neighborhood of
${\mathcal O}^t$ in ${\mathbb R}^3$. We furthermore might naturally let epsilon vary over ${\mathcal O}^t$ in order to allow for instance for different packing densities of one type of cell compared to another.
An elegant and precise mathematical formalism for this viewpoint is provided by the class of metrics on measured metric spaces inspired by GH distance. For completeness, one such distance (the Sturm $L^2$ distance \cite{Stu06}) is explicitly defined in Appendix A.
\begin{ansatz}\label{ans:gh}
Given two organisms ${\mathcal O}$ and ${\mathcal O}'$ with their respective measures $\mu$ and $\mu'$, Gromov-Hausdorff type distances between the measured metric spaces $({\mathcal O},\mu)$ and $({\mathcal O}',\mu')$
such as the Sturm $L^2$ distance capture the geometry of organism morphology.
\end{ansatz}
Just as the Sturm $L^2$ distance is one among many sensible choices for comparing measured metric spaces, so too, we have the flexibility to take different measures $\mu(C)$ on cells $C$. As an example, the mass density can be one special case of measures involved in building the morphology of an organism. Presumably as a human observer employing it as we have done here is like observing the world with those X-ray glasses that are bought by gullible children; we would detect density differences between cells within organisms when we compare them wearing our mass density glasses. A tadpole and a frog would be easily distinguished by their bone structures for instance. The formalism we have developed is robust enough to handle general examples exchanging X-ray for other glasses by changing the measure $\mu^t$ on the fixed metric space that is the organism ${\mathcal O}^t$.
\subsection{Cell division in detail}\label{sec:gap}
During mitotic division of the cell $C$, the two daughter cells $C(m)$ and $C(d)$ labelled by centrosomes as before are separated by a so-called mitotic plane passing through the interior of $C$ often asymmetrically. This separating plane divides the cell surface $\partial{C}$ into two inequivalent regions $\Omega_m,\Omega_d\subset\partial{C}$
forming the cell boundary of respective daughters.
\begin{ansatz}\label{a:mbe}
The epigenetic spectra of daughters $C(m)$ and $C(d)$
are nearly
inherited in the $L^2$ sense on ${\mathbb S}^2$ by inclusion of the cell surfaces $\Omega_m,\Omega_d$ from the mother.
\end{ansatz}
On the complementary regions to $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega _d$ in daughter cell surfaces, there are as-yet unspecified rules of how to extend to a function on the entire cell surface.
This ansatz partly describes the {\it morphogenetic birth effect}, that is,
the function that determines the cell states of $C(m)^{\sigma_2}$ and $C(d)^{\sigma _2}$ at the moment $\sigma_2$ when mitotis is complete
from the cell state of $C^{\sigma_1}$ of a mother cell as mitosis begins at $\sigma_1$.
It is not that the biology breaks down during the interval between times $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$. After all, there is a sensible moment of
birth when the cell membranes of the daughters finally separate that we could also take to be the moment of death of the mother $C$.
The surface concentrations in $\partial C$ of the oligo conjugates or other compounds are everywhere defined until this moment
and after become the surface concentrations in $\partial C(m)$ and $\partial C(d)$.
In this sense, again the ansatz is disappointingly tautological biologically. However,
this scenario does {\sl not hold exactly} and in our barbaric and willful ignorance, we posit in Ansatz \ref{a:mbe} a precise sense in which $L^2$ distance suitably measures deviation from this idealized biology.
\subsection{Morphogenetic field}
To recapitulate, given a eukaryotic organism ${\mathcal O}$ and a time $t$, we have the constituent cells
$C_\omega^t\subseteq {\mathbb R}^3$ that exist at time $t$ indexed by a finite set $\Omega^t$ of words in the alphabet
$\{ m,d\}$. The union of these star-convex regions is by definition the organism ${\mathcal O}^t\subseteq{\mathbb R}^3$
at time $t$ as a metric subspace of ${\mathbb R}^3$. This region comes equipped with a measure $\mu^t$,
and it is the measured metric spaces $({\mathcal O}^t,\mu^t)$ that reflect the large-scale geometry of the organism.
Standard methods, called GH type metrics, can be applied to these spaces to quantify the sense in which two organisms have the same shape. Nevertheless, the organism has a complicated state,
namely, we take the state of the organism to be the collection of cell states of each of its constituent cells,
i.e., cell states $F_\omega^t$ and MTOC points $\chi^t_\omega$, for $\omega\in\Omega^t$
On the cellular scale, we have organized things in Appendix B into a vector bundle $E\to \Gamma$ over the
space $\Gamma$ of configurations of finitely many points in ${\mathbb R}^3$, where the fiber over a configuration
with $n$ points is an $n$-tuple of elements in $[L^2({\mathbb S}^2)]^{N+1}$, namely, the cell states
of the constituent cells. Thus, the entire organism in its entire state is described at an instant in time
as a point in the total space of this bundle over the finite configuration of MTOC points
in the base, and the measure $\mu$ is an auxiliary function defined on the base.
The idea from \cite{MS} is that the ``morphogenetic field'' is a function defined on some bundle of states
that governs the time evolution of an organism starting from ovum.
Their formalism was different with discrete time cell events as was already mentioned. Here we
imagine continuous evolution in some $E^{(n)}$ with jumps in $n$ at finitely many event times compatible with Ansatz
\ref{a:wha}. The morphogenetic field of \cite{MS} should be realized here as some sort of functional which governs the time evolution of an organism, namely, as a Lagrangian action:
\begin{ansatz}\label{a:lag}
There is some Lagrangian formulation of organism evolution, i.e., an action
functional on paths in $E$ whose stationary paths
are the time trajectories of organisms.
\end{ansatz}
It is important to emphasize that the Lagrangian formulation of Ansatz 4.3 is
different from that of the underlying physics: our action should be formulated on the space of organism states as we have defined them.
Using our definition of potency (see the end of section \ref{sec:life}) and the observation that each organism starts to differentiate from the zygote having a huge potency towards its later less-potent progeny, we posit:
\begin{ansatz}
The average {\it potency} $\pi(C)$ over the set of all cells $C$ in an organism is strictly decreasing in generation during embryo development.
\end{ansatz}
This is of course in keeping with the second law of thermodynamics.
\begin{ansatz} \label{a:sis}
Nearly identical sisters almost always remain nearly in contact.
\end{ansatz}
This is interesting as it relates the phylogeny to the geometry. Of course, sisters are never
truly identical, but if they were, then the morphogenetic field could not distinguish them,
so of course they would evolve in the same manner. Nature is nearly like this as an essentially deterministic physical system. This seems to give a nice explanation for organ formation and other
aspects as well and really makes good sense. Again, with the $L^2$ distance between cell states, we can conveniently quantify differences between sisters or indeed any pair of cells viz Ansatz \ref{a:sis}
\begin{ansatz}
The morphogenetic field is locally supported in the sense that for any cell $C^t_\omega$ that exists, there is a neighborhood
${\mathcal N}\supseteq C^t_\omega$ of it in ${\mathbb R}^3$ so that the forward time evolution of $C^t_\omega$ for some fixed interval of time depends only upon the states of the cells in ${\mathcal N}$.
\end{ansatz}
In particular, phylogeny does not matter {\it a priori}, which implies
that there is indeed a physical determinism underlying the morphological determinism we are studying. And this determinism is governed by the laws formulated as a morphogenetic field concept.
\begin{ansatz}\label{a:stable}
For any sub-organism ${\mathcal O}'\subseteq{\mathcal O}^t$ in any reasonable state there is a stable ideal outcome organism
${\mathcal O}^\infty$ so that the Lagrangian action of an arbtrary path from
${\mathcal O}'$ to a stable outcome ${\mathcal O}^*$ is given by a Gromov-Hausdorff
type distance between ${\mathcal O}^\infty$ and ${\mathcal O}^*$.
\end{ansatz}
This GH-deviation from ideal outcome is admittedly a bold hypothesis for the dynamics
providing thereby the key mechanism driving morphogenesis ranging from embryo development to the creation of proper morphology during the regeneration processes in the event of crisis.
The ansatz is interesting on several levels first of all in its postulate that there are stable ideal outcome
organisms at all under admittedly unspecified reasonable conditions. The comparison
of stable outcomes using GH techniques is consistent with the
earlier Ansatz \ref{ans:gh}.
Indeed, perhaps another more traditional differential calculus type expression of action
in terms of the GH-metric could be possible rather than relying on stability of outcomes.
Secondly, it ties the cellular scale of the morphogenetic field with
the large-scale geometry of organisms through the action, and it evidently
implies the earlier Ansatz \ref{a:lag} in its specificity.
|
\section{Intorduction}
Transition-metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) are layered materials, which are well known for their unique electronic and optical properties~\cite{wang2012,Wilson1969}. While within a layer, the metals and chalcogens form strong ionic-covalent bonds, these layers are held together by weak van der Waals (vdW) interactions. Depending upon the composition, TMDs offer a wide range of functional materials such as metals~\cite{Ayari2007}, semimetals~\cite{reshak2003}, semiconductors~\cite{Kam1982}, insulators~\cite{Sipos2008}, and superconductors~\cite{Morosan2006}. Among the TMDs, TiS$_2$ has been in focus of extensive research due to its potential applications as cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries~\cite{Friend1987,Whittingham1978,Mao1993,reshak2008}. Previous experimental studies~\cite{Imai2001} have reported that nearly stoichiometric TiS$_2$ shows a large power factor value of $37.1 ~\mu$W/K$^{2}$-cm at room temperature that is comparable with the best thermoelectric material Bi$_2$Te$_3$~\cite{HBTE}. The large power factor originates from a sharp increase in the density of states just above the Fermi energy as well as the inter-valley scattering of charge carriers~\cite{Friend1981,Koyano1986,Imai2001}. However, the semimetallic nature of TiS$_{2}$ gives rise to bipolar effects which are not desirable for thermoelectric applications~\cite{wood1988}.
The electronic structure of TiS$_{2}$ is very unique and even a slight change can significantly influence thermoelectric properties. It has been shown that 0.04\% Mg doping at Ti-site in TiS$_{2}$ causes a 1.6 times increase in thermopower at 300 K~\cite{Qin2007}. Recently, it has been discovered that the electronic structures of semiconducting TMDs (MX$_2$(M = Mo, W; X=S, Se, Te)) are very sensitive to the applied pressure/strain, which causes an electronic phase transition from semiconductor to metal~\cite{Dave2004,Bhattacharyya2012,Scalise2012,Yun2012}. Also few layers and mono-layer TMDs show wide range of tunability in electronic and magnetic properties by application of strain~\cite{Zhou2012,Ma2012,Johari2012,Li2012,Shi2013,Shi2013}. Contrary to that, TiS$_{2}$ remains semimetallic up to a compressive hydrostatic pressure of 20 GPa~\cite{Bao2011}. So far there has been no studies on effect of uniform tensile strain on the electronic properties of TiS$_{2}$. Here, we carry out a study of the electronic structure of TiS$_2$ as a function of applied uniform biaxial tensile strain (BTS). The material undergoes electronic phase transition from semimetal to a small band gap ($<0.15$ eV) semiconductor. Most interestingly, the semiconducting strained TiS$_2$ exhibits nearly a four-fold enhancement in thermopower compared to the unstrained phases. We also explore the possibility of generating such a strain by doping with larger atoms at Ti sites. Iso-electronic Hf and Zr turn out to be the best dopants to generate the $2\%$ tensile strain producing the same enhanced thermoelectric properties as obtained by straining TiS$_{2}$.
\section{Computational Details}
Structural optimization, total energy and electronic structure calculations were performed using first principles density functional theory (DFT). The ionic cores are described by all-electron projector augmented wave potentials~\cite{PAW1, PAW2} and the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof~\cite{PBE} generalized gradient approximation (GGA) to the electronic exchange and correlation as implemented in the Vienna \textit{ab initio} simulation package (VASP)~\cite{PAW1,PAW2,Kresse}. We have incorporated the vdW interaction using Grimme's DFT-D2 method~\cite{Grimme2006,PAW1,PAW2,Kresse}(where D2 refers to the second generation of this method) for all the calculations. In this approach, the dispersion energy is described by an atom-pairwise interaction potential $E_{disp} = -\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i\neq j}f_{damp}(R_{i,j})\frac{C_{6}^{i,j}}{R^{6}_{i,j}}$, where $R_{i,j}$ and $C_{6}^{i,j}$ are the distance and isotropic dipole-dipole dispersion coefficient between pair of atoms, respectively~\cite{Grimme2006}. The accuracy of the results crucially depends on the approximations of the dispersion coefficients and on the cutoff of damping function($f_{damp}$) at short distances ~\cite{Grimme2006,Tkatchenko2009,dftd22012,dftd22013}. The parameters used in the DFT-D2 method are taken from the empirical force-field of Grimme~\cite{Grimme2006}. The lattice parameters obtained using this approach are in very good agreement with experiments for various materials ~\cite{ dftd22013,He2014}. However, this approach overestimates the binding/cohesive energy for most of the cases including TMDs ~\cite{dftd22013,Bhattacharyya2012,He2014}.
The unit cell was optimized using the conjugate gradient scheme until the forces on every atom were $\leq$ 10$^{-3}$eV/{\AA}. For transport calculations, Boltzmann transport theory~\cite{ashcroft,Ziman} was used, which enables calculation of the temperature and doping level dependent thermopower and other transport parameters from the electronic structure.
All the transport properties were calculated within the constant scattering time approximation (CSTA)~\cite{ashcroft,Ziman}. The CSTA is based on the assumption that the scattering time does not vary strongly with energy. It also does not consider any assumptions on temperature and doping level dependence of the scattering time. Within the CSTA, the energy dependence of transport function is described through both the density of states and carrier velocity.
In this theory, the motion of an electron is treated semi-classically, and its group velocity in a specific band is given by
\begin{equation}
\nu_\alpha(i, \textbf{k}) = \frac{1}{\hbar} \frac{\partial\epsilon(i,\textbf{k})}{\partial \textbf{k}_\alpha}
\label{eq:1}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon(i,\textbf{k})$ and $\textbf{k}_\alpha$ are the ${i^{th}}$ energy band and $\alpha^{th}$ component of wavevector $\textbf{k}$, respectively.
From group velocity $\nu_\alpha(i, \textbf{k})$ the thermopower and electrical conductivity can be obtained as
\begin{equation}
S_{\alpha\beta}(T, \mu) = \frac{1}{eT} \frac{\int\nu_\alpha{(i,\textbf{k})}\nu_\beta{(i,\textbf{k})}(\epsilon-\mu)\bigg[-\frac{\partial{f_{\mu}}(T,\epsilon)}{\partial\epsilon}\bigg]d\epsilon}{\int \nu_\alpha{(i,\textbf{k})}\nu_\beta{(i,\textbf{k})}\bigg[-\frac{\partial f_{\mu}(T,\epsilon)}{\partial\epsilon}\bigg]d\epsilon}
\label{eq:2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\sigma_{\alpha\beta}(T, \mu)}{\tau (i, \textbf{k})} = \frac{1}{V} \int e{^2}\nu_\alpha{(i,\textbf{k})}\nu_\beta{(i,\textbf{k})}\bigg[-\frac{\partial{f_{\mu}}(T,\epsilon)}{\partial\epsilon}\bigg]d\epsilon
\label{eq:3}
\end{equation}
where $e$, $T$, $V$, $\tau$ and ${f_{\mu}}$ are the electronic charge, temperature, volume of the unit cell, relaxation time and Fermi-Dirac distribution function, respectively. Brillouin zone was sampled by a well converged 35$\times$35$\times$21 Monkhorst-Pack k-mesh~\cite{pack}. Subsequently, the group velocities were obtained by Fourier interpolation~\cite{synder,fourier} of band energies on converged denser \textbf{k}-grid. These values are used in eqs.~\ref{eq:2} and ~\ref{eq:3}, to calculate the transport properties as implemented in BoltzTraP code~\cite{Madsen}. This approach has been shown to provide a good estimate of thermopower as a function of temperature and carrier concentration in a variety of thermoelectric materials without any adjustable parameters ~\cite{Jodin2004,Singh_2012,Singh2011,Lee2011,Parker2013,Pandey2013,Parker_AgGaTe}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{figure1.eps}
\caption{(a) Side view of the bulk unit cell of TiS$_2$ and (b) the corresponding Brillouin zone along with high symmetry points. Band structure, total and partial density of states per formula unit (f.u) at (c) 0 $\%$ (d) 2 $\%$ (e) 5 $\%$ and (f) 8 $\%$ strain values. Fermi energy is referenced to $0$ eV. }
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
\section{Results and Discussion}
TiS$_2$ crystallizes in a hexagonal structure with the space group P$\bar{3}$m1~\cite{Chianelli1975,Riekel1976}. The unit cell and corresponding Brillouin zone along with high symmetry points are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(a) and (b), respectively. The optimized lattice parameters a = b = 3.4 {\AA}, c = 5.77 {\AA} and z = 0.246 are in good agreement with previously reported values~\cite{Chianelli1975,Riekel1976,Arnaud1981,Murray1972}. Calculated electronic band structure and corresponding density of states (DOS) of bulk TiS$_2$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(c). The valence band maxima (VBM) and conduction band minima (CBM) at $\Gamma$-point originates from the S-\textit{(p)} and , Ti-\textit{(d)} orbitals, respectively. The overlap of these bands renders TiS$_{2}$ semimetallic. The extent of this indirect band overlapping is of 0.2 eV as shown in the Fig ~\ref{fig:1}(c). The valence bands $\Gamma^{-3}$/$\Gamma^{+3}$, and $\Gamma^{-2}$ mainly originate from S-(\textit{p}$_{x}$)/S-(\textit{p}$_{y}$), and S-(\textit{p}$_{z}$) orbitals~\cite{Benesh1985}, respectively. Among them, the first two bands are almost dispersion-less along $\Gamma$ to A in comparison to highly dispersive third band. This anomaly in dispersion comes from interlayer interaction of S-(\textit{p}$_{z}$) orbitals, which makes the third valence band more dispersive. The conduction bands at L (L$^{+1}$) and $\Gamma$ points originate from Ti-(\textit{d}$_{z}$) and Ti-(\textit{d}$_{x^{2}-y^{2}}$/\textit{d}$_{xy}$)~\cite{Benesh1985,shepherd1974,Mattheiss} orbitals, respectively. The conduction band along $\Gamma$ to A is less dispersive due to weaker interaction between two different layers. On the other hand, due to stronger in-plane interaction of Ti-$d_{z}$ orbitals, the band at L point is highly dispersive. Therefore, the effective mass along $\Gamma$ to A is very high compared to the L symmetric points. This large difference in the effective mass makes the transport properties very anisotropic.
It has been shown that strain can affect the electronic structure significantly by modifying the extent of the hybridization~\cite{Bhattacharyya2012}. As shown previously~\cite{Bao2011}, the compressive hydrostatic pressure does not affect the electronic phase of TiS$_{2}$. Therefore, we studied the effect of 2-8\% uniform BTS on electronic structure of TiS$_{2}$. The uniform BTS is applied along the x and y axis. Subsequently, each structure is relaxed at the fixed cell volume. The uniform BTS was calculated as $\epsilon$ = (a - a$_{0}$)/a$_{0}$ , where a$_{0}$ and a are the equilibrium and instantaneous lattice parameters, respectively. The corresponding band structure and DOS are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(d-f). The change in intralayer Ti-S and interlayer S-S distance with strain, is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}(a). The intralayer bonding between S-(\textit{p})/Ti-(\textit{d}) orbitals is much stronger than the interaction between layers. Therefore, the S-S distance between two layers increases faster compared to the intralayer Ti-S distance with increasing strain, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}(a).
Next, we analyze the electronic band structures under the applied uniform BTS, which causes the electronic phase transition in this material. All the band gaps were calculated with respect to the
VBM at different strain values, irrespective of the symmetry of the VBM. The VBM remains at $\Gamma$
point for all the strain values. While the band gaps along $\Gamma-$A and $\Gamma-\Gamma$ decrease, the gap along $\Gamma-$L increases linearly with increasing strain as shown in the Fig.~\ref{fig:2}(b). At strain level lower than 7$\%$, TiS$_{2}$ has a indirect gap between the $\Gamma$ and the L points. When the strain exceeds the 7$\%$, the band gap shifts to $\Gamma-$A. With the increasing strain, the conduction band minima (CBM) at L becomes flatter due to decrease in the overlap of S-(\textit{p}) and Ti-(\textit{d}) orbitals, caused by increase in Ti-S bond lengths. Therefore, the bands around the Fermi energy in the conduction band become very heavy. The DOS at the Fermi-level in the conduction band also become sharp, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(c-e). It is known that this type of 2D-nature of DOS enhances the thermoelectric performance, significantly~\cite{Parker2013,Hicks1993}. The third valance band along K-$\Gamma$-A moves up faster than the first and second valence bands, with increasing strain. This anomalous behaviour is caused by the faster increase in S-S interlayer distance than the S-Ti intralayer distance. Eventually, above the 8\% of applied strain the material becomes small-indirect to direct gap semiconductor. In order to gain further insight on semimetal-semiconductor transition, we compute the Bader~\cite{Henkelman2006,Tang2009} charge with FFT grid $400\times 400 \times 240$ and energy cutoff 1000 eV including all-electron charge (core + valence)~\cite{Aubert2011}, which are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}(c) and (d). The Bader charge analysis shows that with the applied strain charge transfer occurs between intralayer Ti to S atom thereby, increasing ionic bond character between Ti and S, which leads to the band gap opening.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figure2.eps}
\caption{(a) Change in bond length as a function of applied strain. (b) Change in band gap as a function of applied strain along different high symmetry directions. (c-d) Bader charge analysis as a function of strain.}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}
It has been proposed that the semimetal to semiconductor transition can enhance thermoelectric performance~\cite{Dresselhaus2007,Heremans2000,Hicks1993}. Therefore, we study the effect of applied uniform BTS on the transport properties of TiS$_{2}$ within the constant scattering time approximation (CSTA)~\cite{ashcroft,Ziman}. The ratio of component of the conductivity tensor $\sigma_{ii}$ (where $i = x$, $y$, and $z$) to the average conductivity $\sigma_{av}$ (($\sigma_{xx}$+$\sigma_{yy}$+$\sigma_{zz}$)/3), which is independent of the relaxation time is calculated and shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}(a). The conductivity is the highest along the in-plane direction ($x$, $y$) for unstrained TiS$_{2}$ at 300 K over all the the carrier concentration range. Compared to in-plane directions, both conduction and valance bands along out of plane ($z$) direction ($\Gamma$-A in reciprocal space) have larger effective mass for electron and hole, leading to remarkable anisotropy in conductivity. While the hole conductivity increases significantly, with the applied uniform BTS, the electron conductivity remains nearly same as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}(b). Interestingly, upon application of uniform BTS for \textit{p}-type TiS$_{\text2}$, the high conductivity direction changes from in-plane to out of plane in carrier concentration range of (5$\times$10$^{19}-$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-3}$). At a very high carrier concentration (excess 5$\times$10$^{22}$ cm$^{-3}$) in-plane conduction starts to dominate again. On the other hand for \textit{n}-type TiS$_{\text2}$, the conduction direction remains in-plane over all the range of carrier concentration. However, the difference between in-plane and out of plane conductivity gets reduced compared with unstrained case. A similar behavior of conductivity has also been observed in other layered compounds such as unstrained CrSi$_{\text2}$ and FeSi$_{\text2}$ ~\cite{Singh_2012,Pandey2013}.
The reason for this dependence of anisotropy in conductivity on the applied uniform BTS can be found in the band structure as shown in Fig~\ref{fig:1}(c-d). At 0 $\%$ strain Fig~\ref{fig:1}(c), the valence band is flatter along $\Gamma$-A, leading to lower hole mobility. On the other hand the conduction band has two pockets at M and L symmetry points, leading to higher mobility for electrons, which is consistent with the conductivity behavior as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}(a). With the increasing strain the third valence band, which is highly dispersive moves up and finally crosses the flatter band at around 5\% strain. This lowers the effective mass of the holes dramatically, leading to drastic increase in out of plane conductivity, which starts to dominate over the in-plane conductivity as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}(b). On the other hand, with the applied uniform BTS the dispersion of the conduction band reduces, causing a decrease in the anisotropy in conductivity, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}(b). However, for a complete understanding of electrical conductivity, one needs to estimate the effect of different scattering mechanisms on relaxation time ($\tau$). The carrier transport in a system is mainly hampered by scattering of charge carriers due to phonons (acoustic, optical, and polar-optical) and point defects~\cite{Ravich_book,Ravich_paper,Ahmad2010}. For non parabolic bands the average band mass (density-of-states effective mass for each pocket) is defined as $m_{b}=(m_{L}m_{T}^{2})^{1/3}$ where, $m_{L}$ and $m_{T}$ are longitudinal and transverse effective masses repectively~\cite{Ravich_book,Ahmad2010}. According to the deformation potential theory of Bardeen ~\cite{Bardeen} the relaxation time $\tau \propto m_{b}^{-3/2}$~\cite{Bardeen,Herring1956,Ziman,Ahmad2010}. The band mass of the charge carriers increases with increasing strain, which leads to the decrease in the relaxation time as well as conductivity. At low temperatures, charge carriers are scattered mostly by the point defects ~\cite{Ravich_book,Ravich_paper}, which can further reduce the relaxation time. All the scattering mechanisms described above will affect the transport properties. Furthermore, for chalogenides at high temperatures, the scattering is mainly dominated by phonons~\cite{Ravich_book,Ahmad2010}. Since our calculation does not involve explicitly the effect of these scattering mechanisms, the results present the upper-limit of the transport properties. However, it is shown experimentally that irrespective of all these scattering effects, TiS$_{2}$ still shows good electrical conductivity~\cite{Imai2001,TiS2_cond}. Thereby, CSTA can be good approximation for TiS$_{2}$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figure3.eps}
\caption{(a) and (b)-Conductivity anisotropy ($\sigma_{ii}$/$\sigma_{av}$) as a function of carrier concentration for $p$-(solid lines) and $n$-type (dashed lines) TiS$_{\text2}$ at 0 and 5$\%$ strain, respectively. (c) and (d) Anisotropy in thermopower as a function of carrier concentration for $p$-(solid lines) and $n$-type (dashed lines) TiS$_{\text2}$ at 0 and 5$\%$ strain. (e) Dependence of average thermopower on the carrier concentration under different strain. (f) Power factor divided by relaxation time ( in unit of W/m-K$^2$-s) as a function of carrier concentration. All these calculations are carried out at 300 K.}
\label{fig:3}
\end{figure}
In order to estimate the effect of uniform BTS on thermoelectric performance of TiS$_{2}$, we have calculated the thermopower of the unstrained and strained TiS$_{2}$. The direction dependent thermopower at 300 K as a function of carrier concentration for 0 and 5 $\%$ strain is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}(c) and (d), respectively. Like conductivity, the thermopower also exhibits large anisotropy at low concentration for both \textit{p}- and \textit{n}-type carriers. However, at high carrier concentration the thermopower shows reduced anisotropy. This anisotropy comes from the non parabolic nature of bands which gets modified by applying strain. The density of states at $5\%$ strain becomes sharp near the Fermi energy at the conduction band as shown in the Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(e), which results in large thermopower for a given carrier concentration. Furthermore, the band structure of TiS$_{2}$ is composed of heavy and light mass bands near the Fermi energy that also contributes to high thermopower values. A similar phenomenon has also been observed for many other good thermoelectric materials~\cite{Parker_AgGaTe,Singh2011,Singh_2012}.
At low carrier concentration and 0 $\%$ strain, the thermopower attains high values along out of plane for both \textit{p}-type and \textit{n}-type cases. The thermopower increases with the applied strain attaining a maxima at 5 $\%$ strain. With the strain TiS$_{2}$ shows large thermopower for both \textit{p}-type and \textit{n}-type doping along out of plane and in-plane direction, respectively. This improved performance comes from opening of band gap and changes in the band dispersion with the applied strain.
Next, we study the effect of applied uniform BTS on the average of all the components of thermopower, as it enables the comparison of our results with the polycrystalline samples. The average thermopower is defined as $1/3$ of trace of the thermopower tensor ($S_{av} = (S_{xx}+S_{yy}+S_{zz})/3$). The average thermopower as a function of carrier concentration shows a peak, which shifts with the applied strain as shown in Fig~\ref{fig:3}(e). This peak arises due to bipolar effect. For a good thermoelectric performance a material should exhibit unipolar behavior over a wide range of carrier concentration \cite{wood1988}. As shown in Fig~\ref{fig:3}(e), the calculated averaged thermopower for \textit{p}- and \textit{n}-type at 300K, show unipolar behavior for a large range of carrier concentration compared to unstrained case. For \textit{p}-type TiS$_{2}$ at 5 $\%$ strain highest thermopower can be achieved at moderate carrier concentrations typically, $1-5$ $\times$10${^{20}}$ cm${^{-3}}$. We report for \textit{n}-type TiS$_{\text2}$ efficient thermoelectric performance can be achieved in the carrier concentration range of $1-7$ $\times$10${^{20}}$ cm${^{-3}}$ depending upon temperature. The above predicted doping level is equivalent to approximately $0.006-0.03$ holes and $0.006-0.04$ electrons per unit cell, respectively. Previous experimental study of Sams \textit{et. al.} ~\cite{doping2005} has demonstrated that TiS$_{\text2}$ can be heavily doped substitutionally at both Ti and S sites. Based on this experimental observation it can be assumed that doping level proposed here should be readily achievable.
As discussed above due to the presence of heavy band and multi-carrier transport, \textit{n}-type leads to higher thermopower than \textit{p}-type even at higher carrier concentrations. With the applied strain, the thermopower increases nearly four times in comparison to unstrained case, for the both type of the carriers. However, strain not only affects the thermopower but also the electrical conductivity ($\sigma$). In order to quantify the effect of strain on thermoelectric performance ($ZT = S^{2} \sigma/ \kappa_{total}$, where $\kappa_{total}$ is the total thermal conductivity) it is important to calculate power factor ($S^2\sigma$). The power factor is defined as the ability of a material to produce useful electrical power at a given temperature difference. The large power factor is indicative of better thermoelectric performance. As a first approximation for power factor ($S^2\sigma$), here the quantity $S^2\sigma/\tau$ is calculated at 300K for \textit{n}-type TiS$_{2}$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}(f). This quantity also increases drastically (three times) in comparison to the unstrained case. The figure of merit ZT closely follows the overall change in the thermoelectric performance hence, can also be enhanced by three times assuming no drastic changes in thermal conductivity and relaxation time.
It is well known that LDA/GGA tends to underestimate the band gap~\cite{Sham1983, Bhattacharyya2012}. In order to test the effect of band gap underestimation on thermoelectric performance, we applied the scissors operator and adjusted the band gap to 0.30 eV for 5$\%$ strained TiS$_{2}$. The scissors operator was applied by rigidly shifting the conduction bands up and the valence bands down by 0.075 eV around the mid gap energy. After the rigid shift of the bands we performed the transport calculations. The maximum value of $S^2\sigma/\tau$ is 8 $\times$ 10$^{11}$ W/m-K$^2$-s, which is nearly twice than the value at the band gap 0.15 eV. Therefore, the GGA results serve as a lower limit for the thermoelectric performance.
Having shown the advantages of applied strain on the electronic and thermoelectric properties of TiS$_{2}$, next we look at the feasibility of generating such kind of strain in experiments. In order to achieve uniform BTS intrinsically in bulk TiS$_{2}$, the material can be grown epitaxially on a substrate with larger lattice parameter. However, the presence of interface would dominate the electronic properties, masking the intrinsic changes in properties by BTS. Another more easier route could be doping with the iso-electronic atoms of larger size, which could induce the required BTS. We have studied doping of TiS$_{2}$ using a $2\times2\times2$ supercell with the iso-electronic Hf and Zr on Ti site. The volume relaxation of the doped structures were carried out by including the vdW interaction between the layers. The fully relaxed structure expands due to larger size of the Zr and Hf. This eventually generates in-plane tensile strain of the order of $2\%$ and $1.98\%$ corresponding to a doping of 0.25 Zr and Hf atom per formula unit, respectively. The out of plane strain is nearly zero for both the dopants. The calculated thermopower of iso-electronic doped systems matches very well with that of $2\%$ tensile strained bulk TiS$_{2}$ for both \textit{p} and \textit{n}-type doping, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:4}(a). The DOS (Fig.~\ref{fig:4}(b)) does not show any significant changes far away from Fermi energy with iso-electronic doping. However, the reduction in DOS around the Fermi energy is similar to the one caused by $2\%$ tensile strain.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figure4.eps}
\caption{(a) The average thermopower as a function of the carrier concentration for \textit{p}-(solid lines) and \textit{n}-type (dashed lines) at 300 K (b) Total density of state of Hf ($x$ = 0.25) and Zr ($x$ = 0.25) doped TiS$_{2}$, respectively. For comparison purpose the DOS of bulk TiS$_{2}$ is also shown in the same figure. }
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure}
For TiS$_{2}$, better thermoelectric performance can be achieved at optimized strains ($2-5\%$) as well as optimized carrier concentrations (approximately, $0.006-0.03$ holes and $0.006-0.04$ electrons per unit cell). As shown experimentally ~\cite{doping2005}, TiS$_{2}$ can be heavily doped with V, Mo, Ta and Ce at Ti-site. Since, the ionic radii of these dopants are larger than the Ti-ionic radius, these dopants can generate lattice strain and charge carriers in the system. For practical realization of strain values proposed here, one can perform co-doping by isovalent and \textit{p}- or \textit{n}-type dopants, having larger ionic radius than Ti.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{System}& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Direction} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Sound velocity(m/sec)} \\[0.9ex]
\cline{3-5}
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$v_{TA1}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$v_{TA2}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$v_{LA}$}\\[0.9ex]
\hline
TiS${_2}$ & $\Gamma$-M & 2510.54 & 3693.01 & 5332.23 \\[1.5ex]
& $\Gamma$-A & 2000.64 & 2000.64 & 3735.94 \\[1.5ex]
\cline{3-5}
\cline{0-0}
\textbf{Average} & & 2255.59 & 2846.82 & 4534.08\\[1.5ex]
\hline
Ti$_{0.94}$Zr$_{0.06}$S$_{_2}$ & $\Gamma$-M & 2247.00 & 2856.00 & 3587.00 \\[1.5ex]
& $\Gamma$-A & 2070.33 & 2070.33 & 3542.00 \\[1.5ex]
\cline{3-5}
\cline{0-0}
\textbf{Average} & & 2158.66 & 2463.16 &3564.50 \\[1.5ex]
\hline
Ti$_{0.83}$Zr$_{0.17}$S$_{_2}$ & $\Gamma$-M & 1964.02 & 1643.40 & 1893.21 \\[1.5ex]
& $\Gamma$-A & 1925.02 & 2058.09 & 3362.30 \\[1.5ex]
\cline{3-5}
\cline{0-0}
\textbf{Average} & & 1944.52 & 1850.74 & 2627.75\\[1.5ex]
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{Table:1}
\caption{Effect of doping on transverse $v_{Trans}$, longitudinal $v_{Long}$ and average sound velocities. Sound speeds in m/s are extracted from phonon dispersion data. $v_{Trans}$ and $v_{Long}$ denotes speed corresponding to transverse and longitudinal modes respectively.}
\end{table}
Lattice part of thermal conductivity $\kappa_{l}$ is an another key parameter, which influences the thermoelectric performance of a material. Zr and Hf turn out to be the best iso-electronic dopant, which enhance the thermoelectric performance of TiS$_{2}$. In order to get qualitative estimate of thermal conductivity of Zr doped TiS$_{2}$, we have calculated phonon dispersion of undoped TiS$_{2}$ and doped Ti$_{1-x}$Zr$_{x}$S$_{2}$ $(x= 0.06$ and $0.17$), which are shown in Fig. ~\ref{fig:5} (a) and (b). The density functional perturbation theory(DFPT) in VASP is used to calculated force constants for phonon calculation. Then, the phonon dispersions are calculated using Parlinski-Li-Kawazoe method as implemented in PHONOPY package~\cite{phonopy}.
The phonon group velocity is calculated from the relation $v_{g}= \frac{\partial \omega}{\partial q}$ as shown in Table~\ref{Table:1}, where $q$ is the wave vector. According to the single mode relaxation time approximation of the Boltzmann equation, the total thermal conductivity ($\kappa_{i}$) contributed by the each phonon mode can be represented as $\kappa_{i}(q)= C_{i}(q) v^{2}_{i}(q) \tau_{i}(q)$, where $C_{i}$, $v_{i}$, and $\tau_{i}$ are the specific heat, the group velocity, and the phonon relaxation time of $i^{\text{th}}$ mode, respectively. $\kappa_{l}$ is directly proportional to square of phonon group velocity, implying that decrease in phonon group velocity will reduce the lattice thermal conductivity. As presented in Table ~\ref{Table:1}, with the increasing Zr concentration the phonon group velocity significantly decreases along in-plane and out-of-plane direction, which will lower the thermal conductivity. This reduction in phonon group velocity is due to mass difference between Zr and Ti atoms. Furthermore, the large differences in atomic mass and size can increase the phonon scattering ~\cite{Takuma2014,Yan2012}, which will lead to further reduction of thermal conductivity.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figure5.eps}
\caption{Phonon dispersion (a) bulk TiS$_{2}$ and (b) Ti$_{0.94}$Zr$_{0.06}$S$_{_2}$.}
\label{fig:5}
\end{figure}
Because of semi-metallic nature of TiS$_{2}$ the electronic thermal conductivity ($\kappa_{e}$) could hamper the thermoelectric performance. However, under strain TiS$_{2}$ exhibits a electronic phase transition from semi-metal to semiconductor which can lower the $\kappa_{e}$. In Fig.\ref{fig:6} we present the $\kappa_{e}$ scaled with respect to $\tau$ for bulk, 2\% strain and Zr doped TiS$_{2}$. As can be seen at lower carrier concentration we observe a significant reduction in $\kappa_{e}$ for Zr doped TiS$_{2}$ and 2\% strained TiS$_{2}$ in comparison to bulk TiS$_{2}$. On the other hand, at higher carrier concentration the thermal conductivity remains more or less same for all the cases. Based on this analysis we can safely conclude that the total thermal conductivity ($\kappa_{e} + \kappa_{l}$) will decrease under doping. Thus, the observed enhancement in thermoelectric performance as shown in this work can be achieved experimentally by doping/co-doping of TiS$_{2}$.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{figure6.eps}
\caption{Carrier concentration dependent electronic part of the thermal conductivity scaled with respected to relaxation time.
respectively }
\label{fig:6}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
In summary, we demonstrate in TiS$_{2}$, the electronic phase transition from semimetallic to semiconducting by application of uniform biaxial tensile strain. The strain modifies the dispersion of bands, which improves the thermoelectric performance of the material, significantly. Our results show a large strain dependent anisotropy in electrical conductivity and thermopower at lower carrier concentration for both \textit{p}- and \textit{n}-type carriers. The thermopower results suggest that 5 $\%$ strained TiS$_{\text2}$ exhibits three-times enhancement in thermoelectric properties. We further demonstrate the possibility of generating such strain by doping of TiS$_{2}$ with larger size atoms such as Zr and Hf at Ti sites. Moreover, experimental realization of strain, induced by doping can serve as a powerful tool to enhance the electronic and thermoelectric properties of this promising material.
\begin{center}
\textbf{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
\end{center}
This work was supported by the ADA under NPMASS and DST nanomission. The authors thank the Supercomputer Education and Research Centre and Materials Research Centre, IISc, for providing the required computational facilities for the above work.
|
\section{Introduction}
The Bouchaud trap model (BTM) is of general interest in the study of stochastic processes due to its utility as a natural toy model for many diverse trapping phenomena (see, for example, the lecture notes of \cite{BenArous06}). Although applications often call for traps whose depths are integrable or regularly varying (including in the setting in which the BTM was introduced, see \cite{Bouchaud92}), the case of slowly varying traps is receiving growing attention in the literature. Indeed, slowly varying traps have been shown to arise naturally in the study of certain random walks in random environments, such as biased random walks on critical Galton-Watson trees \cite{Croydon13}, as well in the study of spin-glass dynamics on subexponential time scales \cite{BenArous12, Bovier13}. With regards to the BTM with slowly varying traps in particular, recent work has established the nature of localisation \cite{Muirhead14} and ageing \cite{Gun13} that can occur, which turns out to be qualitatively different from the equivalent phenomena in the case of integrable or regularly varying traps. The present work continues this study, giving a functional limit theorem for the BTM on the integers with slowly varying traps. Again, the resulting behaviour of the model with slowly varying traps is qualitatively different from the equivalent limits in the case of integrable or regularly varying traps.
Let us start by defining the BTM on the integers. First, suppose $\tau = (\tau_x)_{x \in \mathbb{Z}}$ is a collection of independent and identically-distributed (i.i.d.)\ strictly-positive random variables whose common distribution has a slowly varying tail, by which we mean that the non-decreasing function
\[ L(u) := \frac{1}{\mathbf{P}(\tau_0 > u)} \]
satisfies the \textit{slow-variation} property
\begin{align}
\label{eq:slow}
\lim_{ u \to \infty} \frac{ L(uv) }{L(u)} = 1, \quad \text{for any } v > 0.
\end{align}
We will refer to $\tau$ as the \textit{trapping landscape}; let $\mathbf{P}$ denote its law and $\mathbf{E}$ the corresponding expectation. The BTM in the trapping landscape $\tau$ is the continuous-time Markov chain $X = (X_t)_{t \ge 0}$ on $\mathbb{Z}$ with transition rates
\[ w_{x \to y} := \begin{cases}
\frac{1}{2\tau_x},
& \text{if } |x-y|=1, \\
0, & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases} \]
As always for random processes in random media, we distinguish between the \emph{quenched} and \emph{annealed} law of the BTM. For each realisation of the trapping landscape $\tau$, write $P_x^\tau$ for the law of the Markov chain with the above transition rates started from $x$; this is the \emph{quenched law} of the BTM. The corresponding \emph{annealed law} is then obtained as the semi-direct product
\[\mathbb{P}_x\left(\cdot\right)=\int {P}^\tau_x\left(\cdot\right)d\mathbf{P}.\]
Our main result, which will be presented in Section \ref{mr} below, is to establish a functional limit theorem for $X$ under the annealed law $\mathbb{P}_0$. We note that quenched scaling limits (i.e.\ $P_x^\tau$-distributional scaling limits for $\mathbf{P}$-a.e.\ trapping landscape) are not available in this setting, since there is no homogenisation of the trapping landscape under the relevant scaling.
The equivalent functional limit theorem in the case where $\tau_0$ has (i) integrable or (ii) regularly varying tails has previously been established in \cite{BenArous13}, building on the single-time scaling limit proved in \cite{FIN02}. In the case of integrable tails, the scaling limit for $X$ is just the standard Brownian motion, with the law of large numbers acting to smooth out the effect of the traps in the limit. In the case of regularly varying tails of index $\alpha \in (0, 1)$, the scaling limit for $X$ is a spatially-subordinated Brownian motion known as the FIN diffusion, which was introduced in \cite{FIN02}. Our scaling limit can be seen as the natural analogue of the FIN diffusion in the limiting case $\alpha = 0$; this statement is made precise in Theorem~\ref{thm:alpha0} presented below.
We also study a natural `transparent' generalisation of the BTM, whereby the random walk $X$, at each visit to a site $x \in \mathbb{Z}$, has a certain chance of `avoiding' the trap located at $x$. Transparent trap models were first considered in \cite{BenArous13}, where it was observed that very simple transparency mechanisms can yield a variety of diverse scaling limits. In particular, for a parameter $\beta \ge 0$ we define the $\beta$-transparent BTM as the (non-Markovian) symmetric nearest-neighbour random walk $X^\beta = (X^\beta_t)_{t \ge 0}$ on $\mathbb{Z}$ whose holding time on the $i^\mathrm{th}$ visit to a site $x \in \mathbb{Z}$ is distributed as
\[ \tau^i_x := \begin{cases}
\tau_x \xi_x^i, & \text{with probability } \min \left\{ \frac{1}{\tau_x^\beta}, 1 \right\} ,\\
\xi_x^i, & \text{otherwise},
\end{cases} \]
where $\{\xi_x^i\}_{x \in \mathbb{Z}, i \in \mathbb{N}}$ is a collection of i.i.d.\ unit-mean exponential random variables. In other words, the chain $X^\beta$ evolves just as the BTM $X$ except that a trap at $x \in \mathbb{Z}$ is ignored, at each visit to $x$, with probability $\max\{1 - \tau_x^{-\beta},0\}$ independently of all other sources of randomness; setting $\beta = 0$ recovers the BTM. In \cite{BenArous13}, a partition of the parameter space was obtained for the above model\footnote{Actually, in \cite{BenArous13} the model considered had $\xi_x^i\equiv 1$, although this change does not affect the scaling limits.} in the case of regularly varying traps, indicating the rich variety of scaling limits that may arise; see Figure~\ref{fig}. In particular, each of the standard Brownian motion, the FIN diffusion, as well as the fractional kinetics (FK) process can arise through this transparency mechanism; see \cite{BenArous13} or \cite{BenArous06} for the definition and basic properties of the FK process. We consider the $\beta$-transparent BTM with slowly varying traps, confirming that the partition of the parameter space in Figure~\ref{fig} remains valid on the $\alpha = 0$ boundary, a case that was not treated in \cite{BenArous13}. Incidentally, this raises the interesting question as to what other processes, apart from FK and the scaling limit of the BTM, may arise as the scaling limit of transparent trap models as the parameters $\alpha, \beta \to 0$ simultaneously; this question will be addressed in upcoming work.
\begin{figure}[t]
\label{fig}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [very thick] (0, 0) -- (1.5, 0) node[anchor=north] {$\alpha$} -- (3, 0) node[anchor=north] {$1$} -- (3.2, 0);
\draw [very thick] (0, 0) -- (0, 1.5) node[anchor=east] {$\beta$} -- (0, 3) node[anchor=east] {$1$} -- (0, 3.2) ;
\draw [thin, dashed] (0, 3) -- (3, 0);
\draw [thin, dashed] (0, 0) -- (1.5, 1.5);
\draw (1.5, 0.8) node[anchor=north] {\text{FIN}};
\draw (1, 1.5) node[anchor=east] {\text{FK}};
\draw (2, 2) node[anchor=north] {\text{BM}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Partition of the parameter space of the $\beta$-transparent trap model according to scaling limit due to \cite{BenArous13}. Here the labels `BM', `FIN' and `FK' indicate that the respective scaling limits are the standard Brownian motion, the FIN diffusion and the FK process. Recall that $\alpha$ denotes the index of regular-variation of the traps; slow-variation corresponds to the $\alpha = 0$ boundary.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The scaling limit}
\label{subsec:scalinglimit}
In this section, we introduce the scaling limit of $X$ as a time-changed (or \textit{subordinated}) standard Brownian motion. Motivating this description, and key to the proof of our functional limit theorem, is the observation that every symmetric time-homogeneous nearest-neighbour continuous time random walk on $\mathbb{Z}$ can be expressed as a time-changed simple random walk, where the time-change may depend on the realisation of the underlying random walk (see, for example, \cite{BenArous06}). To see this for the process $X$, let $S = (S_i)_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ be a discrete-time simple random walk (SRW) on $\mathbb{Z}$ and let $\xi = (\xi_i)_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ be a collection of i.i.d.\ unit-mean exponential random variables, with $S$, $\xi$ and $\tau$ independent. Define an $S$-dependent \textit{clock process} $A = (A_n)_{n \ge 0}$ by setting
\[ A_n := \sum_{i \le \floor{n}} \xi_i \tau_{S_i}, \]
and let $I^S=(I^S_t)_{t\geq 0}$ be its right-continuous inverse, defined by
\[ I^S_t := \inf \{ n : A^S_n > t \}. \]
It is not hard to see that the law of $X$ under $\mathbb{P}_0$ is identical to that of $S_{I^S}$. In other words, the process $X$ may equivalently be defined via a subordination of the simple random walk $S$ by the clock process $A$.
We now present an analogous construction in the continuous setting that will serve to describe the scaling limit of $X$. Let $\mathcal{P} = (x_i, v_i)_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ be an inhomogeneous Poisson point process on $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^+$ with intensity measure $v^{-2} d x \, d v$; this process can be viewed as the scaling limit for the trapping landscape. Denote by $B = (B_t)_{t \ge 0}$ standard Brownian motion (independent of $\mathcal{P}$). Let $m^B = (m^B_t)_{t \ge 0}$ be the $B$-explored extremal process for $\mathcal{P}$, defined by
\begin{align}
m^B_t := \sup\left\{ v_i : \inf_{s \in [0, t]} B_s \le x_i \le \sup_{s \in [0, t]} B_s \right\},\label{mtdef}
\end{align}
and let $I^B = (I^B_t)_{t \ge 0}$ be its right-continuous inverse, i.e.\ $I^B_t := \inf \{ s : m^B_s > t \}$. We will identify the processes $m^B$ and $B_{I^B}$ as the scaling limits of $A$ and $X$ respectively.
We claim that $B_{I^B}$ is the natural analogue of the FIN diffusion with parameter $\alpha \in (0, 1)$ in the limiting case $\alpha = 0$. To make this precise, we first observe how the FIN diffusion can similarly be defined as the standard Brownian motion $B$, time-changed by a clock-process that is a function of $B$, the point-process $\mathcal{P}$ and the parameter $\alpha$. We then use this representation to show in Theorem~\ref{thm:alpha0} below that the FIN diffusion with parameter $\alpha$ converges almost-surely, under suitable rescaling, to the process $B_{I^B}$ as the parameter $\alpha \to 0$, where by almost-surely we mean with respect to the joint law of $\mathcal{P}$ and $B$. Because of this result, we refer to the process $B_{I^B}$ as the \textit{extremal FIN process}. (Note that we discuss the corresponding $\alpha\to1^-$ limit in Remark~\ref{alpha1rem}.)
Note that $B_{I^B}$ is a highly singular process. Indeed, conditional on $\mathcal{P}$, its probability mass is concentrated, at each time $t > 0$, on the two sites
\[ z_t^1 := \min \{ x_i \ge 0 : v_i > t \} \quad \text{and} \quad z_t^2 := \max \{ x_i \le 0 : v_i > t \},\]
in proportion to their hitting probability with respect to $B$. In other words, conditional on $\mathcal{P}$,
\[ B_{I^B_t} = \begin{cases}
z_t^1 , & \text{with probability } |z_t^1| / (z_t^1 - z_t^2 ), \\
z_t^2, & \text{with probability } |z_t^2| / (z_t^1 - z_t^2 ).
\end{cases} \]
That we have such localisation arising in the scaling limit is a consequence of the slowly varying tail of the trap distribution $\tau_0$, which means the clock process is dominated in the limit by the contribution from the deepest-visited trap so far. (As noted above, the localisation properties of the discrete model have previously been studied in \cite{Muirhead14}.)
\subsection{Main results}\label{mr}
We are now ready to state our functional limit theorem for the BTM, identifying $B_{I^B}$ as its scaling limit (see Theorem~\ref{thm:fltX} below). As in the cases of integrable or regularly varying traps, the key step towards this is establishing a functional limit theorem for the clock process $A$ (see Theorem~\ref{thm:fltA} below). We stress that both of these results hold for the BTM with arbitrary slowly varying tail distribution $\tau_0$.
Concerning topological issues, the conclusion of Theorem~\ref{thm:fltA} is stated in the Skorohod space of real-valued c\`{a}dl\`{a}g functions on $\mathbb{R}^+$, $D(\mathbb{R}^+)$, equipped with the Skorohod $M_1$ topology. For Theorem~\ref{thm:fltX}, we use the same state space, but the coarser non-Skorohod $L_{1,\rm{loc}}$ topology. We will later also refer to the usual Skorohod $J_1$ and uniform (over compact time intervals) topologies on $D(\mathbb{R}^+)$; detailed definitions of the $J_1$, $M_1$ and $L_{1, \rm{loc}}$ topologies and the relation between them are provided in Appendix \ref{sec:appendix}. As for notation, we write $\stackrel{J_1}{\Rightarrow}$, $\stackrel{M_1}{\Rightarrow}$ and $\stackrel{L_1}{\Rightarrow}$ for weak convergence in the $J_1$, $M_1$ and $L_{1,\rm{loc}}$ topologies respectively.
\begin{theorem}[Functional limit theorem for the clock process]
\label{thm:fltA} Under $\mathbb{P}_0$, as $n \to \infty$,
\begin{equation}\label{alim}
\left( \frac{1}{n} L \left( \frac{1}{n} A_{n^2 t } \right) \right)_{t\geq 0} \stackrel{M_1}{\Rightarrow} \left(m^B_t \right)_{t\geq 0}
\end{equation}
in distribution.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}[Functional limit theorem for the BTM]
\label{thm:fltX} Under $\mathbb{P}_0$, as $n \to \infty$,
\[ \left( \frac{1}{n} X_{n L^{-1}(n t)}\right)_{t\geq0} \stackrel{L_1}{\Rightarrow}\left( B_{I^B_t} \right)_{t\geq0}\]
in distribution (simultaneously with (\ref{alim})), where $L^{-1}$ is the right-continuous inverse of $L$, i.e.\ $L^{-1}(x) := \inf \{ u : L(u) > x \}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:topology}
Let us explain why the $M_1$ and $L_{1,\rm{loc}}$ topologies are the appropriate topologies for the convergence results in Theorems \ref{thm:fltA} and \ref{thm:fltX} respectively. Recall that the $M_1$ topology extends the usual $J_1$ topology by allowing jumps in the limit process to be matched by multiple jumps of lesser magnitude in the limiting processes, as long as they are essentially monotone and occur in negligible time in the limit. With regards to Theorem~\ref{thm:fltA}, the need for the $M_1$ topology arises because the total amount of time that the BTM spends at the deepest-visited trap is a result of multiple visits to the trap, all of which can contribute in a non-negligible way to the jump in the limit clock process. Convergence in the stronger $J_1$ topology would only hold if only the first visit to the trap made a non-negligible contribution in the limit; this is not true in general.
Recall also that the non-Skorohod $L_{1,\rm{loc}}$ topology extends both the $J_1$ and $M_1$ topologies by allowing excursions in the limiting processes that are not present in the limit process, as long as they are of negligible magnitude in the $L_1$ sense (which, in particular, is the case if they are of bounded size and occur in negligible time in the limit). In regards to Theorem~\ref{thm:fltX}, the need for the $L_{1,\rm{loc}}$ topology arises because, during the time that the BTM is based at the deepest-visited trap, the BTM makes repeated excursions away from this site. Although these occur in negligible time in the limit, they are of a magnitude comparable to the distance scale, and so prevent convergence in the stronger Skorohod topologies. See \cite{Fontes13,Mathieu14} for other examples of trap model convergence results that make use of the $L_{1,\rm{loc}}$ topology (or close variants). We remark that the convergence in the $L_{1,\rm{loc}}$ topology is too weak to imply the convergence of some commonly used functionals of the sample paths of $X$, including $\inf_{t \in [0, T]}(X_t)$ and $\sup_{t \in [0, T]}(X_t)$.
Finally, we believe that the convergence in the $L_{1, \rm{loc}}$ topology in Theorem~\ref{thm:fltX} can actually be mildly strengthened to convergence in a topology that allows for zero-time excursions of bounded size in the limiting processes, but only if they occur at jump-times of the limit process (cf.\ the space $E$ in \cite[Section 15.4]{Whitt02}). That we expect convergence to hold in this stronger topology is essentially due to the highly non-linear rescaling of time in the limit; since this is an artefact of the rescaling rather than an intrinsic property of the processes, we choose not to pursue the additional technical complications necessary to prove such a result here.
\end{remark}
We now state an additional assumption on the tail of the probability distribution $\tau_0$, under which we are able to derive the convergence of the clock process under the stronger $J_1$ topology, and also simplify the statements of Theorems \ref{thm:fltA} and \ref{thm:fltX}.
\begin{assumption}
\label{assumpt}
Assume that
\[ \lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{L(x / L(x))}{L(x)} = 1.\]
\end{assumption}
\begin{remark}
Note that Assumption \ref{assumpt} is satisfied for $L(x) = (\log x)^\gamma$ for all $\gamma > 0$ (i.e.\ the class of \textit{log-Pareto} distributions), but is only satisfied for $L(x) = \exp \{ (\log x)^\gamma \}$ (i.e.\ the class of \textit{log-Weibull} distributions) for the parameter range $0 < \gamma < 1/2$; cf.\ \cite[Remark 2.4]{Kasahara86}, where it is noted that the same parameter range allows for an analogous simplification of the functional limit theorem that we state as Proposition~\ref{prop:j1conv}. We additionally note that Assumption \ref{assumpt} implies the slow-variation property \eqref{eq:slow}.
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}[Simplified functional limit theorem for the clock process]
\label{thm:assumptA}
Suppose Assumption \ref{assumpt} holds. Under $\mathbb{P}_0$, as $n \to \infty$,
\begin{equation}\label{alim2}
\left( \frac{1}{n} L(A_{n^2 t})\right)_{t\geq0} \stackrel{J_1}{\Rightarrow} \left(m^B_t\right)_{t\geq 0}
\end{equation}
in distribution.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}[Simplified functional limit theorem for the BTM]
\label{thm:assumptX} Suppose Assumption \ref{assumpt} holds. Under $\mathbb{P}_0$, as $n \to \infty$,
\[ \left(\frac{1}{n} X_{L^{-1}(n t)}\right)_{t\geq0} \stackrel{L_1}{\Rightarrow}\left( B_{I^B_t}\right)_{t\geq0} \]
in distribution (simultaneously with (\ref{alim2})).
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark} That Assumption \ref{assumpt} ensures that the convergence of the clock process in Theorem~\ref{thm:assumptA} holds in the stronger $J_1$ topology results from the fact that, under this assumption, only the first visit to the deepest-visited trap makes a non-negligible contribution to the clock process in the scaling limit; c.f.\ Remark~\ref{rem:topology}.
\end{remark}
As described in Section \ref{subsec:scalinglimit}, the scaling limit process $B_{I^B}$ in Theorems \ref{thm:fltX} and \ref{thm:assumptX} can be considered as the extremal FIN process, in the sense that the FIN diffusion with parameter $\alpha$ converges, under suitable rescaling,
to the process $B_{I^B}$ as the parameter $\alpha \to 0$. Here we make this notion precise. First, let us define the FIN diffusion (see \cite{BenArous06}). Recall the definition of $\mathcal{P} = (x_i, v_i)_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ and $B$ from Section \ref{subsec:scalinglimit}. For $\alpha \in (0, 1)$, let $\mathcal{P}^\alpha$ be the point process on $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^+$ defined by the point set $(x_i,w_i):=(x_i, v_i^{1/\alpha})$, ${i \in \mathbb{N}}$. By simple change of variables, it is easy to see that $\mathcal{P}^\alpha$ is Poissonian with intensity measure $\alpha w^{-1 - \alpha} dx \, dw$. Denote by $(L_t(x))_{t\geq0,x\in\mathbb{R}}$ the local time process of $B$. Defining $m^{B, \alpha} = (m_t^{B, \alpha})_{t \ge 0}$ by
\begin{equation}\label{mtadef}
m_t^{B, \alpha} := \sum_i L_t(x_i) v^{1/\alpha}_i
\end{equation}
with $I^{B, \alpha} = (I^{B, \alpha}_t)_{t \ge 0}$ its right-continuous inverse, the FIN diffusion with parameter $\alpha$ is the process $B_{I^{B, \alpha}} = (B_{I^{B, \alpha}_t})_{t \ge 0} $. Note that in this definition we have built in a coupling, via the point process $\mathcal{P}$ and the Brownian motion $B$, of the FIN diffusion $B_{I^{B, \alpha}}$ and the extremal FIN process $B_{I^B}$. This allows us to state our convergence as an almost sure result (cf.\ the $\alpha\to1^-$ limit of Remark~\ref{alpha1rem}).
\begin{theorem}[Convergence of the FIN diffusion to the extremal FIN process]
\label{thm:alpha0}
As $\alpha \to 0$,
\[ \left(B_{ I^{B, \alpha}_{t^{1/\alpha}}} \right)_{t \ge 0} \stackrel{L_1 }{\rightarrow} \left( B_{I^B_t} \right)_{t\geq0},\]
where $\stackrel{L_1 }{\rightarrow}$ denotes convergence in the $L_{1, \rm{loc}}$ topology, almost-surely with respect to the joint law of $\mathcal{P}$ and $B$.
\end{theorem}
Finally, we establish scaling limits for the $\beta$-transparent BTM. Write $P_x^{\tau, \beta}$ for the quenched law of $X^\beta$ started from $x$, and let
\[\mathbb{P}^\beta_x\left(\cdot\right)=\int {P}^{\tau, \beta}_x\left(\cdot\right)d\mathbf{P}\]
be the corresponding annealed law. To state our results, we will need to introduce the notion of second-order slow-variation. We say that $L$ is \textit{second-order slowly varying} if there exist functions $g, k$ such that $g(u) \to 0$ as $u \to \infty$ and
\begin{align}\label{sosv}
\lim_{u \to \infty} \frac{\frac{L(u v)}{L(u)} - 1}{ g(u)} = k(v), \quad \text{for any } v > 0,
\end{align}
where there exists a $v$ such that $k(v)\neq 0$ and $k(uv)\neq k(u)$ for all $u>0$. Second-order slow-variation is a natural strengthening of the slow-variation property \eqref{eq:slow}, giving more precise information about the fluctuations of $L$ at infinity; see \cite[Chapter 3]{Bingham87} for an overview.
\begin{theorem}[Functional limit theorem for the $\beta$-transparent BTM]
\label{thm:tt}
Suppose $\beta \ge 1$. Then, as $n \to \infty$,
\[ \left( \frac{1}{n} X^\beta_{\mu n^2 t} \right)_{t \ge 0} \stackrel{J_1}{\Rightarrow} (B_t)_{t \ge 0} \]
in $P_x^{\tau, \beta}$-distribution, $\mathbf{P}$-almost-surely, where
\[ \mu := \mathbf{E} \left( \max\{1 - \tau_0^{- \beta}, 0\} + \tau_0 \min\{\tau_0^{- \beta}, 1 \} \right) < \infty\]
is the annealed expected holding time. Suppose $\beta \in (0, 1)$ and assume that $L$ is second-order slowly varying, i.e.\ that it satisfies (\ref{sosv}). Then there exists a slowly varying function $\ell$ such that, as $n \to \infty$,
\[ \left( \frac{1}{n} X^\beta_{ n^{2/\beta} \ell(n) t} \right)_{t \ge 0} \stackrel{J_1}{\Rightarrow} (FK^\beta_t)_{t \ge 0} \]
in $P_x^{\tau, \beta}$-distribution and $\mathbf{P}$-probability,
where $FK^\beta$ denotes the FK process with index $\beta$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Note that the results in Theorem~\ref{thm:tt} agree with the partition of the parameter space depicted in Figure~\ref{fig}, where slow-variation is considered as the boundary case $\alpha = 0$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:svfrep} The slowly varying function $\ell$ has an explicit representation in terms of $g$, the rate of second-order slow-variation of $L$, which in our setting is necessarily also slowly varying (see the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:sosv}). More precisely, defining $ \Gamma(n) := n^{-\beta} g(n) / L(n)$, then $ \ell(n) = n^{-2/\beta} \Gamma^{-1}(n^{-2})$, where $\Gamma^{-1}$ denotes the right-continuous inverse of $\Gamma$. (NB.\ Without loss of generality, we may assume that $g$ is a strictly positive function and set $\Gamma^{-1}(t) :=\inf\{s:\Gamma(s) < t\}$.)
This representation explains why second-order slow-variation is a natural condition to impose in Theorem~\ref{thm:tt}.
\end{remark}
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. In Section \ref{sec:prelim} we collect preliminary results on general extremal processes and local times of simple random walks. Applying these results, in Section \ref{sec:clock} we start by studying the clock process $A$, establishing the functional limit theorems of Theorems \ref{thm:fltA} and \ref{thm:assumptA}. In the same section, we also consider the behaviour of the BTM itself, completing the proof of Theorems \ref{thm:fltX} and \ref{thm:assumptX}. In Section \ref{sec:alpha0} we prove the convergence of the FIN diffusion to the extremal FIN process of Theorem~\ref{thm:alpha0}. In Section \ref{sec:trans} we consider the $\beta$-transparent BTM, establishing Theorem~\ref{thm:tt}. Finally, in Appendix \ref{sec:appendix} we collect material related to the topologies $J_1$, $M_1$ and $L_{1, \rm{loc}}$, stating and proving some general convergence results that will be crucial for our proofs.
\section{Preliminary results}
\label{sec:prelim}
In this section we collect some preliminary results that will be used in proving the main theorems. When we describe a collection $(X_i)_{i \in I}$ of non-negative random variables as being \textit{bounded above} or \textit{bounded below} in probability we mean that $(X_i)_{i\in I}$ or $(1/X_i)_{i\in I}$, respectively, is tight.
\subsection{Extremal processes}
\label{subsec:extremal}
Let $E = (E_i)_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of strictly positive i.i.d.\ random variables with arbitrary common distribution given by $\mathbf{P}(E_i > u) := 1/L_E(u)$ for some non-decreasing, c\`{a}dl\`{a}g function $L_E$. Let $M = (M_n)_{n \ge 0}$ and $\Sigma = (\Sigma_n)_{n \ge 0}$ be respectively the extremal and sum processes for the sequence $E$, i.e.\
\[M_n := \max \{ E_i : i \le \floor{n} \} \quad \text{and} \quad \Sigma_n = \sum_{i \le \floor{n}} E_i.\]
Further, let $\mathcal{J}$ denote the jump-set of the process $M$, i.e.\
\[ \mathcal{J} := \{ n : M_n \neq M_{n^-} \} \subseteq \mathbb{N}.\]
\begin{proposition}[Jump-set spacing]
\label{prop:jumps}
For each $C > 0$, as $n \to \infty$,
\[ |\mathcal{J} \cap (n / C, n C ] \, | \quad \text{and} \quad \frac { {\rm{sep}}( \mathcal{J} \cap (n / C, n C ] ) }{ n } \]
are respectively bounded above and bounded below in probability, where ${\rm{sep}}(\mathcal{S})$ denotes the \textit{separation} of the set $\mathcal{S}$
\[ {\rm{sep}}(\mathcal{S}) : = \min_{\substack{ i, j \in \mathcal{S} \\ i \neq j} } |i-j|.\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $\psi = \left({\psi}_i \right)_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of i.i.d.\ unit-mean exponential random variables, with $M^{\psi}_n$ the extremal processes for $\psi$, i.e.\ $M^\psi_n := \max \{ \psi_i : i \le \floor{n} \}$, and $\mathcal{J}^\psi$ its associated jump-set, i.e.\ $ \mathcal{J}^\psi := \{ n : M^\psi_n \neq M^\psi_{n^-} \}$. Denote by $(k^n_i)_{i\geq 1}$ the ordered list of indices $i> n/C$ such that $\psi_i\geq M^\psi_{n/C}$ and abbreviate $K_n:=|\{i:k_i^n\leq nC\}|$. Clearly we have that
\[ |\mathcal{J^\psi} \cap (n / C, n C ] \, | \le K_n\]
and
\[ {\rm{sep}}( \mathcal{J^\psi} \cap (n / C, n C ] ) \geq {\rm{sep}}( k_i^n : i = 1, 2, \ldots, K_n ). \]
Moreover, by the inverse transform theorem,
\begin{equation}\label{itt}
E_n \stackrel{d}{=} L_E^{-1}(\exp \{ \psi_n \})
\end{equation}
and so there is a coupling of the sequences $E$ and $\psi$ such that, for all $n$,
\[ M_n \neq M_{n^-} \implies M^{\psi}_n \neq M^{\psi}_{n^-}. \]
Therefore, for this coupling, $ \mathcal{J} \subseteq \mathcal{J}^\psi$,
and so it is sufficient to prove that
\[ K_n \quad \text{and} \quad \frac{ {\rm{sep}}( k_i : i = 1, 2, \ldots, K_n ) }{ n } \]
are respectively bounded above and bounded below in probability.
For the first, note that, conditionally on $M^\psi_{n/C}$, the random variable $K_n$ is distributed as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:jumps}
\text{Bi} \left( \floor{nC}, \exp\{ - M^\psi_{n/C} \} \right),
\end{align}
where $\text{Bi}(n, p)$ denotes a binomial random variable with parameters $n$ and $p$. It is a classical result of extreme-value theory (see, for example, \cite{Resnick87}) that, as $n \to \infty$,
\[M^\psi_{n} - \log n \Rightarrow \mathcal{G} \quad \text{in distribution,} \]
where $\mathcal{G}$ denotes the Gumbel distribution, and so
\begin{align}
\label{eq:jumps2}
n \exp\{ - M^\psi_{n/C} \}
\end{align}
is bounded above in probability. Together with equation \eqref{eq:jumps} and Markov's inequality, this implies that $K_n$ is also bounded above in probability.
For the second, note that, conditionally on $M^\psi_{n/C}$, for any $i\geq 1$, the distance $k^n_{i+1} - k^n_i$ is distributed as $ \text{Geo} (\exp\{ - M^\psi_{n/C} \})$, where $\text{Geo}(p)$ denotes a geometric random variable (with support $1,2,\dots$). Again, by equation \eqref{eq:jumps2}, this implies that $n^{-1}(k^n_{i+1}- k^n_i)$ is bounded below in probability. By applying a union bound (conditional on $K_n$, which we already know is bounded above in probability), we get the result.
\end{proof}
Under the assumption that $L_E$ is slowly varying, it turns out that the processes $M$ and $\Sigma$ have scaling limits that coincide. Let $\mathcal{P}^+ := \mathcal{P}|_{\mathbb{R}^+ \times \mathbb{R}^+} $ denote the point process $\mathcal{P}$ defined in Section \ref{subsec:scalinglimit} restricted to the upper-right-quadrant, and let $m = (m_t)_{t \ge 0}$ be the extremal process for $\mathcal{P}^+$, that is
\[ m_t := \max \{ v_i : 0 \le x_i \le t\}.\]
\begin{proposition}[Functional limit theorem for the extremal and sum processes; \cite{Lamperti64, Kasahara86}]
\label{prop:j1conv} Assume $L_E$ satisfies the slow-variation property \eqref{eq:slow}. Then, as $n \to \infty$,
\[\left( \frac{1}{n} L_E (M_{n t } )\right)_{t\geq 0} \stackrel{J_1}{\Rightarrow}\left( m_t \right)_{t\geq 0} \quad \text{and} \quad \left(\frac{1}{n} L_E (\Sigma_{n t} ) \right)_{t\geq 0} \stackrel{J_1}{\Rightarrow} \left(m_t \right)_{t\geq 0}\]
in distribution.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The limit theorem for $\Sigma$ is the main result of \cite{Kasahara86}. The limit theorem for $M$ may be derived by first applying \cite[Theorems 2.1 and 3.2]{Lamperti64} to the random variables $(\psi_i)_{i\geq 1}$ introduced in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:jumps}, which yields
\begin{equation}\label{lim1}
M_{nt}^\psi-\log n\stackrel{J_1}{\Rightarrow} \log m_t
\end{equation}
(where we note that the limit process $(m(t))_{t\geq0}$ in \cite{Lamperti64} is $(\log m_t)_{t \ge 0}$ in our notation), and then transforming using (\ref{itt}). For the final step, one should be slightly careful since $L_E(E_i)$ is not identically distributed as $e^{\psi_i}$ in general. However, we do have that
\[\frac{1}{n} L_E \left(M_{n t }\right)\stackrel{d}{=}
\frac{L_E\left(L_E^{-1}\left(e^{M_{nt}^\psi}\right)\right)}{e^{M_{nt}^\psi}}\times \frac{{e^{M_{nt}^\psi}}}{n}\]
as processes. By (\ref{lim1}), the second product converges in distribution to $(m_t)_{t\geq0}$ in the $J_1$ topology. As for the effect of multiplying by the first term, this can then be controlled using the facts that $e^{M^\psi_n}\to\infty$ almost-surely, $L_E(L_E^{-1}(x))\sim x$ as $x\to \infty$ (since $L_E$ is slowly varying), and also, for any $\varepsilon>0$,
\[\lim_{t\to0}\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbf{P}\left(n^{-1}L_E \left(M_{n t }\right)\geq\varepsilon \right)\leq \lim_{t\to0}\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbf{P}\left(n^{-1}L_E \left(\Sigma_{n t }\right)\geq\varepsilon\right)=0\]
by the first part of the proposition.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Simple random walks and local time}
\label{subsec:srw}
For $R = (R_i)_{i\geq0}$ a discrete-time simple random walk on $\mathbb{Z}$, let
\[d_n := \max_{i \le \floor{n}} R_i - \min_{i \le \floor{n}} R_i \]
be the associated diffusion distance. We then have the following as a simple consequence of Donsker's invariance principle.
\begin{proposition}[Bounds for the diffusion distance of a SRW]
\label{prop:diffdist}
As $n \to \infty$,
\[ \frac{ d_n }{\sqrt{n}} \]
is bounded below and above in probability.
\end{proposition}
Next, let $\nu(n, x)$ be the (continuous) local time of a continuous-time simple random walk (CTSRW) after $n$ steps,
\[ \nu(n, x) := \sum_{ \{0 \le i \le \floor{n} : R_i = x \} } \psi_i, \]
where $\psi = (\psi_i)_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ is a sequence of i.i.d.\ unit-mean exponential distributions, and let $\nu_{\text{max}}(n)$ and $\nu_{\text{min}}(n)$ be respectively the maximum and minimum local times among the sites visited by $R$ after $n$ steps
\[ \nu_{\text{max}}(n) := \max_{ x \in \{R_i : \, i \le n\} } \nu(n, x) := \max_{x \in \mathbb{Z}} \nu(n, x);\]
\[ \nu_{\text{min}}(n) := \min_{ x \in \{R_i : \, i \le n\} } \nu(n, x).\]
We complete this subsection by deriving the bounds we will need for these quantities.
\begin{proposition}[Bounds for the local time of a CTSRW]
\label{prop:ctslocaltime}
As $n \to \infty$,
\[ \frac{ \nu(n, 0) }{ \sqrt{n} } \quad \text{and} \quad \frac{\nu_{\text{max}}(n)}{\sqrt{n}}\]
are both bounded below and above in probability.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} If $(B_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is a Brownian motion, and $(L_t(x))_{t\geq0,x\in\mathbb{R}}$ is its local time process, then it is standard that $L_{\sigma_{\pm1}}(0)$ has an exponential distribution with mean one, where $\sigma_{\pm1}$ is the first hitting time of $\pm1$. It follows that $(\nu(n,x))_{n\geq 0,x\in \mathbb{Z}}$ has the same distribution as $(L_{\sigma(n)}(x))_{n\geq 0,x\in\mathbb{Z}}$, where $\sigma(0)=0$ and, for $n\geq1$, $\sigma(n):=\inf\{t>\sigma(n-1):\:B_t\in \mathbb{Z}\backslash\{B_{\sigma(n-1)}\}\}$. Since $n^{-1}\sigma(n)\rightarrow 1$ almost-surely, it follows that
\[\frac{\nu(n,0)}{\sqrt{n}}\Rightarrow L_1(0),\qquad\frac{\nu_{\text{max}}(n)}{\sqrt{n}}\Rightarrow \sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}}L_1(x),\]
in distribution, where to deduce this it is also helpful to recall the scaling property of Brownian local times, i.e.\ $(L_t(x))_{t\geq0,x\in\mathbb{R}}\stackrel{d}{=}(\lambda^{-1/2}L_{\lambda t}(\lambda^{1/2}x))_{t\geq0,x\in\mathbb{R}}$. The result follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}[Bound for the minimum local time of a CTSRW]
\label{prop:ctslocaltimemin}
For any $T > \delta > 0$, as $n \to \infty$,
\[ n \min_{ i \in [n^2 \delta, n^2 T] } \nu_{\text{min}}(i) \]
is bounded below in probability.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Combine the identity
\[ n \min_{i \le n} \psi_i \stackrel{d}{=} \psi_0 \ , \quad n \in \mathbb{N} \] with the bounds on the diffusion distance of Proposition~\ref{prop:diffdist}.
\end{proof}
\section{Scaling limits for the clock process and the BTM}
\label{sec:clock}
In this section we prove the convergence of the clock process $A$ to the limit process $m^B$ that is stated above in Theorems \ref{thm:fltA} and \ref{thm:assumptA}. The strategy is to `squeeze' the clock process $A$ between the $S$-explored extremal and sum processes defined respectively by
\[ M^X_n := \max \left\{ \tau_x : \min_{i \le \floor{n}} S_n \le x \le \max_{i \le \floor{n}} S_n \right\} \quad \text{and} \quad \Sigma^X_n := \sum_{x=\min_{i \le \floor{n}} S_n}^{\max_{i \le \floor{n}} S_n}\tau_x.\]
We then apply a general squeeze convergence result for the Skorohod $M_1$ topology that we state and prove in Appendix \ref{sec:appendix} to complete the proof.
Throughout this section, fix constants $T > \delta > 0$. For technical reasons, we will additionally define an auxiliary function $h_n \to \infty$ growing sufficiently slowly that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:decay1}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{L( L^{-1}(n / h_n) / h_n)}{L(L^{-1}(n / h_n))} = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{L( L^{-1}(n / h_n) \, h_n)}{L(L^{-1}(n/h_n)) } = 1,
\end{align}
remarking that such an $h_n$ is guaranteed to exist by the slow-variation property \eqref{eq:slow} and since $\lim_{n \to \infty} L^{-1}(n) = \infty$. For completeness, we give an explicit construction of an $h_n$ satisfying the left-hand side of equation \eqref{eq:decay1}; the construction of an $h_n$ that simultaneously satisfies the right-hand side of equation \eqref{eq:decay1} is analogous. Define an arbitrary increasing sequence $c = (c_i)_{i \in \mathbb{N}} \to \infty$, and denote, for each $u > 0$ and each $n > 0$,
\[ f^n(u) := \frac{ L( L^{-1}(n u) u) }{L(L^{-1}(n u))}.\]
By the slow-variation property and since $\lim_{n \to \infty} L^{-1}(n) = \infty$, we have that $f^n(u) \to 1$ for each $u$. This means that, for each $i \in \mathbb{N}$, there exists an $n_i \in \mathbb{N}$ such that
\[ | 1 - f^n(1/c_i)| < 1/c_i \quad \text{for all } n \ge n_i.\]
So define $h_n$, with increments only on the set $\{n_i\}_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$, satisfying $h_{n_i} := c_i$.
Similarly, under Assumption \ref{assumpt}, we will additionally require that $h_n$ satisfies
\begin{align}
\label{eq:decay2}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{L( L^{-1}(n / h_n) / (n h_n) ) }{L(L^{-1}(n/ h_n))} = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{L( L^{-1}(n / h_n) \, n \, h_n) }{L(L^{-1}(n/ h_n))} = 1,
\end{align}
which is again guaranteed to exist under Assumption \ref{assumpt} by analogous reasoning.
\subsection{Extremal processes associated to the BTM}
The first step is to convert our results on general extremal processes stated in Section \ref{sec:prelim} into equivalent results for the extremal processes associated with the random walk $X$.
Let $\mathcal{J}^X$ be the jump-set associated to $M^X$
\[ \mathcal{J}^X := \{n : M^X_{n} \neq M^X_{n^-} \} \subseteq \mathbb{N}.\]
Abbreviating $N^X_n := |\mathcal{J}^X \cap (\delta n^2, \ceil{T n^2} ] |$, let $(j^n_i)_{1 \le i \le N^X_n }$ be the elements of $\mathcal{J}^X \cap (\delta n^2, \ceil{T n^2} ]$ arranged in increasing order, set
\[j^n_{N^X_n +1} := \min \{i > \ceil{n^2 T} : i \in \mathcal{J}^X \},\]
and write $J^n:=\{j_i^n:\:i=1,\dots,N^X_n +1\}$.
\begin{proposition}[Jump-set spacing for $M^X$]
\label{prop:jumpsX}
As $n \to \infty$,
\[ N^X_n \qquad \text{and} \qquad \frac{{\rm{sep}} \left( J^n \right)}{n^2} \]
are respectively bounded above and bounded below in $\mathbb{P}_0$-probability.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $E = (E_i)_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ be the sequence given by rearranging the elements of the trapping landscape $(\tau_x)_{x\in\mathbb{Z}}$ into the order that the relevant sites are visited by $S$, and let $\mathcal{J}$ be defined as in Section \ref{subsec:extremal} for the sequence $E$. Further denote by $(k_i)_{i\geq 1}$ the ordered list of elements in $\mathcal{J} \cap (n/C, \infty)$ and abbreviate $K_n := |\mathcal{J} \cap (n/C, nC]|$. Let $d_n$ be defined as in Section \ref{subsec:srw} for the simple random walk $S$. Note that, by Proposition~\ref{prop:diffdist}, for any $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists a $C > 0$ such that
\[ \mathbb{P}_0 \left( d_{\delta n^2} > n/C \quad \text{and} \quad d_{ \ceil{Tn^2} } < n C \right) > 1 - \varepsilon,\]
which implies that
\[ \mathbb{P}_0 \left( N^X_n \le \left| \mathcal{J} \cap (n/C, n C] \right| \right) > 1 - \varepsilon.\]
Moreover, under $\mathbb{P}_0$, the sequence $E$ is i.i.d.\ with common distribution $\tau_0$, and is independent of $S$. Hence we can apply Proposition~\ref{prop:jumps} to bound
\[ | \mathcal{J} \cap (n/C, n C] | \]
above in $\mathbb{P}_0$-probability, which proves the first result. Similarly, from Proposition~\ref{prop:diffdist} and the definition of ${\rm{sep}}(\cdot)$, it is possible to deduce that, for any $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists a $C > 0$ such that
\[ \mathbb{P}_0 \left( {\rm{sep}}(J^n) \geq {\rm{sep}}( \{ k_i : i = 1, 2, \ldots, K_n + 1 \})^2/ C \right)> 1 - \varepsilon.\]
Using the fact that $k_{K_n} \le nC$ and that $k_{K_n + 1}$ is either in $(nC, n(C+1)]$ or in $(n(C+1), \infty)$, we have the trivial bound
\[{\rm{sep}}( \{k_i^n:\:i=1,\dots,K_n+1\}) \geq \min\left\{{\rm{sep}}( \mathcal{J} \cap (n/(C+1), n(C+1)]),n \right\},\]
and so Proposition~\ref{prop:jumps} applied to $\mathcal{J} \cap (n/(C+1), N(C+1)]$ gives the result.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}[Local time at deepest-visited traps]
\label{prop:jumplocaltime}
For each $1 \le i \le N^X_n$, let $\nu^i(k, 0)$ be defined similarly to $\nu(k, 0)$ in Section \ref{subsec:srw} for the simple random walk $(S_{k + j^n_i}-S_{j^n_i})_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$. Then, as $n \to \infty$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:jumplocaltime1}
\mathbb{P}_0\left( \nu^i(j^n_{i + 1} - j^n_i - 1, 0) > n / h_n \quad \text{for all } 1 \le i \le N^X_n \right) \to 1
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\label{eq:jumplocaltime2}
\mathbb{P}_0\left( \nu^i (\delta n^2 - 1, 0) > n / h_n \quad \text{for all } 1 \le i \le N^X_n \right) \to 1.
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By the time-homogeneity of a SRW and the fact that $j_i^n$ is a stopping time for each $i$,
\[ \nu^i (n, 0) \stackrel{d}{=} \nu(n, 0),\]
and so it follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:ctslocaltime} that, as $n \to \infty$,
\[ \mathbb{P}_0\left( \nu^i (n^2 / h_n , 0) > n / h_n \right) = \mathbb{P}_0 \left( \nu (n^2 / h_n , 0) > n / h_n \right) \to 1. \]
Since, by Proposition~\ref{prop:jumpsX}, $N^X_n$ is bounded above in probability, it follows that
\[ \mathbb{P}_0\left( \nu^i (n^2 / h_n , 0) > n / h_n \quad \text{for each } 1 \le i \le N^X_n \right) \to 1. \]
This is sufficient to establish equation \eqref{eq:jumplocaltime2} since $\nu^i (\cdot , 0)$ is non-decreasing. For equation \eqref{eq:jumplocaltime1}, simply apply the second part of Proposition~\ref{prop:jumpsX}, since $j^n_{i + 1} - j_i^n \ge {\rm{sep}}(J^n)$ for each $1\le i \le N^X_n$.
\end{proof}
In what follows, we make use of the product space $D(\mathbb{R}^+) \times D(\mathbb{R}^+)$. For a sequence of probability measures on $D(\mathbb{R}^+) \times D(\mathbb{R}^+)$, we denote by
\[\stackrel{J_1/J_1}{\Rightarrow} \quad \text{and} \quad \stackrel{M_1/J_1}{\Rightarrow} \]
weak convergence of the first component in the $J_1$ and $M_1$ topologies respectively, and the simultaneous weak convergence of the second component in the $J_1$ topology.
\begin{proposition}[Functional limit theorem for the $S$-explored extremal and sum processes]
\label{prop:j1convX} Under $\mathbb{P}_0$, as $n \to \infty$,
\[\left(\frac{1}{n} L (M^X_{n^2 t}),\frac{1}{n} S_{n^2 t} \right)_{t\geq 0} \stackrel{J_1/J_1}{\Rightarrow} \left(m^B_t,B_t\right)_{t\geq 0},\]
and
\[\left( \frac{1}{n} L (\Sigma^X_{n^2 t} ),\frac{1}{n} S_{n^2 t} \right)_{t\geq 0} \stackrel{J_1/J_1}{\Rightarrow} \left(m^B_t,B_t\right)_{t\geq 0} \]
in distribution.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Let $E = (E_i)_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ be the sequence defined in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:jumpsX}. Define $d_n$ as in Section \ref{subsec:srw} for the simple random walk $S$, and also define the equivalent diffusion distance for the standard Brownian motion
\begin{equation}\label{dbtdef}
d^B_t:=\sup_{s\leq t}B_s-\inf_{s\leq t}B_s.
\end{equation}
Combining Proposition~\ref{prop:j1conv} and Donsker's invariance principle, we have under $\mathbb{P}_0$ that
\begin{equation}\label{previous}
\left( \frac{1}{n} L (M_{n t }), \frac{1}{n} S_{n^2 t}\right)_{t\geq 0} \stackrel{J_1/J_1}{\Rightarrow}\left( m_t,B_t\right)_{t\geq 0}
\end{equation}
in distribution, where $M_n$ and $m_t$ are defined as in Section \ref{subsec:extremal}. Note that, using the continuous mapping theorem (and the fact that $B$ is continuous almost-surely), we also have that $(n^{-1}d_{n^2t})_{t\geq 0}$ converges in distribution to $(d^B_t)_{t\geq 0}$ (in the $J_1$ topology). Together with the composition result of Lemma~\ref{lem:comp}, it follows that, under $\mathbb{P}_0$,
\begin{align}\label{aa1}
\left(\frac{1}{n} L \left(M_{d_{n^2 t}}\right)\right)_{t\geq 0}
\stackrel{J_1}{\Rightarrow} \left(m_{d^B_t}\right)_{t\geq 0}
\end{align}
in distribution (simultaneously with the convergence at (\ref{previous})). Now, it is straightforward to check from the construction of the relevant processes that
\begin{equation}\label{aa2}
\left(\frac{1}{n} L (M^X_{n^2 t} ),\frac{1}{n} S_{n^2 t}\right)_{t\geq 0}
\stackrel{d}{=} \left(\frac{1}{n} L \left(M_{d_{n^2 t}}\right),\frac{1}{n} S_{n^2 t}\right)_{t\geq 0} .
\end{equation}
Moreover, we have that
\begin{equation}\label{aa3}
\left(m_{d^B_t},B_t\right)_{t\geq 0}
\stackrel{d}{=} (m^B_t,B_t)_{t \ge 0}.
\end{equation}
Indeed, by conditioning on $B$ and applying the spatial homogeneity of the underlying point process, checking that the finite dimensional distributions of the two above processes agree is easy, and (\ref{aa3}) follows readily from this. Putting (\ref{aa1}), (\ref{aa2}) and (\ref{aa3}) together completes the proof of the first claim of the proposition. The proof of the second claim is similar.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}[Lower bound for the $S$-explored extremal and sum processes]
\label{cor:maxX}
As $n \to \infty$,
\[ \mathbb{P}_0\left( M^X_{n^2 \delta } \ge L^{-1}(n / h_n) \right) \to 1 \quad \text{and} \quad \mathbb{P}_0\left( \Sigma^X_{n^2 \delta } \ge L^{-1}(n / h_n) \right) \to 1.\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By the existence of the scaling limit, as $n \to \infty$,
\[ \mathbb{P}_0\left( \frac{1}{n} L( M^X_{n^2 \delta } ) > 1/h_n \right) \to 1 \quad \text{and} \quad \mathbb{P}_0\left( \frac{1}{n} L ( \Sigma^X_{n^2 \delta } ) > 1/h_n \right) \to 1 \]
both hold. The result then follows by the definition of $L^{-1}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Squeezing the clock process}
The next step is to show that, under suitable rescaling, the clock process $A$ is squeezed (with high probability) between the extremal and sum processes $M^X$ and $\Sigma^X$; the squeezing is done in both time and space.
\begin{proposition}
As $n \to \infty$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:bounds1}
\mathbb{P}_0 \left( \frac{1}{n} A_{n^2 t} < \Sigma^X_{n^2 t} \, h_n \quad \text{for all } t \in [\delta, T] \, \right) \to 1.
\end{align}
Moreover, for each $t \in [\delta, T]$ and $n \ge 0$ there exists a $\mathbb{P}_0$-measurable random time $s^n_t \in [t, t + \delta]$ such that, as $n \to \infty$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:bounds2}
\mathbb{P}_0 \left( \frac{1}{n} A_{n^2 s^n_t} > M^X_{n^2 s^n_t} / h_n \quad \text{for all } t \in [\delta, T] \, \right)\to 1.
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Consider first the limit at \eqref{eq:bounds1}. Let $\nu_{\text{max}}(n)$ be defined as in Section \ref{subsec:srw} for the simple random walk $S$. Then, by the definition of $A_n$ and $\Sigma^X_n$,
\[ A_{n} \le \nu_{\text{max}}(n) \, \Sigma^X_{n},\]
for all $n \ge 0$, and so
\[ \frac{1}{n} A_{n^2 t} \le \frac{1}{n} \nu_{\text{max}}(n^2 T) \, \Sigma^X_{n^2 t} \quad \text{for all } t \in [\delta, T], \]
since $\nu_{\text{max}}(\cdot)$ is non-decreasing. Equation \eqref{eq:bounds1} then follows by applying Proposition~\ref{prop:ctslocaltime}.
We now work towards equation \eqref{eq:bounds2}, starting with an explicit construction of $s^n_t$ on the event
\[\mathcal{A}_{n,\delta_1}:=\{\mathcal{J}^X\cap(\delta_1 n^2,\delta n^2]\neq \emptyset\},\]
for each $n \ge 0$ and $\delta_1 \in (0, \delta]$. To this end, let $(j^{n, \delta_1}_i)_{i=1}^{N^X}$ be the elements of the set $\mathcal{J}^X\cap(\delta_1 n^2,\lceil T n^2\rceil]$ arranged in increasing order. Note that, for simplicity, in what follows we will suppress the dependence of $j^{n, \delta_1}_i$ on $n$ and $\delta_1$. For any $t \in [\delta, T]$ let $i_t$ be the index of the last jump $j_i$ strictly less than $n^2 t+1$, that is,
\[ i_t := \max \{ 1 \le i \le N^X : j_i < n^2 t + 1 \}. \]
Then, define $s^n_t$ by
\[ s^n_t := \min \left\{ \frac{1}{n^2} \left( j_{i_t + 1} - 1 \right) , \, t + \delta \right\}. \]
We note that by the monotonicity of the events $\mathcal{A}_{n,\delta_1}$, the above construction well-defines $s_t^n$ on the whole of $\mathcal{A}_{n}:=\cup_{\delta_1\leq\delta}\mathcal{A}_{n,\delta_1}$. Furthermore, by arbitrarily extending the definition of $s_t^n$ by setting $s^n_t=t$ for $t\in[\delta,T]$ on the event $\mathcal{A}_{n}^c$, we ensure that $s^n_t$ is $\mathbb{P}_0$-measurable. We clearly also have that $s^n_t \in [t, t + \delta]$. Finally, this construction also guarantees that, on $\mathcal{A}_{n,\delta_1}$, for each $t \in [\delta, T]$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:bounds3}
i_{s_t} = i_t
\end{align}
and moreover that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:bounds4}
n^2 s^n_t - j_{i_t} \ge \min \left\{ j_{i_t + 1} - j_{i_t} -1 \ , \ \delta n^2 -1 \right\}.
\end{align}
Recalling the definition of $\nu^i(n, 0)$ from Proposition~\ref{prop:jumplocaltime} (substituting $\delta_1$ for $\delta$), we have by the definition of $A_n$ and $M^X_n$ that, on $\mathcal{A}_{n,\delta_1}$,
\[ A_{n^2 t} \ge \nu^{i_t}(n^2 t - j_{i_t}, 0) \, M^X_{n^2 t} \]
for each $t \in [\delta, T]$. Combining this with equations \eqref{eq:bounds3} and \eqref{eq:bounds4} gives, on $\mathcal{A}_{n,\delta_1}$,
\[ \frac{1}{n} A_{n^2 s_t^n} \ge \frac{1}{n} \nu^{i_t} \left( \min \left\{ j_{i_t + 1} - j_{i_t} -1 , \delta n^2 - 1 \right\} , 0 \right) \, M^X_{n^2 s_t^n} , \]
and so Proposition~\ref{prop:jumplocaltime} yields that, for any $\delta_1\leq \delta$
\[\liminf_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{P}_0 \left( \frac{1}{n} A_{n^2 s^n_t} > M^X_{n^2 s^n_t} / h_n \quad \text{for all } t \in [\delta, T] \, \right)\geq 1-\limsup_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}_0\left(\mathcal{A}_{n,\delta_1}^c\right).\]
Finally, we have that
\[\mathbb{P}_0\left(\mathcal{A}_{n,\delta_1}\right)=\mathbb{P}_0\left(M^X_{\delta n^2}> M^X_{\delta_1 n^2} \right)\geq\mathbb{P}_0\left(n^{-1}L(M^X_{\delta n^2})>n^{-1}L(M^X_{\delta_1 n^2})\right).\]
By Proposition~\ref{prop:j1convX}, the liminf as $n\to\infty$ of the right-hand side above is bounded below by $\mathbb{P}_0(m^B_{\delta}>m^B_{\delta_1})=1-\delta_1/\delta$, or to put this another way
\[\limsup_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}_0\left(\mathcal{A}_{n,\delta_1}^c\right)\leq \frac{\delta_1}{\delta},\]
which can be made arbitrarily small by adjusting the choice of $\delta_1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:squeeze}
As $n \to \infty$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:squeeze1}
\mathbb{P}_0 \left( \frac{1}{n} L \left( \frac{1}{n} A_{n^2 t} \right) < \frac{1}{n} L\left( \Sigma^X_{n^2 t} \right) + \delta \quad \text{for all } t \in [\delta, T] \, \right) \to 1.
\end{align}
Moreover, for each $t \in [\delta, T]$ and $n \ge 0 $ there exists a $\mathbb{P}_0$-measurable random time $s^n_t \in [t, t + \delta]$ such that, as $n \to \infty$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:squeeze2}
\mathbb{P}_0 \left(\frac{1}{n} L \left( \frac{1}{n} A_{n^2 s^n_t} \right) > \frac{1}{n} L \left( M^X_{n^2 s^n_t} \right) - \delta \quad \text{for all } t \in [\delta, T] \, \right) \to 1.
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Consider first equation \eqref{eq:squeeze1}. Starting from equation \eqref{eq:bounds1}, applying $L$ to both sides of the inequality and then dividing by $n$ we get that, as $n \to \infty$,
\[\mathbb{P}_0 \left( \frac{1}{n} L \left( \frac{1}{n} A_{n^2 t} \right) \le \frac{1}{n} L \left( \Sigma^X_{n^2 t} \, h_n \right) \quad \text{for all } t \in [\delta, T] \, \right) \to 1.\]
Note that by Corollary \ref{cor:maxX}, and since $\Sigma^X_n$ is non-decreasing, as $n \to \infty$,
\[ \mathbb{P}_0 \left( \Sigma^X_{n^2 t} > L^{-1}(n / h_n ) \quad \text{for all } t \in [\delta, T] \, \right) \to 1.\]
By equation \eqref{eq:decay1}, this means that for arbitrary $\eta>0$, as $n \to \infty$,
\[ \mathbb{P}_0 \left( \frac{1}{n} L \left( \Sigma^X_{n^2 t} \, h_n \right) < \frac{1}{n} L \left( \Sigma^X_{n^2 t} \right)(1 + \eta) \quad \text{for all } t \in [\delta, T] \, \right) \to 1.\]
Since we have from Proposition~\ref{prop:j1convX} that
\[\mathbb{P}_0 \left( \frac{\eta}{n} L \left( \Sigma^X_{n^2 T} \right)\geq \delta\right)\to
\mathbb{P}_0 \left( \eta m_T^B\geq \delta\right),\]
and the right-hand side converges to 0 as $\eta\to 0$, this is enough to yield the result.
Consider then equation \eqref{eq:squeeze2}. Similarly, equation \eqref{eq:bounds2} gives that, as $n \to \infty$,
\[ \mathbb{P}_0 \left( \frac{1}{n} L \left( \frac{1}{n} A_{n^2 s^n_t} \right) > \frac{1}{n} L \left( M^X_{n^2 s^n_t} / h_n \right) \quad \text{for all } t \in [\delta, T] \, \right) \to 1.\]
As before, Corollary \ref{cor:maxX}, equation \eqref{eq:decay1} and Proposition~\ref{prop:j1convX} then imply the result.
\end{proof}
Under Assumption \ref{assumpt}, we establish the stronger uniform convergence (in space) of $A$ to $\Sigma^X$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:assumptsqueeze}
Under Assumption \ref{assumpt}, as $n \to \infty$,
\[ \sup_{ t \in [\delta, T]} \left| \frac{1}{n} L \left(A_{n^2 t} \right)- \frac{1}{n} L \left( \Sigma^X_{n^2 t} \right) \right| \to 0 \quad \text{in } \mathbb{P}_0\text{-probability.} \]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $h_n \to \infty$ is growing sufficiently slowly that equation \eqref{eq:decay2} holds and let $\nu_{\text{min}}(n)$ be defined as in Section \ref{subsec:srw} for the simple random walk $S$. Then, by definition, $A_n \ge \nu_{\text{min}}(n) \Sigma_n^X$, for all $n \ge 0$. Since, by Proposition~\ref{prop:ctslocaltimemin}, as $n \to \infty$,
\[ \mathbb{P}_0 \left( \nu_{\text{min}}(n^2 t) > 1/(n h_n) \quad \text{for all } t \in [\delta, T] \, \right) \to 1, \]
together with equation (\ref{eq:bounds1}), we have that, as $n \to \infty$,
\[ \mathbb{P}_0 \left( \frac{1}{n} L \left( \Sigma^X_{n^2 t} / (n h_n) \right) \le \frac{1}{n} L \left( A_{n^2 t} \right) \le \frac{1}{n} L \left(\Sigma^X_{n^2 t} \, (n h_n) \right) \quad \text{for all } t \in [\delta, T] \, \right) \to 1. \]
Finally, as in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:squeeze}, Corollary \ref{cor:maxX} and equation \eqref{eq:decay2} then jointly imply that for any $\eta>0$, as $n \to \infty$,
\[ \mathbb{P}_0 \left( \frac{1}{n} L \left( \Sigma^X_{n^2 t} / (n h_n) \right) > \frac{1}{n} L \left( \Sigma^X_{n^2 t} \right)(1 - \eta) \quad \text{for all } t \in [\delta, T] \, \right) \to 1 \]
and
\[ \mathbb{P}_0 \left( \frac{1}{n} L \left( \Sigma^X_{n^2 t} \, (n h_n) \right) < \frac{1}{n} L \left( \Sigma^X_{n^2 t} \right)(1 + \eta) \quad \text{for all } t \in [\delta, T] \, \right) \to 1.\]
By applying Proposition~\ref{prop:j1convX}, it follows that for any $\eta,\varepsilon>0$, as $n\rightarrow\infty$
\[\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P}_0\left(\sup_{ t \in [\delta, T]} \left| \frac{1}{n} L \left(A_{n^2 t} \right)- \frac{1}{n} L \left( \Sigma^X_{n^2 t} \right) \right|\geq \varepsilon\right)\leq \mathbb{P}_0\left(\eta m_T^B\geq \varepsilon\right).\]
Letting $\eta\to 0$ completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proofs of the main convergence results}
We are now ready to prove the main result of this section, from which the the conclusions stated in the introduction follow easily.
\begin{proposition}[Restated functional limit theorems for the clock process]
\label{prop:fltA2} Under $\mathbb{P}_0$, as $n\to \infty$,
\[ \left(\frac1n L\left(\frac1n A_{n^2t}\right) , \, \frac1n S_{n^2t} \right)_{t\geq 0}\stackrel{M_1/J_1}{\Rightarrow} \left(m^B_t , B_t \right)_{t\geq 0}\]
in distribution. Moreover, if Assumption \ref{assumpt} holds, then under $\mathbb{P}_0$, as $n \to \infty$,
\[ \left(\frac1n L(A_{n^2t}) , \,\frac1n S_{n^2t} \right)_{t\geq0} \stackrel{J_1/J_1}{\Rightarrow} \left(m^B_t, B_t \right)_{t\geq 0} \]
in distribution.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Recalling Proposition~\ref{prop:j1convX} and the bounds in Proposition~\ref{prop:squeeze}, the first statement follows from the convergence result of Lemma~\ref{lem:sconv2}. Similarly, recalling Proposition~\ref{prop:j1convX} and the bounds in Proposition~\ref{prop:assumptsqueeze}, the second statement follows from the convergence result of Lemma~\ref{lem:sconv1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:fltA} and Theorem~ \ref{thm:assumptA}]
The conclusions of Theorems \ref{thm:fltA} and \ref{thm:assumptA} follow immediately from the previous result.
\end{proof}
To complete this section, we derive the convergence of the BTM $X$ to the limit process $B_{I^B}$, as stated in Theorems \ref{thm:fltX} and \ref{thm:assumptX}. The bulk of the work has already been done in establishing the convergence of the clock process above; only technicalities involving convergence results for the various topologies remain.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:fltX} and Theorem~\ref{thm:assumptX}]
Since the right-continuous inverse of the process $n^{-1} L(n^{-1} A_{n^{-2}t})$ is given by $n^{-2} I^S_{n L^{-1}(nt) }$, applying the inversion result of Lemma~\ref{lem:inv} to Proposition~\ref{prop:fltA2} yields that under $\mathbb{P}_0$, as $n\to \infty$,
\begin{equation}\label{conc1}
\left(n^{-2} I^S_{ n L^{-1}(nt) } , \, n^{-1} S_{n^2t} \right)_{t\geq 0}\stackrel{M_1/J_1}{\Rightarrow} \left(I^B_t , B_t \right)_{t\geq 0}
\end{equation}
in distribution. Similarly, noting that the right-continuous inverse of
$n^{-1}L( A_{n^2t}) $ is $n^{-2} I^S_{ L^{-1}(nt) }$, we argue similarly to deduce that if Assumption \ref{assumpt} holds, then under $\mathbb{P}_0$, as $n\to \infty$,
\begin{equation}\label{conc2}
\left(n^{-2} I^S_{ L^{-1}(nt) } , \, n^{-1} S_{n^{2}t} \right)_{t\geq0} \stackrel{M_1/J_1}{\Rightarrow} \left(I^B_t, B_t \right)_{t\geq 0}
\end{equation}
in distribution. Consequently, recalling that the law of $X$ under $\mathbb{P}_0$ is identical to that of $S_{I^S}$, the second statement of Lemma~\ref{lem:comp} allows us to deduce the desired results by composing the two coordinates of (\ref{conc1}) and (\ref{conc2}).
\end{proof}
\section{The extremal FIN process}
\label{sec:alpha0}
In this section we prove that the scaling limit $B_{I^B}$ is the natural analogue of the FIN diffusion with parameter $\alpha \in (0, 1)$ in the limiting case $\alpha = 0$. In particular, we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:alpha0}.
\begin{lemma}[Sum-to-max]
\label{lem:sum-to-max}
Let $(c_i, v_i)_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ be a set of points in $\mathbb{R}^+ \times (0,\infty)$ with the property that, for each $s \in (1, \infty)$,
\[ \sum_i c_i v_i^s < \infty. \]
Then, as $s \to \infty$,
\[ \left( \sum_i c_i v_i^s \right)^{1/s} \to \sup_{i : c_i > 0} v_i \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Define the function $v: \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{R}^+$ by the map $i \mapsto v_i$ and denote by $\mu$ the (possibly infinite) measure
\[ \mu := \sum_i c_i \delta_i. \]
Then the claim is just the fact that the $L_s$ norm of $v$ with respect to the measure $\mu$ converges, if finite, to the $L_\infty$ norm of $v$ with respect to $\mu$ (see, for example, \cite[Section 2.1]{LL01}).
\end{proof}
Recall the definitions of the processes $m^B$ and $m^{B, \alpha}$ from (\ref{mtdef}) and (\ref{mtadef}), which are the clock-processes for the extremal FIN process and the FIN diffusion with parameter $\alpha$, respectively.
\begin{proposition}[Convergence of the clock-processes]
\label{prop:alpha0clock}
As $\alpha \to 0$,
\[ \left( \left( m^{B, \alpha}_t \right)^\alpha \right)_{t \ge 0} \stackrel{M_1}{\rightarrow} \left( m^B_t \right)_{t\geq0} \]
where $\stackrel{M_1 }{\rightarrow}$ denotes convergence in the $M_1$ topology, almost-surely with respect to the joint law of $\mathcal{P}$ and $B$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} We start by proving convergence for a fixed $t$. By definition, we have that
\[ m^{B, \alpha}_t := \sum_{i: L_t(x_i) > 0} L_t(x_i) v^{1/\alpha}_i . \]
It is an elementary exercise to deduce from this, the fact that $\sup_{x\in \mathbb{R}}{L_t(x)}<\infty$ and $d_t^B<\infty$ almost-surely (where $d_t^B$ was defined at (\ref{dbtdef})), and the definition of $\mathcal{P}$, that $m^{B, \alpha}_t$ is finite for any $\alpha\in(0,1)$, almost-surely. We also have the identity
\[ m^B_t = \sup_{i: L_t(x_i) > 0} v_i \]
almost-surely. Indeed, $L_t(x)>0$ if and only if $x\in(\inf_{s\in[0,t]}B_s,\sup_{s\in[0,t]}B_s)$ almost-surely (see, for example, \cite[Corollary 22.18]{Kall}). Moreover, we may assume that there are no points $(x_i,v_i)$ in $\mathcal{P}$ with $x_i\in\{\inf_{s\in[0,t]}B_s,\sup_{s\in[0,t]}B_s\}$ almost-surely. Hence, applying Lemma~\ref{lem:sum-to-max} to the set of points $(L_t(x_i), v_i))_{i \in \mathbb{N}} \in \mathbb{R}^+ \times(0,\infty)$ yields that, for each fixed $t$, as $\alpha \to 0$,
\[ \left( m^{B, \alpha}_t \right)^\alpha \to m^B_t \]
almost-surely. By countability, we immediately deduce that this convergence holds for all rational times simultaneously. As the process $m^{B, \alpha}$ is non-decreasing for each $\alpha$ by definition, almost-sure convergence in $M_1$ follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
That the convergence in Proposition~\ref{prop:alpha0clock} does not hold in the stronger $J_1$ topology can be easily seen from the fact that $m^{B, \alpha}$ is continuous for each $\alpha$ whereas the limit process $m^{B}$ is not continuous.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:alpha0}]
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:alpha0} follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:alpha0clock} in an identical manner to in the proofs of Theorems \ref{thm:fltX} and \ref{thm:assumptX}, by applying the inversion and composition results of Lemmas \ref{lem:inv} and \ref{lem:comp}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{alpha1rem}
A result corresponding to Theorem~\ref{thm:alpha0} can be also established for FIN diffusions in the $\alpha\to 1^-$ limit. In particular, we claim that as $\alpha \to 1^-$,
\begin{equation}\label{claim}
\left(B_{ I^{B, \alpha}_{(1-\alpha)^{-1}t}} \right)_{t \ge 0} \stackrel{U}{\rightarrow} \left( B_{t} \right)_{t\geq0},
\end{equation}
where $\stackrel{U}{\rightarrow}$ denotes uniform convergence over compact time intervals, almost-surely with respect to the joint law of $\mathcal{P}$ and $B$. Since it is not directly related to the main results of this paper, we only sketch a proof. Defining $(x_i,v_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ as before and setting $\Sigma:=\sum_{i:x_i\in[0,1],v_i\leq 1}v_i^{1/\alpha}$, it is an elementary exercise to check that
\[\mathbf{E}\left(\Sigma\right)=\frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha},\qquad\mathrm{Var}\left(\Sigma\right)=\frac{\alpha}{2-\alpha}.\]
(One can do so using Campbell's theorem for Poisson point processes, for example.) Consequently,
\[\mathbf{P}\left(\left|(1-\alpha)\Sigma-\alpha\right|\geq \varepsilon\right)\leq \frac{\alpha(1-\alpha)^2}{\varepsilon^2(2-\alpha)},\]
and a Borel-Cantelli argument yields
\begin{equation}\label{firstlim}
(1-\alpha)\Sigma\rightarrow 1,
\end{equation}
along the subsequence $\alpha=1-n^{-1}$, almost-surely. By the monotonicity of $\Sigma$ in $\alpha$, this is readily extended to almost-sure convergence as $\alpha \to 1^-$. From this, we deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{secondlim}
(1-\alpha)\sum_{i:x_i\in[a,b]}v_i^{1/\alpha}\rightarrow (b-a),\qquad\mbox{as }\alpha \to 1^-,\:\forall a\leq b,
\end{equation}
almost-surely (adding the finite number of terms with $v_i>1$ clearly does not affect the limit at (\ref{firstlim}), and then a countability argument and monotonicity can be used to establish (\ref{secondlim})). We note that the convergence at (\ref{secondlim}) implies almost-sure vague convergence of the measures $(1-\alpha)\sum_{i}\delta_{x_i}v_i^{1/\alpha}$ to the Lebesgue measure on the real line. Thus, using the continuity of the Brownian local times, we obtain
\[(1-\alpha)m_t^{B,\alpha}=(1-\alpha)\sum_{i}L_t(x_i)v_i^{1/\alpha}\rightarrow \int L_t(x)dx = t\]
uniformly over compact intervals of $t$, almost-surely. The claim at (\ref{claim}) then follows by taking inverses and composing with $B$, similarly to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:alpha0}.
\end{remark}
\section{Transparent traps}
\label{sec:trans}
In this section we establish the scaling limits for the $\beta$-transparent BTM of Theorem~\ref{thm:tt}. We achieve this by verifying the sufficient conditions given in \cite{BenArous13} for the convergence of randomly trapped random walks to the standard Brownian motion and the FK process respectively.
We begin by proving a consequence of the second-order slow-variation of $L$ for certain expectations involving $\tau_0$; the spirit is similar to that of de Haan's theorem, see \cite[Section 3.7]{Bingham87}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:sosv} Assume that $L$ is second-order slowly varying, i.e.\ that it satisfies (\ref{sosv}). Let $f:\mathbb{R}^+ \to \mathbb{R}^+$ be a continuously differentiable function such that $f(t) \to 0$ as $t \to \infty$. Moreover, suppose that there exists a $\delta > 0$ for which $f(t)=o(t^\delta)$ as $t\rightarrow 0$, and both $f'(t) t^\delta$ and $f'(t) t^{-\delta}$ are integrable. Then the function
\[ \Gamma(n) := \mathbf{E}\left[ f(\tau_0 / n) \right]\]
satisfies
\[\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{L(n) \Gamma(n)}{g(n)} = - \lambda \int_0^\infty f'(t) \log t \, dt\]
for some constant $\lambda\neq 0$ that only depends on $L$ and $g$. In particular, if the integral on the right-hand side is non-zero (note that the assumptions ensure that it is finite), then $\Gamma$ is slowly varying.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} By standard de Haan theory, the second-order slowly varying property implies that $g(u)$ is regularly varying with a non-positive index (see the discussion at the start of \cite[Section 3.12]{Bingham87}). Applying this fact and the divergence of $L(u)$, it can be deduced from the representation theorem of \cite[Theorem 3.12.2]{Bingham87} that $g$ is actually slowly varying, and further that $k(v) = \lambda \log v$ for some constant $\lambda \neq 0$. Moreover, it is easy to see that
\[ \bar{F}(u) := \mathbf{P}(\tau_0 > u) = 1/L(u) \]
is also second-order slowly varying, satisfying
\begin{align}
\label{eq:sosv2}
\lim_{u \to \infty} \frac{ \bar{F}(u) - \bar{F}(uv)}{\bar{F}(u) g(u)} = - k(1/v) = \lambda \log v, \quad v > 0,
\end{align}
for the same $g, k$ and $\lambda$. We therefore have the following uniform bound (see \cite[(3.1.5)]{Bingham87}): for any $\delta>0$, there exist constants $K, n_0 > 0$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:sosv3}
\left| \frac{ \bar{F}(n ) - \bar{F}(nt)}{\bar{F}(n) g(n)}\right| \le K t^\delta \quad \text{for all } n > n_0,\:t\geq 1.
\end{align}
Suppose $t\in[n_0/n,1]$, where $n\geq n_0$. Setting $m=nt\geq n_0$, (\ref{eq:sosv3}) implies
\[ \left|\frac{ \bar{F}(n ) - \bar{F}(nt)}{\bar{F}(n) g(n)}\right|\leq Kt^{-\delta}\left|\frac{\bar{F}(m) g(m)}{\bar{F}(m/t) g(m/t)}\right|.\]
Since $\bar{F}g$ is slowly varying, we may bound $|{\bar{F}(m) g(m)}/{\bar{F}(m/t) g(m/t)}|$ by $K't^{-\delta}$. Reparameterising $\delta$, this yields that: for any $\delta>0$, there exist constants $K, n_0 > 0$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:sosv4}
\left| \frac{ \bar{F}(n ) - \bar{F}(nt)}{\bar{F}(n) g(n)}\right| \le K \max\{t^\delta,t^{-\delta}\} \quad \text{for all } n > n_0,\:t\geq n_0/n.
\end{align}
For the remainder of the proof, we choose $\delta$ such that the assumptions on $f$ are satisfied, and select $K,n_0$ such that (\ref{eq:sosv4}) holds. Partitioning the integral and integrating by parts, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\Gamma(n) &= \mathbf{E}\left[ f(\tau_0 / n)\mathbf{1}_{\{\tau_0\geq n_0\}} \right]+\mathbf{E}\left[ f(\tau_0 / n)\mathbf{1}_{\{\tau_0<n_0\}} \right]\\
& = \left[ f(t) (1 - \bar{F}(nt) ) \right]_{n_0/n}^\infty - \int_{n_0/n}^\infty f'(t) ( 1 - \bar{F}(nt)) \, dt + T_1\\
& = -\int_{n_0/n}^\infty f'(t) \left( \bar{F}(n) - \bar{F}(nt)\right) dt +T_1+T_2+T_3,
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
T_1& :=\mathbf{E}\left[ f(\tau_0 / n)\mathbf{1}_{\{\tau_0<n_0\}} \right],\\
T_2& := -f(n_0/n)(1-\bar{F}(n_0)),\\
T_3& := - (1 - \bar{F}(n)) \int_{n_0/n}^\infty f'(t) dt= (1 - \bar{F}(n)) f(n_0/n).
\end{align*}
Since $f(t)=o(t^\delta)$ as $t\rightarrow 0$ and $\bar{F}(n)g(n)$ is slowly varying, it holds that
\begin{align*}
\left|\frac{T_i}{\bar{F}(n)g(n)}\right|&\leq \left|\frac{\sup_{t\leq n_0/n}\left|f(t)\right|}{\bar{F}(n)g(n)}\right|\rightarrow 0
\end{align*}
as $n\to\infty$, for $i=1,2,3$. Thus, since both $f'(t) t^\delta$ and $f'(t) t^{-\delta}$ are integrable by assumption, the bound at (\ref{eq:sosv4}) allows us to apply the dominated convergence theorem to deduce that
\begin{align*}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{L(n) \Gamma(n)}{g(n)}
& =-\lim_{n \to \infty} \int_{0}^\infty f'(t) \frac{\bar{F}(n) - \bar{F}(nt)}{\bar{F}(n) g(n)}\mathbf{1}_{\{t\geq n_0/n\}} dt\\
&= - \int_0^\infty f'(t) \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{ \bar{F}(n) - \bar{F}(nt)}{\bar{F}(n) g(n)} \, dt \\
& = - \lambda \int_0^\infty f'(t) \log t \, dt,
\end{align*}
where we recall the limit at (\ref{eq:sosv2}) to deduce the final, desired equality. Given that $L$ and $g$ are both slowly varying, and the class of slowly varying functions is closed under division, the second statement of the Proposition~readily follows.
\end{proof}
In the next result we derive asymptotic properties of the Laplace transform of $\pi_0$, the law of a holding time at $0$ conditional on $\tau_0$. In the proof, we will denote the law of $\tau_0$ under $\mathbf{P}$ by $\nu$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:lp}
Assume $L$ is second-order slowly varying and let $\beta \in (0, 1)$. Define
\[ \hat{\pi}_0(\varepsilon) := \int_{0}^\infty e^{-\varepsilon t}\pi_0(dt).\]
Then the function
\[ \Gamma_1(\varepsilon) := \mathbf{E} \left[ 1 - \hat{\pi}_0(\varepsilon) \right] \]
satisfies
\[ \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \varepsilon^{-\beta} \bar{\ell}(\varepsilon^{-1})^{-1} \Gamma_1(\varepsilon) = 1 \]
for the slowly varying function $ \bar{\ell}(n) := g(n)/L(n)$. Moreover, the function
\[ \Gamma_2(\varepsilon) := \mathbf{E} \left[ \left( 1 - \hat{\pi}_0\left(\Gamma_1^{-1}(\varepsilon^2)\right) \right)^2 \right] \]
satisfies
\[ \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \varepsilon^{-3} \Gamma_2(\varepsilon) = 0, \]
where $\Gamma_1^{-1}(\varepsilon) := \inf \{s : \Gamma(s) > \varepsilon \}$ denotes the right-continuous inverse of $\Gamma_1$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} On $\tau_0\geq 1$, we have that
\[\hat{\pi}_0(\varepsilon)=\frac{1}{1 + \varepsilon} - \tau_0^{-\beta} \left( \frac{1}{1 + \varepsilon} - \frac{1}{1 + \varepsilon \tau_0} \right). \]
Otherwise,
\[\hat{\pi}_0(\varepsilon)= \frac{1}{1 + \varepsilon \tau_0}. \]
Consequently, as $\varepsilon\to 0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Gamma_1(\varepsilon) &=&\int_0^1 \frac{\varepsilon t}{1 + \varepsilon t}\nu(dt)
+\int_1^\infty \left(\frac{\varepsilon }{1 + \varepsilon }+t^{-\beta} \left( \frac{1}{1 + \varepsilon} - \frac{1}{1 + \varepsilon t} \right)\right) \, \nu(dt) \\
&=&\int_1^\infty t^{-\beta} \left( \frac{ \varepsilon t}{1 + \varepsilon t} -\frac{\varepsilon}{1 + \varepsilon} \right) \, \nu(dt)+O(\varepsilon)\\
&=&\int_0^\infty \frac{ \varepsilon t^{1-\beta}}{1 + \varepsilon t}\nu(dt)+O(\varepsilon).
\end{eqnarray*}
After the change of variables $s = \varepsilon t$, this gives, as $\varepsilon \to 0$,
\[ \Gamma_1(\varepsilon) = \varepsilon^{\beta} \int_0^\infty \frac{s^{1-\beta}}{1 + s} \, \nu(\varepsilon^{-1} ds)+O(\varepsilon)= \varepsilon^{\beta}\mathbf{E}\left(f_1(\varepsilon \tau_0)\right)+O(\varepsilon),\]
where
\[f_1(s) := \frac{s^{1-\beta}}{1 + s} .\]
It is easy to check that the conditions of Proposition~\ref{prop:sosv} are satisfied for $f_1$ (with $\delta < \min\{ \beta, 1 - \beta\}$). Moreover, integration by parts yields
\[\int_0^\infty f_1'(s)\log s ds = -\int_0^\infty \frac{f_1(s)}{s}ds <0,\]
and so an application of Proposition~\ref{prop:sosv} gives the first statement.
By the conclusion of the previous paragraph, we have that $\Gamma_1(\varepsilon)\sim \varepsilon^{\beta} \bar{\ell}(\varepsilon^{-1})$, and so $\Gamma_1^{-1}(\varepsilon^2)\sim \varepsilon^{2/\beta} {\ell}(\varepsilon^{-1})^{-1}$
for some slowly varying function $\ell$ (as $\varepsilon \to 0$). In particular, for any $\delta>0$, there exist $c,\varepsilon_0>0$ such that $\Gamma_1^{-1}(\varepsilon^2)\leq c\varepsilon^{\gamma}$ for every $\varepsilon\leq \varepsilon_0$, where $\gamma:=\frac{2}{\beta}-\delta$. Applying this bound and arguing similarly to above, we deduce that, as $\varepsilon \to 0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Gamma_2(\varepsilon^{1/\gamma}) &\leq & \mathbf{E} \left[ \left( 1 - \hat{\pi}_0\left(c\varepsilon\right) \right)^2 \right]\\
&=& (c\varepsilon)^{2\beta} \int_0^\infty \frac{s^{2-2\beta}}{(1 + s)^2} \, \nu(\varepsilon^{-1} ds)+ O(\varepsilon^{1+\beta-\delta})\\
&=&
(c\varepsilon)^{2\beta}\mathbf{E}\left(f_2(\varepsilon \tau_0)\right)+O(\varepsilon^{1+\beta-\delta}),
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\[f_2(s) := \frac{s^{2-2\beta}}{(1 + s)^2}. \]
Since $f_2$ also satisfies the conditions of Proposition~\ref{prop:sosv}, we obtain from this that $\Gamma_2(\varepsilon^{1/\gamma})=O(\varepsilon^{2\beta-\delta})$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$, and the result follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:tt}] We may consider the $\beta$-transparent BTM as a \textit{randomly trapped random walk} (in the language of \cite{BenArous13}). We proceed by verifying the sufficient conditions for convergence of randomly trapped random walks given in \cite{BenArous13}.
Suppose first that $\beta \ge 1$. Conditional on $\tau_0$, we have
\[ m( \pi_0 ) :=\int_0^\infty t \pi_0(dt)= \left(\tau_0^{1-\beta}+1-\tau_0^{-\beta}\right)\mathbf{1}_{\{\tau_0\geq 1\}}+\tau_0\mathbf{1}_{\{\tau_0<1\}}\le 2 .\]
Averaging over $\tau_0$ then gives $ \mu = \mathbf{E}( m(\pi_0)) \le 2 < \infty$. Hence the conditions of \cite[Theorem 2.9]{BenArous13} are satisfied, giving the result.
Suppose now that $\beta \in (0,1)$. Proposition~\ref{prop:lp} gives precisely the assumptions of \cite[Theorem 2.11]{BenArous13} (see also \cite[Remark 2.12]{BenArous13}), which immediately yields the result. The representation for the slowly varying function $\ell$ given in Remark~\ref{rem:svfrep} is also evident from \cite[Theorem 2.11]{BenArous13} and the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:lp}.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
|
\section{Introduction}
The spectral factorization problem is a classical and extensively investigated problem in Linear-Quadratic optimal control theory \cite{Willems-1971,Stoorvogel-S-98,Aksikas-et-al-07,Ferrante-Ntog-Automatica-13,Swigart-Lall-14}, estimation theory and stochastic realization
\cite{Lindquist-P-85-siam,Lindquist-P-91-jmsec,Picci-P-94,Ruckebusch-78-2,Ruckebusch-80,Ferrante-94-ieee,Ferrante-94-jmsec,Ferrante-M-P-93}, operator theory and network theory \cite{Brune-31,Anderson-Vongpanitlerd-1973,BarasDW,FaurreCG,Fuhrmann-95,Helton,Zemanian}, interpolation theory | from the classical paper
\cite{NudeScw} to the recent works of Byrnes, Georgiou, Lindquist and coworkers, see \cite{Byrnes-et-al} and references therein | and passivity from the classical positive-real systems theory \cite{Willems-1971,Anderson-Vongpanitlerd-1973,Brogliato-LME-07,Khalil-02} to the more recent negative-imaginary systems theory \cite{Petersen-Lanzon-10,Xiong-PL-10,Ferrante-N-13}, to mention just the main fields and a few references.
Indeed, spectral factorization is the common denominator of a circle of ideas including LQ optimization methods, passivity theory, positivity, second-order stationary stochastic processes and Riccati equations. It seems therefore fair to say that spectral factorization is one of the cornerstones of modern systems and control theory.
Since the pioneering works of Kolmogorov and Wiener in the forties, a variety of methods have been proposed for the analysis and solution of this problem under different assumptions and in different settings, see e.g., \cite{Anderson-et-al-1974, Jezek-Kucera-1985, Rissanen-1973, Tunnicliffe-Wilson-1972,Callier-1985,Youla-Kazanjian-1978,Moir1,Moir2,Moir3}, to cite but a few.
We also refer to the relatively recent survey \cite{Sayed-K} that contains many other references and different points of view on this problem. A particularly relevant result on this topic is the well-known procedure devised by Youla in \cite{Youla-1961} which can be used to solve the rational multivariate spectral factorization problem in continuous-time.
Remarkably, this method does not require any additional system-theoretic assumption: the rational spectrum $\Phi(s)$ may feature poles and zeroes on the imaginary axis, its rank may be deficient and it can be a non-proper rational function.
Moreover, this method permits a generalization that allows for the selection of the region of analyticity of the spectral factor.
This turns out to be a crucial feature in the solution of related control problems: For example, in \cite{Ferrante-Pandolfi-2002} a spectral factor having poles and zeroes in a certain region of the complex plane has been used to weaken the standard assumptions for the solvability of the classical Positive Real Lemma equations.
Surprisingly, the discrete-time counterpart of this result is so far missing. The reason could be due to the difficulty of deriving a result that parallels the Oono-Yasuura algorithm that constitutes a fundamental step in Youla's work.
In order to fill this gap, in this paper, we establish a general discrete-time spectral factorization result. In particular, we show that, given an arbitrary rational matrix function $\Phi(z)$ that is positive semi-definite on the unit circle, and two arbitrary regions featuring a geometry compatible with spectral factorization, $\Phi(z)$ admits a spectral factorization of the form $\Phi(z)=W^\top (z^{-1})W(z)$ where the poles and zeroes of $W(z)$ lie on the prescribed regions. The proof is constructive and gives, as a byproduct, stochastic minimality of the spectral factor, (i.e. minimality of the McMillan degree of $W(z)$) which is a crucial feature in stochastic realization theory \cite{Lindquist-P-85-siam,Lindquist-P-91-jmsec,Ferrante-96-siam} and is one of the key aspects in the present analysis.
We consider the factorization of the form $\Phi(z)=W^\top (z^{-1})W(z)$ corresponding to optimal control and network synthesis problems. All the theory is, however, easily adaptable to obtain a dual counterpart for the factorization of the form $\Phi(z)=W(z)W^\top (z^{-1})$. The latter is the natural factorization associated to the representation of second-order stationary stochastic processes and hence to filtering and estimation problems.
In fact, if $\Phi(z)$ is the spectral density of such a process $y(t)$, and $\Phi(z)$ admits a spectral factorization of the form $\Phi(z)=W(z)W^\top (z^{-1})$, then $y(t)$ may be represented as the output of a linear system with transfer function $W(z)$ driven by white noise $e(t)$. When all the poles of $W(z)$ lie inside the unit circle, $W(z)$ is called {\em causal} spectral factor as there is a causal relation between $e(t)$ and $y(t)$ \cite{Lindquist-P-85-siam}. If, moreover, also the zeroes of $W(z)$ lie inside the unit circle, $W(z)$ is called {\em outer} spectral factor and the relation between $y(t)$ and $e(t)$ (which is, in this case, the innovation of $y(t)$) is causal and causally invertible.
The outer spectral factor is essentially unique and may be recovered in our theory by suitably selecting the regions where the poles and zeroes of $W(z)$ are located; this may be viewed as the discrete-time counterpart of Youla's result.
Of course, with respect to most classical control applications, the outer spectral factor is the required solution. Nevertheless, when a-causal control and estimation problems are involved, see e.g.
\cite{Willems-1971,Colaneri-F-siam,Colaneri-F-SCL,Ferrante-P-98}, and in stochastic realization theory, see \cite{Lindquist-P-85-siam,Picci-P-94,Ferrante-P-P-02-LAA}, spectral factors whose poles and zeroes lie in different regions of the complex plane become important. This provides a strong motivation for our general result where the regions for poles and zeroes of the spectral factor can be suitably selected.
The organization of the paper is as follows. In section \ref{sec:prob-def+main-res}, we formally introduce the discrete-time spectral factorization problem and, after a few definitions we present our main results.
In section \ref{sec:problem-statement}, we review some notions from polynomial and rational matrix theory. Section \ref{sec:pre-analysis} is devoted to present a number of preliminary results. In section \ref{sec:main-theorem}, we derive the proof of our main result and present some byproducts of our theory. Section VI shows a numerical example of the proposed factorization algorithm. Finally, in section \ref{sec:conclusions}, we draw some concluding remarks and we describe a number of possible future research directions.
{\em General notation and conventions:} Given an arbitrary matrix $G$, we write $G^\top$, $\overline{G}$, $G^{-1}$, $G^{-L}$ and $G^{-R}$ for the transpose, complex conjugate, inverse, left inverse and right inverse of $G$, respectively. In what follows, $[G]_{ij}$ stands for the $(i,j)$-th entry of $G$ and $[G]_{i:j,k:h}$ for the sub-matrix obtained by extracting the rows from index $i$ to index $j$ ($i\leq j$) of $G$ and the columns from index $k$ to index $h$ ($k\leq h$) of $G$. If $\mathbf{v}$ is a vector, then $[\mathbf{v}]_i$ denotes the $i$-th component of $v$. Here, as usual, $I_n$ is the $n\times n$ identity matrix, $\mathbf{0}_{m,n}$ is the $m\times n$ zero matrix and $\operatorname{diag}[a_1,\dots,a_n]$ represents the matrix whose diagonal entries are $a_1,\dots,a_n$.
We denote by $\mathbb{R}[z]^{m\times n}$, $\mathbb{R}[z,z^{-1}]^{m\times n}$ and $\mathbb{R}(z)^{m\times n}$ the set of real $m\times n$ polynomial, Laurent polynomial (L-polynomial, for short) and rational matrices, respectively. Given a rational matrix $G(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{m\times n}$, we let $G^*(z):=G^\top(z^{-1})$, $G^{-*}(z):=[G^{-1}]^*(z)$, $G^{-R*}(z):=[G^{-R}]^*(z)$ and $G^{-L*}(z):=[G^{-L}]^*(z)$. We denote by $\mathrm{rk}(G)$ the normal rank of $G(z)$, i.e., the rank almost everywhere in $z\in\mathbb{C}$ of $G(z)$. The rational matrix $G(z)$ is said to be analytic in a region of the complex plane if all its entries are analytic in this region. Moreover, as in \cite{Youla-1961}, with a slight abuse of notation, when we say that a rational function $f(z)$ is analytic in a region $\mathbb{T}$ of the complex plane that is not open, we mean that $f(z)$ does not have poles in $\mathbb{T}$. In the case of a rational $f(z)$ this abuse does not cause any problems; in fact, $f(z)$ can have only finitely many poles so that there exists a larger open region $\mathbb{T}_\varepsilon\supset \mathbb{T}$ in which $f(z)$ is indeed analytic. For example, if $f(z)$ is rational and does not have poles on the unit circle, we say that $f(z)$ is analytic on the unit circle in place of $f(z)$ is analytic on an open annulus containing the unit circle. Notice that such an annulus does indeed exist.
Finally, throughout the paper, we let $\mathbb{R}_0:=\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}$, $\mathbb{C}_0:=\mathbb{C}\setminus\{0\}$ and we denote by $\overline{\mathbb{C}}:=\mathbb{C}\cup \{\infty\}$ the extended complex plane.
\section{Problem definition and Main result}\label{sec:prob-def+main-res}
We start by introducing the object of our analysis and define the problem of spectral factorization:
\begin{definition}[Para-Hermitian matrix]
A rational matrix $G(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{n\times n}$ is said to be \emph{para-Hermitian} if $G(z) = G^*(z)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Spectrum]
A para-Hermitian rational matrix $\Phi(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{n\times n}$ is said to be a \emph{spectrum} if $\Phi(e^{j\omega})$ is positive semi-definite for all $\omega\in[0,2\pi)$ such that $\Phi(e^{j\omega})$ is defined.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Para-unitary matrix]
A rational matrix $G(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{n\times n}$ is said to be \emph{para-unitary} if
\[
G^*(z) G(z) =G(z) G^*(z)=I_n.
\]
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Notice that a para-Hermitian matrix $G(z)$ is Hermitian in the ordinary sense on the unit circle, while a para-unitary matrix $G(z)$ is unitary in the ordinary sense on the unit circle.
\end{remark}
The spectral factorization problem can be defined as follows:
\begin{problem}\label{prob-sf}
Given a spectrum $\Phi(z)$ find a factorization of the form
\begin{equation}\label{sp-fac-def}
\Phi(z)=W^*(z)W(z).
\end{equation}
\end{problem}
A matrix function $W(z)$ satisfying (\ref{sp-fac-def}) is called {\em spectral factor} of $\Phi(z)$.
Clearly, Problem \ref{prob-sf} admits many solutions. For control applications we are interested in solutions featuring some additional properties: Typical requirements are minimal complexity | as measured by the McMillan degree of $W(z)$ | full row-rank of $W(z)$, and the fact that the poles and/or the zeroes of $W(z)$ lie in certain regions of the complex plane.
The most general kind of such regions are the following.
\begin{definition}[(Weakly) Unmixed-symplectic]\label{def:unmixed-symplectic}
A set $\mathscr{A}\subset \overline{\mathbb{C}}$ is {\em unmixed-symplectic}\footnote{The reason for the term ``symplectic'' is that $\mathscr{A}$ and $\mathscr{A}^*$ are symmetric with respect to the unit circle, a type of symmetry induced by symplectic property, see, e.g. \cite{Ferrante-L-98}. In this spirit, the corresponding property in continuous-time, where $\mathscr{A}^*:= \{\,z\,:\, -z\in\mathscr{A}\,\}$, $\mathscr{A}\cup \mathscr{A}^*$ is the whole complex plane with the exception of the imaginary axis and $\mathscr{A}\cap \mathscr{A}^*=\emptyset$, could be called ``unmixed-Hamiltonian".
} if
$$
\mathscr{A}\cup \mathscr{A}^*=\overline{\mathbb{C}}\setminus \{\,z\in\mathbb{C}\,:\, |z|=1\,\},\ \ {\rm and}\ \
\mathscr{A}\cap \mathscr{A}^*=\emptyset,$$
where $\mathscr{A}^*=\{\,z\,:\, z^{-1}\in\mathscr{A}\,\}$.
The set $\mathscr{A}\subset \overline{\mathbb{C}}$ is {\em weakly unmixed-symplectic} if
$$
\mathscr{A}\cup \mathscr{A}^*=\overline{\mathbb{C}},\ \ {\rm and}\ \
\mathscr{A}\cap \mathscr{A}^*=\{\,z\in\mathbb{C}\,:\, |z|=1\,\}.$$
\end{definition}
We are now ready for our main result.
\begin{theorem}\label{thmsf-dt-g}
Let $\Phi(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{n\times n}$ be a spectrum of normal rank $\mathrm{rk}(\Phi)=r\neq 0$.
Let $\mathscr{A}_p$ and $\mathscr{A}_z$ be two unmixed-symplectic sets.
Then, there exists a function $W(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times n}$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Phi(z)=W^*(z)W(z)$. \label{item:thmsf-dt-g(1)}
\item $W(z)$ is analytic in $\mathscr{A}_p$ and its right inverse $W^{-R}(z)$ is analytic in $\mathscr{A}_z$. \label{item:thmsf-dt-g(2)}
\item \label{item:thmsf-dt-g(3)} $W(z)$ is {\em stochastically minimal}, i.e., the McMillan degree of $W(z)$ is a half of the McMillan degree of $\Phi(z)$.
\newcounter{temp}
\setcounter{temp}{\value{enumi}}
\end{enumerate}
Moreover,
\begin{enumerate}
\setcounter{enumi}{\value{temp}}
\item
\label{item:thmsf-dt-g(4)}
If $\mathscr{A}_p=\mathscr{A}_z$ then
$W(z)$ satisfying points \ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(1)}), and \ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(2)}) is unique up to a constant, orthogonal matrix multiplier on the left, i.e., if $W_1(z)$ also satisfies points \ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(1)}), and \ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(2)}) then $W_1(z)=TW(z)$ where $T\in\mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$ is orthogonal.
Therefore, if $\mathscr{A}_p=\mathscr{A}_z$, points \ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(1)}) and \ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(2)}) imply point \ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(3)}).
\item
\label{item:thmsf-dt-g(6)}
If $\Phi(z)=L^*(z) L(z)$ is any factorization in which $L(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times n}$ is analytic in $\mathscr{A}_z$, then $L(z)=V(z)W(z)$, $V(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times r}$ being a para-unitary matrix analytic in $\mathscr{A}_z$.
Moreover, given an arbitrary para-unitary matrix $V(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times r}$ being analytic in $\mathscr{A}_p$, $L(z):=V(z)W(z)$ is analytic in $\mathscr{A}_p$ and satisfies $\Phi(z)=L^*(z) L(z)$, so that, if $\mathscr{A}_p=\mathscr{A}_z=:\mathscr{A}$ then
$\Phi(z)=L^*(z) L(z)$ is a factorization in which $L(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times n}$ is analytic in $\mathscr{A}$ if and only if $L(z)=V(z)W(z)$, $V(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times r}$ being a para-unitary matrix analytic in $\mathscr{A}$.
\item If $\Phi(z)$ is analytic on the unit circle, then points \ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(1)})-\ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(6)}) still hold even if $\mathscr{A}_p$ is weakly unmixed-symplectic.
\label{item:thmsf-dt-g(7)}
\item If $\Phi(z)$ is analytic on the unit circle and the rank of $\Phi(z)$ is constant on the unit circle, then points \ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(1)})-\ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(6)}) still hold even if $\mathscr{A}_p$ and/or $\mathscr{A}_z$ are weakly unmixed-symplectic.
\label{item:thmsf-dt-g(8)}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Of course the most common requirement in control theory is that $W(z)$ is outer which correspond to setting $\mathscr{A}_p=\mathscr{A}_z=\{\,z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}\,:\,|z|>1 \,\}$ in the general case, $\mathscr{A}_p=\{\,z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}\,:\,|z|\geq 1 \,\}$ and $\mathscr{A}_z=\{\,z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}\,:\,|z|>1 \,\}$
in the case when $\Phi(z)$ is analytic on the unit circle and $\mathscr{A}_p=\mathscr{A}_z=\{\,z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}\,:\,|z|\geq1 \,\}$ when $\Phi(z)$ is analytic on the unit circle and the rank of $\Phi(z)$ is constant on the unit circle. This particular case of the previous result corresponds to the following result whose first 6 points are the discrete-time counterpart of the celebrated Youla's Theorem \cite[Thm.2]{Youla-1961}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thmsf-dt}
Let $\Phi(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{n\times n}$ be a spectrum of normal rank $\mathrm{rk}(\Phi)=r\neq 0$. Then, there exists a matrix $W(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times n}$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Phi(z)=W^*(z)W(z)$. \label{item:thmsf-dt(i)}
\item $W(z)$ and its right inverse $W^{-R}(z)$ are both analytic in $\{\,z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}\,:\,|z|>1 \,\}$. \label{item:thmsf-dt(ii)}
\item $W(z)$ is unique up to a constant, orthogonal matrix multiplier on the left, i.e., if $W_1(z)$ also satisfies points \ref{item:thmsf-dt(i)}) and \ref{item:thmsf-dt(ii)}), then $W_1(z)=TW(z)$ where $T\in\mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$ is orthogonal. \label{item:thmsf-dt(iii)}
\item Any factorization of the form $\Phi(z)=L^*(z) L(z)$ in which $L(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times n}$ is analytic in $\{\,z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}\,:\,|z|>1 \,\}$, has the form $L(z)=V(z)W(z)$, where $V(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times r}$ is a para-unitary matrix analytic in $\{\,z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}\,:\,|z|>1 \,\}$. Conversely, any $L(z)=V(z)W(z)$, where $V(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times r}$ is a para-unitary matrix analytic in $\{\,z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}\,:\,|z|>1 \,\}$, is a spectral factor of $W(z)$ analytic in $\{\,z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}\,:\,|z|>1 \,\}$. \label{item:thmsf-dt(iv)}
\item If $\Phi(z)$ is analytic on the unit circle, then $W(z)$ is analytic in $\{\, z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}\,:\,|z|\geq 1\, \}$. \label{item:thmsf-dt(v)}
\item If $\Phi(z)$ is analytic on the unit circle and the rank of $\Phi(z)$ is constant on the unit circle, then $W(z)$ and its right inverse $W^{-R}(z)$ are both analytic in $\{\, z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}\,:\,|z|\geq 1\, \}$.
\label{item:thmsf-dt(vi)}
\item \label{item:thmsf-dt(vii)} $W(z)$ satisfying points \ref{item:thmsf-dt(i)}) and
\ref{item:thmsf-dt(ii)}) is {\em stochastically minimal}, i.e., the McMillan degree of $W(z)$ is a half of the McMillan degree of $\Phi(z)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Notice that the hypothesis $\mathrm{rk}(\Phi)\neq 0$ of the previous results is only assumed to rule out the trivial case of an identically zero spectrum $\Phi(z)$ for which the only spectral factorizations clearly correspond to $W(z)=\mathbf{0}_{m,n}$, with $m$ being arbitrary, so that, in this case, $W(z)$ cannot be chosen to be full row-rank.
\end{remark}
\section{Mathematical preliminaries on rational matrices}\label{sec:problem-statement}
Let $f(z)=p(z)/q(z)\in \mathbb{R}(z)$, $q(z)\neq 0$, be a nonzero rational function. We can always write $f(z)$ in the form
\[
f(z)=\frac{n(z)}{d(z)}(z-\alpha)^\nu, \quad \forall\, \alpha\in \mathbb{C},
\]
where $\nu$ is an integer and $n(z),\, d(z)\in \mathbb{R}[z]$ are nonzero polynomials such that $n(\alpha)\neq 0$ and $d(\alpha)\neq 0$. The integer $\nu$ is called {\em valuation of f(z) at $\alpha$} and we denote it with the symbol $v_\alpha(f)$. The valuation of $f(z)$ at infinity is defined as $v_\infty(f):=\deg q(z)-\deg p(z)$, where $\deg(\cdot)$ denotes the degree of a polynomial. If $f(z)$ is the null function, by convention, $v_\alpha(f)=+\infty$ for every $\alpha\in \overline{\mathbb{C}}$. If $v_\alpha(f)<0$, then $\alpha\in \overline{\mathbb{C}}$ is called a {\em pole} of $f(z)$ of multiplicity $-v_\alpha(f)$. If $v_\alpha(f)>0$, then $\alpha\in \overline{\mathbb{C}}$ is called a {\em zero} of $f(z)$ of multiplicity $v_\alpha(f)$. The rational function $f(z)$ is said to be \emph{proper} if $v_\infty(f)\geq 0$, \emph{strictly proper} if $v_\infty(f)> 0$.
A polynomial matrix $G(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z]^{m\times n}$ is said to be {\em unimodular} if it has a polynomial inverse (either left, right or both). Similarly, a L-polynomial matrix $G(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z,z^{-1}]^{m\times n}$ is said to be {\em L-unimodular} if it has a L-polynomial inverse (either left, right or both). A square polynomial matrix $G(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z]^{n\times n}$ is unimodular if and only if its determinant is a nonzero constant $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}_0$. On the other hand, a square L-polynomial matrix $G(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z,z^{-1}]^{n\times n}$ is L-unimodular if and only if its determinant is a nonzero monomial $\alpha z^{k}$, $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}_0$, $k\in\mathbb{Z}$.
Consider now a nonzero real L-polynomial vector $\mathbf{v}(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z,z^{-1}]^{p}$. We can write it as
\[
\mathbf{v}(z)=\mathbf{v}_k z^k+\mathbf{v}_{k+1} z^{k+1}+\cdots+\mathbf{v}_{K-1} z^{K-1}+\mathbf{v}_K z^K,
\]
with $\mathbf{v}_k$ and $\mathbf{v}_K$, $k\leq K$, nonzero vectors in $\mathbb{R}^p$. We say that the integer $k$ is the {\em minimum-degree} of $\mathbf{v}(z)$, written $\min\,\deg\, \mathbf{v}$, while the integer $K$ is the {\em maximum-degree} of $\mathbf{v}(z)$, written $\max\,\deg\, \mathbf{v}$.\footnote{If $\mathbf{v}(z)$ is the zero vector, then $\min\,\deg\, \mathbf{v}$ and $\max\,\deg\, \mathbf{v}$ are left undefined.}
Let $G(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z,z^{-1}]^{m\times n}$ and let $k_i$ and $K_i$ be the minimum- and maximum-degree of the $i$-th column of $G(z)$, for all $i=1\dots,m$. We define the {\em highest-column-degree coefficient matrix} of $G(z)$ as the constant matrix $G^{\rm hc}\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$ whose $i$-th column consists of the coefficients of the monomials $z^{K_i}$ in the same column of $G(z)$. Furthermore, we define the {\em lowest-column-degree coefficient matrix} of $G(z)$ as the constant matrix $G^{\rm lc}\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$ whose $i$-th column consists of the coefficients of the monomials $z^{k_i}$ in the same column of $G(z)$. By considering, instead of the columns, the rows of $G(z)$ we can define, by following the same lines in the above, the {\em highest-row-degree coefficient matrix} of $G(z)$, $G^{\rm hr}\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$, and the {\em lowest-row-degree coefficient matrix} of $G(z)$, $G^{\rm lr}\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$.
A classical result in rational matrix theory is the following (see, e.g., \cite[Ch.6, \S5]{Kailath-1998}).
\begin{theorem}[Smith-McMillan]
\label{thm:smith-mcmillan}
Let $G(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{m\times n}$ and let $\mathrm{rk}(G)=r$. There exist unimodular matrices $U(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z]^{m\times r}$ and $V(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z]^{r\times n}$ such that
\begin{align}\label{eq:smith-mcmillan-canonic-form}
D(z):&=U(z)G(z)V(z)\nonumber\\
&=\operatorname{diag}\left[\frac{\varepsilon_1(z)}{\psi_1(z)},\frac{\varepsilon_2(z)}{\psi_2(z)},\dots,\frac{\varepsilon_r(z)}{\psi_r(z)}\right],
\end{align}
where $\varepsilon_1(z),\varepsilon_2(z),\dots,\varepsilon_r(z), \psi_1(z), \psi_2(z),\dots,\psi_r(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z]$ are monic polynomials satisfying the conditions: {(i)} $\varepsilon_i(z)$ and $\psi_i(z)$ are relatively prime, $i=1,2,\dots,r$, {(ii)} $\varepsilon_i(z)\mid \varepsilon_{i+1}(z)$ and $\psi_{i+1}(z)\mid \psi_{i}(z)$, $i=1,2,\dots,r-1$.{\footnote{We write $p(z) \mid q(z)$, with $p(z), q(z)\in \mathbb{R}[z]$, to say that $p(z)$ divides $q(z)$.}}
\end{theorem}
The rational matrix $D(z)$ in (\ref{eq:smith-mcmillan-canonic-form}) is known as the {\em Smith-McMillan canonical form} of $G(z)$. (In general, we say that a rational matrix is {\em canonic} if it is of the form in (\ref{eq:smith-mcmillan-canonic-form}) and satisfies the conditions of the above theorem.) The (finite) zeroes of $G(z)$ coincide with the zeroes of $\varepsilon_r(z)$ and the (finite) poles of $G(z)$ with the zeroes of $\psi_1(z)$. Note that, unlike what happens in the scalar case, the set of zeroes and poles of a rational matrix may not be disjoint.
Let $G(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{m\times n}$ and write $G(z)=C(z)D(z)F(z)$, where $D(z)$ is the Smith-McMillan form of $G(z)$ and $C(z), F(z)$ are unimodular matrices. If $\mathrm{rk}(G)=m=n$, then the inverse of $G(z)$ has the form
\[
G^{-1}(z)=F^{-1}(z)D^{-1}(z)C^{-1}(z)
\]
and $D^{-1}(z)$ coincides with the Smith-McMillan canonical form of $G^{-1}(z)$, up to a permutation of the diagonal elements. Therefore, the poles of $G^{-1}(z)$ are exactly the zeroes of $G(z)$. In a similar fashion, if $G(z)$ has normal rank $m$ ($n$), there always exists a right (left) inverse of $G(z)$ such that the poles of $G^{-R}(z)$ ($G^{-L}(z)$) coincide with the zeroes of $G(z)$.\footnote{ The latter fact is not true for all the right/left inverses of $G(z)$, since, in general, the zeroes of $G(z)$ are among the poles of all such inverses (see \cite[Ch.6, \S5, Ex.14]{Kailath-1998}).} Indeed, we may take
\begin{align}
G^{-R}(z)&=F^{-R}(z)D^{-1}(z)C^{-1}(z),\label{eq:right-inv}\\
G^{-L}(z)&=F^{-1}(z)D^{-1}(z)C^{-L}(z).\label{eq:left-inv}
\end{align}
In the following, we consider only right and left inverses of the form (\ref{eq:right-inv}) and (\ref{eq:left-inv}), respectively.
Let $\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\dots,\alpha_t$ be the (finite) zeroes and (finite) poles of $G(z)$. We can write the Smith-McMillan canonical form of $G(z)$ as
\begin{align}
\mathrm{diag}\Big[(z-\alpha_1)^{\nu_1^{(1)}}\cdots (z-&\alpha_t)^{\nu_t^{(1)}},\dots,\nonumber\\ &(z-\alpha_1)^{\nu_1^{(r)}}\cdots (z-\alpha_t)^{\nu_t^{(r)}}\Big].\nonumber
\end{align}
The integer exponents $\nu_i^{(1)}\leq \nu_i^{(2)}\leq \cdots \leq \nu_i^{(r)}$, appearing in the above expression, are called the {\em structural indices} of $G(z)$ at $\alpha_i$ and they are used to represent the zero-pole structure at $\alpha_i$ of $G(z)$. To obtain the zero-pole structure at infinity of $G(z)$, we can proceed as follows. We make a change of variable, $z\to \lambda^{-1}$, and compute the Smith-McMillan form of $G(\lambda^{-1})$, then the structural indices of $G(\lambda^{-1})$ at $\lambda=0$ will give the set of structural indices of $G(z)$ at $z=\infty$.
Lastly, if $p_1,\dots,p_h$ are the distinct poles (the pole at infinity included) of $G(z)$, we recall that the {\em McMillan degree} of $G(z)$ can be defined as (see, e.g., \cite[Ch.6, \S5]{Kailath-1998})
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mcmillan-degree}
\delta_M(G):=\sum_{i=1}^h\delta(G;p_i),
\end{equation}
where $\delta(G;p_i)$ is the degree of the pole $p_i$, i.e., the largest multiplicity that $p_i$ possesses as a pole of any minor of $G(z)$. In particular, if $D(z)$ in (\ref{eq:smith-mcmillan-canonic-form}) is the Smith-McMillan form of $G(z)$ and $G(z)$ has no pole at infinity then $\delta(G;p_i)=\delta(D;p_i)$ for all $i=1,\dots,h$, which, in turn, yields $\delta_M(G)=\delta_M(D)=\sum_{i=1}^r \deg \psi_i(z)$.
\section{Preliminary results}\label{sec:pre-analysis}
In this section, we collect a set of lemmata which we will exploit in the constructive proof of the main theorem.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma1}
A matrix $G(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{m\times n}$ is analytic in $\mathbb{C}_0$ together with its inverse (either right, left or both) if and only if it is a L-unimodular polynomial matrix.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $G(z)$ is L-unimodular, then $G(z)$ has an inverse (either left, right or both) which is L-polynomial. Hence, the only possible finite zeroes/poles of $G(z)$ are located at $z=0$. This, in turn, implies that $G(z)$ must be analytic together with its inverse in $\mathbb{C}_0$.
Vice versa, suppose that $G(z)$ is analytic with its inverse in $\mathbb{C}_0$. Firstly, we notice that the existence of a left or right inverse for $G(z)$ implies that the normal rank of $G(z)$ is either $r=n$ or $r=m$, respectively. Without loss of generality, we can suppose that $r=n$. By the Smith-McMillan Theorem, we can write $G(z)=C(z)D(z)F(z)$, where $C(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z]^{m\times n},\ F(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z]^{n\times n}$ are unimodular (and, a fortiori, L-unimodular) polynomial matrices, respectively, and $D(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{n\times n}$ is diagonal, canonic of the form
\[
D(z)=\mathrm{diag} \left[\frac{\varepsilon_1(z)}{\psi_1(z)}, \frac{\varepsilon_2(z)}{\psi_2(z)},\dots , \frac{\varepsilon_n(z)}{\psi_n(z)} \right].
\]
The analyticity of $G(z)$ in $\mathbb{C}_0$ implies that all $\psi_i(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z]$, $i=1,\dots,n$, are nonzero monomials. The Smith-McMillan canonical form of $G^{-L}(z)$ is given by
\[
\mathrm{diag} \left[\frac{\psi_n(z)}{\varepsilon_n(z)}, \frac{\psi_{n-1}(z)}{\varepsilon_{n-1}(z)},\dots , \frac{\psi_1(z)}{\varepsilon_1(z)} \right].
\]
Hence, the analyticity of $G^{-L}(z)$ in $\mathbb{C}_0$ implies that all $\varepsilon_i(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z]$, $i=1,\dots,n$, are nonzero monomials. Therefore, $D(z)$ is a L-unimodular polynomial matrix. Since $G(z)=C(z)D(z)F(z)$ is the product of three L-unimodular polynomial matrices, $G(z)$ must be a L-unimodular polynomial matrix.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma2}
Let $\mathscr{A}\subset \overline{\mathbb{C}}$ be an unmixed-symplectic set. A para-unitary matrix $G(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{n\times n}$ analytic in $\mathscr{A}$ with inverse analytic in $\mathscr{A}$ is a constant orthogonal matrix.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The analyticity of the inverse of $G(z)$ in $\mathscr{A}$ implies that of $G(z^{-1})$ in the same region, and therefore that of $G(z)$ in $\mathscr{A}^*$.
We also notice that in the unit circle it holds $G^*(e^{j\omega}) G(e^{j\omega})=G^\top(e^{-j\omega}) G(e^{j\omega})=I_n$, $\forall\,\omega \in [0,2\pi)$, and we can write out the diagonal elements in expanded form as
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n |[G(e^{j\omega})]_{ik}|^2=1, \ \ \ \ \forall\, k=1,\dots,n, \ \forall\, \omega \in [0,2\pi).
\]
The latter equation implies that
\[
|[G(e^{j\omega})]_{ik}|\leq 1, \ \ \ \ \forall\, i,\, k=1,\dots,n, \ \forall\, \omega \in [0,2\pi),
\]
and, therefore, we proved the analyticity of $G(z)$ on the unit circle. By Definition \ref{def:unmixed-symplectic} of unmixed-symplectic set, it follows that $G(z)$ is analytic on the entire extended complex plane. This means that $G(z)$ is analytic and bounded in $\mathbb{C}$. Hence, we can apply Liouville's Theorem \cite[Ch.V, Thm.1.4]{Lang-1985} and conclude that $G(z)$ must be a constant orthogonal matrix.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
With the usual choice $\mathscr{A}=\{\, z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}} \,:\, |z|> 1\,\}$, the previous lemma reads as follows: A para-unitary matrix $G(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{n\times n}$ analytic in $\{\, z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}} \,:\, |z|> 1\,\}$ with inverse analytic in $\{\, z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}} \,:\, |z|> 1\,\}$ is a constant orthogonal matrix.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}[Left-standard factorization]\label{def:ls-fact}
Let $G(z)\in \mathbb{R}(z)^{m\times n}$ and let $\mathrm{rk}(G)=r$. A decomposition of the form $G(z)=A(z)\Delta(z)B(z)$
is called a \emph{left-standard factorization} if
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Delta(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r \times r}$ is diagonal and analytic with its inverse in $\{\, z\in \mathbb{C}_0 \,:\, |z|\neq1 \, \}$;
\item $A(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{m \times r}$ is analytic together with its left inverse in $\{\, z\in \mathbb{C}_0 \,:\, |z|\leq 1 \, \}$;
\item $B(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r \times n}$ is analytic together with its right inverse in $\{\, z\in \mathbb{C} \,:\, |z|\geq 1 \, \}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
If, in Definition \ref{def:ls-fact}, $A(z)$ and $B(z)$ are interchanged, we have a \emph{right-standard factorization}. Hence, it follows that any left-standard factorization of $G(z)$ generates a right-standard factorization of $G^\top(z)$, $G^{-1}(z)$ (if $G(z)$ is nonsingular), $G(z^{-1})$, e.g., in the first case we have $G^\top(z) =B^\top(z) \Delta(z) A^\top(z)$.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma3}
Any rational matrix $G(z)\in \mathbb{R}(z)^{m\times n}$ of normal rank $\mathrm{rk}(G)=r$ admits a left-standard factorization.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the Smith-McMillan Theorem, we can write $G(z)=C(z)D(z)F(z)$, where $C(z)\in \mathbb{R}[z]^{m\times r}$, $F(z)\in \mathbb{R}[z]^{r\times n}$ are unimodular polynomial matrices and $D(z)\in \mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times r}$ is diagonal and canonic of the form
\[
D(z)=\mathrm{diag} \left[\frac{\varepsilon_1(z)}{\psi_1(z)}, \frac{\varepsilon_2(z)}{\psi_2(z)},\dots , \frac{\varepsilon_r(z)}{\psi_r(z)} \right].
\]
We factor $\varepsilon_i(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z]$ and $\psi_i(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z]$, $i=1,\dots,r$, in $D(z)$ into the product of three polynomials: the first without zeroes in $\{\, z\in \mathbb{C}\,:\, |z|\leq 1 \,\}$, the second without zeroes in $\{\, z\in \mathbb{C}\,:\, |z|\neq 1 \,\}$ and the third without zeroes in $\{\, z\in \mathbb{C}\,:\, |z|\geq 1 \,\}$. Thus, it is possible to write
\[
D(z)=D_-(z)\Delta(z)D_+(z),
\]
where $D_-(z)$ and its inverse are analytic in $\{\, z\in \mathbb{C}\,:\, |z|\leq 1 \,\}$, $\Delta(z)$ and its inverse in $\{\, z\in \mathbb{C}\,:\, |z|\neq 1 \,\}$ and $D_+(z)$ and its inverse in $\{\, z\in \mathbb{C}\,:\, |z|\geq 1 \,\}$. Eventually, by choosing $A(z):=C(z)D_-(z)$ and $B(z):=D_+(z)F(z)$, we have that $G(z)=A(z)\Delta(z)B(z)$ is a left-standard factorization of $G(z)$.
\end{proof}
Left-standard factorizations are not unique. Indeed, any two decompositions are connected as follows.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma4}
Let $G(z)\in \mathbb{R}(z)^{m\times n}$ be a rational matrix of normal rank $\mathrm{rk}(G)=r$ and let $G(z)=A(z)\Delta(z)B(z)=A_1(z)\Delta_1(z)B_1(z)$ be two left-standard factorizations of $G(z)$. Then,
\[
A_1(z)=A(z)M^{-1}(z), \quad B_1(z)=N(z)B(z),
\]
where $M(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z,z^{-1}]^{r\times r}$ and $N(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z,z^{-1}]^{r\times r}$ are two L-unimodular polynomial matrices such that
\begin{align}\label{eq:M(z)Delta(z)N(z)}
M(z)\Delta(z)N^{-1}(z)=\Delta_1(z).
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By assumption, $$G(z)=A(z)\Delta(z)B(z)=A_1(z)\Delta_1(z)B_1(z)$$ which, in turn, implies
\begin{align}\label{eq:lemma4}
\Delta_1^{-1}(z)A_1^{-L}(z)A(z)\Delta(z)=B_1(z)B^{-R}(z).
\end{align}
By Definition \ref{def:ls-fact} of left-standard factorization, the right-hand side of (\ref{eq:lemma4}) is analytic in $\{\,z\in\mathbb{C}\,:\,|z|\geq 1\,\}$, while the left-hand side of (\ref{eq:lemma4}) in $\{\,z\in\mathbb{C}_0\,:\,|z|< 1\,\}$. Therefore, it follows that $B_1(z)B^{-R}(z)$ is analytic in $\mathbb{C}_0$. Moreover, the inverse of $B_1(z)B^{-R}(z)$ satisfies
\[
[B_1(z)B^{-R}(z)]^{-1}=\Delta^{-1}(z)[A_1^{-L}(z)A(z)]^{-1}\Delta_1(z)
\]
and is also analytic in $\mathbb{C}_0$. Thus, by Lemma \ref{lemma1}, $N(z):=B_1(z)B^{-R}(z)$ must be a L-unimodular matrix. Similarly, $M(z):=A_1^{-L}(z)A(z)$ is a L-unimodular matrix. Finally, a rearrangement of (\ref{eq:lemma4}) yields (\ref{eq:M(z)Delta(z)N(z)}).
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Notice that, by replacing the word ``left-standard'' with the word ``right-standard'' in Lemmata \ref{lemma3} and \ref{lemma4}, we obtain, by minor modifications in the proofs, a right-standard counterpart of Lemmata \ref{lemma3} and \ref{lemma4}.
\end{remark}
Let $\Phi(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{n\times n}$ be a para-Hermitian matrix of normal rank $\mathrm{rk}(\Phi)=r$ and let $\Phi(z)=A(z)\Delta(z)B(z)$ be a left-standard factorization of $\Phi(z)$. We have that
\[
\Phi(z)=\Phi^*(z) =B^*(z) \Delta^*(z) A^*(z)
\]
is also a left-standard factorization of $\Phi(z)$. In particular, $\Delta^*(z)$ is equal to $\Delta(z)$, except for multiplication of suitable monomials of the form $\pm z^{k_i}$ in its diagonal entries, i.e.,
\[
\Delta^*(z) =\Sigma(z) \Delta(z),
\]
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sigmadelta}
\Sigma(z)=\mathrm{diag}\left[e_1(z),e_2(z),\dots,e_r(z)\right]
\end{equation}
and $e_i(z)=\pm z^{k_i},\ k_i\in\mathbb{Z},\ i=1,\dots,r$.
By invoking Lemma \ref{lemma4}, we can write
\begin{equation}\label{eq:A(z)B(z)}
A^*(z) = N(z)B(z), \quad B^*(z) = A(z)M^{-1}(z),
\end{equation}
where $N(z),\, M(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z,z^{-1}]^{r\times r}$ are L-unimodular matrices.
The following two lemmata are used to establish a further characterization of a para-Hermitian matrix when it is positive semi-definite upon the unit circle.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma5-pre}
Let $G(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{n\times n}$ and let $\mathbb{T}$ be a region of the complex plane such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $G(z)$ is Hermitian on $\mathbb{T}$;
\item $\mathbf{x}^\top G(\lambda)\mathbf{x}\geq 0$, $\forall\,\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^n$ and $\forall\,\lambda\in\tilde{\mathbb{T}}\subseteq \mathbb{T}$ for which $G(\lambda)$ has finite entries.
\end{enumerate}
Let $D(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times r}$ be the Smith-McMillan canonical form of $G(z)$ and denote by $g_{\mathbf{ij}}^{(\ell)}$ and $d_{\mathbf{ij}}^{(\ell)}$ the $\ell\times \ell$ minors ($1\leq \ell\leq r$) of the rational matrices $G(z)$ and $D(z)$, respectively, obtained by selecting those rows and columns whose indices appear in the ordered $\ell$-tuples $\mathbf{i}$ and $\mathbf{j}$, respectively. Then,
\[
\min_{\mathbf{i}} v_\alpha(d_{\mathbf{ii}}^{(\ell)})=\min_{\mathbf{i}} v_\alpha(g_{\mathbf{ii}}^{(\ell)}), \quad \forall \alpha\in\mathbb{T}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Firstly, we recall that for any rational matrix $G(z)$ it holds
\[
\min_{\mathbf{i}} v_\alpha(d_{\mathbf{ii}}^{(\ell)})=\min_{\mathbf{ij}} v_\alpha(d_{\mathbf{ij}}^{(\ell)})=\min_{\mathbf{ij}} v_\alpha(g_{\mathbf{ij}}^{(\ell)}),\quad \forall \alpha\in\mathbb{C}.
\]
The latter result is well-known and is presented, for instance, as an exercise in \cite[Ch.6, \S 5, Ex.6]{Kailath-1998}. Hence, it remains to prove that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lemma-val-g}
\min_{\mathbf{ij}} v_\alpha(g_{\mathbf{ij}}^{(\ell)})=\min_{\mathbf{i}} v_\alpha(g_{\mathbf{ii}}^{(\ell)}),\quad \forall \alpha\in\mathbb{T}.
\end{equation}
Since $G(z)$ is Hermitian positive semi-definite on the region $\tilde{\mathbb{T}}$, it admits a decomposition of the form $G(\lambda)=W(\lambda)\overline{W(\lambda)}^\top$ for all $\lambda\in\tilde{\mathbb{T}}$. By applying the Binet-Cauchy Theorem (see \cite[Vol.I, Ch.1, \S 2]{Gantmacher-1959}), we have
\begin{align}
&g_{\mathbf{ij}}^{(\ell)}(\lambda)=\sum_{\mathbf{h}}w_{\mathbf{ih}}^{(\ell)}(\lambda)\overline{w_{\mathbf{jh}}^{(\ell)}(\lambda)}, \quad \forall\,\lambda\in\tilde{\mathbb{T}}, \label{eq:corollary-minors-1}\\
&g_{\mathbf{ii}}^{(\ell)}(\lambda)=\sum_{\mathbf{h}}w_{\mathbf{ih}}^{(\ell)}(\lambda)\overline{w_{\mathbf{ih}}^{(\ell)}(\lambda)}=\sum_{\mathbf{h}}\left|w_{\mathbf{ih}}^{(\ell)}(\lambda)\right|^2, \quad \forall\,\lambda\in\tilde{\mathbb{T}},\label{eq:corollary-minors-2}
\end{align}
where $g_{\mathbf{ij}}^{(\ell)}(\lambda)$ and $w_{\mathbf{ij}}^{(\ell)}(\lambda)$ denote the $\ell\times \ell$ minors of matrices $G(\lambda)$ and $W(\lambda)$, obtained by selecting those rows and columns whose indices appear in the ordered $\ell$-tuples $\mathbf{i}$ and $\mathbf{j}$, respectively. Moreover, in both the summations (\ref{eq:corollary-minors-1})-(\ref{eq:corollary-minors-2}), $\mathbf{h}:=(h_1,\dots,h_\ell)$, $1\leq h_1<\cdots<h_\ell\leq n$, runs through all such multi-indices. By using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and (\ref{eq:corollary-minors-1})-(\ref{eq:corollary-minors-2}), we have
\begin{align}
\left|g_{\mathbf{ij}}^{(\ell)}(\lambda)\right|&=\left|\sum_{\mathbf{h}}w_{\mathbf{ih}}^{(\ell)}(\lambda)\overline{w_{\mathbf{jh}}^{(\ell)}(\lambda)}\right|\nonumber \\
&\leq \sqrt{\sum_{\mathbf{h}}\left|w_{\mathbf{ih}}^{(\ell)}(\lambda)\right|^2\sum_{\mathbf{h}}\left|w_{\mathbf{jh}}^{(\ell)}(\lambda)\right|^2}\nonumber \\
&= \sqrt{g_{\mathbf{ii}}^{(\ell)}(\lambda)g_{\mathbf{jj}}^{(\ell)}(\lambda)} \nonumber \\
&\leq \max\left\{g_{\mathbf{ii}}^{(\ell)}(\lambda), g_{\mathbf{jj}}^{(\ell)}(\lambda) \right\}, \ \ \ \forall\,\lambda\in\tilde{\mathbb{T}}. \label{eq:inequality-cs}
\end{align}
The latter inequality implies that for every zero $\alpha\in\mathbb{T}$ of multiplicity $k$ of a minor of $G(z)$, there exists at least one principal minor of $G(z)$ which has the same $\alpha$ either as a zero of multiplicity less than or equal to $k$ or a pole of multiplicity greater than or equal to $0$. Similarly, inequality (\ref{eq:inequality-cs}) implies also that for every pole $\alpha\in\mathbb{T}$ of multiplicity $k$ of a minor of $G(z)$, there exists at least one principal minor of $G(z)$ which has the same pole of multiplicity greater than or equal to $k$. Therefore, we conclude that (\ref{eq:lemma-val-g}) holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma5}
Let $\Phi(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{n\times n}$ be a spectrum of normal rank $\mathrm{rk}(\Phi)=r$ and let $D(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times r}$ be its Smith-McMillan canonical form. Then, the zeroes and poles on the unit circle of the diagonal elements of $D(z)$ have even multiplicity.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Firstly, we assume that the numerators and denominators of all entries in $\Phi(z)$ are relatively prime polynomials. Let $
\alpha_1=e^{j\omega_1},\, \alpha_2=e^{j\omega_2},\dots,\, \alpha_t=e^{j\omega_t},
$
be the zeroes/poles on the unit circle of $\Phi(z)$ and let
$
\nu_i^{(1)},\, \nu_i^{(2)},\dots,\, \nu_i^{(r)}, \ (\nu_i^{(1)}\leq \nu_i^{(2)}\leq \dots\leq\nu_i^{(r)}),
$
be the structural indices of $\Phi(z)$ at $\alpha_i, \ i=1,\dots,t$. Since $\Phi(z)$ is positive semi-definite on the unit circle, one can directly verify that the zeroes and poles on the unit circle of the principal minors of $\Phi(z)$ must have even multiplicity.
Now, by setting $\mathbb{T}:=\{\,z\in\mathbb{C}\,:\,|z|=1 \,\}$, we can apply Lemma \ref{lemma5-pre}. By considering the minors of order $\ell=1$, it follows that $\nu_i^{(1)}$ is even for all $i=1,2,\dots,t$. Similarly, by considering the minors of order $\ell=2$ in Lemma \ref{lemma5-pre}, it follows that $ \nu_i^{(1)}+\nu_i^{(2)}$ is even for all $i=1,2,\dots,t$. Since $\nu_i^{(1)}$ is even, then also $\nu_i^{(2)}$ must be even for all $i=1,2,\dots,t$. By iterating the argument, we conclude that every zero/pole on the unit circle of the diagonal elements of $D(z)$ has even multiplicity.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Lemma \ref{lemma5-pre} can also be used to obtain an alternative proof of \cite[Lemma 4, point 2]{Youla-1961}, which represents the continuous-time counterpart of Lemma \ref{lemma5}.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-review}
Let $\Phi(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{n\times n}$ be a spectrum of normal rank $\mathrm{rk}(\Phi)=r$ and let $D(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times r}$ be its Smith-McMillan canonical form. Then $D(z)$ can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:D(z)-decomposition}
D(z) = \Sigma(z)\Lambda^*(z)\Theta^*(z) \Theta(z)\Lambda(z)
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda(z)$ is diagonal, canonic and analytic with its inverse in $\{\,z\in\mathbb{C}\,:\,|z|\geq 1\,\}$ and, if $z=0$ is either a zero, pole or both of $D(z)$, $\Lambda(z)$ has the same structural indices at $z=0$ of $D(z)$; $\Theta(z)$ is diagonal, canonic and analytic with its inverse in $\{\, z\in\mathbb{C}\,:\, |z|\neq 1\,\}$; $\Sigma(z)$ has the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sigmadelta-2}
\Sigma(z)=\mathrm{diag}\left[e_1(z),e_2(z),\dots,e_r(z)\right],
\end{equation}
with $e_i(z)=\alpha_{i} z^{k_i},\, \alpha_{i}\in \mathbb{R}_0,\, k_i\in\mathbb{Z},\, i=1,\dots,r$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By direct computation, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sigmabarD}
D^*(z)=\Sigma'(z)\bar{D}(z),
\end{equation}
where $\bar{D}(z)$ is canonic and $\Sigma'(z)$ is a diagonal matrix with elements $\alpha z^k$, $\alpha\in \mathbb{R}_0$, $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, on its diagonal.
Since $\Phi(z)$ is a spectrum, we can write
\[\Phi(z)=C(z)D(z)F(z)=F^*(z) D^*(z) C^*(z) =\Phi^*(z),\]
The matrices $F(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z]^{n\times r}$, $C(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z]^{r\times n}$, are unimodular, while $F^*(z)$, $C^*(z)$ are L-unimodular. By Lemma \ref{lemma1}, $F(z)$, $C(z)$, $F^*(z)$, $C^*(z)$ are analytic in $\mathbb{C}_0$ with their inverses. Thus, we have (see \cite[Ch.6, \S5, Ex.6]{Kailath-1998})
\[
\min_{\mathbf{i}} v_\alpha(d_{\mathbf{ii}}^{(\ell)})=\min_{\mathbf{i}} v_\alpha({d^{*(\ell)}_{\mathbf{ii}}}),\ \ \forall \alpha\in\mathbb{C}_0,\ \forall \ell : 1\leq \ell\leq r,
\]
where $d_{\mathbf{ii}}^{(\ell)}$ and ${d^{*(\ell)}_{\mathbf{ii}}}$ denote the $\ell\times \ell$ minors of $D(z)$ and $D^*(z)$, respectively, obtained by selecting those rows and columns whose indices appear in the ordered $\ell$-tuple $\mathbf{i}$. The previous equation implies that, for every $\alpha\in \mathbb{C}_0$, being either a pole, zero or both of $D(z)$, $D^*(z)$ has the same structural indices at $\alpha$ of $D(z)$. Therefore, since by (\ref{eq:sigmabarD}) $\bar{D}(z)$ is canonic, it follows that
\[
D^*(z)=\Sigma''(z) D(z)
\]
where $\Sigma''(z)$ is diagonal with elements $\alpha z^k$, $\alpha\in \mathbb{R}_0$, $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, on its diagonal.
This means that any zero/pole at $\alpha\in\mathbb{C}_0$ in the diagonal terms of $D(z)$ is accompanied by a zero/pole at $\alpha^{-1}$, and we can always write $D(z)$ as
\begin{align}\label{eq:Dzdec}
D(z)=\Sigma_1(z)\Lambda^*(z) \Delta(z)\Lambda(z),
\end{align}
where $\Sigma_1(z)$ is diagonal with elements $ \alpha z^{k}$, $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}_0$, $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, on its diagonal; $\Lambda(z)$ and $\Delta(z)$ are diagonal, canonic and analytic with their inverse in $\{\,z\in\mathbb{C}\,:\,|z|\geq 1\,\}$ and $\{\, z\in\mathbb{C}\,:\, |z|\neq 1\,\}$, respectively. Moreover, if $z=0$ is either a pole, zero or both of $D(z)$, $\Lambda(z)$ possesses the same structural indices at $z=0$ of $D(z)$. As a matter of fact, let $\alpha_{i,k}$, $i=1,\dots,p_k$, and $\beta_{j,k}$, $j=1,\dots,q_k$, be the zeroes and poles, respectively, in $\{\,z\in\mathbb{C}_0\,:\,|z|< 1\,\}$ of $[D(z)]_{kk}$ and let $h_k\in \mathbb{Z}$ be the valuation at $z=0$ of $[D(z)]_{kk}$. We can write, for all $k=1,\dots,r$,
\begin{align*}
&[D(z)]_{kk}=z^{h_k}\frac{\prod_{i=1}^{p_k}(z-\alpha_{i,k}^{-1})(z-\alpha_{i,k})}{\prod_{j=1}^{q_k}(z-\beta_{j,k}^{-1})(z-\beta_{j,k})}[\Delta(z)]_{kk}\\
&= \underbrace{\gamma_k \frac{z^{h_k}}{z^{q_k-p_k}}}_{[\Sigma_1(z)]_{kk}} \underbrace{z^{-h_k} \frac{\prod_{i=1}^{p_k}(z^{-1}-\alpha_{i,k})}{\prod_{j=1}^{q_k}(z^{-1}-\beta_{j,k})}}_{[\Lambda^*(z)]_{kk}}[\Delta(z)]_{kk}\,\cdot \\
&\hspace{5cm} \cdot \underbrace{z^{h_k} \frac{\prod_{i=1}^{p_k}(z-\alpha_{i,k})}{\prod_{j=1}^{q_k}(z-\beta_{j,k})}}_{[\Lambda(z)]_{kk}}
\end{align*}
with $\gamma_k:=(-1)^{q_k-p_k}\frac{\prod_{j=1}^{q_k}\beta_{j,k}}{\prod_{i=1}^{p_k}\alpha_{i,k}}$.
Now, by exploiting Lemma \ref{lemma5}, $\Delta(z)$ can be written as
\[
\Delta(z)=\Theta^2(z)=\Sigma_2(z)\Theta^*(z) \Theta(z),
\]
with $\Sigma_1(z)$ diagonal with elements $ \pm z^{k}$, $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, on its diagonal and $\Theta(z)$ diagonal, canonic and analytic together with its inverse in $\{\,z\in\mathbb{C}\,:\,|z|\neq 1\,\}$. Finally, we can rearrange $D(z)$ in the form
\[
D(z)=\Sigma(z)\Lambda^*(z)\Theta^*(z) \Theta(z)\Lambda(z),
\]
where $\Sigma(z):=\Sigma_1(z)\Sigma_2(z)$ has the form in (\ref{eq:sigmadelta-2}).
\end{proof}
To conclude this section, we report below another useful result.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma7}
Let $\Psi(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z,z^{-1}]^{r\times r}$ be a para-Hermitian L-unimodular matrix which is positive definite on the unit circle. Then, $\Psi^{\rm hc}$ is nonsingular if and only if $\Psi(z)$ is a constant matrix.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $\Psi(z)$ is a constant matrix then $\Psi^{\rm hc}=\Psi(z)$ is nonsingular, by definition of L-unimodular matrix.
Conversely, assume that $\Psi^{\rm hc}$ is nonsingular. Let us denote by $K_i\in\mathbb{Z}$, $i=1,\dots,r$, the maximum-degree of the $i$-th column of $\Psi(z)$ and by $k_i\in\mathbb{Z}$, $i=1,\dots,r$, the minimum-degree of the $i$-th row of $\Psi(z)$.
Since $\Psi(z)=\Psi^*(z)$, we have that $\det \Psi(z)$ is a nonzero real constant and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Ki-ki}
K_i=-k_i, \quad i=1,\dots,r.
\end{equation}
Moreover, since $\Psi(z)$ is positive definite on the unit circle, the diagonal elements of $\Psi(z)$ cannot be equal to zero and, therefore, $K_i\geq 0$, $i=1,\dots,r$.
Actually, the nonsingularity of $\Psi^{\rm hc}$ yields
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Kizero}
K_i=0,\quad i=1,\dots,r,
\end{equation}
otherwise one can check, by exploiting the Leibniz formula for determinants, that the maximum-degree of $\det \Psi(z)$ would be strictly positive; but this is not possible since, as noticed above, $\det \Psi(z)$ is a nonzero real constant and so $\max\,\deg\, (\det \Psi(z)) = 0$.
By (\ref{eq:Kizero}), all the entries of $\Psi(z)$ must have maximum-degree less than or equal to zero.
But, by (\ref{eq:Ki-ki}), $k_i=-K_i$ for all $i=1,\dots,r$, and so (\ref{eq:Kizero}) also implies that all the entries of $\Psi(z)$ must have minimum-degree greater than or equal to zero. We conclude that
\[
\max\,\deg\, [\Psi(z)]_{ij}=\min\,\deg\, [\Psi(z)]_{ij}=0, \quad i,\, j=1,\dots,r,
\]
and, therefore, $\Psi(z)$ must be a constant matrix.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of the main theorem}\label{sec:main-theorem}
We are now ready to prove our main result.
For the sake of clarity and readability, we first prove the special case of
Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt} and we then proceed to the proof of our general Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt-g}.
{\bf \em Proof of Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt}:}
We first prove statement \ref{item:thmsf-dt(iii)}). Let $W(z)$ and $W_1(z)$ be two matrices satisfying \ref{item:thmsf-dt(i)}) and \ref{item:thmsf-dt(ii)}). Then,
\begin{align}\label{eq:thmsf-dt-1}
W^*(z) W(z)=W_1^*(z) W_1(z).
\end{align}
The latter equation implies $V^*(z) V(z)=I_r$, where $V(z):=W_1(z)W^{-R}(z)$ is analytic in $\{\,z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}\,:\,|z|>1 \,\}$. Thus, $V(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times r}$ is a para-unitary matrix analytic in $\{\, z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}} \,:\, |z|> 1\,\}$. Moreover,
we have that $\Delta_1(z):=W_1(z)-V(z)W(z)=W_1(z)[I_n-W^{-R}(z)W(z)]$
satisfies
\begin{align}\label{eq-unicita}
&\Delta_1^*(z)\Delta_1(z) =\nonumber \\
& = [I_n-W^*(z)W^{-R*}(z)]W_1^*(z)W_1(z)[I_n-W^{-R}(z)W(z)]\nonumber \\
& = [I_n-W^*(z)W^{-R*}(z)]W^*(z)W(z)[I_n-W^{-R}(z)W(z)]\nonumber \\
& = 0,
\end{align}
so that
\begin{equation}\label{w1=vw}
W_1(z)=V(z)W(z)
\end{equation}
yielding that
$
V^{-1}(z)=W(z)W_1^{-R}(z)$ is analytic in $\{\, z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}} \,:\, |z|> 1\,\}$. In view of Lemma \ref{lemma2}, we conclude that $V(z)$ is a constant orthogonal matrix.
Consider now statement \ref{item:thmsf-dt(iv)}) and let $\Phi(z)=L^*(z) L(z)$ where $L(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{n\times r}$ is analytic in $\{\,z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}\,:\,|z|>1 \,\}$. In this case, we can write
\[
L^*(z) L(z)=W^*(z) W(z).
\]
The latter equation implies $V^*(z) V(z)=I_r$,
where $V(z):=L(z)W^{-R}(z)$ and $W(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times n}$ is a rational matrix satisfying \ref{item:thmsf-dt(i)}) and \ref{item:thmsf-dt(ii)}). Since $L(z)$ and $W^{-R}(z)$ are both analytic in $\{\,z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}\,:\,|z|>1 \,\}$, then $V(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times r}$ is a para-unitary matrix analytic in $\{\, z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}} \,:\, |z|> 1\,\}$.
The same computation that led to (\ref{w1=vw}) now gives $L(z)=V(z)W(z)$.
Now, we provide a constructive proof of statements \ref{item:thmsf-dt(i)}) and \ref{item:thmsf-dt(ii)}), which represent the core of the Theorem. The procedure is divided in four steps.
\emph{Step 1.} Reduce $\Phi(z)$ to the Smith-McMillan canonical form. By using the same standard procedure described in \cite[Thm.2]{Youla-1961}, we arrive at
\begin{align}
\Phi(z)=C(z)D(z)F(z),
\end{align}
where $C(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z]^{n\times r}$, $F(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z]^{r\times n}$ are unimodular polynomial matrices and $D(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times r}$ is diagonal and canonic.
\emph{Step 2.} According to Lemma \ref{lemma-review}, we can write $D(z)$ in the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:smith-mcmillan-phi}
D(z)=\Sigma(z)\Lambda^*(z)\tilde{\Delta}(z)\Lambda(z),
\end{equation}
where:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Lambda(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times r}$ is diagonal, canonic and analytic together with $\Lambda^{-1}(z)$ in $\{\,z\in\mathbb{C}\,:\,|z|\geq 1 \,\}$ and, if $z=0$ is either a pole, zero or both of $D(z)$, $\Lambda(z)$ possesses the same structural indices at $z=0$ of $D(z)$;
\item $\tilde{\Delta}(z):=\Theta^*(z) \Theta(z)=\tilde{\Delta}^*(z)$, where $\Theta(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times r}$ is diagonal, canonic and analytic together with $\Theta^{-1}(z)$ in $\{\,z\in\mathbb{C}\,:\,|z|\neq 1 \,\}$;
\item $\Sigma(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times r}$ is diagonal of the form
\[
\Sigma(z)=\mathrm{diag}\left[e_1(z),e_2(z),\dots,e_r(z)\right],
\]
where $e_i(z)=\alpha_{i} z^{k_i},\, \alpha_{i}\in \mathbb{R}_0,\, k_i\in\mathbb{Z},\, i=1,\dots,r$.
\end{enumerate}
Let us define
\[
A(z) := C(z)\Sigma(z)\Lambda^*(z),\quad B(z) := \Lambda(z)F(z).
\]
We have that $\Phi(z)=A(z)\tilde{\Delta}(z)B(z)$
is a left-standard factorization of $\Phi(z)$.
{\emph{Step 3.}}
Let $I(z):=B^{-R}(z)\Theta^{-1}(z)$.
By (\ref{eq:A(z)B(z)}), we have $A^*(z)=N(z)B(z)$ and, therefore,
\begin{align}\label{eq:Mtilde(z)-dt}
&I^*(z)\Phi(z) I(z)= I^*(z) \Phi^*(z) I(z)\nonumber \\
& = \Theta^{-*}(z)B^{-R*}(z) B^*(z)\tilde{\Delta}^*(z) N(z) B(z) B^{-R}(z)\Theta^{-1}(z)\nonumber\\
& = \Theta^{-*}(z) \Theta^*(z) \Theta(z) N(z) \Theta^{-1}(z)\nonumber \\
& = \Theta(z) N(z) \Theta^{-1}(z)=:\Psi(z),
\end{align}
where $N(z)=A^*(z)B^{-R}(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z,z^{-1}]^{r\times r}$ is a L-unimodular matrix. By (\ref{eq:Mtilde(z)-dt}), $\Psi(z)$ is a para-Hermitian matrix positive semi-definite on the unit circle. Actually a good deal more is true. We notice that $A(z)\tilde{\Delta}(z)B(z)$ and $B^*(z)\tilde{\Delta}(z) A^*(z)$ are two left-standard factorizations of $\Phi(z)$. Hence, by replacing $\Delta_1(z)$ with $\tilde \Delta(z)=\tilde \Delta^*(z)$ in (\ref{eq:M(z)Delta(z)N(z)}), we obtain
\begin{align}\label{eq:Delta(z)N(z)Delta(z)}
\tilde \Delta(z) N(z) \tilde \Delta^{-1}(z)= M(z),
\end{align}
where $M(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z,z^{-1}]$ is L-unimodular. Since $\tilde \Delta(z)=\Theta^*(z) \Theta(z)$ is diagonal and \[\Theta(z):=\mathrm{diag}[\theta_1(z),\dots,\theta_r(z)]\] is canonic, (\ref{eq:Delta(z)N(z)Delta(z)}) implies that $[N(z)]_{ij}$ is divisible by the L-polynomial $[\tilde \Delta(z)]_{jj}/[\tilde \Delta(z)]_{ii}, \ j\geq i$. But
\begin{align}
[\tilde \Delta(z)]_{ii}&=\theta_i^*(z) \theta_i(z)=\theta_i(1/z) \theta_i(z)=\pm z^{k_{i}} \theta_i^2(z),\nonumber
\end{align}
where
$k_i\in\mathbb{Z}, \ i=1,\dots,r$. Hence, $[N(z)]_{ij}$ must be divisible by the polynomial
\[
f_{ij}^2(z):=\frac{\theta_j^2(z)}{\theta_i^2(z)}, \ \ \ j\geq i,
\]
and, a fortiori, by
\[
f_{ij}(z)= \frac{\theta_j(z)}{\theta_i(z)}, \ \ \ j\geq i.
\]
This suffices to establish that $\Psi (z)$ is L-polynomial. Actually, by (\ref{eq:Mtilde(z)-dt}), it follows that $\Psi(z)$ has determinant which is a real nonzero constant. Hence, $\Psi(z)$ is L-unimodular and positive definite on the unit circle.
The problem is now reduced to that of finding a factorization of $\Psi(z)$ of the form
\begin{align}
\Psi(z)=P^*(z) P(z),
\end{align}
where $P(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z]^{r\times r}$ is a unimodular polynomial matrix.
After this is achieved, the desired factorization for $\Phi(z)$ is obtained as $\Phi(z)=W^*(z) W(z)$ with
\begin{align}\label{eq:H(z)-dt}
W(z):&= P(z)\Theta(z)B(z)\nonumber \\
&= P(z)\Theta(z)\Lambda(z)F(z)\nonumber \\
&= P(z)D_+(z)F(z),
\end{align}
where we have defined $D_+(z):=\Theta(z)\Lambda(z)$.
Indeed, by straightforward algebra,
\begin{align}
W^*(z) W(z) & = B^*(z) \Theta^*(z) P^*(z) P(z)\Theta(z)B(z)\nonumber \\
& = B^*(z) \tilde{\Delta}(z) N(z)B(z)\nonumber \\
& = B^*(z) \tilde{\Delta}(z) A^*(z)\nonumber \\
& = \Phi^*(z) = \Phi(z).\nonumber
\end{align}
\emph{Step 4.} We illustrate an algorithm which provides a factorization of a para-Hermitian L-unimodular polynomial matrix $\Psi(z)=\Psi^*(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z,z^{-1}]^{r\times r}$ positive definite on the unit circle into the product $P^*(z) P(z)$, where $P(z)$ is a unimodular polynomial matrix.
The algorithm consists of the following two steps. First of all, we define $\Psi_1(z):=\Psi(z)$ and denote by $h\in\mathbb{N}$ the loop counter of the algorithm, which is initially set to $h:=1$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{item:thmsf-dt-step4I}
Let $K_i\in\mathbb{Z}, \ i=1,\dots,r$, be the maximum-degree of the $i$-th column of $\Psi_h(z)$ and $k_i\in\mathbb{Z}, \ i=1,\dots,r$, be the minimum-degree of the $i$-th row of $\Psi_h(z)$.
Consider the {highest-column-degree coefficient matrix} of $\Psi_h(z)$, denoted by $\Psi_h^\mathrm{hc}$, and the lowest-row-degree coefficient matrix of $\Psi_h(z)$, denoted by $\Psi_h^\mathrm{lr}$. As noticed in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma7}, the positive nature of $\Psi_h(z)$ implies that $K_i\geq 0$ for all $i= 1,\dots,r$. Moreover, the para-Hermitianity of $\Psi_h(z)$ implies that $\Psi_h^\mathrm{hc}=(\Psi_h^\mathrm{lr})^\top$
which, in turn, yields $K_i=-k_i$ for all $i=1,\dots,r$.
By Lemma \ref{lemma7}, it follows that $\Psi_h^{\mathrm{hc}}$ is nonsingular if and only if $\Psi_h(z)$ is a constant matrix.
If $\Psi_h(z)$ is a constant matrix, we set $\bar{h}:=h$ and go to step \ref{item:thmsf-dt-step4II}). If this is not the case, we calculate a nonzero vector $\mathbf{v}_h:=[v_1 \ v_2 \ \dots \ v_r]^\top\in\mathbb{R}^r$ such that $\Psi_h^\mathrm{hc}\mathbf{v}_h=\mathbf{0}$.
Let us define the \emph{active index set}
\[
\mathcal{I}_h:=\{\,i \, :\, v_i\neq 0\,\}
\]
and the \emph{highest maximum-degree active index set}, $\mathcal{M}_h\subset \mathcal{I}_h$,
\[
\mathcal{M}_h:=\{\,i\in\mathcal{I}_h \, :\, \ K_i\geq K_j, \ \forall\, j\in\mathcal{I}_h\,\}.
\]
We pick an index $p\in\mathcal{M}_h$.
Then, we define the polynomial matrix
\begin{align}
&\qquad \qquad \quad \quad \quad \quad \ \ \ \ {\scriptsize \text{column $p$}} \nonumber \\
\Omega_h^{-1}(z)&:=\left[\begin{smallarray}{ccccccc}
\ 1 \ & \cdots & 0 & \frac{v_1}{v_p}z^{K_p-K_1} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 &\ \ddots \ & & \vdots & & & 0 \\
\vdots & &\ 1 \ & \frac{v_{p-1}}{v_p}z^{K_p-K_{p-1}} & & & \vdots \\
\vdots & & &\ 1\ & & & \vdots \\
\vdots & & & \frac{v_{p+1}}{v_p}z^{K_p-K_{p+1}} &\ 1 \ & & \vdots \\
0 & & & \vdots & &\ \ddots \ & 0 \vspace{0.27cm} \\
0 & \cdots & 0 & \frac{v_r}{v_p}z^{K_p-K_r} & 0 & \cdots & \ 1 \ \end{smallarray}\right].\nonumber\\
\label{eq:matrix-reduction-dt}
\end{align}
Notice that the entry at $(i,p)$ of $\Omega_h^{-1}(z)$ has the form
\begin{align}\label{eq:alpha-delta}
\frac{v_i}{v_p}z^{K_p-K_i}=\alpha_iz^{\delta_i} , \ \ \ i=1,\dots,r,
\end{align}
with $\alpha_i:={v_i}/{v_p}\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\delta_i:=K_p-K_i\geq 0$. In fact, if $K_i>K_p$, then $v_i=0$ and so $\alpha_i=0$. By (\ref{eq:matrix-reduction-dt}), $\det \Omega_h^{-1}(z)=1$ and, therefore, $\Omega_h^{-1}(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z]^{r\times r}$ is a unimodular polynomial matrix. By operating the transformation
\[
\Psi_{h+1}(z):=\Omega_h^{-*}(z) \Psi_h(z) \Omega_h^{-1}(z),
\]
we obtain a new positive definite matrix $\Psi_{h+1}(z)$ with the same determinant of $\Psi_h(z)$. Furthermore, the maximum-degree of the $p$-th column of $\Psi_{h+1}(z)$ is lower than $K_p$, while the maximum-degree of the $i$-th column, $i\neq p$, is not greater than $K_i$.
This fact needs a detailed explanation. If we post-multiply $\Psi_h(z)$ by $\Omega_h^{-1}(z)$, we obtain a matrix of the form
\begin{align}
&\Psi_h'(z):=\Psi_h(z)\Omega_h^{-1}(z)\nonumber\\
&=\left[\begin{array}{c|c|c} [\Psi_h(z)]_{1:r,1:p-1} & \boldsymbol{\psi}_{h}(z) & [\Psi_h(z)]_{1:r,p+1:r} \\
\end{array}\right],\nonumber
\end{align}
where all the L-polynomials in the $p$-th column vector \begin{align}\label{eq:psi-vector}
\boldsymbol{\psi}_h(z)=[\Psi_h(z)]_{1:r,p:p}+ \sum_{i\neq p} \alpha_iz^{\delta_i} [\Psi_h(z)]_{1:r,i:i}
\end{align}
have maximum-degree lower than $K_p$, since $\Psi_h^\mathrm{hc}\mathbf{v}_h=\mathbf{0}$,
and minimum-degree which satisfies
\begin{align}\label{eq:min-deg-ki}
\min\,\deg\, [\boldsymbol{\psi}_h(z)]_i\geq k_i=-K_i, \ \ \ i=1,\dots,r,
\end{align}
since in (\ref{eq:psi-vector}) $\delta_i\geq 0$, for all $i$ such that $\alpha_i\neq 0$. Now, by pre-multiplying $\Psi_h'(z)$ by $\Omega_h^{-*}(z)$, the resulting matrix $\Psi_{h+1}(z)$ can be written in the form
\begin{align}\label{eq:psihc}
&\Psi_{h+1}(z)=\Omega_h^{-*}(z) \Psi_h(z) \Omega_h^{-1}(z)\nonumber\\
&=\left[\begin{smallarray}{c|c|c} [\Psi_h(z)]_{1:p-1,1:p-1} & \boldsymbol{\psi}_{h+1}'(z) & [\Psi_h(z)]_{1:p-1,p+1:r} \\
\hline
\boldsymbol{\psi}'^\top_{h+1}(z^{-1}) & \psi_{h+1}''(z) & \boldsymbol{\psi}'''^\top_{h+1}(z^{-1}) \\
\hline
[\Psi_h(z)]_{p+1:r,1:p-1} & \boldsymbol{\psi}_{h+1}'''(z) & [\Psi_h(z)]_{p+1:r,p+1:r}\end{smallarray}\right],\nonumber
\end{align}
where the $p$-th column vector \[\left[\begin{array}{c|c|c}\boldsymbol{\psi}'^\top_{h+1}(z) & \psi_{h+1}''(z) & \boldsymbol{\psi}'''^\top_{h+1}(z) \end{array}\right]^\top\] differs from $\boldsymbol{\psi}_h(z)$ only for the value of the $p$-th entry $\psi_{h+1}''(z)$. Moreover, the maximum-degree of $\psi_{h+1}''(z)$ cannot increase after the operation is performed, since
\[
\psi_{h+1}''(z)=[\boldsymbol{\psi}_h(z)]_p +\sum_{i\neq p}\alpha_i z^{-\delta_i}[\boldsymbol{\psi}_h(z)]_i,
\]
and, by (\ref{eq:alpha-delta}), $\delta_i\geq 0$, for all $i$ such that $\alpha_i\neq 0$. We conclude that all the L-polynomials in the $p$-th column of $\Psi_{h+1}(z)$ have maximum-degree lower than $K_p$, while, by (\ref{eq:min-deg-ki}), the maximum-degree of all the other columns does not increase. We notice also that, since $\Psi_{h+1}(z)=\Psi_{h+1}^*(z)$, all the L-polynomials in the $p$-th row of $\Psi_{h+1}(z)$ have minimum-degree greater than $k_p=-K_p$, while the minimum-degree of all the other rows does not decrease. Eventually, we update the value of the loop counter $h$ by setting $h:=h+1$ and return to step \ref{item:thmsf-dt-step4I}).
\item \label{item:thmsf-dt-step4II}
Since $\Psi_{\bar{h}}\in\mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$ is positive definite, we can always factorize it into the product $\Psi_{\bar{h}}=C^\top C$ where $C\in\mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$, by using standard techniques such as the Cholesky decomposition (see, e.g., \cite[Ch.4]{Golub-1996}). Finally, we have constructed a polynomial unimodular matrix
\[
P(z)=C \Omega_{\bar{h}-1}(z)\Omega_{\bar{h}-2}(z)\cdots \Omega_1(z).
\]
such that $\Psi(z)=P^*(z) P(z)$.
\end{enumerate}
It is worthwhile noticing that the iterative procedure of step \ref{item:thmsf-dt-step4I}) is always brought to an end (after a maximum of $K_1+\dots+K_p$ iterations) since at the $h$-th iteration the maximum-degree of a column of $\Psi_h(z)$ is reduced at least by one, while the maximum-degree of all the other columns does not increase.
To complete the proof of statements \ref{item:thmsf-dt(i)}) and \ref{item:thmsf-dt(ii)}), we notice that, by construction, the rational matrix $W(z)$, as defined in (\ref{eq:H(z)-dt}), and its right inverse are analytic in $\{\,z\in\mathbb{C}\,:\,|z|>1 \,\}$. Moreover, we recall that, if $z=0$ is either a pole, zero or both of $D(z)$, $D_+(z)$ and $D(z)$ have the same zero-pole structure at $z=0$. Now, suppose, by contradiction, that $W(z)$ has a pole at $z=\infty$. Then $W^*(z)$ has a pole at $z=0$. But, since $\Phi(z)=W^*(z)W(z)$, it follows that
\begin{align}\label{eq:Wstar-infty}
W^*(z)&= \Phi(z)W^{-R}(z) \nonumber\\
&=C(z)D(z)F(z)F^{-R}(z)D_+^{-1}(z)P^{-1}(z) \nonumber\\
&=C(z)D(z)D_+^{-1}(z) P^{-1}(z)\nonumber\\
&=C(z)D_-(z)P^{-1}(z),
\end{align}
where $D_{-}(z):= D(z)D_+^{-1}(z)$ has no pole at $z=0$. Since $P^{-1}(z)$ and $C(z)$ are unimodular matrices, in view of (\ref{eq:Wstar-infty}), also $W^*(z)$ has no pole at $z=0$. Hence, the contradiction. We conclude that $W(z)$ has no pole at infinity. Finally, by following a similar argument, it can be verified that also $W^{-R}(z)$ has no pole at infinity.
Now consider statement \ref{item:thmsf-dt(v)}). If $\Phi(z)$ is analytic on the unit circle, then $\Theta(z)$ does not possess any finite pole. This, in turn, implies that $D_+(z)=\Theta(z)\Lambda(z)$ is analytic in $\{\, z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}\,:\,|z|\geq 1 \}$. Thus, $W(z)$, as defined in (\ref{eq:H(z)-dt}), is also analytic in the same region.
As for point \ref{item:thmsf-dt(vi)}), the additional assumption that the rank of $\Phi(z)$ is constant on the unit circle implies that $\Theta(z)$ does not possess any finite zero. Thus, $\Theta(z)=I_r$ and, by (\ref{eq:H(z)-dt}),
\[
W^{-R}(z)=F^{-R}(z) \Lambda^{-1}(z) P^{-1}(z)
\]
is analytic in $\{\, z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}\,:\,|z|\geq 1 \}$. Hence, $W(z)$ and its right inverse $W^{-R}(z)$ are both analytic in $\{\, z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}\,:\,|z|\geq 1 \}$.
Lastly, consider point \ref{item:thmsf-dt(vii)}). As shown in (\ref{eq:smith-mcmillan-phi}), the Smith-McMillan canonical form of $\Phi(z)$, $D(z)$, is connected to that of $W(z)$, $D_+(z)=\Theta(z)\Lambda(z)$, by
\begin{align}\label{eq:D(z)-plus-dt}
D(z)=\Sigma(z) D_+^*(z)D_+(z),
\end{align}
where $\Sigma(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times r}$ is a diagonal matrix with elements $ \alpha_{i} z^{k_i}$, $\alpha_{i}\in\mathbb{R}_0$, $k_i\in\mathbb{Z}$, on its diagonal.
Let $p_1,\dots,p_h$ be the nonzero finite poles of $\Phi(z)$. By (\ref{eq:D(z)-plus-dt}), it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{MMd=Sod}
\delta(\Phi;p_i)=\begin{cases} \delta(W;p_i) & \text{if } | p_i|<1, \\
2\delta(W;p_i) & \text{if } |p_i|=1,\\
\delta(W;1/p_i) & \text{if } |p_i|>1. \end{cases}
\end{equation}
Moreover, if $p\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}$ is a pole of $\Phi(z)$ of degree $\delta(\Phi;p)$ then also $1/p$ is a pole of $\Phi(z)$ of the same degree and if $p\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}$ is not a pole of $\Phi(z)$ then neither $p$ nor $1/p$ are poles of $W(z)$.
Thus, we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:delta-pii-z}
\sum_{i=1}^h\delta(\Phi;p_i)&=\sum_{\substack{i\, :\, |p_i|<1}} \delta(W;p_i)\, + \sum_{\substack{i\, :\, |p_i|>1}} \delta(W;1/p_i)\ + \nonumber\\
&\hspace{2.85cm} +\sum_{\substack{i\, :\, |p_i|=1}} 2\delta(W;p_i)\nonumber \\
&= 2\sum_{\substack{i\, :\, |p_i|\leq 1}} \delta(W;p_i)
\end{align}
By (\ref{eq:mcmillan-degree}), the McMillan degree of a rational matrix equals the sum of the degrees of all its poles, including the pole at infinity. If $\Phi(z)$ has no pole at infinity, then (\ref{eq:delta-pii-z}) directly yields $\delta_M(\Phi)=2\delta_M(W)$.
Otherwise, assume that $\Phi(z)$ has a pole at infinity. Since $W(z)$ and $\Phi(z)$ have the same structural indices at $z=0$ and $W(z)$ has no pole at $z=\infty$, it follows that
\begin{align}\label{eq:delta-zero}
\delta(\Phi;\infty)=\delta(\Phi;0)=\delta(W;0)\ \ \ \ \text{and} \ \ \ \ \delta(W;\infty)=0.
\end{align}
Therefore, by equations (\ref{eq:delta-pii-z}) and (\ref{eq:delta-zero}),
\begin{align}
\delta_M(\Phi)&=\sum_{i=1}^h\delta(\Phi;p_i)+\delta(\Phi;0)+\delta(\Phi;\infty)\nonumber\\
&=2\sum_{\substack{i\, :\, |p_i|\leq 1}} \delta(W;p_i) +2\delta(W;0)=2\delta_M(W),\nonumber
\end{align}
\hspace*{\fill}~\QED\par\endtrivlist\unskip
We are now ready to prove our main Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt-g}. Many of the ideas for this proof can be elaborated from those of the proof of Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt}.
{\bf \em Proof of Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt-g}:} { We first show how to modify the constructive procedure used in the proof of Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt} in order to obtain a spectral factor $W(z)$ which satisfies points 1) and 2).
With reference to step 2 in the proof of Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt}, we rearrange the Smith-McMillan form of $\Phi(z)$ as
\begin{align}\label{eq:Dz-dec-thm1}
D(z)=\Sigma(z) \Lambda(z)\tilde{\Delta}(z) \Lambda(z),
\end{align}
where the only difference with respect to the decomposition in (\ref{eq:smith-mcmillan-phi}) is that here $\Lambda(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{r\times r}$ is diagonal, canonic and analytic in $\mathscr{A}_p\setminus\{\infty\}$ with $\Lambda^{-1}(z)$ analytic in $\mathscr{A}_z\setminus\{\infty\}$. Moreover, if $0\not\in \mathscr{A}_p$ and $z=0$ is a pole of $D(z)$, then $\Lambda(z)$ has the same negative structural indices at $z=0$ of $\Phi(z)$, and if $0\not\in \mathscr{A}_z$ and $z=0$ is a zero of $D(z)$, then $\Lambda(z)$ has the same positive structural indices at $z=0$ of $\Phi(z)$.
Now, to apply the procedure described in the proof of Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt}, it suffices to prove that for any choice of the unmixed-symplectic sets $\mathscr{A}_p$ and $\mathscr{A}_z$, the para-Hermitian matrix $\Psi(z)$, as defined in (\ref{eq:Mtilde(z)-dt}), is still L-unimodular. With reference to the notation introduced in the proof of Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt}, $\Psi(z)$ can be written as
\begin{align}\label{eq:Xi(z)}
\Psi(z)&= \Theta(z) N(z) \Theta^{-1}(z)\nonumber\\
&=\Theta(z)A^*(z)B^{-R}(z) \Theta^{-1}(z)\nonumber\\
&=\Theta(z)\Lambda(z)\Sigma^*(z)C^*(z)F^{-R}(z)\Lambda^{-1}(z) \Theta^{-1}(z)\nonumber\\
&=\Sigma^*(z)D_+(z)\Xi(z)D_+^{-1}(z),
\end{align}
where we have defined $\Xi(z):=C^*(z)F^{-R}(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z,z^{-1}]^{r\times r}$ which is L-unimodular and whose structure does not depend upon the choice of $\mathscr{A}_p$ and $\mathscr{A}_z$. Moreover, in this case, $D_+(z)=\Theta(z)\Lambda(z)$ is diagonal, canonic and analytic in $\mathscr{A}_p\setminus\{\infty\}$ with inverse analytic in $\mathscr{A}_z\setminus\{\infty\}$. Let us first consider the standard choice $\mathscr{A}_p=\mathscr{A}_z=\{\, z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}\,:\,|z|>1 \,\}$. In the proof of Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt}, we have shown that $\Psi(z)$ is L-unimodular. Since $D_+(z)$ is diagonal and canonic and $\Sigma^*(z)$ is L-unimodular, by (\ref{eq:Xi(z)}), it follows that $[\Xi(z)]_{ij}\in\mathbb{R}[z,z^{-1}]$ must be divisible (the concept of divisibility here is the one associated to the ring of L-polynomials) by the polynomial
\[
p_{ij}(z):=\frac{[D_+(z)]_{jj}}{[D_+(z)]_{ii}}, \ \ \ j\geq i.
\]
On the other hand, let us consider the opposite choice $\mathscr{A}_p=\mathscr{A}_z=\{\, z\in{\mathbb{C}}\,:\,|z|<1 \,\}$.
By using the right-standard counterpart of Lemma \ref{lemma4} and by following verbatim the argument used in step 3 of Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt}, it can be proven that $\Psi(z)$ is still L-unimodular. Hence, by (\ref{eq:Xi(z)}), $[\Xi(s)]_{ij}$ must be also divisible by the L-polynomial $p_{ij}(z^{-1})$, $j\geq i$. Therefore, $[\Xi(z)]_{ij}$ must be divisible by the L-polynomial
\[
q_{ij}(z):= p_{ij}(z) p_{ij}(z^{-1}), \ \ \ j\geq i.
\]
Since, for any choice of the unmixed-symplectic sets $\mathscr{A}_p$ and $\mathscr{A}_z$, the factors of $[D_+(z)]_{jj}[D_+(z)]_{ii}^{-1}$, $j\geq i$, are contained in the ones of $q_{ij}(z)$, then $[\Xi(z)]_{ij}$ must be divisible by the polynomial $[D_+(z)]_{jj}[D_+(z)]_{ii}^{-1}$, $j\geq i$, for any choice of $\mathscr{A}_p$ and $\mathscr{A}_z$. We conclude that $\Psi(z)$ must be a L-polynomial matrix for any choice of $\mathscr{A}_p$ and $\mathscr{A}_z$. But, since $\Psi(z)$ is para-Hermitian, $\det \Psi(z)$ is a real constant, hence $\Psi(z)$ is L-unimodular.
To prove point \ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(3)}) we need to show that the McMillan degree of the spectral factor $W(z)$ just obtained equals one half of the McMillan degree of $\Phi(z)$. To this aim, we can follow the same lines of the proof of point \ref{item:thmsf-dt(vii)}) of Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt}.
In fact, we can define $\mathscr{A}_{p,1}:=\mathscr{A}_p\setminus \left(\{\,z\in\mathbb{C}\,:\, |z|=1\,\}\cup\{0,\infty\}\right)$ and partition $\mathbb{C}_0$ as
$$
\mathbb{C}_0=\{\,z\in\mathbb{C}\,:\, 1/z\in\mathscr{A}_{p,1}\,\}\cup \{\,z\in\mathbb{C}\,:\, |z|=1\,\}\cup \mathscr{A}_{p,1}
$$
and replace equation (\ref{MMd=Sod}) with the more general expression for the degree of the pole $p_i$ of $\Phi(z)$
\begin{equation}\label{MMd=Sod-gen}
\delta(\Phi;p_i)=\begin{cases} \delta(W;p_i) & \text{if } 1/p_i\in \mathscr{A}_{p,1}, \\
2\delta(W;p_i) & \text{if } |p_i|=1,\\
\delta(W;1/p_i) & \text{if } p_i\in \mathscr{A}_{p,1}. \end{cases}\nonumber
\end{equation}
The rest of the proof remains the same.
The proof of point \ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(4)}) is very similar to that of point \ref{item:thmsf-dt(iii)}) of Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt}. The only difference is that the para-unitary matrix function $V(z):=W_1(z)W^{-R}(z)$ and its inverse are not analytic in $\{\, z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}} \,:\, |z|> 1\,\}$ but they are analytic in $\mathscr{A}_p$, so that Lemma \ref{lemma2} still applies.
As for point \ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(6)}), we define $V(z):=L(z)W^{-R}(z)$ which is clearly para-unitary and analytic in $\mathscr{A}_z$, and the same computation that led to (\ref{w1=vw}), gives $L(z)=V(z)W(z)$.
On the other hand, if $V(z)$ is para-unitary and analytic in $\mathscr{A}_p$, then it is immediate to check that $L(z):=V(z)W(z)$ is a spectral factor of $\Phi(z)$ and is analytic in $\mathscr{A}_p$ as well.
The proof of points \ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(7)}) and \ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(8)}) is exactly the same as that of points \ref{item:thmsf-dt(v)}) and \ref{item:thmsf-dt(vi)})
of Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt}.
\hspace*{\fill}~\QED\par\endtrivlist\unskip}
\subsection{Corollaries}
To conclude this section, we present two straightforward corollaries of Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt}.
The first is a complete parametrization of the set of all spectral factors of a given spectrum.
\begin{corollary}
Let $\Phi(z)$ be a given spectrum and $W(z)$ be any spectral factor satisfying conditions \ref{item:thmsf-dt(i)}) and \ref{item:thmsf-dt(ii)}) of Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt}.
Let $L(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{m\times n}$, then $\Phi(z)=L^*(z) L(z)$ if and only if
\[
L(z)=V(z)\left[\begin{array}{c}
I_r \\
\hline
\mathbf{0}_{m-r, r}
\end{array}\right] W(z),
\]
where $V(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{m\times m}$ is an arbitrary para-unitary matrix and $r=\mathrm{rk}(\Phi)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By repeating an argument used in points \ref{item:thmsf-dt(iii)}) and \ref{item:thmsf-dt(iv)}) of Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt}, we have that $L(z)=U(z)W(z)$, with $U(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{m\times r}$ a rational matrix satisfying $U^*(z)U(z)=I_r$.
If we choose $V(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{m\times m}$ to be any para-unitary matrix with $U(z)$ incorporated into its first $r$ columns, i.e.,
\[
U(z)=V(z)\left[\begin{array}{c}
I_r \\
\hline
\mathbf{0}_{m-r, r}
\end{array}\right],
\]
we conclude.
\end{proof}
The next result characterizes the spectral factors of L-polynomial spectra.
\begin{corollary}
Let $\Phi(z)$ be a spectrum and $W(z)$ be the spectral factor provided in the (constructive) proof of Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt-g}. Assume that $\Phi(z)$ is L-polynomial.
If $\infty\in\mathscr{A}_p$, then $W(z)$ is polynomial in $z^{-1}$ (so that $W^*(z)$ is polynomial in $z$). Otherwise, $0\in\mathscr{A}_p$ and $W(z)$ is polynomial in $z$ (so that $W^*(z)$ is polynomial in $z^{-1}$).
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} We consider only the case of $\infty\in\mathscr{A}_p$, the other being similar.
If $\Phi(z)$ is L-polynomial, then the only finite pole it may possess is located at $z=0$.
Since $W(z)$ does not have the pole at infinity, $W(z)$ must be polynomial in $z^{-1}$. The latter fact, in turn, implies that $W^*(z)$ must be a polynomial matrix.
\end{proof}
\section{A numerical example}\label{sec:numerical-example}
In this section, we will show an application to stochastic realization of the algorithm used in the constructive proof of Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt-g}.
To this aim, let us consider a purely non-deterministic, second order process $\{y(t)\}_{t\in\mathbb{Z}}$ whose spectral density is
\[
\Phi(z) =\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{-2z+6-2z^{-1}}{-2z +5 -2z^{-1}} & z-1 & z-1 \\ z^{-1} -1 & -z +2 -z^{-1} &-z +2 -z^{-1}\\
z^{-1} -1 & -z +2 -z^{-1} &-z +2 -z^{-1}
\end{bmatrix}.
\]
We want to compute a stochastically minimal, anti-causal realization of $\{y(t)\}_{t\in\mathbb{Z}}$ having all its zeroes in the (closed) unit disk. Since our method has been developed to compute a spectral factorization in the form
$\Phi(z)=W^\top (z^{-1}) W(z)$, this requirement corresponds to the choice $\mathscr{A}_z:=\{\,z\in\mathbb{C}\,:\, |z|<1\,\}$ and $\mathscr{A}_p:=\{\,z\in\mathbb{C}\,:\, |z|>1\,\}$.
Notice that $\Phi(z)$ is non-proper, it features a zero on the unit circle and it is rank deficient, namely $\mathrm{rk}(\Phi)=2$.
We now apply step-by-step the proposed factorization algorithm in order to compute a spectral factor $W(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{2\times 3}$ analytic in $\mathscr{A}_p$ with right inverse analytic in $\mathscr{A}_z$.
{\em Step 1.} The Smith-McMillan canonical form of $\Phi(z)$ is given by
\[
D(z)=\operatorname{diag}\left[ \frac{1}{z(z-2)(z-\frac{1}{2})}, z(z-1)^2\right],
\]
$\Phi(z)$ can be decomposed as
\[
\Phi(z)=C(z)D(z)F(z),
\] where $C(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z]^{3\times 2}$ and $F(z)\in\mathbb{R}[z]^{2\times 3}$ are unimodular matrices.
{\em Step 2.} The matrices $\Lambda(z)$, $\Theta(z)$ and $\Sigma(z)$ defined in (\ref{eq:Dz-dec-thm1}) have the form
\begin{align*}
&\Lambda(z)=\operatorname{diag}\left[ \frac{1}{z\left(z-\frac{1}{2}\right)}, 1 \right], \Theta(z)=\operatorname{diag}\left[1, z-1\right],\\ &\Sigma(z)=\operatorname{diag}\left[-\frac{1}{2 z^2}, -z^2\right].
\end{align*}
Note that $\Lambda(z)$ is analytic in $\mathscr{A}_p\setminus\{\infty\}$ with inverse analytic in $\mathscr{A}_z$.
Let $A(z) = C(z)\Sigma(z)\Lambda^*(z)$, $B(z) = \Lambda(z)F(z)$.
{\em Step 3.} The matrix $\Psi(z)=\Theta(z)^{-1}N(z)\Theta(z)$, with $N(z)=A^*(z)B^{-R}(z)$, is given by
\begin{align*}
&\Psi(z) = \Theta(z)^{-1}N(z)\Theta(z)\\
&=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\frac{1}{2}z+\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2}z^{-1} & -\frac{9}{4}z^3+\frac{25}{2}z^2-\frac{43}{2}z+\frac{43}{4}+\frac{1}{2}z^{-1} \\
\frac{1}{2}z+\frac{43}{4}-\frac{43}{2}z^{-1}+\frac{25}{2}z^{-2} -\frac{9}{4}z^{-3}& \psi_{22}(z)
\end{smallmatrix}
\right].
\end{align*}
where $\psi_{22}(z):=\frac{9}{4} z^3+\frac{341}{8} z^2-\frac{1747}{8} z+\frac{2780}{8}-\frac{1747}{8} z^{-1}+\frac{341}{8}z^{-2} +\frac{9}{4}z^{-3}$.
It is worth noting that $\Psi(z)$ is para-Hermitian, L-unimodular and positive definite upon the unit circle.
{\em Step 4.} Let $\Psi_1(z):=\Psi(z)$. The highest-column-degree coefficient matrix of $\Psi_1(z)$ is
\[
\Psi_1^{\mathrm{hc}}= \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
-\frac{1}{2} & -\frac{9}{4} \\
\frac{1}{2} & \frac{9}{4} \\
\end{array}
\right].
\]
Since $\Psi_1^{\mathrm{hc}}$ is singular, we calculate a nonzero vector $\mathbf{v}_1\in\ker \Psi_1^{\mathrm{hc}}$. One such a vector is given, for instance, by $\mathbf{v}_1 = [9\ -2]^\top$. The highest maximum-degree active index set is $\mathcal{M}_1=\{2\}$, we construct the unimodular matrix $\Omega_1^{-1}(z)$ of the form (\ref{eq:matrix-reduction-dt})
\[
\Omega_1^{-1}(z) = \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & -\frac{9 }{2}z^2 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right]
\]
in order to reduce the maximum degree of the second column of $\Psi_1(z)$,
\begin{align*}
&\Psi_2(z) = \Omega_1^{-*}(z)\Psi_1(z)\Omega_1^{-1}(z)\\ &=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\frac{1}{2}z +\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2}z^{-1} & \frac{23}{4} z^2-\frac{77}{4} z+\frac{43}{4}+\frac{1}{2}z^{-1} \\
\frac{1}{2} z +\frac{43}{4}-\frac{77}{4} z^{-1}+\frac{23}{4} z^{-2} & -\frac{23}{4} z^2-\frac{973}{4} z+\frac{2123}{4} -\frac{973}{4} z^{-1}-\frac{23}{4}z^{-2} \\
\end{smallmatrix}\right].
\end{align*}
Since $\Psi_2^{\mathrm{hc}}$ is singular, we repeat the previous step. In this case, we have $\mathbf{v}_2=[23 \ 2]^\top\in\ker \Psi_2^{\mathrm{hc}}$, $\mathcal{M}_2=\{2\}$, and
\[
\Omega_2^{-1}(z) = \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & \frac{23}{2}z \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right].
\]
Hence, we compute the reduced matrix
\begin{align*}
\Psi_3(z) &= \Omega_2^{-*}(z)\Psi_2(z)\Omega_2^{-1}(z)\\ &=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
-\frac{1}{2}z+\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2}z^{-1} & -2 z+5+\frac{1}{2}z^{-1} \\
\frac{1}{2}z+5-2z^{-1} & 2 z+21+ 2z^{-1} \\
\end{array}
\right].
\end{align*}
Actually, $\Psi_3^{\mathrm{hc}}$ is singular. In this case, $\mathbf{v}_3=[-4 \ 1]^\top\in\ker \Psi_3^{\mathrm{hc}}$, $\mathcal{M}_3=\{2\}$,
\[
\Omega_3^{-1}(z)=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & -4 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right]
\]
and we obtain
\begin{align*}
\Psi_4(z) &= \Omega_3^{-*}(z)\Psi_3(z)\Omega_3^{-1}(z)\\
&=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
-\frac{1}{2}z+\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2}z^{-1} & -1+\frac{5}{2 }z^{-1} \\
\frac{5}{2}z-1 & 5 \\
\end{array}
\right].
\end{align*}
Yet another iteration is required; indeed $\Psi_4^{\mathrm{hc}}$ is singular. Thus we proceed by computing $\mathbf{v}_4=[-2 \ 1]^\top\in\ker \Psi_4^{\mathrm{hc}}$, $\mathcal{M}_3=\{1\}$,
\[
\Omega_4^{-1}(z)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
-\frac{1}{2}z & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right]
\]
and eventually we arrive at
\begin{align*}
\Psi_5 = \Omega_4^{-*}(z)\Psi_4(z)\Omega_4^{-1}(z)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{1}{4} & -1 \\
-1 & 5 \\
\end{array}
\right].
\end{align*}
The latter matrix is constant and positive definite; therefore it admits a Cholesky factorization
\[
\Psi_5=C^\top C,\quad C=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{1}{2} & -2 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right].
\]
The fourth step of the algorithm is concluded, since we found a factorization $\Psi(z)=P^*(z)P(z)$, with $P(z)$ unimodular of the form
\begin{align*}
P(z)&=C\Omega_4(z)\Omega_3(z)\Omega_2(z)\Omega_1(z)\\
&=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
-z+\frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{4} z \left(18 z^2-55 z+39\right) \\
\frac{1}{2}z & \frac{1}{4} \left(9 z^3-23 z^2+8 z+4\right) \\
\end{array}
\right].
\end{align*}
Finally, we have that
\[
W(z)=P(z)\Theta(z)B(z)=\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
-\frac{1}{z} & \frac{1}{z}-1 & \frac{1}{z}-1 \\
\frac{1}{2 z-1} & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right].
\]
is a stochastically minimal spectral factor of $\Phi(z)$ analytic in $\mathscr{A}_p$ with right inverse analytic in $\mathscr{A}_z$.
Therefore the sought for realization is
$$
y(t)=W^\top(z^{-1}) e(t)
$$
with $e(t)$ being white noise.
\section{Concluding remarks and future directions}\label{sec:conclusions}
In this paper we have established a general result on spectral factorization for an arbitrary discrete-time spectrum.
This result opens the way for many applications and generalizations of known results in several fields of systems theory such as estimation and stochastic realization.
In particular, for these applications it will be important to further investigate the links between arbitrary spectral factors and stochastic minimality.
A conjecture in this direction, which is currently under investigation, is the following.
\begin{conjecture}
Let $\Phi(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{n\times n}$ be a spectrum of normal rank $\mathrm{rk}(\Phi)=r\neq 0$.
Let $\mathscr{A}_p$ and $\mathscr{A}_z$ be two unmixed-symplectic sets.
Let $W(z)$ be a spectral factor satisfying points \ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(1)}), \ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(2)}) and \ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(3)}) of Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt-g}.
Then $W(z)$
is unique up to a constant, orthogonal matrix multiplier on the left, i.e., if $W_1(z)$ also satisfies points \ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(1)}), \ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(2)}) and \ref{item:thmsf-dt-g(3)}), then $W_1(z)=TW(z)$ where $T\in\mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$ is orthogonal.
\end{conjecture}
This conjecture would be a first step towards a complete parametrization of the set of all stochastically minimal right invertible spectral factors. We believe that this set can be parametrized very efficiently in terms of the all-pass divisors of a generalized {\em phase function} $T_0(z)$:\footnote{Notice that the definition of phase function employed in the conjecture is dual with respect to the classical definition used in stochastic realization,
\cite{Lindquist-P-85-siam,Lindquist-P-91-jmsec}.}
\begin{conjecture}
Let $\Phi(z)\in\mathbb{R}(z)^{n\times n}$ be a spectrum of normal rank $\mathrm{rk}(\Phi)=r\neq 0$.
Let $W_-(z)$ be the spectral factor corresponding to Theorem \ref{thmsf-dt} and $\overline{W}_+(z)$ be the spectral factor corresponding to $\mathscr{A}_p=\mathscr{A}_z:=\{\, z\in\mathbb{C}\,:\, |z|<1\,\}$.
Let $T_0$ be the all-pass function defined by $T_0(z):=\overline{W}_+(z)W_-^{-R}(z)$.
Then, the set of all minimal right invertible spectral factors of $\Phi(z)$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\big\{\,W(z)=T_1(z) W_-(z)\,:\,\\
&&\hspace{1.5cm} T_1^\ast (z)T_1(z) =T_1 (z)T_1^\ast (z) =I_r,\\
&&\hspace{1.5cm} \delta_M(T_1(z))+\delta_M(T_0(z)T_1^\ast (z))=\delta_M(T_0(z))\,\big\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{conjecture}
|
\section{Introduction}
Finding interesting images from a large collection is
a need common to both laymen surfing the internet and professional
graphic designers in their work. Content-based image retrieval (CBIR)
systems try to fulfil the need by showing images that are similar to
what they think the user is looking for. Unfortunately CBIR systems typically
do not have a clear idea of what the user is looking for, due to
difficulties in communicating visual content from the user to the
system. One approach to get the search started is to prune the set of
candidate images with a keyword or tag search, given that the
images in the collection have been tagged beforehand. However, simple
tags do not carry all interesting information about the images and
hence the number of images after pruning might still be so large that
a further content-based search is needed. Moreover, the tags are often
imperfect and it may be difficult for the user to formulate relevant
tags, for example if the goal is to find an image that fits well into
a given poster, or to find a beautiful image of a flower. A common
approach to continue the search, after possible pruning by tags, is to
ask the user for explicit relevance feedback on the shown
images~\cite{datta:acm08}. However, this is a laborious process and
the user might be unwilling to invest such an effort, for example
while casually browsing the web.
Another approach is to obtain this feedback implicitly, by measuring
indirect signals on attention patterns of the users and inferring the
relevance of the seen images from these~\cite{%
DBLP:phd/de/Essig2007,GrecuPhD06,diane:sigir02,klami:mir08,OyekoyaPhD07,Scherffig05}.
This is the approach taken also by PinView, a CBIR system presented in
this paper. PinView uses implicit feedback from eye movements and
explicit feedback from pointer clicks to infer the interests of the
user, in order to iteratively show more relevant images.
Our argument on the feasibility of using eye tracking is that even
though trackers are still somewhat expensive and cumbersome to use, it
is a plausible scenario that they will become widely available and
widely used in several applications. There are no fundamental
restrictions on why an eye tracker could not be integrated into every
PC and smart phone, because mass-manufacturing core components of
trackers based on infrared oculography is not expensive: they require
a camera, an infra-red light source, and software. Once eye trackers
are available, the added cost of using them in CBIR is very low.
PinView must solve several subproblems to take advantage of the
recorded noisy implicit relevance feedback. The first problem is how
to infer relevance of seen images from gaze patterns and clicks. The
second problem is that there is a multitude of different visual (low-level)
features and similarity measures for images. Each of these captures a
specific aspect of similarity, like color, texture, or shape of edges
in the image. Which of these features are relevant in the current
search and how does the user perceive them? PinView infers a
customized similarity metric for each search session with a multiple
kernel learning algorithm and tensor projection working on these
features.
The third and final problem is how to select images to show to the
user. Given that the system is able to show the user only a
limited number of images, how should it balance exploitation of its
currently limited knowledge of the query and exploration of new kinds
of images? PinView incorporates a specialized
exploration-exploitation algorithm \mbox{\sc LinRel}\ which uses the inferred
metric between images to suggest new images to be shown to the user.
In this paper we introduce the full PinView system expanding from the
two partial views in preliminary conference papers
\cite{Auer10wapa,Hussain10}. We apply PinView to both offline and
online CBIR tasks to study it both in controllable setups and in real
image retrieval settings.
The structure of the remaining paper is as follows. First, in
Section~\ref{section:background} we go through related work.
Section~\ref{section:system} presents details on the different
components of PinView. Section~\ref{section:experiments} gives
results of the experiments with the PinView system and finally
Section~\ref{section:conclusion} concludes.
\section{Background and Related Work}
\label{section:background}
In this section we discuss related work in image retrieval and
eye movement research.
Content-based image retrieval (CBIR) is a well-researched topic, whose
history can be followed and comprehensive introductions to which can
be found in surveys such
as~\cite{datta:acm08,Rui99,Smeulders2000,Veltkamp2002}.
In addition, many of CBIR's research questions have been
covered by related works on content-based multimedia retrieval,
including, e.g., reviews~\cite{Lew2006,Sebe2003}.
The \emph{semantic gap}~\cite{Smeulders2000}, i.e., the unavoidable
inability of low-level visual features to capture and mediate the
semantic content and mutual similarity of images, has often been cited
as the foremost hindrance of successful CBIR.
In particular, the existence of the semantic gap has been given as a
reason for the failure of image retrieval approaches that have relied
on automatic image interpretation and textual querying.
How severely the gap actually harms the accuracy and usability of a
CBIR system will depend on the application and the particular image
retrieval task at hand.
In some types of searches it will be just the visual and not the
semantic similarity between the searched and retrieved images that
plays the primary role and, consequently, the problem of the semantic
gap will be minimal~\cite{datta:acm08}.
Since the mid-1990's, \emph{relevance feedback}
has been used for incorporating the user's preferences
and his understanding of the semantic similarity of images in the
retrieval process~\cite{Picard96-2,Rui98-2}.
Research on relevance feedback techniques constitutes a subfield of
CBIR research in its own right and the early works on the topic have
been summarized in~\cite{Zhou2003}.
The forms of explicit user interaction and giving of relevance
feedback in interactive CBIR vary.
In retrieval systems with multiple feature representations of the
images, a straightforward approach could be to ask the user to tune
the relative weights of the features in order to be able to find more
relevant images~\cite{Rui98-2}.
The weight tuning method and other approaches where the user is
required to be able to modify the internal parameters of the CBIR
system are, however, impractical for non-professional use.
In practical CBIR systems implementing relevance feedback, the
standard setting is that after the user has been presented with a set of
images, the system expects him to reliably assess the relevance of
each retrieved image and to return this information back to the
system~\cite{Zhou2003}.
This effectively reformulates the interactive image retrieval process
as an online machine learning task with small but increasing numbers
of training samples to learn the statistics of relevant (and
non-relevant) images on each query round.
From the user interface perspective, this type of relevance feedback
is often implemented by the means of the user clicking on the relevant
images, checking associated check boxes or giving a numerical relevance
assessment to each image with a slider or from a multi-value choice
list.
It is also possible that instead of assessing each image
independently, the user is asked to rank the images on the page
by their relevance in \emph{comparison searching}~\cite{Cox98}.
In numerous studies (e.g.~those cited in~\cite{Zhou2003}), explicit
interactive relevance feedback has been shown to provide a dramatic
improvement in the accuracy of image retrieval.
Giving explicit and accurate relevance feedback for each seen image
is, however, bound to be time consuming and cognitively strenuous.
Therefore, implicit feedback strategies have received considerable
interest in the information retrieval (IR) community, due to the
promise of decreasing the burden on the user. It has become clear that
implicit feedback can improve information retrieval accuracy (see the
review~\cite{diane:sigir02}), but figuring out the most effective
modalities for various search scenarios is still a subject of ongoing
research and various alternatives are being proposed ranging from
simple measures like number of clicks to brain computer interfaces
that are not yet practically feasible for real search tools.
The more traditional implicit feedback approaches rely on feedback
obtained from the control devices. Claypool et al.~\cite{Claypool01}
studied use of mouse and keyboard activity, as well as time spent on
the page and scrolling, and \cite{Fox05} compared the amount of
information between such implicit channels and explicit feedback. The
most consistent finding in these kinds of works has been that the time
spent on the page and the way the user exits the page are good
indicators of relevance. More advanced works still using the regular
control devices use click-through data, typically on the search result
page \cite{Joachims05}. While these sources of implicit information
are readily available for all search tools, they provide a rather
limited view of the actions and intents of the user.
In the other extreme, a number of approaches have used brain computer
interfaces for IR or related tasks. The C3Vision system
\cite{Gerson06} and a human-aided computing approach by
\cite{Shenoy08} infer image categories or presence of distinct objects
in images from EEG measurements, and \cite{Kay08,Mitchell04} use fMRI
techniques for image categorization. Wang et al.~\cite{Wang09} built
a prototype image annotation system using these ideas; relevance of
images is inferred from EEG and visual pattern mining is used to
retrieve similar images. They do not, however, consider a full
relevance feedback procedure for retrieval, but only study a single
iteration and measure the performance as annotation accuracy. Brain
activity measurements provide the most accurate picture of the intents
of the user, but are clearly not yet practically feasible for real
retrieval tools. Notable instrumentation and modeling challenges
remain to be solved for making the devices applicable for daily use.
The most interesting implicit feedback modalities fall between these
two extremes. Various information signals can be captured by
microphones, cameras or other easily wearable sensors, and they are
likely to contain more information on the intentions of the user than
what can be observed through the traditional control devices. Both
speech and gestures have been extensively used as explicit control
modalities, but there are also a few studies on their implicit use.
For example, \cite{Vinciarelli09} infers tags for images from implicit
speech and \cite{Arapakis09} considers facial expressions as
indicators of topical relevance. In addition, various physiological
measurements are extensively used for inferring the affective state of
the user, which can in turn be used as a feedback source
\cite{Arapakis08,Soleymani08}. However, to our knowledge there are no
fully fledged image retrieval systems that use these input
modalities as implicit feedback.
The primary feedback in this work is based on eye movements, which
have become an increasingly popular feedback source in recent years,
following the early concepts by \cite{Maglio00}. The primary body of
eye-tracking works in IR has been done for text retrieval,
because the highly structured eye movements while reading are easier
to model. The
approaches range from explicit control \cite{Ward02} and
relevance estimation of text passages \cite{Buscher08,Puolamaki05sigir}
to inferring complete queries based on eye-movements on the results
pages \cite{Ajanki09}.
The text retrieval works were followed by early attempts to utilizing
eye movements in image retrieval.
Based on the results of a comparison between a visual attention model
and measured gaze fixations, it was suggested in~\cite{Oyekoya2004}
that eye tracking could be used as an interface for image retrieval,
but no actual retrieval setup was yet investigated.
The \emph{Eye-Vision-Bot} system, presented in~\cite{Scherffig05},
integrated an eye tracker with the GIFT image retrieval
system\footnote{http://www.gnu.org/software/gift/} merely as a
demonstration of the possibilities of gaze-based interaction without
any experimental evaluations.
In~\cite{GrecuPhD06,Grecu05}, a CBIR system was implemented that used
offline image saliency and online gaze fixations for extracting visual
features from those image areas that were likely to be relevant when
determining the relevancy of the image. The system showed promising
results in offline experiments, but was not ready for real interactive
user experiments.
First fully interactive and experimentally evaluated CBIR systems that
made use of eye-tracking data were presented in~\cite{%
DBLP:phd/de/Essig2007,OyekoyaPhD07,Oyekoya06}.
The selection of an image as relevant was in~\cite{Oyekoya06} solely
dependent on the accumulated fixation time exceeding a preset
threshold, whereas in~\cite{OyekoyaPhD07} also a richer set of gaze
parameters, including saccadic speeds and the number of images with
fixations, were used.
Image similarity assessment was in~\cite{DBLP:phd/de/Essig2007} based
on visual features extracted from non-overlapping tiles of the images.
The user indicated the most relevant image by clicking, after which
new images were retrieved based on the sum of tile-wise feature
distances weighted with values from the fixation map.
Clear performance improvements were obtained in the evaluations over
random selection in~\cite{OyekoyaPhD07,Oyekoya06} and over simple
image clicking without gaze-based distance weighting
in~\cite{DBLP:phd/de/Essig2007}.
Two decisive characteristics common to the setups of~\cite{%
DBLP:phd/de/Essig2007,OyekoyaPhD07,Oyekoya06} should, however, be
noticed. First, the user is expected to always explicitly select
exactly one relevant image, by either eye fixation or mouse
clicking. Second, the user interface has in the experiments been such
that the target or query image is continuously visible on the screen,
which is not plausible in real CBIR applications. Showing the target
will also facilitate and even encourage the use of gaze for image
comparison, which will certainly have an effect on the gaze patterns.
Later, also~\cite{Kozma09} and~\cite{Liang10,Zhang10} and~\cite{Faro10}
introduced their image retrieval systems using eye
movements.
The first one~\cite{Kozma09} was based on a conceptual interface
designed to be controlled completely by implicit gaze, providing a mix
of a browsing and search tool. A small-scale online experiment was
provided, but it cannot be used for drawing strong conclusions on the
accuracy of the retrieval results.
The second study mostly concentrated on the accuracy of inferring the
relevance in~\cite{Zhang10} and on fixation-weighted region matching
between the query and database images in~\cite{Liang10}.
The last one~\cite{Faro10} used gaze data for genuinely implicit
relevance feedback by the means of reranking the results of Google
Image Search. However, the system was not fully functional yet as the
described experimantal evaluation was done in a non-interactive mode.
\section{System Components}
\label{section:system}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.5\columnwidth]{PinViewSystem.pdf}}
\caption{Main components and data flow in PinView.}
\label{figure:relations}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
In this section we describe the main components of the system.
It consists of four main components, which
will be explained in more detail in the following sections.
The first component predicts the relevance of seen images
based on clicks and image features.
Tensor decomposition and multiple kernel learning modules then
infer a metric between images using known visual features of the
images (see Table~\ref{table:imagefeatures} and~\cite{SPIC2007} for
more detailed descriptions of the used features) and relevance
feedback on the seen images. The final component, a specialized
exploration-exploitation algorithm \mbox{\sc LinRel}\ suggests new images to be
shown to the user.
Figure~\ref{figure:relations} summarizes the flow of information and
the relationships between the different components. The input from the
user, captured by mouse clicks and the eye tracker, is fed into the
image relevance predictor. The predicted relevance scores are then
given to the multiple kernel learning module together with the image
features extracted from the images, for the purpose of learning which
feature sets the similarity metric should utilize for comparing the
images. The metric is fed to the tensor decomposition module to be
combined with the eye movement features, in order to learn a
representation that enables implicitly estimating eye movement
features also for unseen images. Finally, the system selects a
new set of images with the \mbox{\sc LinRel}\ algorithm based on the inferred
relevance scores and the final metric given by the tensor
decomposition, and the images are retrieved from a database and
displayed through the PicSOM backend~\cite{laaksonen:networks02}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Image features used in PinView}
\label{table:imagefeatures}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| l |r|} \cline{1-2}
\multicolumn{1}{| l |}{Feature} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{dim.} \\\cline{1-2}
DCT coefficients of average colour in rectangular grid & 12 \\
CIE Lab colour of two dominant colour clusters & 6 \\
Histogram of local edge statistics & 80 \\
Haar transform of quantised HSV colour histogram & 256 \\
Histogram of interest point SIFT features & 256 \\
Average CIE Lab colour & 15 \\
Three central moments of CIE Lab colour distribution & 45 \\
Histogram of four Sobel edge directions & 20 \\
Co-occurrence matrix of four Sobel edge directions & 80 \\
Magnitude of the $16 \times 16$ FFT of Sobel edge image & 128 \\
Histogram of relative brightness of neighbouring pixels & 40 \\
\cline{1-2}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Relevance Prediction from Eye Movements and Clicks}
\label{section:relevance}
PinView infers relevance of images during a search task from implicit
feedback, explicit feedback given be the user, or their
combination. As implicit feedback PinView uses eye movements of the
user, building on the recent promising results on inferring image
relevance from eye movements \cite{Kozma09,Zhang10}.
The gaze direction is an indicator of the focus of attention, since
accurate viewing is possible only in the central fovea area which
covers 1--2 degrees of the visual angle.
However, the correspondence is not one-to-one because the users can
shift the attention without moving their eyes.
Gaze tracking has been used extensively in the psychology literature,
and more recently also in information retrieval settings to track
attention patterns of users.
Some examples include the human-computer interaction aspects of how
users perform searches~\cite{cutrell07}, analysis of user behavior in
web search~\cite{granka04}, and using eye movements as implicit
relevance feedback in textual IR~\cite{Hardoon07,Salojarvi03}.
The promising results on the textual IR task suggest that using eye
movements for relevance determination could be possible also in image
retrieval tasks, where they would be even more severely needed.
Hence, the PinView system estimates the relationship between eye
movement patterns and relevance of images from data. As explicit
feedback PinView uses pointer clicks by the user.
We measured the eye movements with a Tobii 1750 eye tracker with 50Hz
sampling rate. The tracker has two infra-red lights and an infra-red
stereo camera attached to a flat-screen monitor, and the
tracking is based on detection of pupil centers and measurement of
corneal reflection. The eyes move in rapid ballistic movements called
saccades, from one fixation to another. Within each fixation the eyes
are fairly motionless. Raw eye measurements are preprocessed by first
extracting fixations and saccades, judging a set of consecutive raw
measurements to be a fixation if they occur within a dispersion
of 30 pixels, which at normal viewing distance is equivalent to
roughly 0.6 visual degrees (17 inch screen with resolution of
1280$\times$1024 pixels). A fixation is defined to be a period of at
least 100 milliseconds of looking at a single location on the screen.
Inferring the relevance feedback requires a mapping from the gaze
pattern to the relevances. It is infeasible to assume that such a
mapping could be constructed from first principles of human vision,
and therefore we take the machine learning approach of learning it
from data. That is, we assume a simple parametric mapping from a set
of gaze features computed from the eye movement trajectory to the
relevances, and learn its parameters from a training
data with known relevance scores.
To avoid needing user adaptation, we learned a single user- and
task-independent predictor from data collected from multiple users and
a few search tasks. This was done on data collected in online search
sessions separate from the actual experiments reported in
Section~\ref{section:experiments}, to avoid possible biases due to
having trained the relevance predictor in the same search tasks.
For each viewed image $I$ PinView collects 19 features
(Table~\ref{table:eyefeatures}) computed from both raw eye movement
samples and fixations, including aspects such as the logarithm of the
total time the image was looked at and the number of regressions to
already seen images. Instead of attempting to construct maximally
pyschovisually motivated features, the set of features was chosen so
that they are efficient to compute and can intuitively be expected to
be informative of the relevance. Furthermore, the features do not
depend on the image content, so that the predictor can directly
generalize to different search tasks and databases.
The relevance score of an image is predicted from the
features using a logistic regression model.
In detail, for an eye movement feature vector ${\psi(I)}$ PinView computes
the relevance score $\textrm{rel}({\psi(I)}|{\mathbf{v}},b)$ as
\[
\textrm{rel}({\psi(I)}|{\mathbf{v}},b) = \frac{1}{1+\exp{\left(-{\mathbf{v}}^\top {\psi(I)} +b\right)}},
\]
where ${\mathbf{v}}$ and $b$ are the learned parameters, a weight
vector and a bias term.
To improve the accuracy, each feature was standardized to zero mean
and unit variance and the parameters were learned with 2-norm
regularization on the weights, the regularization constant selected
by 5-fold cross validation.
Finally, the predicted relevance for images not viewed at all is
set at a small constant value.
In the relevance predictor training data, six subjects (staff members
of Aalto University who were not associated with this work) performed
12 different search tasks. The objective of each task was to find as
many examples as possible of a given image category of the PASCAL
Visual Object Classes Challenge 2007 (VOC2007)
dataset~\cite{pascal-voc-2007}. Ten collages consisting of 15 images
chosen by the PicSOM system were shown in each task, containing
a varying number of relevant images
to cover various types of collages observed in real search tasks.
In six of the 12
search tasks the objective was to find either a cat or dog and the
database was limited to cat and dog images, resulting in around 50\%
of images being relevant. The other six tasks had 8--12\% of relevant
images, and the target was either motorbikes or aircrafts in the full
VOC 2007 collection.
Finally, when combining implicit and explicit feedback, we resorted to
a simple and fast method: The information of which images were clicked
is integrated to the model by adding a constant $\alpha$, determined
in offline experiments, to the relevance score of the clicked
image. The final relevance prediction is hence given by
\begin{equation}
\textrm{rel}({\psi(I)},\delta|{\mathbf{v}},b,\alpha) = \frac{1}{1+\exp{\left(-{\mathbf{v}}^\top {\psi(I)} +b\right)}} + \delta \alpha ,
\label{eq:eye-prediction}
\end{equation}
where $\delta=1$ for images that were clicked and $\delta=0$ for all other
images. As a side effect, the relevance score is not directly
interpretable as a probability but that does not affect the next steps.
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{Eye movement features collected in PinView.}
\label{table:eyefeatures}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\hline
Number & Name & Description\\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{l}{\textbf{Raw data features}} \\
1 & numMeasurements & log of total time of viewing the image \\
2 & numOutsideFix & total time for measurements outside fixations \\
3 & ratioInsideOutside & percentage of measurements inside/outside fixations \\
4 & speed & average distance between two consecutive measurements \\
5 & coverage & number of subimages ($4 \times 4$ grid) that contain at least one measurement\\
6 & normCoverage & coverage normalized by numMeasurements \\
7 & pupil & maximal pupil diameter during viewing \\
8 & nJumps1 & number of breaks (measurements outside the image between two visits) longer than 60ms \\
9 & nJumps2 & number of breaks longer than 600ms\\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{l}{\textbf{Fixation features}} \\
10 & numFix & total number of fixations \\
11 & meanFixLen & mean length of fixations \\
12 & totalFixLen & total length of fixations\\
13 & fixPrct & percentage of time spent in fixations\\
14 & nJumpsFix & number of re-visits (regressions) to the image\\
15 & maxAngle & maximal angle between two consecutive saccades, transitions from one fixation to another \\
16 & firstFixLen & length of the first fixation\\
17 & firstFixNum & number of fixations during the first visit\\
18 & distPrev & distance to the fixation before the first visit\\
19 & durPrev & duration of the fixation before the first visit\\
\hline\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Multiple Kernel Learning}
\label{section:mkl}
Learning the similarity measures or metric of importance for our CBIR
task is central in retrieval. Some image searches may require a
combination of image features to quickly distinguish them from other
less relevant images. For instance, colour and texture features may
be important to find pictures of snowscapes, whereas colour may be the
only important feature needed to find images of blue skies. We would
like to use a combination of the metrics as a cue to finding relevant
images quickly and efficiently, and then pass this learnt metric
(kernel) to the \mbox{\sc LinRel}~algorithm of Section~\ref{s:LINRELAlgorithm}.
Given image feature vectors $\phi(I)$, $\phi(J)$, let the inner
product $\phi(I) \phi(J)^\top = k(I,J)$ denote the kernel function
$k(\cdot,\cdot)$ between images $I$ and $J$, where $\phi$ is some
feature mapping~\cite{stc-04}. Multiple kernel learning (MKL) attempts
to find a combination of kernels by solving a classification (or
regression) problem using a weighted combination of
kernels~\cite{Argyriou-05,Bach-04,Lanckriet-04}. Given that our
PinView system will use several different image features,
we view each one as a separate feature
space -- hence, giving us $N$ different kernels {\em i.e.\/}, $\mathcal{K} =
\{k_1,\ldots,k_{N}\}$, for the $N$ different image features. Using MKL we construct the kernel function:
\[
k_{\boldsymbol{\eta}}(I,J) = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \eta_i\, k_i(I,J),
\]
where $\boldsymbol{\eta} = (\eta_1,\ldots,\eta_N)$ are the weights of each kernel
function $k_i(I,J)$ between images $I$ and $J$. We follow an elastic-net
formulation of ridge regression MKL,
which uses a parameter $\lambda \in
[0,1]$ in order to move between a 1-norm regularization (when $\lambda
= 1$) and a 2-norm regularization (when $\lambda = 0$).
\footnote{We would be able to dynamically change the value of
$\lambda$ throughout the search, however for simplicity we will fix
$\lambda=0.5$ in the experiments.}
Let $\Phi_t = [\phi(I_\tau)]_{\tau=1,\ldots,t-1}$ be the Gram matrix
of image features, and let ${\mathbf{r}}_t=(r_{I_1},\ldots,r_{I_{t-1}})$ be the
vector of relevance scores observed so far, then we solve the
following multiple kernel learning regression problem:
\begin{align}\label{mkl}
\min_{{\mathbf{f}}_i,\boldsymbol{\eta}} & \quad \sum_{i=1}^{N} \left( \frac{{\lambda}}{\eta_i} + 1 - {\lambda} \right) \| {\mathbf{f}}_i \|^2_2 + \Big\| \sum_{i=1}^{N} \Phi_t^\top {\mathbf{f}}_i - {\mathbf{r}}_t \Big\|_2^2,
\end{align}
subject to $\sum_{i=1}^{N} \eta_i = 1$,
where ${\mathbf{f}}_i$ is the weight vector corresponding to the $i$th feature
space ({\em i.e.\/}\ kernel). The justification for
using this algorithm is that we expect to use many kernels in the
first iteration rounds of our search and not too many near the end, as we gain a
better understanding of relevance inferred through (explicit) pointer
clicks and (implicit) eye movements (as described in
Section~\ref{section:relevance}). After each iteration of the search,
when the user has indicated the relevance of the newly seen images,
we can use this feedback as the labels (outputs) of our classification
(regression) MKL problem to find a new set of kernel weights $\boldsymbol{\eta}$
(based solely on the images seen thus far).
After we learn this new representation we supply these weighted
kernels to the kernelized \mbox{\sc LinRel}~algorithm of
Section~\ref{s:LINRELAlgorithm}. However, before that we describe the
component of our system that uses eye movements as an extra set of
features, by creating a combined space using the kernel learnt using
Equation (\ref{mkl}).
\subsection{Tensor Decomposition}
\label{section:tensor}
Since eye movements are available only for images
already presented to the user, eye movement features cannot be
used directly for predicting the relevance of unseen images.
To elevate this problem, we relate the known image features to the
(yet) unknown eye movement features by learning
a joint representation that combines
these two views.
We
learn this relationship by using a tensor representation which creates
an implicit correlation space~\cite{Hardoon:2010b}. The tensor
representation can be computed by taking dot products between
each individual kernel matrix of each
view~\cite{Pulmannova,SS-JST-EPH_05}.
Hence, let ${\mathbf{K}}_{\Phi_t} = [k^{\phi}(I_u,I_v)]_{1\leq u,v \leq t-1}$
be the kernel Gram matrix constructed from previously seen $t-1$ image
feature vectors
$\Phi_t = [\phi(I_\tau)]_{1\leq \tau \leq t-1}$.
Similarly, let
${\mathbf{K}}_{\Psi_t} = [k^{\psi}(I_u,I_v)]_{1\leq u,v \leq t-1}$
be the kernel Gram matrix constructed from eye movement features
$\Psi_t = [\psi(I_\tau)]_{1\leq \tau \leq t-1}$.
Given these two kernel matrices we can combine them by taking a
component-wise product \linebreak \mbox{${\mathbf{K}}_{\Phi \circ \Psi} = {\mathbf{K}}_{\Phi_t} \circ
{\mathbf{K}}_{\Psi_t}$}, which corresponds to a \emph{tensor product} between
feature vectors $\Phi_t$ and $\Psi_t$. We then use the kernel matrix
${\mathbf{K}}_{\Phi \circ \Psi}$ to train a tensor kernel
SVM~\cite{Hardoon:2010} to generate a weight matrix which is composed
of both views. As mentioned earlier, we do not have the eye movement
features for images not yet displayed to the user. Hence, we need to
decompose the weight matrix into one weight vector per view. This has
been resolved by~\cite{Hardoon:2010}, who propose a novel singular
value decomposition (SVD) like approach for decomposing the resulting
tensor weight matrix into its two component parts, without needing to
directly access the feature spaces $\phi$ and $\psi$.
Therefore, assume the weight matrix decomposed for the image features
is $\boldsymbol{\alpha} \in \mathbb{R}^{(t-1) \times D}$ and for the eye movement
features is $\boldsymbol{\beta} \in \mathbb{R}^{(t-1) \times D}$, where $t-1$
corresponds to the number of images seen and $D$ is the dimensionality
of the decomposition. Given $\boldsymbol{\beta} = [\beta_u \in \mathbb{R}^D]_{1 \leq u
\leq t-1}$ we can project any of the MKL combined image features as
follows~\cite{Hardoon:2010b}:
\[
\small \tilde{\phi}(I) = \left(\sum_{u=1}^{t-1} k_{\boldsymbol{\eta}}^{\phi}(I_u,I) \beta^1_u, \ldots, \sum_{u=1}^{t-1} k_{\boldsymbol{\eta}}^{\phi}(I_u,I) \beta^D_u \right),
\]
to produce a new feature vector which has been mapped into the eye
movement feature space using the matrix $\boldsymbol{\beta}$. Finally, we can
create the following kernel function $k_{\boldsymbol{\eta}}^{\tilde{\phi}}(I,J) =
\tilde{\phi}(I)\tilde{\phi}(J)^\top$ from our new feature vectors
$\tilde{\phi}(I)$ and $\tilde{\phi}(J)$. After we have this new
representation we can pass this new updated kernel to the kernelized
\mbox{\sc LinRel}~algorithm of the following
section.
\subsection{The \mbox{\sc LinRel}~Algorithm}
\label{s:LINRELAlgorithm}
After updating the similarity metric and the associated kernel through
MKL and the tensor decomposition as described in the previous
sections, the \mbox{\sc LinRel}\ algorithm is used for selecting the next
collage of images that is presented to the user. The \mbox{\sc LinRel}\
algorithm (originally devised and analysed in~\cite{auer:jmlr02}) is
an exploration-exploitation oriented online learning algorithm. It
aims to sequentially present images to the user such that the positive
feedback from the user is maximized. Hence the \mbox{\sc LinRel}\ algorithm is
very well suited to be used in the PinView system for retrieving
images that are of interest to the user.
Given the image features, the relevance of images is assumed to be
mutually independent.
\mbox{\sc LinRel}\ then assumes that the expected relevance~$r_I$ of an image~$I$ is given by an (unknown) linear function of the image features $\phi(I)$,
\[ \EXP{r_I} = \phi(I) \cdot {\mathbf{w}}, \]
with an unknown weight vector~${\mathbf{w}}$. Thus in each step~$t$ of the search, \mbox{\sc LinRel}\ estimates the weight vector by some ${\hat{{\mathbf{w}}}}_t$ and uses this estimate to select an image which is likely to be relevant. But since the estimate ${\hat{{\mathbf{w}}}}_t$ might be inaccurate, \mbox{\sc LinRel}\ also needs to ensure a sufficient amount of exploration. This is achieved by taking into account a bound~$\sigma_t^2(I)$ on the variance of the estimated relevance~$\phi(I) \cdot {\hat{{\mathbf{w}}}}_t$, by considering an appropriate confidence interval for the ``true'' expected relevance~$\phi(I) \cdot {\mathbf{w}}$. Thus \mbox{\sc LinRel}\ selects the image which maximizes the upper confidence bound,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:linrel-ucb}
I_t = \arg\max_I \left( \phi(I) \cdot {\hat{{\mathbf{w}}}}_t + c\sigma_t(I) \right),
\end{equation}
where the parameter $c \geq 0$ controls the amount of exploration. This rule selects an image if its predicted relevance is high (which is an exploitative selection), or if the variance of this estimate is high (which is an explorative selection). It is shown in the analysis of \mbox{\sc LinRel}~\cite{auer:jmlr02}, that selecting an image with high variance according to the above rule improves the accuracy of the estimated weight vector~${\hat{{\mathbf{w}}}}_t$. It is also shown that the error rate of \mbox{\sc LinRel}\ --- compared to the best linear predictor of the relevance --- is essentially~$\sqrt{d/t}$ after~$t$ steps of the search, where~$d$ is the number of dimensions of the feature vector~$\phi(I)$.
While the original \mbox{\sc LinRel}\ algorithm in~\cite{auer:jmlr02} explores the dimensions of the feature vector explicitly, more recent variations of \mbox{\sc LinRel}\ (e.g. LinUCB in~\cite{lcls-cbapnar-2010}) use regularization to deal with large feature vectors. For the PinView system we also use regularized \mbox{\sc LinRel}, which calculates an estimate for the weight vector by regularized linear regression for the observed relevance scores of the selected images so far. The solution of the regularized regression can be written using the Gram matrix $\Phi_t \Phi_t^\top$ as
\begin{equation}
{\hat{{\mathbf{w}}}}_t = \Phi_t^\top (\Phi_t \Phi_t^\top + \mu {\mathbf{I}})^{-1} {\mathbf{r}}_t,
\label{eq:linrel-regression}
\end{equation}
where $\Phi_t$ is the matrix of feature vectors of the images selected so far, $\Phi_t = [\phi(I_\tau)]_{\tau=1,\ldots,t-1}$, ${\mathbf{r}}_t=(r_{I_1},\ldots,r_{I_{t-1}})$ is the vector of relevance scores observed so far, ${\mathbf{I}}$ denotes the identity matrix, and $\mu>0$ is the regularization parameter. Thus the estimated relevance of an image is given by
\[
\phi(I) \cdot {\hat{{\mathbf{w}}}}_t
= \phi(I) \Phi_t^\top (\Phi_t \Phi_t^\top + \mu {\mathbf{I}})^{-1} {\mathbf{r}}_t
= {\mathbf{a}}_t(I) \cdot {\mathbf{r}}_t,
\]
where
\[ {\mathbf{a}}_t(I) = \phi(I) \Phi_t^\top (\Phi_t \Phi_t^\top + \mu {\mathbf{I}})^{-1}. \]
It has been shown in~\cite{auer:jmlr02} that the variance of the estimate~${\mathbf{a}}_t(I) \cdot {\mathbf{r}}_t$ can essentially be bounded by $\sigma_t^2(I)=\|{\mathbf{a}}_t(I)\|_2^2$. Thus the selection rule~(\ref{eq:linrel-ucb}) of \mbox{\sc LinRel}\ can be rewritten as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:linrel-rule}
I_t = \arg\max_I \left( {\mathbf{a}}_t(I) \cdot {\mathbf{r}}_t + c \|{\mathbf{a}}_t\|_2 \right).
\end{equation}
This rule can easily be kernelized to accommodate the kernels generated by MKL, since the Gram matrix $\Phi_t \Phi_t^\top$ can be expressed as the kernel matrix $[k^{\phi}(I_u,I_v)]_{1 \leq u,v \leq t-1}$ and $\phi(I) \Phi_t^\top = [k^{\phi}(I,I_u)]_{1 \leq u \leq t-1}$.
Since in each iteration of a search the PinView system not only selects a single image but a collage of several images, the \mbox{\sc LinRel}\ algorithm needs to be extended to accommodate this. An obvious extension --- implemented for the experiments reported in Section~\ref{section:experiments} --- is to select all images of the collage according to rule~(\ref{eq:linrel-rule}), while each image is selected at most once during the search. This method for selecting a collage rather emphasizes exploration, since all images of the collage are selected by taking also an exploration term into account. An alternative method would be to select only one image according to rule~(\ref{eq:linrel-rule}), and to select the remaining images to maximize the estimated relevance ${\mathbf{a}}_t(I) \cdot {\mathbf{r}}_t$. This second method selects at most one explorative image, and is thus far less exploratory then the first method. By selecting more than one image according rule~(\ref{eq:linrel-rule}), it is possible to interpolate between the first and the second method. Future work will show which collage selection method is most beneficial.
\section{Experiments}
\label{section:experiments}
In this section we describe experimental evaluations of the PinView
system. We study empirically the following two questions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] How close to explicit feedback performance can we get with
less laborious implicit feedback?
\item[(b)] Is it possible to still improve performance by combining
implicit and explicit feedback, especially when the explicit
feedback is only partial (a single click on the most relevant
image) and gaze patterns can be expected to reveal more relevant
images.
\end{enumerate}
In the experiments we use three variants of PinView:
\begin{enumerate}
\item PinView system with implicit feedback from gaze patterns.
\item PinView system with explicit feedback from clicks.
\item PinView system with both explicit and implicit feedback, from
both gaze patterns and clicks.
\end{enumerate}
For evaluation purposes these variants are compared with the baseline
of browsing (that is, showing randomly ordered images) and the
PicSOM~\cite{laaksonen:networks02} CBIR system sharing the same
interface as PinView but lacking the novel machine learning
components. This way, the comparison emphasizes the effects caused
by the new components instead of the interface.
To keep the experimental cost
manageable, we started with extensive offline experiments and then
validated the main findings later in online experiments with real
users -- performing all the comparisons with online users would not have
been feasible. In offline setups we choose relevance of
images based on their tags or classes, and simulate the feedback based
on the relevance. Explicit feedback comes directly from the relevance
and for implicit feedback we use eye movement features computed from
relevant and nonrelevant images viewed in earlier experiments. We
expect the simulated explicit feedback to be a reasonable
approximation to real feedback, and hence in the online experiments we
focus on validating the implicit feedback results.
\subsection{Offline Experiments}
\textbf{The data set} of images used in the offline experiments is the
\emph{train} subset of the PASCAL Visual Object Classes Challenge 2007
(VOC2007) dataset~\cite{pascal-voc-2007}. The number of images in
this dataset is 2501. It contains 20 overlapping categories whose
summary statistics are given in
Table~\ref{table:vocdatasetstatistics}.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Summary of the subset of the VOC2007 dataset used in offline experiments.}
\label{table:vocdatasetstatistics}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
Category name & Number of images & Percentage of images\\
\hline
Cat & 166 & 6.6 \\
Dog & 210 & 8.4 \\
Cow & 71 & 2.8 \\
Horse & 144 & 5.8 \\
Person & 1070 & 43.1 \\
Bird & 182 & 7.3 \\
Sheep & 49 & 2.0 \\
Aeroplane & 113 & 4.5 \\
Bicycle & 122 & 4.9 \\
Boat & 87 & 3.5 \\
Bus & 100 & 4.0 \\
Car & 402 & 16.1 \\
Motorbike & 123 & 5.0 \\
Train & 128 & 5.1 \\
Bottle & 153 & 6.1 \\
Chair & 282 & 11.3 \\
Diningtable & 130 & 5.2 \\
Pottedplant & 153 & 6.1 \\
Sofa & 188 & 7.5 \\
Tv-monitor & 144 & 5.8 \vspace{1mm}\\
\hline
All & 2501 & 100.0 \vspace{1mm}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
\textbf{Experiment setup:} Each offline experiment consists of
simulated search sessions. In each search session PinView selects ten
collages with 15 images each.
The goal of a search session is to retrieve images from one of the
categories. For simulating user feedback, images are divided into
relevant images (all those from the desired category) and non-relevant
images (all those not from this category). The calculation of
different feedback modalities is detailed below.
In each experiment the performance of the retrieval systems is
measured in 40 search sessions on each of the 20 categories.
The regularization parameters of MKL and \mbox{\sc LinRel}{} are set to a
single combined regularization parameter which is found for each
feedback modality with a grid search over values
$\{0,0.01,0.1,5,10,100,1000\}$.
\textbf{Feedback modalities:} The following versions of PinView were compared:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Implicit feedback from simulated eye movements: {\sc
SimulatedEye}. The simulated eye movements are selected from a
pool of previously recorded eye movements from online experiments.
The eye movements are split to two groups, ``positive'' and
``negative'', depending on whether the viewed image was relevant or
nonrelevant in the task in which it was recorded. Both of these
groups are divided into five subgroups depending on how many
relevant images there were in the collage where the image was seen;
the rationale is that the eye movements differ between collages
having significantly different numbers of relevant images. The
subgroups correspond to the following number of relevant images on a
collage: 0, 1, 2--3, 4--6, 7--10, and 10--15. In the experiment,
eye movements are sampled from the positive group for relevant
images and from the negative group for nonrelevant ones, taking into
account the number of relevant images in the current collage.
\item Explicit feedback from simulated clicks based on the known
relevances of the images: {\sc SimulatedClick}. To simulate an
interface that still retains a low level of manual effort the system
operates in a mode where only one of the images is clicked. If there
are several relevant images, a random relevant image on the collage
is selected as clicked. If the collage contains no relevant images,
then an image is picked uniformly at random.
\item Combined explicit and implicit feedback: {\sc
SimulatedEye+Click}. Here both types of input are simulated, and
used in the model as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:eye-prediction}). The explicit
click weight $\alpha$ of the model is found by running a
grid search over the values $\{0.01,0.1,1,5,10,100\}$, before
choosing the regularization parameter of the PinView system.
\item For completeness we additionally include one more type of
explicit feedback: {\sc Full}, where the true class label of each
seen image is given, corresponding to explicit feedback in which
each relevant image is clicked.
\end{enumerate}
Of the simulated feedbacks, {\sc Full} feedback simulates the
performance of PinView under ideal conditions, where the user is able
and willing to provide perfect feedback. The other simulations
provide lower bounds for the performance obtainable using only the
implicit feedback, or by the partial explicit feedback of a
single click that is still relatively effortless to provide. The real
performance of the system in online experiments is expected to lie
between these two extremes. This is because the simulated runs use
only the incomplete tag information; in a real system the user is also
able to give more refined feedback due to his ability to use the
visual content of the images. Given a collage with more than one
relevant image the user will not make the choice randomly, but will
base his decision on the content, and the eye movements will also
reflect the relative similarity of the images and the search target
not captured by the simulation process.
\textbf{Evaluation.} To evaluate the model we record the performance
on each feedback type separately. The measure of performance is mean
average precision (MAP), i.e., the average fraction of relevant images
that the system returned, averaged over the found relevant images and
search sessions.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{offline_experiment.pdf}
\caption{Mean averaged precision (MAP) of the PinView variants during offline
experiments in each of the search tasks, compared to pure browsing
({\sc Random}) and {\sc Full} feedback for each image. The last two
charts collect the macro-averaged performance of the PinView system and the PicSOM
comparison method.
}
\label{figure:offlineresults}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}
\caption{Pairwise paired t-test p-values for methods in the offline
experiment. The empirical performance of the methods increases from
left to right and from top to bottom, and SimulatedEye is abbreaviated
as SimEye to save space.}
\label{table:ttests:offline}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|ccc|}
\hline
& SimEye & Click & SimEye+Click\\
\hline
Random & 0.0085 & 1.5e-06 & 8.2e-05 \\
SimEye & \textbullet & 0.011 & 6.6e-04 \\
Click & \textbullet & \textbullet & 0.80 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
The \textbf{results of the offline experiments} are presented in
Figure~\ref{figure:offlineresults}. As expected, all PinView results
lie in between the (laborious) {\sc Full} feedback results and pure
browsing results ({\sc Random}). Implicit feedback ({\sc
SimulatedEye}) outperforms browsing, even if it does not provide as
good feedback as pure explicit feedback ({\sc SimulatedClick}). These
differences are significant
(Table~\ref{table:ttests:offline}). Combined explicit and implicit
feedback ({\sc SimulatedEye+Click}) gives very similar results to pure
explicit feedback, and the small difference between the two is not
significant.
All of the reported results were run without the tensor decomposition
of Section~\ref{section:tensor}, since it did not increase the overall
performance of the system despite showing improved accuracy for some
users and tasks.
Comparing the MAP results between the PinView and PicSOM algorithms
(reported as averages over all tasks in Figure~\ref{figure:offlineresults}),
it is evident that the here-proposed PinView algorithm is superior
with all the feedback modalities.
Most importantly, PinView seems to be better than PicSOM in making
simultaneous use of both explicit and implicit relevance feedback,
which can be seen when comparing the \textsc{SimulatedClick} and
\textsc{SimulatedEye+Click} results.
\subsection{Online Experiments}
In this section we describe online experiments in which test subjects
interact with the PinView system. The goal of the online experiments
is to validate the offline findings about relative goodness of the
different feedback modalities, and naturally also to give evidence of
how well the system works in practice.
\textbf{Data sets.} The online experiments use a subset of the
ImageNet dataset~\cite{deng:imagenet09}, created by the authors and
called IMG2010 dataset. It contains 3720 images from several
categories (synsets) of the ImageNet, which is a database containing
URLs to images available on the internet together with semantic
category information (synsets of WordNet) and a hierarchy between the
categories. Hence, IMG2010 contains images that are representative of
ones that appear on the internet.
\textbf{Experiment setup and evaluation.} Each of the ten users
performed 12 different search tasks which mimic different real-world
scenarios. The tasks ranged from scenarios where a tag-based search had
first been used to prune the eligible images, to scenarios where the
images were more diverse. During one search task the system showed to
the user a total of 120 images, contained in eight separate collages
each having 15 images. Before the search session the system instructed
the user to find a shown target image that belongs to a given
category. In practice, the experiment took approximately 20--30
minutes per subject. The 12 search tasks were divided into four
groups, each consisting of three sub-tasks. The four groups were:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Finding images of a particular sport from among sports
images. The particular sport categories were ice hockey, gymnastics,
and soccer. The image dataset for this group contains 1006 images
sampled from the sports subcategory of ImageNet, which has 89 ice
hockey, 92 gymnastics, and 88 soccer images.
\item Finding images of aeroplanes. The image dataset contains 900
uniformly sampled images that are not flowers or aircraft, and
additional 150 images of both aircraft and flowers.
\item Finding images of flowers. The image dataset is the same as in
the previous group.
\item Finding images of a given mammal, amongst other mammal
images. The goal categories are deer and cheetah (twice). The
dataset contains 105 images sampled from deer category, 99 images
sampled from cheetah category, and 612 images sampled from a mammal
category that are not deers or cheetahs.
\end{enumerate}
As the goodness criterion we again used the number of relevant images.
The different PinView variants were randomly allocated to the sub-tasks
so that each sub-task had as uniform allocation of variants as
possible. The regularization parameter was set for each PinView
variant to the value that performed the best in the offline
experiments.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{online_experiment.pdf}
\caption{Number of retrieved relevant images in each task in online
experiments. Each plot corresponds to a task and each bar
corresponds to a PinView variant or the baseline of browsing
randomly ordered images. The total number of retrieved images in
each task is 120.
}
\label{figure:onlineresults}
\end{figure*}
\textbf{Results.} The quantitative performance of the PinView
variants is shown in Figure~\ref{figure:onlineresults} for each task.
All input modalities used by PinView are clearly better than the
baseline of browsing randomly ordered images, which is confirmed by
t-tests in Table~\ref{table:ttests}. Only in one of the tasks,
gymnastics, the performance of PinView was below the baseline, which
might be due to random fluctuations because of noise.
The relative performance of the variants varies between tasks.
Implicit feedback from gaze is worse than explicit feedback from
clicks, although the difference is not strongly significant (t-test,
$p=0.046$). The number of relevant images retrieved by gaze is on
average 67\% of the number of relevant images returned by the best
modality (the combined click and gaze). However, the gaze feedback
performs well in many of the tasks and hence gaze is a viable source
of implicit feedback information.
The paired t-test gives a p-value of $0.059$ on the hypothesis that
the performances of the click modality and combined click and gaze
modality are the same. There is evidence that combining information
from click and gaze modalities improves the performance of the system,
but more extensive testing would be needed for strong conclusions.
The performance of the combined click and gaze modality is relatively
better in online than in offline experiments, which might be due to the
fact that the relevance feedback given by real users is more accurate
than the simulated one.
\begin{table}
\caption{Pairwise t-test p-values for methods in the online
experiment. The empirical performance of the methods increases from
left to right and from top to bottom. }
\label{table:ttests}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|ccc|}
\hline
& Gaze & Click & Gaze and click\\
\hline
Random & 0.016 & 2.6e-04 & 7.5e-05 \\
Gaze & \textbullet & 0.046 & 0.0065 \\
Click & \textbullet & \textbullet & 0.059 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
\section{Discussion and conclusions}
\label{section:conclusion}
In this paper we described our PinView CBIR system
which records implicit relevance signals from the user and
infers his image search intent by using several novel machine learning
methods. We show that the PinView variants work better
than browsing (a set of randomly ordered images), indicating that
PinView would be useful at least in scenarios where tag-based evidence
is not available or has already been used to narrow down the search to
a subset of the original collection.
Implicit feedback from gaze outperformed the baseline,
suggesting that pure implicit feedback is a viable option when
it is difficult or too laborious to give explicit feedback. Explicit
feedback by clicks gave more accurate results, and there was evidence
that combined explicit and implicit feedback produced the best
results. In summary, the compilation of algorithms in PinView is a very
promising approach to content-based image retrieval.
One of the main use scenarios is a search session where first a
tag-based search is used to focus on a subset of potentially relevant
images, and content-based search is then needed to do further
retrieval in the still large result set.
Our final conclusions from the present work and other serious
attempts~\cite{DBLP:phd/de/Essig2007,OyekoyaPhD07} to use and evaluate
implicit relevance feedback from eye movements in iterative online
content-based image retrieval are as follows:
First, when used for purely implicit relevance feedback, eye movements
perform better than random picking as was demonstrated
in~\cite{OyekoyaPhD07} and in this paper. This mode of operation can
prove to be useful if the setup does not allow giving explicit
feedback, or if the relevance feedback mechanism is used to secretly
improve the efficiency of otherwise random browsing.
Second, the performance level of gaze-based implicit relevance
feedback with current hardware and algorithmic techniques cannot reach
that of click-based explicit feedback.
Third, when combining explicit click-based and implicit gaze-based
relevance feedback together, the system performance will exceed the
level of solely explicit relevance feedback as was proven
in~\cite{DBLP:phd/de/Essig2007} and in our experiments. To what extent this
happens most likely depends on the experiment arrangements, including
the data set, eye-tracking device, and the user interface design.
In~\cite{DBLP:phd/de/Essig2007}, the image collection was arguably
simpler than ours. Additionally, the user interface allowed the use
of gaze for comparing the query image and the candidates, which surely
was beneficial for the proposed method.
We thus argue that our experiments have resembled genuine use
scenarios of content-based image retrieval, with respect to both the
used data and the user interface, more than the previous attempts.
We also argue that we have been able to show that even in such a
difficult context, gaze tracking data has proven to be a useful source
of implicit relevance feedback that can be beneficially used either
alone or together with explicit feedback.
{
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The research leading to these results has received funding from the
European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007--2013)
under \emph{grant agreement} n${}^\circ$ 216529, Personal Information
Navigator Adapting Through Viewing, PinView, IST Programme of the
European Community, under the PASCAL2 Network of Excellence,
IST-2007-216886, and the Academy of Finland for the Finnish Centre of
Excellence in Computational Inference Research (COIN, 251170). This
publication only reflects the authors' views. }
|
\subsection{Cocycles and observables}
\begin{definition}\label{def:cocycle:space}
A space of measurable cocycles $\mathcal{C}$
is any class of matrix valued functions
$A:X\to {\rm Mat}_m(\mathbb{R})$, where $m\in\mathbb{N}$ is not fixed, such that
every $A:X\to {\rm Mat}_m(\mathbb{R})$ in $\mathcal{C}$ has the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $A$ is $\mathscr{F}$-measurable,
\item $\norm{A}\in L^\infty(\mu)$,
\item The exterior powers $\wedge_k A: X\to {\rm Mat}_{\binom{m}{k}}(\mathbb{R})$ are in $\mathcal{C}$,
for $k\leq m$.
\end{enumerate}
Each subspace
$\mathcal{C}_m :=\{\, A\in \mathcal{C} \ |
A:X\to {\rm Mat}_m(\mathbb{R})\,\} $
is a-priori endowed with a distance
${\rm dist} \colon \mathcal{C}_m \times \mathcal{C}_m \to [0,+\infty)$ which is at least as fine as the $L^\infty$ distance, i.e. for all $A, B \in \mathcal{C}_m$ we have
$${\rm dist} (B, A) \ge \norm{B-A}_{L^\infty}\,.$$
We assume a correlation between the distances on each of these subspaces, in the sense that the map
$$\mathcal{C}_m \ni A \mapsto \wedge_k \, A \in \mathcal{C}_{m \choose k}$$
is locally Lipschitz.
\end{definition}
\smallskip
Let $A \in \mathcal{C}$ be a measurable cocycle. Since $\norm{A} \in L^\infty$, we have $\log^+ \norm{A} \in L^1$, hence Furstenberg-Kesten's theorem (the non-invertible, one-sided case, see chapter 3 in \cite{L.Arnold}) applies. In particular, if we denote
\begin{equation}\label{def:eq:L1n}
\Lan{n}{1} (A) := \int_X \frac{1}{n} \, \log \norm{ \An{n} (x) } \, \mu (d x)\,,
\end{equation}
then as $n \to \infty$, $ \Lan{n}{1} (A) \to L_1 (A)$ (the maximal Lyapunov exponent).
We call $\Lan{n}{1} (A)$ finite scale (maximal) Lyapunov exponents.
\smallskip
We will need stronger integrability assumptions on the measurable functions $\frac{1}{n} \, \log \norm{ \An{n} (x) }$.
Let $1 \le p \le \infty$. For simplicity of notations, later on we may assume that $p=2$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:Lp-bounded}
A cocycle $A \in \mathcal{C}$ is called $L^p$ - bounded if there is $C < \infty$, which we call its $L^p$-bound, such that for all $n \ge 1$ we have:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Lp-bounded}
\bnorm{ \frac{1}{n} \, \log \norm{\An{n} (\cdot)}}_{L^p} < C\,.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\label{def:unif-Lp-bounded}
A cocycle $A \in \mathcal{C}_m$ is called uniformly $L^p$ - bounded if there are $\delta = \delta (A) > 0$ and $C = C(A) < \infty$ such that for all $B \in \mathcal{C}_m$ with ${\rm dist} (B, A) < \delta$ and for all $n \ge 1$ we have:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:unif-Lp-bounded}
\bnorm{ \frac{1}{n} \, \log \norm{\Bn{n} (\cdot)}}_{L^p} < C\,.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\smallskip
It is not difficult to show that if a cocycle $A \in \mathcal{C}$ satisfies the bounds
$$\norm{ \log \norm{A^{\pm}} }_{L^p} \le C < \infty\,,$$
then for all $n \in \mathbb{Z}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{log:norm:An}
\norm{ \log \norm{\An{n}} }_{L^p} \le C \abs{n}\,.
\end{equation}
Hence if we assume that
\begin{equation}\label{def:eq:logA^-1Lp}
\log \norm{A^\pm} \in L^p
\end{equation}
holds for all cocycles $A \in \mathcal{C}$, and if we endow $\mathcal{C}_m$ with the distance given by
$$ {\rm dist}_p (A, B) := \norm{A-B}_{L^{\infty}} + \norm{ \, \log \norm{A^{-1}} - \log \norm{B^{-1}}}_{L^p} $$
when $1 \le p < \infty$, and by
$$ {\rm dist}_\infty (A, B) := \norm{A-B}_{L^{\infty}} \,, $$
when $p = \infty$, then every cocycle $A \in \mathcal{C}$ is {\em uniformly} $L^p$ - bounded.
In the applications we have in this book, the uniform $L^p$- boundedness is automatic. For instance, in the case of random cocycles, we assume from the beginning the integrability condition~\eqref{def:eq:logA^-1Lp} which implies uniform $L^p$- boundedness.
However, we want that our scheme be applicable also to cocycles that are very singular (i.e. non-invertible everywhere), which is the case of a forthcoming paper on quasiperiodic cocycles, and that is why we make the weaker, uniform $L^p$-boundedness assumption.
\vspace{4pt}
Given a cocycle $A \in \mathcal{C}$ and an integer $N \in \mathbb{N}$, denote by $\mathscr{F}_N (A)$ the algebra generated by the sets $\{ x \in X \colon \norm{\An{n} (x)} \le c \}$ or $\{ x \in X \colon \norm{\An{n} (x)} \ge c \}$ where $c \ge 0$ and $0 \le n \le N$.
\smallskip
Let $\Xi$ be a set of measurable functions $\xi \colon X \to \mathbb{R}$, which we call observables.
\begin{definition}\label{compatibility_condition}
We say that $\Xi$ and $A$ are compatible if for every integer $N \in \mathbb{N}$, for every set $F \in \mathscr{F}_N (A)$ and for every $\epsilon > 0$, there is an observable $\xi \in \Xi$ such that:
\begin{equation}\label{compatibility_condition-eq}
\mathds{1}_{F} \le \xi \quad \text{and} \quad \int_X \xi \, d \mu \le \mu (F) + \epsilon\,.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\subsection{Large deviation type estimates}
As mentioned in the introduction, the main tools in our results are some appropriate large deviations type (LDT) estimates for the given dynamical systems (meaning the base and the fiber dynamics). A LDT estimate for the base dynamics says that given an observable $\xi \colon X \to \mathbb{R}$, we have
$$\mu \, \{ x \in X \colon \abs{ \frac{1}{n} \, \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \xi (\transl^j x) - \int \xi \, \mu (d x) } > \dev \} < \mes (n, \dev)\,, $$
where $\dev = o (1)$ and $\mes (n, \dev) \to 0$ (as $n \to \infty$) represent, respectively, the size of the deviation from the mean and the measure of the deviation set. The above inequality should hold for all integers $n \ge n_0 (\xi, \ep)$.
\medskip
In classical probabilities, when dealing with i.i.d. random variables, large deviations are precise asymptotic statements, and the measure of the deviation set decays exponentially. For our purposes, and for the given dynamical systems, we need slightly different types of estimates (not as precise, but for all iterates of the system and satisfying some uniformity properties). Moreover, in some of our applications (e.g. to certain types of quasi-periodic cocycles), the available decay of the measure of the deviation set is not exponential in the number of iterates, but slower than exponential. This is the motivation behind the following formalism.
From now on, $\devf, \, \mesf \colon (0, \infty) \to (0, \infty)$ will represent functions that describe respectively, the size of the deviation from the mean and the measure of the deviation set. We assume that the deviation size functions $\devf (t)$ are non-increasing. We assume that the deviation set measure functions $\mesf (t)$ are continuous and strictly decreasing to $0$, as $t \to \infty$, at least like a power and at most like an exponential, in other words we assume that:
$$\log t \lesssim \log \frac{1}{\mesf (t)} \lesssim t \quad \text{as } t \to \infty \,.$$
Denote by $\phi_{\mesf} (t)$ the inverse of the map $t \mapsto \psi_{\mesf} (t) := t \, [\mesf (t)]^{-1/2}$. We then also assume that the increasing function $\phi_{\mesf} (t)$ does not grow too fast, or more precisely that:
$$\varlimsup_{t \to \infty} \ \frac{\phi_{\mesf} (2t)}{\phi_{\mesf} (t)} < 2 \,.$$
We will use the notation $\dev_n := \devf (n)$ and $\mes_n := \mesf (n)$ for integers $n$.
\bigskip
In the applications we have thus far, the deviation size functions are either constant functions $\devf (t) \equiv \ep$ for some $0 < \ep \ll 1$ or powers $\devf (t) \equiv t^{-a}$ for some $a > 0$, while de deviation set measure functions are exponentials $\mesf (t) \equiv e^{- c \, t}$ for some $c > 0$ or sub-exponentials $\mesf (t) \equiv e^{- c \, t^b}$ or $\mesf (t) \equiv e^{- c \, t / (\log t)^b}$.
Let $\mathscr{E}$ and $\mathscr{I}$ be some spaces of functions, with $\mathscr{E}$ containing deviation size functions $\devf (t)$ and $\mathscr{I}$ containing deviation set measure functions $\mesf (t)$.
We assume that $\mathscr{I}$ is a convex cone, i.e., the functions $a\cdot\mesf (t)$ and
$\mesf_1 (t)+\mesf_2 (t)$ belong to $\mathscr{I}$ for any $a>0$ and $\mesf_1,\mesf_2\in\mathscr{I}$.
Let $\mathscr{P}$ be a set of triplets $\underline{p} = (\underline{n_0}, \devf, \mesf)$, where $\underline{n_0} \in \mathbb{N}$, $\devf \in \mathscr{E}$ and $\mesf \in \mathscr{I}$. An element $\underline{p} \in \mathscr{P}$ is called an LDT parameter. Our set of LDT parameters $\mathscr{P}$ should satisfy the condition: for all $\ep > 0$ there is $\underline{p} = \underline{p} (\ep) = (\underline{n_0}, \devf, \mesf) \in \mathscr{P}$ such that $\dev_{\underline{n_0}} \le \ep$, so $\mathscr{P}$ contains LDT parameters with arbitrarily small deviation size functions.
\medskip
We now define the base and fiber LDT estimates, which are relative to given spaces of deviation functions $\mathscr{E}$, $\mathscr{I}$ and set of parameters $\mathscr{P}$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:base-LDT}
An observable $\xi \colon X \to \mathbb{R}$ satisfies a base-LDT estimate if for every $\ep > 0$ there is $\underline{p} = \underline{p} (\xi, \ep) \in \mathscr{P}$, $\underline{p} = (\underline{n_0}, \devf, \mesf)$, such that for all $n \ge \underline{n_0}$ we have $\dev_n \le \ep$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:base-LDT}
\mu \, \{ x \in X \colon \abs{ \frac{1}{n} \, \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \xi (\transl^j x) - \int_X \xi d \mu } > \dev_n \} < \mes_n\,.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\label{def:fiber-LDT}
A measurable cocycle $A \in \mathcal{C}$ satisfies a fiber-LDT estimate if for every $\ep > 0$ there is $\underline{p} = \underline{p} (A, \ep) \in \mathscr{P}$, $\underline{p} = (\underline{n_0}, \devf, \mesf)$, such that for all $n \ge \underline{n_0}$ we have $\dev_n \le \ep$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fiber-LDT}
\mu \, \{ x \in X \colon \abs{ \frac{1}{n} \, \log \norm{ \An{n} (x) } - \Lan{n}{1} (A) } > \dev_n \} < \mes_n\,.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\medskip
We will need a stronger form of the fiber-LDT, one that is uniform in a neighborhood of the cocycle, in the sense that estimate~\eqref{eq:fiber-LDT} holds with the same LDT parameter for all nearby cocycles.
\begin{definition}\label{def:unif:fiber-LDT}
A measurable cocycle $A \in \mathcal{C}_m$ satisfies a uniform fiber-LDT if for all $\ep > 0$ there are $\delta = \delta (A, \ep) > 0$ and $\underline{p} = \underline{p} (A, \ep) \in \mathscr{P}$, $\underline{p} = (\underline{n_0}, \devf, \mesf)$, such that if $B \in \mathcal{C}_m$ with ${\rm dist} (B, A) < \delta$ and if
$n \ge \underline{n_0}$ then $\dev_n \le \ep$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:unif-fiber-LDT}
\mu \, \{ x \in X \colon \abs{ \frac{1}{n} \, \log \norm{ \Bn{n} (x) } - \Lan{n}{1} (B) } > \dev_n \} < \mes_n\,.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\subsection{The Avalanche Principle}
\label{ap-subsection}
The scheme described in this paper to derive continuity properties of the Lyapunov exponents of a linear cocycle uses a multiscale analysis argument. This type of argument refers to an inductive procedure on scales (i.e. number of iterates of the system). The inductive step in our method is based upon a deterministic statement, called the Avalanche Principle (AP), relating the norm growth of long products of matrices to the product of norms of individual factors. This principle was first formulated by M. Goldstein and W. Schlag in \cite{GS-Holder}, in the setting of ${\rm SL} (2, \mathbb{C})$ matrices. In Chapter 1 of \cite{LEbook} we prove a general version of the AP (see also our preprint \cite{LEbook-chap2}). We recall here the relevant statement in our version of the AP.
We use the notation $${\rm gr} (g) = \frac{s_1 (g)}{s_2(g)} \in [1, \infty]$$
for the ratio of the first two singular values of a matrix $g \in {\rm Mat} (m, \mathbb{R})$.
\begin{proposition} \label{AP-practical}
There exists $c>0$ such that
given $0<\varepsilon<1$, $0<\varkappa\leq c\,\varepsilon^ 2$
and \, $g_0, g_1,\ldots, g_{n-1}\in{\rm Mat}(m,\mathbb{R})$, \,
if
\begin{align*}
& {\rm gr} (g_i) > \frac{1}{\varkappa} & \text{for all } \ 0 \le i \le n-1
\\
& \frac{\norm{ g_i \cdot g_{i-1} }}{\norm{g_i} \, \norm{ g_{i-1}}} > \varepsilon &
\text{for all } \ 1 \le i \le n-1
\end{align*}
then
\begin{align*}
& \sabs{ \log \norm{ g^{(n)} } + \sum_{i=1}^{n-2} \log \norm{g_i} - \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \log \norm{ g_i \cdot g_{i-1}} } \lesssim n \cdot \frac{\varkappa}{\varepsilon^2} \;.
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Abstract continuity theorem of the Lyapunov exponents}
\label{act_le}
We are ready to formulate the main result of this paper.
\begin{theorem}\label{abstract:cont_thm}
Consider an ergodic system $(X,\mathscr{F},\mu, \transl)$, a space of measurable cocycles $\mathcal{C}$, a set of observables $\Xi$, a set of LDT parameters $\mathscr{P}$ with corresponding spaces of deviation functions $\mathscr{E}$, $\mathscr{I}$, let $ 1 < p \le \infty$ and assume the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Xi$ is compatible with every cocycle $A \in \mathcal{C}$.
\item Every observable $\xi \in \Xi$ satisfies a base-LDT.
\item Every $A \in \mathcal{C}$ with $L_1 (A) > - \infty$ is uniformly $L^p$ - bounded.
\item Every cocycle $A \in \mathcal{C}$ for which $L_1 (A) > L_2 (A)$ satisfies a uniform fiber-LDT.
\end{enumerate}
Then all Lyapunov exponents $L_k \colon \mathcal{C}_m \to [ - \infty, \infty)$, $1 \le k \le m$, $m \in \mathbb{N}$ are continuous functions of the cocycle.
Moreover, given $A \in \mathcal{C}_m$ and $1 \le k \le m$, if $L_{k} (A) > L_{k+1} (A)$, then locally near $A$ the map $L_1 + L_2 + \ldots + L_k$ has a modulus of continuity
$\omega (h) := [ \mesf \ (c \, \log \frac{1}{h}) ]^{1 - 1/p}$ for some $\mesf = \mesf (A) \in \mathscr{I}$ and $c = c (A) > 0$.
\end{theorem}
\vspace{4pt}
The proof of the abstract continuity theorem (ACT) of the Lyapunov exponents will be finalized in Section~\ref{general_cont_thm} and Section~ \ref{modulus_cont}. In Section~\ref{uusc_le} we prove that the upper semicontinuity of the maximal Lyapunov exponent holds uniformly in cocycle and phase, for a large set of phases. While this result is interesting in itself, in our scheme it ensures that in an inductive procedure based on the AP, the gap condition holds. The inductive procedure, which is a type of multiscale analysis leading to the proof of continuity of the Lyapunov exponents, is described in
Section~\ref{finite_scale_cont} (the base step) and Section~\ref{inductive_step} (the inductive step).
We note that the use of the nearly upper semicontinuity of the maximal Lyapunov exponent result in Section~\ref{uusc_le} represents a major point of difference between our inductive procedure and the one employed by M. Goldstein and W. Schlag in \cite{GS-Holder}. It is also what allows us to treat, within this scheme, random models (see Chapter 5 in ~\cite{LEbook}) and (in a future work) identically singular quasi-periodic models.
\section{Definitions, the abstract setup and statement}
\label{abstract_setup}
\input{abstract_setup.tex}
\section{Upper semicontinuity of the top Lyapunov exponent}
\label{uusc_le}
\input{uusc_le.tex}
For the rest of this paper, we are given an ergodic system $(X,\mathscr{F},\mu, \transl)$, a space of measurable cocycles $\mathcal{C}$, a set of observables $\Xi$ and a set of LDT parameters $\mathscr{P}$ with corresponding spaces of deviation functions $\mathscr{E}$ and $\mathscr{I}$. We assume the compatibility condition~\ref{compatibility_condition} between $\Xi$ and any cocycle $A \in \mathcal{C}$, the base-LDT for any observable $\xi \in \Xi$, the uniform $L^p$-boundedness condition (put $p=2$ for simplicity of notation) on any cocycle $A \in \mathcal{C}$ with $L_1 (A) > - \infty$ and the uniform fiber-LDT for any cocycle $A \in \mathcal{C}$ with $L_1 (A) > L_2 (A)$. These LDT estimates hold for parameters $\underline{p} \in \mathscr{P}$.
\section{Finite scale continuity}
\label{finite_scale_cont}
\input{finite_scale_cont.tex}
\section{The inductive step procedure}
\label{inductive_step}
\input{inductive_step.tex}
\section{General continuity theorem}
\label{general_cont_thm}
\input{general_cont_thm.tex}
\section{Modulus of continuity}
\label{modulus_cont}
\input{modulus_cont.tex}
\bigskip
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
The first author was supported by
Funda\c{c}\~{a}o para a Ci\^{e}ncia e a Tecnologia,
UID/MAT/04561/2013.
The second author was supported by the Norwegian Research Council project no. 213638, "Discrete Models in Mathematical Analysis".
\bigskip
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
\providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}
\providecommand{\MR}{\relax\ifhmode\unskip\space\fi MR }
\providecommand{\MRhref}[2]{%
\href{http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1}{#2}
}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}
|
\section{Introduction}
SimRank \cite{SimRank} is a topologically induced similarity measure between graph vertices which could be very useful in many applications, such as relation mining or document-by-document querying but, high computational $\mathcal{O}(n^3)$ and storage $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ costs (here $n$ is number of vertexes in the graph) hinder it wider adoption.
There have been numerous attempts at solving those issues.
\cite{Li2010} proposes solution of Sylvester equation as an approximation of SimRank.
\cite{He2012} proposes GPU-based solvers, and \cite{Lizorkin2010} describes some optimizations via threshold-sieving heuristics.
While some of those techniques improve computational costs or propose hardware efficient methods none of the papers takes on improving memory consumption asymptotic.
There is an empirical data from \cite{Cai2009} which suggests an existence of low-dimensional 'core' of SimRank for many real-world data, yet authors do not explore this idea.
In this paper we propose to use low-rank matrices for efficient storage and computation of SimRank at the price of slightly lower accuracy of SimRank scores.
\section{Definitions}
In the foundation of SimRank definition lies idea that "two objects are similar if they are referenced by the similar objects".
Next, it is proposed that object similarity lies between $0$ and $1$ with object being maximally similar to itself with similarity $1$.
Similarity between objects $a$ and $b$, $s(a,b)$ is defined in the following way:
$$
s(a,b) = \left\{\begin{array}{l}
1,\; a=b,\\
0,\; $if$\; I(a) = \emptyset \; $or$\; I(b) = \emptyset,\\
\displaystyle \frac{c}{|I(a)| |I(b)|}\sum_{i=1}^{|I(a)|}\sum_{j=1}^{|I(b)|}s(I_i(a),I_j(b)),\; $otherwise$,
\end{array}
\right.
$$
here $I(v)$ is the set of in-neighbours of vertex $v$, constant $c \in (0,1)$. Writing $n^2$ equations (one equation for each pair of vertices) gives us a system
with unique solution \cite{SimRank}.
One can find a solution of such system by using the following iterative process:
\begin{equation}
\label{si1a}
R_0(a,b) = \left\{\begin{array}{l}
1,\; a=b,\\
0,\; $otherwise$,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{si1b}
R_{k+1}(a,b) = \left\{\begin{array}{l}
1,\; a=b,\\
0,\; $if$\; I(a) = \emptyset \; $or$\; I(b) = \emptyset,\\
\displaystyle \frac{c}{|I(a)||I(b)|}\sum_{v \in I(a)}\sum_{w \in I(b)}R_k(w,v),\; $otherwise$.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
It is shown in \cite{SimRank} that $R_k(a,b)$ converges to $s(a,b)$.
The iterative process (\ref{si1b}) can be written in the matrix form as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{si2}
S_{k+1} = c W^TS_{k}W -c\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}(W^TS_{k}W) + I,\, S_0 = I,
\end{equation}
here $W$ is the adjacency matrix $A$ normalized by columns $W = AD^{-1}$
with $D$ being a diagonal matrix with
$$
D_{i,i} = \sum_{j=1}^{n}A_{i,j}.
$$
\section{Low-rank approximation}
Due to SimRank itself being a symmetric matrix (which can be seen from (\ref{si2})) we choose symmetric form for the low-rank approximation
\begin{equation}
\label{low_rank_form}
\tilde{S} = I + UDU^T,
\end{equation}
where $I$ is an identity matrix of $n$-th order, $U$ and $D$ are correspondingly orthonormal and diagonal matrices of sizes $n \times m$ and $m \times m$.
Instead of the iterative process (\ref{si2}) converging to the precise SimRank matrix $S$ we consider the following iterative process:
\begin{equation}
\label{low_rank_iter}
\tilde{S}_{k+1} = W^T\tilde{S}_kW - \mathop{\mathrm{diag}}(W^T\tilde{S}_kW) + I.
\end{equation}
Substituting (\ref{low_rank_form}) into (\ref{low_rank_iter}) with arbitrary initial matrices $U_0$ and $D_0$ gives us the following equation for $U_{k+1}$ and $D_{k+1}$:
$$
I + U_{k+1}D_{k+1}U^T_{k+1} = W^T(I + U_kD_kU^T_k)W - \mathop{\mathrm{diag}}(W^TW + W^TU_kDU^T_kW ) + I,
$$
from which we derive
$$
U_{k+1}D_{k+1}U_{k+1}^T = M_{k},
$$
where $M_{k} = W^T(I + U_kU_k^T)W -\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}(W^TW + W^TU_kU^T_kW )$.
Calculation of matrices $U_{k+1}$ and $D_{k+1}$ is based on the eigenvalue decomposition of matrix $M$:
$$
M_{k} = \tilde{U}\tilde{D}\tilde{U}^T,
$$
here $\tilde{U}, \tilde{D}$ are matrices of eigenvectors and eigenvalues correspondingly, and $\tilde{D}$ is ordered from greatest to least along its diagonal. Using a priori chosen approximation rank $r$ we from matrices $U_{k+1}$ and $D_{k+1}$:
$$
U_{k+1} = \tilde{U}_r, D_{k+1} = \tilde{D}_r,
$$
here $\tilde{U}_r$ is matrix of the first $r$ eigenvectors and $\tilde{D}_r$ is a matrix of first $r$ eigenvalues.
Convergence analysis is complicated due to $k$-rank projection operation not being Lipschitz.
\section{Advantages over existing methods}
The proposed method has memory requirements $O(n\max(r,d))$ and computational complexity $O(rkn^2)$. The iterative algorithm from the original paper \cite{SimRank} has memory requirements $O(n^2)$ and computational complexity $O(kn^2d^2)$ which is $O(kn^4)$ in worst-case scenario. A number of attempts was made to speed-up SimRank computation. \cite{Lizorkin2010} proposes three optimization strategies: skipping computation of similarity between some node pairs, optimizations of SimRank iterative process and pruning. In the end it improves worst-case computational complexity of algorithm to $\min(O(nl), O(n^3 / \log_2(n))$, with $l$ denoting the number of object-to-object relationships. The memory requirements are the same as with the original paper, namely
$O(n^2)$.
Another approach, based on the approximation of SimRank by Sylvester equation is pioneered in \cite{Li2010}. While this approach provides nice and well understood algebraic equation with already available solvers implemented in all popular programming languages, it requires computation of $W^{-1}$ which is a full matrix, while $W$ is usually sparse. There are number of works extending on this idea, for example \cite{Onizuka2013} proposes low-rank approximation to Sylvester equation or \cite{Yu2014} proposes low-rank approximation for SimRank equation written in the form of discrete Lyapunov equation. It should be noted that those equations are in fact only approximation to SimRank. It can be easily seen from an example graph provided in original paper \cite{SimRank}. The adjacency matrix is
$$
W = \left(\begin{array}{ccccc} 0 & 1.0 & 0 & 1.0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 1.0 & 0 & 0\\ 1.0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1.0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1.0 & 0 \end{array}\right).
$$
The result for original iterative simrank algorithm gives the following SimRank matrix:
$$
\left(\begin{array}{ccccc} 1.0 & 0 & 0 & 0.1323 & 0.03388\\ 0 & 1.0 & 0 & 0.4136 & 0.1059\\ 0 & 0 & 1.0 & 0.04235 & 0.3308\\ 0.1323 & 0.4136 & 0.04235 & 1.0 & 0.08822\\ 0.03388 & 0.1059 & 0.3308 & 0.08822 & 1.0 \end{array}\right)
$$
The result of the Lyapunov equation based approximation from \cite{Li2010} gives:
$$
\left(\begin{array}{ccccc} 1.0 & 3.013\cdot 10^{-15} & 8.797\cdot 10^{-16} & 0.1323 & 0.03388\\ 6.25\cdot 10^{-16} & 1.0 & 2.796\cdot 10^{-15} & 0.4136 & 0.1059\\ 3.2\cdot 10^{-15} & 6.729\cdot 10^{-16} & 1.0 & 0.04235 & 0.3308\\ 0.1323 & 0.4136 & 0.04235 & 0.5399 & 0.08822\\ 0.03388 & 0.1059 & 0.3308 & 0.08822 & 0.632 \end{array}\right)
$$
As we can see even for such small and simple example the discrepancy not negligible: the $S_{4,4}$ and $S_{5,5}$ significantly differ from $1$. On slightly more complex tests non-diagonal elements will differ, too.
For example, we can modify this graph adding an edge between StudentA and StudentB (see the Figure~\ref{fig:graph}) which gives us the following adjacency matrix:
$$
W = \left(\begin{array}{ccccc} 0 & 1.0 & 0 & 1.0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 1.0 & 0 & 0\\ 1.0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1.0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1.0\\ 0 & 0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0 \end{array}\right)
$$
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{simple_graph.png}
\caption{Example graph from original SimRank paper. a) Graph b) Corresponding SimRank scores}
\label{fig:graph}
\end{figure}
The result for original iterative SimRank algorithm:
$$
\left(\begin{array}{ccccc} 1.0 & 0.1809 & 0.2262 & 0.1993 & 0.5523\\ 0.1809 & 1.0 & 0.2933 & 0.6209 & 0.1702\\ 0.2262 & 0.2933 & 1.0 & 0.3807 & 0.2721\\ 0.1993 & 0.6209 & 0.3807 & 1.0 & 0.1744\\ 0.5523 & 0.1702 & 0.2721 & 0.1744 & 1.0 \end{array}\right),
$$
and result of algorithm from \cite{Li2010}:
$$
\left(\begin{array}{ccccc} 0.5653 & 0.08779 & 0.1097 & 0.09898 & 0.2538\\ 0.08779 & 0.6522 & 0.1366 & 0.3276 & 0.08348\\ 0.1097 & 0.1366 & 0.4566 & 0.1778 & 0.1377\\ 0.09898 & 0.3276 & 0.1778 & 0.5073 & 0.08661\\ 0.2538 & 0.08348 & 0.1377 & 0.08661 & 0.4639 \end{array}\right).
$$
As one can see the differences are too large to be ignored.
\section{Speeding up with probabilistic spectral decomposition}
Spectral decomposition of the matrix $M$ could be replaced by its probabilistic approximation from work \cite{HMT}. Here is a short description of used algorithm, provided for readers convenience.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\SetAlgoLined
\KwData{Symmetric matrix $M$, approximation rank $r$, oversampling parameter $p$}
\KwResult{Approximate eigenvalue decomposition $M \approx U\Lambda U^T$}
1. Select approximation rank $r$ and oversampling parameter $p$\;
2. Generate $n \times (r + p)$ matrix $Z$ with elements drawn from standard Gaussian distribution\;
3. Form $n \times (r+p)$ matrix $Y = MZ$\;
4. Construct an $n \times (r+p)$ matrix $Q$ whose columns form an orthonormal basis for the range of $Y$\;
5. Form $ (r+p) \times (r+p)$ matrix $B = Q^TMQ$\;
6. Compute spectral decomposition $B = V^T\Lambda V$\;
7. Use $QV$ as approximation of eigenvectors of matrix $M$\;
\caption{Probabilistic spectral decomposition}
\end{algorithm}
For more detailed information about probabilistic approaches for low-rank approximation we direct reader to \cite{HMT}.
Using this our final algorithm can be formulated as follows:
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\SetAlgoLined
\KwData{Column normalized adjacency matrix $W$, approximation rank $r$, oversampling parameter $p$, number of iterations $k$}
\KwResult{Matrices $U$ and $D$ such $S \approx I + UDU^T$}
set initial values for $U$, $D$ \;
\For{$i$=$1\dots k$}{
$A_1 \leftarrow W^TWZ$\;
$A_2 \leftarrow W^TUDU^TWZ$\;
$A_3 \leftarrow diag(A_1+A_2)Z$\;
$U,D \leftarrow$ probabilistic spectral decomposition of $A_1+A_2-A_3$\;
}
\caption{Low-rank SimRank approximation}
\end{algorithm}
We can also have a better approximation of SimRank in the form
\begin{equation}
\label{one_more}
S \approx I + W^TW + W^TUDU^TW - W^T diag (W^TW + W^TUDU^TW) W,
\end{equation}
which is essentially one iterative step done as in original iterative algorithm (\ref{si2}) with approximative SimRank used as initial guess. While this form will result in dense matrix this is form can be effectively used for querying.
\section{Numerical experiments}
The proposed method provides fixed memory and computation complexity, but the question about the approximation quality is still open. While no amount of numerical experiments can replace good theoretical estimates it nevertheless sheds some light on proposed method behaviour. All experiments are done in MATLAB 2014a.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth} \centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{experiment_6_n10.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{experiment_6_data.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Dependence of relative error on approximation rank}
\label{fig:rel}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth} \centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{experiment_7_n10.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{experiment_7_data.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Dependence of relative error on $c$}
\label{fig:c}
\end{figure}
In this section we present our experimental study of proposed algorithm on a graphs from DIMACS10 Challenge Collection \footnote{https://www.cise.ufl.edu/research/sparse/matrices/DIMACS10/}. First we studied dependence of relative error of our method on approximation rank.
For comparison we used best rank $r$ approximation of the SimRank matrix. We call this method naive because it does not take into account structure of the SimRank matrix. Methods based on Sylvester or Lyapunov equation usually
employ some kind of low-rank approximation and, if those equations would describe SimRank precisely, it would be their upper limit.
As can be seen from Figure~\ref{fig:rel} the proposed method provides superior accuracy. For those experiments $c=0.5$ was selected and no oversampling ($p=0$) was used.
The second part of the experiments shows dependence of relative error on $c$ with and without oversampling.
Based on estimations from \cite{HMT} $p=10$ is chosen. As we can see from Figure~\ref{fig:c}
our method provides better approximation for most part of values of $c$. As expected oversampling provides some improvement.
\begin{tabular}{|rrrrrrr|}\hline
name & $n$ & rank & nnz & $nnz/n$ &corr & err \\ \hline
chesapeake & 39 & 3 & 340 & 8.72 &0.57 & 0.12 \\
data & 2851 & 285 & 30186 & 10.59 &0.82 & 0.42 \\
delaunay n10 & 1024 & 102 & 6112 & 5.97 &0.67 & 0.30 \\
delaunay n11 & 2048 & 204 & 12254 & 5.98 &0.67 & 0.41 \\
delaunay n12 & 4096 & 409 & 24528 & 5.99 &0.68 & 0.60 \\
delaunay n13 & 8192 & 819 & 49094 & 5.99 &0.68 & 0.82 \\
uk & 4824 & 482 & 13674 & 2.83 &0.24 & 0.66 \\
vsp data and seymourl & 9167 & 916 & 111732 & 12.19 & 0.89 & 0.39 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
Here $nnz$ is the number of nonzero elements in the adjacency matrix, $nnz/n$ is the average degree of vertex, corr is correlation between $S$ and $\tilde{S}$ with diagonals removed and
$$
\mbox{err} = \| \frac{S}{\|S\|_2} - \frac{\tilde{S}}{\|\tilde{S}\|_2} \|_2.
$$
From this table is clearly seen that the accuracy of our method depends on the connectivity of the given graph, the higher the connectivity the greater accuracy will be.
\subsection{Experiment with Wikipedia}
We used Simple English Wikipedia corpus to find semantic relatedness between concepts. We had $150495$ entities(order of our matrix) which was a slightly higher than the number of articles in the given wiki at the time of writing, because some of those entities are redirection stubs. We used undirected graph representation of inter-wiki links which gave us $4454023$ non zero elements in adjacency matrix. For graph that large direct computation of SimRank is infeasible. We used the following parameters for the experiment: $c = 0.3$, $\mbox{rank} = 6000$, no-oversampling and did ten iterations.
While original paper \cite{SimRank} suggests $c=0.8$ later it was suggested to use $c=0.6$ for better results \cite{Lizorkin2010} and we choose $c=0.3$ because it gave us subjectively better results. In experiment we used virtual server (VZ container) with 16 CPU cores and 100GiB RAM available (host node has 32 cores: 4 CPUs, each is 8-core AMD Opteron Processor 6272, 128GiB RAM). With this setup computations took roughly 40 hours.
Some examples provided in the table below. The first row is the word for which most similar words were queried, then in each of the columns most similar words are listed ordered by their SimRank score. The scores themselves would take too much space (they differ in 4-th or 5-th significant figures) and hence are omitted.
\vspace{5mm}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{table.png}
\end{figure}
Those results look very promising, despite small approximation rank (compared to matrix order). Two factors contribute to this: high average vertex degree of $\approx 29.6$ and empirically observed localization of errors in more dissimilar items. Investigation of both factors requires further work.
\section{Acknowledgements}
We are particularly grateful for the valuable technical assistance given by A.A. Sadovsky and D.A. Podlesnykh.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Causal Interpretation in the Textbook Model}
The standard econometrics education introduces the instrumental variables
methods in the form of, what Imbens called, the standard textbook set
up
\begin{equation}\label{textbook}
Y_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}=\beta_{0}+\beta_{1}X_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}+
\beta_{2}^{\prime
}V_{i}+\varepsilon_{i},
\end{equation}
where $Y_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}$ is an outcome observation of unit $i$,
$X_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}$ is
a treatment variable of which the causal effect on the outcome is of
interest, $V_{i}$ is a vector of observable covariates (often called control
covariates), and $\varepsilon_{i}$ is an unobservable term often called
as an
unobserved heterogeneity of unit $i$. A common way to motivate the use of
instrumental variables is by invalidating the least square method due to
``the correlation between $X_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}$ and $\varepsilon_{i}$.'' This quick
but somewhat less rigorous way of motivating the instrumental variables
methods often creates confusions. If equation (\ref{textbook}) were
specifying a regression equation or a linear projection, then the projection
residual $\varepsilon_{i}$ is by construction uncorrelated with $X_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}$,
and, accordingly, the concern about endogeneity $E(X_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}\varepsilon
_{i})\neq0$ would never arise. In other words, whenever instrumental
variable methods are invoked, it is fundamental to understand what feature
or interpretation of (\ref{textbook}) distinguishes it from the statistical
regression equation, and for what reason we should suspect the
dependence of
$X_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}$ and $\varepsilon_{i}$.
Having a simple example would help us answer these questions. Consider a
classical problem of estimation of a production function. $ Q$ denotes the
quantity of a homogeneous good produced and $L$ is the measure of labor
input used (e.g., total hours worked by the employees). We do not consider
control covariates for now. Assume that the production technology of
firm
i$ is given by the following function,
\begin{eqnarray*}
Q_{i}(L)=\exp(\beta_{0}+\alpha_{i})L^{\beta_{1}},\quad
0<\beta _{1}<1,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\beta_{0}$ is an unknown constant, $\alpha_{i}$ is a mean zero
unobserved productivity of firm $i$, and $\beta_{1}$ is the parameter of
interest assumed to be constant across firms. The specified production
function leads to a log-linear equation,
\begin{equation}\label{production}
Y_{i}(x)=\beta_{0}+\beta_{1}x+
\alpha_{i},
\end{equation}
where $x=\log L$ and $Y_{i}(x)=\log Q_{i}(L)$. This equation can be indeed
interpreted as the causal relationship between output and input in the
production process of firm $i$. As in equation (3.3) of the Imbens'
article, $Y_{i}(x)$ can be interpreted as $i$'s potential outcomes at each
possible input level $x\in\mathcal{X}$. In econometrics terminology,
equation (\ref{production}) is interpreted as a \textit{structural equation}
in the sense that it can generate any counterfactual outcomes of unit $i$
with respect to any manipulations in $x$. Note that the structural
equation (\ref{production}) relies only on the assumption or knowledge about
the underlying causal mechanism (production function) and, so far, no
considerations on how the data are generated have entered our
discussion yet.
Suppose that available data of pairs of log-output and log-input of $n$
producers, $ ( Y_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}},X_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}} ) $, $i=1,\dots,n$, are
observational, meaning that the observed input level $X_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}$ can be
seen as a ``choice'' made by a firm~$i$. Following \citet{MarschakAndrews1944}, let us model each firm's choice of $X$ based on the following three
assumptions, (1) firms are \textit{rational}, meaning that each firm chooses
its input to maximize own profit, (2)~the market is under \textit{perfect
competition}, implying that every firm treat prices of the good and input
(wage) as given and (3) firms have complete knowledge of their production
technologies $\beta_{0}$, $\beta_{1}$ and $\alpha_{i}$ when they choose
their input levels. Under these somewhat unrealistic assumptions, firm
$i
's input choice solves the following profit maximization problem:
\begin{eqnarray*}
X_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}} =\log L_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}},
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
L_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}} =\arg\max_{L}
\bigl\{ pQ_{i} ( L ) -w_{i}L_{i} \bigr\},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $p$ is the (common) price of the good, and $w_{i}$ is the hourly wage
given to firm $i$, which can vary over $i$, that is, the wage is
determined at
a localized labor market. The resulting choice $X_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}$ i
\begin{equation}\label{Xiobs}
X_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}=\frac{1}{1-\beta_{1}} \biggl[ \beta_{0}+\log
\biggl( \frac
{p\beta
_{1}}{w_{i}} \biggr) +\alpha_{i} \biggr] .
\end{equation}
If we replace $x$ with $X_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}$ in (\ref{production}) and notate
Y_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}=Y_{i} ( X_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}} ) $, we obtai
\begin{equation}\label{productionstructural}
Y_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}=\beta_{0}+\beta_{1}X_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}+
\alpha_{i} .
\end{equation}
This equation coincides with an equation of the form (\ref{textbook})
without covariates. Equation (\ref{Xiobs}) says that a more productive
(higher $\alpha_{i}$) firm chooses a larger labor input, implying that
the endogeneity problem $E ( X_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}\alpha_{i} ) \neq0$ is
present. Accordingly, (\ref{productionstructural}) must differ from the
linear projection equation of $Y_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}$ onto $X_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}$, and the
least squares regression of $Y_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}$ onto $X_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}$ fails to
consistently estimate $\beta_{1}$. Here, the keypoints are (1) there
is a
specific causal model (\ref{production}) underlying (\ref{productionstructural}), and (2) the subject's optimal ``choice'' based on the
unobservable (to data analysts) causes correlation $E(X_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}\alpha
_{i})\neq0$.
What can be a reasonable instrumental variable in the
current example? A
search for an instrumental variable can also be model-based. For instance,
if $w_{i}$ is available in data, equation (\ref{Xiobs}) says that
X_{i}^{\mathrm{obs}}$ should be dependent on $w_{i}$, while structural equation
(\re
{production}) says $w_{i}$ does not directly affect the output; accordingly,
$w_{i}$ satisfies the instrument relevance and the instrument exclusion
restriction. The validity of random assignment $E(w_{i}\alpha_{i})=0$, on
the other hand, would be questionable. For instance, firms located in an
urban area can be more productive (higher $\alpha_{i}$) than those located
in a rural area, and the wage level in urban area can be higher than the
wage level in rural, possibly due to a higher living cost and availability
of more skilled labor force. The motivation for using control
covariates
V_{i}$ (e.g., a demeaned indicator of whether firm $i$ is located in an urban
area or in a rural area) is to cope with potential confounders of $w_{i}$
and $\alpha_{i}$. Following the way in which Imbens treats covariates
(Section~6), we assume conditional random assignment $w_{i}\perp\alpha
_{i}|V_{i}$, and specify the dependence of $\alpha_{i}$ and $V_{i}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{controls}
\alpha_{i}=\beta_{2}V_{i}+\varepsilon_{i}
\quad \mbox{with }\varepsilon _{i}\perp V_{i}.
\end{equation}
Here, $\varepsilon_{i}$ is firm $i$'s unobserved productivity measured
relative to conditional mean $E(\alpha_{i}|V_{i})$. Note that coefficient
parameter $\beta_{2}$ summarizes the dependence of $\alpha_{i}$ and
$V_{i}
, and we are not attaching a causal interpretation to $\beta_{2}$.
Plugging $\alpha_{i}$ into (\ref{productionstructural}) yields the
textbook setup of the linear instrumental variable model (\ref{textbook}),
for which the two stage least squares procedure yields a consistent
estimator for $ ( \beta_{0},\beta_{1},\beta_{2} ) $. As is
clear through this simple example, the textbook equation (\ref{textbook})
can be seen as a \textit{composite} of the causal (structural) equation
(\re
{productionstructural}) and the statistical dependence relationship
(\re
{controls}).
\section{Point Estimate Versus Bounds: A~Treatment Choice
Perspective}
The discussed paper also reviews the current debate about the meaningfulness
of the complier's causal effect (Section~4.6). Imbens advocates the
importance and practical values of reporting the complier's causal effect
for the reason that it is the only causal estimand point-identified under
the maintained assumptions. Imbens, at the same time, acknowledges that
the population average causal effect is a parameter of primary interest in
many contexts of causal inference, and he recommends to report also the
bounds of the population average causal effect. In my opinion, Imbens'
proposal is quite sensible if the main task of the data analyst is to make
``scientific reporting'' about the causal effects. The point-identified
causal parameter for compliers and the set-identified causal parameter for
the entire population reflect (partially) distinct aspects of the data
distribution, and, importantly, the best we can learn from data under
the maintained assumptions are only those.
The objectives of causal
studies are not only for ``scientific reporting,''
but also for assisting ``decision making'' of a policy maker. If the latter
is a main task of the data analyst, then my personal view is that
neither of
the complier's causal effect estimate nor the bounds of the average causal
effect should be the final output that the decision maker would find most
useful. To make my argument more concrete, suppose that the decision
maker's objective is to maximize the social welfare defined by the sum of
individual outcomes over the target population. As in \citet{Chamberlain2011},
we suppose that he/she solves the treatment choice problem based on a
posterior belief for the social welfare, that is, the decision maker is
Bayesian. Since a comparison of the social welfare between the cases with
and without implementation of the treatment depends only on the population
average causal effect, the posterior distribution of the average causal
effect obtained from her/his carefully specified prior input leads to the
decision maker's optimal choice (see \cite{ChickeringandPearl1997} and \cite{ImbensRubin1997}) for Bayesian estimation of the average causal effect). On
the other hand, point estimates and inferential statements for the
complier's causal effect and the bounds for the population causal
effect do
not directly guide formal decision-making.
The argument I just gave crucially relies on the Bayesian premise that the
decision maker can fully specify a prior for the potential outcomes
distributions. This may not always be the case depending on a context.
Given the absence of a universal consensus on a ``noninformative'' prior,
inability to specify a credible prior becomes a serious concern especially
when the causal effect of interest is not identified, since the lack of
identification makes the posterior sensitive to a choice of prior no matter
how large the sample size is. One way to overcome this practical
difficulty would be to follow Manski's (\citeyear{Manski2000}, \citeyear{Manski2005}) frequentist approach
based on the minimax and minimax regret decision principle, which relies
only on the knowledge of the bounds of the population average causal
effect.
The Bayesian approach and Manski's data-alone approach are each
grounded in the two extreme schools of statistics. This means that there
should certainly be a room for blending the aspects of these two approaches
to complement their advantages and disadvantages. One compromising
approach would be to perform a minimax or minimax-regret decision analysis
with multiple priors/posteriors, namely, the $\Gamma$-minimax or
$\Gamma
-minimax regret decision analysis (see, e.g., \cite*{Berger1985}, Chapter~4).
For instance, in the current context, we can consider constructing a
\textit
set of posteriors} of average causal effects by combining a single
\textit{posterior} for the
identifiable parameters (causal effects for compliers, the mean of treatment
outcome for always-takers, the mean of control outcome for never-takers)
with a \textit{collection of priors} of the nonidentified parameters (the
mean of control outcome for always-takers and the mean of treatment outcome
for never-takers). The collection of priors for the nonidentified
parameters may represent the decision maker's partial or vague prior
knowledge, or represent the degree of robustness that the decision maker
wants to maintain in making the decision. Here, a single prior for the
identified parameters would make sense in a scenario that the decision maker
feels less anxious about a prior mis-specification for the identifiable
parameters since he/she knows data will well update it. If the class of
priors for the nonidentified parameters is not as large as the one that
allows for arbitrary ones, the resulting posterior $\Gamma$-minimax
treatment choice
rule will not be as conservative as the Manski's data-alone minimax
treatment choice rule based solely on the bounds. At the same time, unlike
the standard Bayesian analysis with a single prior distribution, it can
lead to a decision-making with taking
into account the posterior sensitivity concern with respect to a choice
of a prior for the
nonidentified parameters.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
I gratefully acknowledge the financial supports received from the ESRC
through the ESRC Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice (CeMMAP) (grant
number RES-589-28-0001).
|
\section{Introduction}
An \emph{equitable partition} of a graph $G$ is a partition of the
vertex-set of $G$ such that the sizes of any two parts differ by at
most one. Hajnal and Szemer\'edi~\cite{HS70} proved the following
result, which was conjectured by Erd\H{o}s (see also \cite{KKMS10} for a shorter proof).
\begin{thm}\label{th:col}
For any integers $\Delta$ and $k\ge \Delta+1$, any graph with maximum degree $\Delta$ has
an equitable partition into $k$ stable sets.
\end{thm}
Note that there is no constant $c$, such that for any $k\ge c$, any
star can be equitably partitioned into $k$ stable sets.
Wu, Zhang, and Li made the following two conjectures~\cite{WZL13}.
\begin{conj}\label{conj:2}
There is a constant $c$ such that for any $k\ge c$, any planar graph
can be equitably partitioned into $k$ induced forests.
\end{conj}
\begin{conj}\label{conj:1}
For any integers $\Delta$ and $k\ge \lceil \tfrac{\Delta+1}{2}\rceil$,
any graph of maximum degree $\Delta$ can be equitably partitioned into
$k$ induced forests.
\end{conj}
A proper coloring of a graph $G$ is \emph{acyclic} if any cycle of $G$
contains at least 3 colors. We first prove the following result.
\begin{thm}\label{th:acy}
Let $k\ge 2$. If a graph $G$ has an acyclic coloring with at most $k$ colors, then $G$ can be
equitably partitioned into $k-1$ induced forests.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The proof proceeds by induction on $k\ge 2$. If $k=2$ then $G$ itself
is a forest and the result trivially holds, so we can assume that
$k\ge 3$. Let $V_1,\ldots,V_k$ be the color classes in some acyclic
$k$-coloring of $G$ (note that some sets $V_i$ might be empty). Let
$n$ be the number of vertices of $G$. Without loss of generality, we
can assume that $V_1$ contains at most $\tfrac{n}{k}\le
\tfrac{n}{k-1}$ vertices. Observe that the sum of the number of
vertices in $V_1\cup V_i$, $2\le i \le k$, is $n+(k-2)|V_1|\ge n$. It follows
that there exists a color class, say $V_2$, such that $V_1\cup V_2$
contains at least $\tfrac{n}{k-1}$ vertices. Let $S$ be a set of
vertices of $G$ consisting of $V_1$ together with
$\lfloor\tfrac{n}{k-1}\rfloor-|V_1|$ vertices of $V_2$, and let $H$ be the graph
obtained from $G$ by removing the vertices of $S$. Note that $S$
induces a forest in $G$, and $H$ has an acyclic coloring with at most
$k-1$ colors (with color classes $V_2\setminus S,V_3,\ldots,V_k$). By the induction hypothesis, $H$ has an equitable
partition into $k-2$ induced forests, and therefore $G$ has an
equitable partition into $k-1$ induced forests.
\end{proof}
It was proved by Borodin~\cite{Bor79} that any planar graph has an acyclic coloring
with at most 5 colors. Therefore, Theorem~\ref{th:maind} implies
Corollary~\ref{cor:1}, which is a positive answer to
Conjecture~\ref{conj:2}.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:1}
For any $k\ge 4$, any planar graph can be equitably partitioned into $k$ induced forests.
\end{cor}
We now prove stronger results in two different ways. We first show the induced forests can be chosen to be very specific. We then show that graphs from a class that is much wider than the class of planar graphs can also be equitably partitioned into constantly many induced forests.
\medskip
A \emph{star coloring} of a graph $G$ is a proper coloring of the
vertices of $G$ such that any two color classes induce a star forest.
Using the same proof as that of Theorem~\ref{th:acy}, it is easy to show
the following result.
\begin{thm}\label{th:star}
Let $k\ge 2$. If a graph $G$ has a star coloring with at most $k$ colors, then $G$ can be
equitably partitioned into $k-1$ induced star forests.
\end{thm}
It was proved by Albertson \emph{et al.}~\cite{AGKKR04} that every
planar graph has a star coloring with at most 20 colors. The next
corollary follows as an immediate consequence.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:2}
For any $k\ge 19$, any planar graph can be equitably partitioned into
$k$ induced star forests.
\end{cor}
Indeed, if one is not too regarding on the constant, a stronger result
holds. An \emph{orientation} of a graph $G$ is a directed graph
obtained from $G$ by orienting each edge in either of two possible
directions. An \emph{out-star} (resp. \emph{in-star}) is the
orientation of a star such that every edge is oriented from the center
of the star to the leaf (resp. from the leaf to the center of the
star).
\begin{thm}\label{th:ori}
For any $k\ge 319$, any orientation of a planar graph can be equitably partitioned into
$k$ induced forests of in- and out-stars.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
It was proved by Raspaud and Sopena~\cite{RS94} that every orientation
of a planar graph $G$ has an acyclic coloring with at most 80 colors such
that for any two colors classes $V_i$ and $V_j$, if there is an arc
$(u,v)$ with $u\in V_i$ and $v\in V_j$, then there is no arc $(x,y)$
with $y\in V_i$ and $x\in V_j$.
It was proved in~\cite{AGKKR04} that if all the minors of some graph
$G$ are $r$-colorable, then any acyclic coloring of $G$ with $k$
colors can be refined into a star coloring of $G$ with $rk$ colors. By
the Four Color Theorem, all the minors of a planar graph are
4-colorable, and therefore the acyclic coloring of $G$ with 80 colors
mentioned above can be refined into a star coloring, with the same
additional property, using no more than $80\cdot4=320$ colors. In
particular, every two color classes induce a forest of in- and
out-stars. The remainder of the proof follows the same lines as the
proofs of Theorems~\ref{th:acy} and~\ref{th:star}.
\end{proof}
It is known that graphs with bounded acyclic chromatic number also have bounded star chromatic number~\cite{AGKKR04} and bounded oriented chromatic number~\cite{RS94}, so it follows that the results of Theorems~\ref{th:star} and~\ref{th:ori} hold for any class of graphs with bounded acyclic chromatic number (with possibly larger constants).
\medskip
A graph $G$ is \emph{$d$-degenerate} if every subgraph of $G$ contains
a vertex of degree at most $d$. In the remainder of this article, we prove the
following result.
\begin{thm}\label{th:maind}
For any integers $d\ge 1$ and $k\ge 3^{d-1}$, any $d$-degenerate graph
can be equitably partitioned into $k$ induced forests.
\end{thm}
It follows from Euler's formula that every planar graph is
5-degenerate. Therefore, Theorem~\ref{th:maind} also implies
Conjecture~\ref{conj:2} (with $c=81$ instead of $c=4$ in
Corollary~\ref{cor:1}). For a graph $G$, let $\chi_a(G)$ denote the
least integer $k$ such that $G$ has an acyclic coloring with $k$
colors. It is known that there is a function $f$ such that every graph
$G$ is $f(\chi_a(G))$-degenerate~\cite{Dvo07}. However there exist families of
2-degenerate graphs with unbounded acyclic chromatic number. It
follows that Theorem~\ref{th:maind} can be applied to wider classes of
graphs than Theorems~\ref{th:acy},~\ref{th:star}, and~\ref{th:ori}.
\smallskip
A class of graphs is \emph{hereditary} if it is closed under taking
induced subgraphs.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:div}
Let $\ell$ be an integer and $\mathcal C$ be a hereditary class of
graphs such that every graph in ${\mathcal C}$ can be equitably
partitioned into $\ell$ induced forests. Then for any $k \ge \ell$,
any graph in ${\mathcal C}$ can be equitably partitioned into $k$
induced forests.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $G$ be a graph of ${\mathcal C}$, and let $n$ be the number of
vertices of $G$. Let $n=kq+s$, with $0\le s<k$. Note that an equitable
partition of $G$ into $k$ sets consists of $s$ sets of size $\lceil
n/k \rceil$ and $k-s$ sets of size $\lfloor n/k \rfloor$.
Let $G_0=G$. For any $1\le i \le k-\ell$, we inductively define $G_i$
as a graph obtained from $G_{i-1}$ by removing a set $S_{i-1}$ of
$\lceil n/k \rceil$ vertices (if $i\le s$) or $\lfloor n/k \rfloor$
vertices (otherwise) inducing a forest in $G_{i-1}$. The existence of
such an induced forest follows from the fact that for any $n'\ge
\tfrac \ell k \,n$, any induced subgraph of $G$ on $n'$ vertices
contains an induced forest on at least $\lceil n'/\ell \rceil \ge
\lceil n/k \rceil$ vertices.
By assumption, the graph $G_{k-\ell}$ can be equitably partitioned
into $\ell$ induced forests (each on $\lfloor n/k \rfloor$ or $\lceil
n/k \rceil$ vertices). Combining these induced forests with
$S_0,S_1,\ldots, S_{k-\ell-1}$, we obtain an equitable partition of
$G$ into $k$ induced forests.
\end{proof}
The following result was proved in~\cite{KNP05}.
\begin{thm}\label{th:kdeg}
Let $k\ge 3$ and $d\ge 2$. Then every $d$-degenerate graph can be
equitably partitioned into $k$ $(d - 1)$-degenerate graphs.
\end{thm}
We now give a short proof of Theorem~\ref{th:maind} using
Lemma~\ref{lem:div} and Theorem~\ref{th:kdeg}.
\bigskip
\noindent \emph{Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:maind}.} By
Lemma~\ref{lem:div}, it is enough to show that any $d$-degenerate
graph has an equitable partition into $3^{d-1}$ induced forests.
We prove this result
by induction on $d\ge 1$. If $d=1$, the result follows from the fact
that a 1-degenerate graph is a forest. Assume that $d\ge 2$. By
Theorem~\ref{th:kdeg}, $G$ has an equitable partition into three $(d
- 1)$-degenerate graphs. By the induction, each of these graphs has an
equitable partition into $3^{d-2}$ induced forests, therefore $G$ has
an equitable partition into $3\cdot 3^{d-2}=3^{d-1}$ induced forests.\hfill $\Box$
\bigskip
\noindent {\bf Open problems.} It remains to determine whether every
planar graph has an equitable partition into three induced forests (partial results on this problem can be found in~\cite{Zh15}). By
Theorems~\ref{th:acy} and~\ref{th:maind}, a possible counterexample
must have acyclic chromatic number equal to 5 and cannot be
2-degenerate.
\smallskip
It was proved by Poh~\cite{Poh90} that every planar graph has a partition into three induced
\emph{linear forests} (i.e. graphs in which each connected component is a path). A
natural question is the following.
\begin{quest}\label{q12}
Is there a constant $c$ such that for any $k\ge c$, any planar graph
has an equitable partition into $k$ induced linear forests?
\end{quest}
It was pointed out to us by Yair Caro that the (outer)planar graph obtained from a large path by adding a universal vertex shows that Question~\ref{q12} has a negative answer.
|
\section{introduction}
A {\em cube tiling} is a family $(v_i + [0,1]^n)$ of translates of the unit cube $[0,1]^n$ that tiles $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^n$ by translation.
A cube tiling is said to be of {\em class} ${\mathcal T}_N$ if it is $2\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^n$ periodic and if the vectors $v_i$ belong to $\frac{1}{N} \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^n$. Up to scaling this corresponds to $2N\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^n$ periodic tilings of $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^n$ by integral translates of the cube $[0,N]^n$.
The origin of the subject of cube packing is with what is called Keller's conjecture (\cite{keller}) that generalize a previous conjecture of Minkowski.
The conjecture states that in every packing of $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^n$ by translates of the cube $[0,1]^n$ there exist two cubes that share a facet.
The conjecture was proved to be true for $n\leq 6$ in \cite{perron}. It was proved to be false for $n\geq 10$ in \cite{lagarias} and for $n\geq 8$ in \cite{dim8}. The counterexample found were of class ${\mathcal T}_2$.
Previously, it was found in \cite{szabo} that Keller's conjecture is true for all $n$ if and only if it is true for all cube packings of class ${\mathcal T}_2$ and all dimensions.
If one restricts to the case of cube tilings of class ${\mathcal T}_2$ of dimension $n$ then the Keller's conjecture is a finite problem (\cite{corradi}).
It is equivalent to proving that some graph $G_n$ having $4^n$ vertices has a clique number lower than $2^n$. In \cite{Dim7case} it was proven that the clique number of this graph $G_7$ is $124$. This shows that Keller's conjecture is true in dimension $7$ for the class of ${\mathcal T}_2$ cube tilings. But it does not a priori rule out the possibility of a counter-example in dimension $7$ that is not of class ${\mathcal T}_2$, though this is unlikely. The computation in \cite{Dim7case} was an extraordinary accomplishment that was for long though to require a computer, the ``size of a galaxy''.
It therefore appears that the class ${\mathcal T}_2$ of cube tilings is very interesting to study. Also a priori interesting is to consider cube packings. For such classes ${\mathcal P}_N$, questions of iterative packing and extensibility occurs.
Also, since the class ${\mathcal T}_2$ is finite in a given dimension, questions of classifications occurs that may be of interest. We will report on the recent works in the subject.
The classes ${\mathcal T}_N$ for $N>2$ are much harder to study combinatorially and of limited interest. However, as $N$ goes to $\infty$, one can study a special kind of continuous cube tiling obtained with positive probability.
This was introduced in \cite{combincubepack} but there has been less progress on this problem since it is less directly combinatorial. We will therefore instead report on the problems that we consider the most important.
\section{Cube packings and tilings for $N=2$}
A {\em cube packing} is a family $(v_i + [0,1]^n)_{i\in I}$ of translates of the unit cube $[0,1]^n$ that tiles $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^n$ by translation.
A cube packing is said to be of {\em class} ${\mathcal P}_N$ if it is $2\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^n$ periodic and if the vectors $v_i$ belong to $\frac{1}{N} \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^n$.
One method for obtaining cube tilings of class ${\mathcal T}_2$ is to take vectors $v$ at random in $\left\{0, \frac{1}{N}, \dots, \frac{2N-1}{N}\right\}^n$ and add the cubes if they do not overlap with preexisting ones. This method can be considered as a random process and this approach has a long history starting from \cite{renyi1958}. It was extended to packing in the cube $[0,4]^n$ by integral translates of the cube $[0,2]^n$ in \cite{ueda,dip,poyarkov2} where estimates on the expectation of the obtained random cube packing are obtained \cite{book}.
In dimension $n\leq 2$ the sequential random cube packing into torus will always give a tiling. However, in dimension $3$ we can obtain with non-zero probability a non-extensible cube packing with $4$ translation classes and thus density $1/2$ (see Figure \ref{UniqueInex}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}{5.2cm}
\centering
\resizebox{5.0cm}{!}{\includegraphics[bb=105 260 494 559, clip]{DRA1.eps}}\par
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\caption{The unique non-tiling non-extensible cube packing in dimension $3$}
\label{UniqueInex}
\end{figure}
The full classification of ${\mathcal T}_2$ cube tilings has been obtained in dimension $n\leq 5$. See Table \ref{TableClassification} for the number of types.
Since for $n\leq 5$, Keller's conjecture is true any cube tiling has two cubes that share a face. This means that we can shift them by $\frac{1}{2}e_i$ with $e_i$ a basis vector. By iterating such operations one can get new cube tilings. It turns out that for $n\leq 5$ all cube tilings can be obtained by starting from the trivial cube tiling by integral translates of $[0,1]^n$ (see \cite{CubeTilingDim5} for the case $n=5$ and \cite{cubetiling} for $n\leq 4$). It would be interesting to know if this also holds in dimension $6$ and $7$.
The packings of low density are harder to study. Let us denote by $f(n)$ the minimum number of translation in a non-extensible cube packing of class ${\mathcal P}_2$. Similarly let us denote by $h(n)$ the minimum number of translation classes of cubes, possibly overlapping that are needed in order to prevent the addition of one non-overlapping cube (see \cite{cubetiling} for details). Obviously $f(n)\geq h(n)$.
Table \ref{KnownValues_F_H} from \cite{BlockingSet} gives the known values of $f(n)$ and $h(n)$. Other exhaustive enumeration works seems impossible in that direction now. However, one direction that has not been really considered is obtaining infinite families of low density packings for all $n$.
A {\em hole} $H(P)$ is the complement of a non-extensible cube packing $P$ with $2^n - l$ cubes.
Such non-extensible cube-packings do not exist for $l=1$, $2$ or $3$ and any dimension $n$ (\cite[Theorem 2]{cubetiling}).
In \cite[Conjecture 1]{cubetiling} we stated that for $l=4$ the holes $H(P)$ is essentially unique and is given by the one of Figure \ref{UniqueInex} and its higher dimensional extensions.
We also conjectured that holes do not exist for $l=5$. The conjecture was proved in \cite{EnumerationHoles} for $n=5$ by an exhaustive enumeration.
Also we conjectured that for $l=6$ or $l=7$ in any dimension, the holes belong to a finite set of possibilities.
It seems to us that such conjectures are not hopeless and could be proved by extending the proof technique of \cite[Theorem 2]{cubetiling}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Number of types of cube tilings in dimension $n\leq 5$}
\label{TableClassification}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
n & $\#$ types & Reference\\
\hline
$2$ & $2$ &\\
$3$ & $9$ &\\
$4$ & $744$ & \cite{cubetiling}\\
$5$ & $899,710,227$ & \cite{CubeTilingDim5}\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Known values and ranges of $f(n)$ and $h(n)$ for $n\leq 7$ (from \cite{BlockingSet})}
\label{KnownValues_F_H}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
n & $f(n)$ & $h(n)$\\
\hline
$2$ & $4$ &$3$\\
$3$ & $4$ &$4$\\
$4$ & $8$\cite{cubetiling} &$7$\cite{cubetiling}\\
$5$ & $12$\cite{BlockingSet} &$10$\cite{brink}\\
$6$ & $16$\cite{BlockingSet} &$15$\cite{BlockingSet}\\
$7$ & $20-32$\cite{BlockingSet} &$20-23$\cite{BlockingSet}\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Continuous cube tilings and packings}
The main peculiarity of cube tilings of class ${\mathcal T}_N$ is the $2\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^n$ periodicity. It imposes that for any two translation classes of cubes $t + [0,1]^n$ and $t' + [0,1]^n$ that are non-overlapping, there exist a coordinate $i$ such that $t_i$ and $t'_i$ differ by an integer.
We choose to consider this as their main feature and see the behavior of the cube tilings as $N\to \infty$.
The formalism is explained in details in \cite{combincubepack} and allows to consider the cube packing that are obtained with positive probability as the main objects.
From the viewpoint of exhaustive combinatorial enumeration the problems are easier with a slower combinatorial explosion (for example in dimension $4$ we have $32$ types of such continuous cube tilings vs $744$ for the class ${\mathcal T}_2$). However, the absence of a graph formalism makes it harder to program and they were thus much less studied.
On the other hand the continuous structure gives the notion of number of parameters that are needed to describe the structure. It is conjectured (\cite[Conjecture 5.4]{combincubepack}) that this number of parameters is at most $2^n -1$ but we were unable to prove it. The number of parameters is at least $\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ but an open question is to prove the existence of a cube tiling with this number of parameters and obtained with positive probability.
In one respect the continuous case is simpler. For $n$ odd the minimal non-extensible cube packings can be classified (\cite[Proposition 5.5]{combincubepack}): they have $n+1$ translation classes of cubes and are described by what are called one-factorizations of perfect graphs $K_{2m}$ with $2m=n+1$. Such one-factorizations exist for any $m\geq 1$ (\cite{walecki}) and the number of non-isomorphic types is known for $m\leq 7$ (\cite{KO_K14}).
If $n$ is even, then one expects the existence of a non-extensible continuous cube packing with $n+2$ cubes and $\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ parameters, but the expected cube packings would be more complicated than one-factorization.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
Both authors thank the Institute of Statistical Mathematics for support.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
The friendship paradox is a phenomenon observed in various social networks. The term was coined by Feld~\cite{Feld}. It has been empirically observed that people's perception of their own popularity is self-aggrandizing; most people believe that they are more popular than their friends on average~\cite{Zuck}. However, Feld observed that in reality, most people have fewer friends than their friends do. In~\cite{GFP_Fowler}, this phenomena is used for the early detection of flu outbreaks among college students. In~\cite{GFP_disaster}, it is utilized to efficiently sample early-warning sensors during catastrophic events such as hurricanes.
In addition to degree, the same paradox has been observed about other individual attributes (called the \emph{generalized friendship paradox}~\cite{GFP_nature}, or GFP). For example, in~\cite{Hodas_twitter} it has been observed that on Twitter, for most people, their friends share, on average, more viral content and also tweet more. In~\cite{GFP_nature}, it has been observed that in scientific collaboration networks, one's co-authors have, on average, more citations, more publications and more co-authors.
In this paper, we consider a network growth model which is a generalization of the preferential attachment scheme~\cite{BA_1}.
In our model, nodes are endowed with `qualities' (ak.a.~`fitness' or `attractiveness' in the literature~\cite{Bianconi,fit_1,fit_2,fit_3}). Qualities are discrete positive numbers drawn from a given distribution $\rho(\theta)$ and assigned to a node upon its birth (remaining the same thenafter). We assume that the probability that node $x$ with degree $k_x$ and quality $\theta_x$ receives a link from subsequent nodes is proportional to $k_x+\theta_x$.\footnote{Note that for example in~\cite{Bianconi}, the attachment probability is proportional to the product of degree and quality. This model however, has not be solved in closed form. Also, it assigns zero link reception probability to nodes with degree zero.} We obtain two statistical measures of this model: one is the degree-quality joint distribution, which is the fraction of nodes that have degree $k$ and quality $\theta$ in the steady state. The second quantity is the nearest-neighbor distribution of quality and degree: it gives the fraction of nodes with degree $\ell$ and quality $\phi$ that are connected to a node with degree $k$ and quality $\theta$. Equipped with these distributions, we can quantify the paradox and study how it depends on the underlying quality distribution $\rho(\theta)$. To our knowledge, no similar theoretical result is available in the literature for any network growth model (either purely preferential~\cite{BA_1}, or fitness-based~\cite{fit_1,fit_2,fit_3}).
We show that employing the above scheme as the attachment mechanism renders the occurrence of the GFP contingent upon the underlying distribution of node qualities.
We then employ measures defined in the literature for assessing the GFP on the network level, and we investigate the dependence of these measures on the model parameters and the quality distribution. We demonstrate that, in the proposed model, the network exhibits a quality paradox at the network level for any quality distribution. We contend that this is indicative of a positive correlation between degree and quality; i.e., those with higher qualities are more likely to have higher degrees, and vice versa.
\section{Model, Notation and Terminology}
In the growth model considered in this paper, nodes are added successively to the network.
The initial network has $N(0)$ nodes and $L(0)$ links. At each time step, one new node is added to the network. We assume that each node has an intrinsic quality, which is drawn from a given distribution $\rho(\theta)$. The quality is assigned to each new incoming node upon birth, and will remain the same thenafter. The mean of the distribution $\rho(\theta)$ is denoted by $\mu$.
A node of degree $k$ and quality $\theta$ is also referred to as \emph{a $(k,\theta)$ node} throughout.
Each new incoming node attaches to $\beta \leq N(0)$ existing nodes in the network.
We consider the simplest additive model that incorporates both degree (popularity) and quality in the dynamics of connection formation: the probability that an existing node with degree $k$ and quality $\theta$ receives a link from the new node is proportional to ${k+\theta}$. This means that, for example, a paper that is new and has very few citations can compensate for its small degree with having a high quality. Or in the social context, a newcomer who does not have many friends in the new social milieu but is gregarious and sociable can elevate the chances of making new friends. The new node is called the \emph{child} of the existing nodes that it connects to, and they are called its \emph{parents}. By \emph{a {$(\ell,\phi)$-$(k,\theta)$} child-parent pair}, we mean a node with degree $\ell$ and quality $\phi$ that is connected to a parent node of degree $k$ and quality $\theta$.
The probability that an existing node $x$ receives a new link is $\frac{k_x+\theta_x}{A}$, where the normalization factor $A$ is given by ${\sum_x (k_x+\theta_x)}$. The sum over all node degrees at time $t$, which equals twice the number of links at time $t$, is equal to $2[L(0)+\beta t]$. For long times, the sum over the quality values of all the nodes will converge to the mean of the quality distribution times the number of nodes, that is, we can replace ${\sum_x \theta_x}$ by $[N(0)+t]\mu$. So at time $t$, the probability that node $x$ receives a link equals $\frac{k_x+\theta_x}{2L(0)+N(0)+(2\beta+\mu)t}$.
Throughout the present paper, the steady-state joint distribution of quality and degree is denoted by $P(k,\theta)$. The expected number of nodes with degree $k$ and quality $\theta$ at time $t$ is denoted by $N_t(k,\theta)$. We denote by $N_t(k,\theta,\ell,\phi)$ the expected number of
{$(\ell,\phi)$-$(k,\theta)$} child-parent pairs.
\section{Degree-quality Joint Distribution}
We seek the steady-state fraction of nodes who have degree $k$ and quality $\theta$.
In Appendix~\ref{app:sol_1} we derive the following expression for this quantity:
\all{
P(k,\theta)
=
\rho(\theta) \left( 2+\frac{\mu}{\beta}\right)
\frac{\Gamma(k+\theta)}{\Gamma(\beta+\theta)}
\frac{\Gamma \left(\beta+\theta+2+\fracc{\mu}{\beta} \right) }
{\Gamma \left( k+\theta+3+\fracc{\mu}{\beta} \right) }
u(k-\beta).
}{Pkth_fin}
Note that in the special case of a single permitted value for the quality (that is, when $\rho(\theta)=\delta[\theta-\theta_0]$) this model reduces to the shifted-linear preferential attachment model analyzed, for example, in~\cite{ME_EPJB}. The solution in this special case simplifies to
\al{
P_{sh}(k)
=
\left(2+\frac{\theta_0}{\beta}\right)
\frac{\Gamma(k+\theta_0)}{\Gamma(\beta+\theta_0)}
\frac{\Gamma (\beta+2+\theta_0+\frac{\theta_0}{\beta} ) }
{\Gamma ( k+3+\theta_0+\frac{\theta_0}{\beta} ) }
.}
This coincides with the degree distribution of shifted-linear kernels given in~\cite{dorog_rate_1} and~\cite[Equation~D.9]{ME_EPJB}. Furthermore, when $\rho(0)=1$, all nodes will have zero quality and attachments will be purely degree-proportional, synonymous with the conventional preferential-attachment model proposed initially in~\cite{BA_1}. For the special case of $\theta=\mu=0$ we obtain
\al{
P_{BA}(k) = \frac{ 2 \beta (\beta+1 )}{k (k+1 )(k+2 )}
. }
This is equal to the degree distribution of the conventional BA network (see, e.g.,~\cite{dorog_rate_1,redner}).
Let us also examine the behavior of~\eqref{Pkth_fin} in the limit of large $k$. In this regime, we can use the asymptotic approximation that for large values of $x$, the function $\Gamma(x) \approx x^{x-\frac{1}{2}} \exp(-x)$. Then we replace $\frac{\Gamma(k+\theta)}{\Gamma(k+ \theta+3+\frac{\mu}{\beta})}$ with $k^{-3-\frac{\mu}{\beta}}$, independent of $\theta$. Therefore, the steady-state joint degree-quality distribution $P(k,\theta)$ is proportional to $k^{-3-\frac{\mu}{\beta}}$. Marginalizing out $\theta$ to recover the degree distribution, we obtain the well-known power law, $P(k)=k^{-3-\frac{\mu}{\beta}}$.
\section{Nearest-Neighbor Quality-Degree Distribution}
To quantify how qualities and degrees of adjacent nodes correlate, we need to go beyond the quality-degree distribution obtained in the previous section. The closed-form expression for the nearest-neigbor correlations under the preferential attachment model is derived in \cite{ME_EPJB}; that work only considers degrees and does not address qualities. We would like to quantify the conditional distribution $P(\ell, \phi | k, \theta)$, the fraction of neighbours of a given node with degree $k$ and quality $\theta$ that have degree $\ell$ and quality $\phi$. We refer to this as the \emph{nearest-neighbor quality-degree distribution} (NNQDD).
In Appendix~\ref{app:sol_2} we study the rate equation describing how the distribution $P(\ell, \phi | k, \theta)$ evolves as nodes are added to the network. This gives rise to a system of difference equations which we solve to obtain that, in the steady-state,
\all{
&P(\ell,\phi|k,\theta)=
\fracc{\rho(\phi) }{k}
\frac{ \Gamma \left(k+\theta+3+\fracc{\mu}{\beta} \right)}{\Gamma\left( k+\theta+3+\frac{\mu}{\beta}+\ell+\phi \right) }
\frac{ (\ell-1+\phi)! }{ (\beta-1+\phi)! }
\Gamma \left(\beta+2+\phi+\fracc{\mu}{\beta} \right)\times
\nonumber \\
&
\resizebox {\linewidth}{!}{$
\left[ \, \displaystyle
\sum_{j=\beta+1}^{k} \frac{\Gamma \left(j+\theta+2+\fracc{\mu}{\beta}+\beta+\phi \right) \, \displaystyle \CC{k-j+\ell-\beta}{\ell-\beta}
}{\Gamma \left( j+\theta+2+\fracc{\mu}{\beta} \right)\Gamma \left(\beta+2+\phi+\fracc{\mu}{\beta} \right) }
+ \, \displaystyle \sum_{j=\beta+1}^{\ell} \frac{\Gamma \left(j+\theta+2+\fracc{\mu}{\beta}+\beta+\phi \right)\, \displaystyle \CC{\ell-j+k-\beta}{k-\beta}
}{ \Gamma \left( j+\phi+2+\fracc{\mu}{\beta} \right)\Gamma \left(\beta+2+\theta+\fracc{\mu}{\beta} \right) }
\right].$}}{NNQDD}
In order to obtain the nearest-neighbor quality distribution $P(\phi|\theta)$, one needs to perform the calculations ${ P(\phi|\theta)= \sum_{\ell} \sum_{k} P(k) P(\ell,\phi|k,\theta) }$, which requires knowledge of $P(k)$. In turn we have ${P(k)=\sum_{\theta} P(k,\theta)}$, which according to~\eqref{Pkth_fin}, yields different sums for different quality distributions $\rho(\theta)$.
\section{Quantifying the Friendship and Generalized Friendship Paradoxes}
As discussed in Section~\ref{sec:intro}, GFP refers to an average alter superiority in arbitrary aspects (e.g., number of citations, exposure to viral online content). In this paper, we use the `quality' dimension that is incorporated in the model as the subject of the GFP.
Our objective is to compare the degrees and qualities of nodes with their neighbors. We say that a node experiences the friendship paradox if the degree of that node is less than the average of the degrees of its neighbors. Similarly, we say that a node experiences the quality paradox if the quality of the node is less than the average of the qualities of its neighbors.
The above-mentioned definitions characterize individual-level paradoxes. Our primary interest is to what fraction of nodes experience the friendship and quality paradoxes. To this end, we compare the average degree of the nodes with the average degree of the neighbors of all nodes (and similarly for quality). Comparing these two average values yields a macro measure for the system, indicating whether it exhibits paradoxes on average. We call these as the \emph{network-level friendship paradox} and \emph{network-level quality paradox}.
Our measure of the network-level quality paradox is defined as $\textnormal {NQP} = \frac{ \sum_i k_i \theta_i}{ \sum_i k_i} - \frac{1}{N} \sum_i \theta_i$.
The summations are performed over all nodes in the network. Note that the numerator of the first sum is actually the sum of the qualities of the neighbors of all nodes. Node $i$ is repeated $k_i$ times in this sum, once for each of its neighbors. Focusing on the limit as ${t \rightarrow \infty}$, we can use the law of large numbers and express the NQP as follows
\all{
\textnormal {NQP} = \fracc{ \sum_{k,\theta} k \theta P(k,\theta)}{ \sum_{k,\theta} k P(k,\theta)} - \mu
.}{NQP_def_2}
The greater NQP becomes, the more strongly the paradox holds. Negative NQP is indicative of the absence of a quality paradox at the network level.
Undertaking similar steps to above, we can measure the network-level friendship paradox via
\all{
\textnormal{NFP} = \fracc{\ave{k^2}}{\ave{k}}-\ave{k} = \fracc{\ave{k^2}-\ave{k}^2}{\ave{k}}
.}{NFP_def_1}
Note that the numerator is the variance of the degree distribution, so it is positive. The denominator is the average degree and is also positive. So the NFP is always positive, which means that by this definition: \emph{any network exhibits the friendship paradox at the network level. } So the task of the present paper with regard to the NFP is to investigate its magnitude, i.e., to measure how strongly the paradox holds. For example, in the conventional Barabasi-Albert scale-free model, where the degree variance diverges, the NFP also diverges, which is a result of the presence of macro hubs.
\section{Results and Discussion }
To study the NFP and the NQP in concrete settings, we confine ourselves to two quality distributions $\rho(\theta)$ for illustrative purposes. We consider a finite support for $\theta$, so that ${0\leq \theta \leq \theta_{\textnormal{max}}}$. For each distribution, we are going to consider four different values $\beta$, and four different values of $\theta_{\textnormal{max}}$.
The first distribution we consider is the Bernoulli case, where nodes can either have quality zero or quality $\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}$. The probability of quality zero is $p$ and the probability of quality $\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}$ is ${1-p}$, where ${0\leq p \leq 1}$. The second distribution we consider is the discrete exponential distribution with decay factor $q$. The probability that the quality is $\theta$ is proportional to $q^{\theta}$. Note that in the case of $q=1$, one recovers a uniform distribution as a special case. We consider both $q<1$ and $q>1$, yielding decreasing and increasing distributions in $\theta$, respectively. These distributions are depicted in Figure~\ref{distributions}.
\begin{figure}[!Ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.48 \textwidth}
\includegraphics[width= \textwidth,height=4cm]{dist_ext}
\caption{
Bernoulli distribution with ${p=0,0.3,0.7,0.1}$. The cases of ${p=0}$ and ${p=1}$ correspond to conventional Barabasi-Albert and shifted-linear preferential attachment networks, respectively.
}
\label{distribution_extreme}
\end{subfigure}%
~~~ \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width= \textwidth,height=4cm]{dist_decay}
\caption{
Exponential distribution for decay factor ${q=0.1,0.5,1,1.5}$. The special case of ${q=1}$ corresponds to a uniform distribution supported in the interval ${0\leq \theta \leq \,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}}$.
}
\label{distribution_decay}
\end{subfigure
\caption{Examples of the quality distributions used in this paper with ${\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}=8}$. Four instances of each type is depicted.}
\label{distributions}
\end{figure}
The results for the Bernoulli quality distribution are depicted in Figure~\ref{bernoulli}. As depicted in Figure~\ref{NQP_fixed_theta}, for a fixed $\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}$, the NQP decreases as $\beta$ (the initial degree of nodes) increases. Also, it is observable that the sensitivity of the NQP to the variations of the quality distribution diminishes for larger values of $\beta$.
As illustrated in Figure~\ref{NFP_fixed_theta}, the NFP increases as $\beta$ (the initial degree of nodes) increases. Hence, according to~\eqref{NFP_def_1} \emph{the variance of the degree distribution grows faster than the mean degree, as $\beta$ increases.} On the other hand, for a given $\beta$, increasing $\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}$ (which is tantamount to increasing $\mu$), increases the NQP. This means that according to~\eqref{NQP_def_2} \emph{as $\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}$ increases, the mean of the qualities of the neighbors increases faster than the mean of the qualities of the nodes}.
Figure~\ref{NQP_fixed_beta} pertains to this case. Observe that as $\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}$ increases, the NQP becomes more sensitive to the distribution of qualities. Finally, Figure~\ref{NFP_fixed_beta} represents the NFP for a fixed $\beta$ and different values of $\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}$. From Figures~\ref{NQP_fixed_theta},~\ref{NFP_fixed_theta},~\ref{NQP_fixed_beta} and~\ref{NFP_fixed_beta}, a general observable pattern is that as $p$ increases, the NFP increases (monotonically for almost all values of $p$), whereas the NQP is concave and unimodal (it increases at first, achieves maximum, and then decreases).
\begin{figure}[!Ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5 \textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,height=4.25cm]{F5}
\caption{
$\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}=8$
}
\label{NQP_fixed_theta}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,height=4.25cm]{F7}
\caption{$\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}=8$}
\label{NFP_fixed_theta}
\end{subfigure}%
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,height=4.25cm]{F6}
\caption{$\beta=2$}
\label{NQP_fixed_beta}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width= \textwidth,height=4.25cm]{F8}
\caption{$\beta=2 $}
\label{NFP_fixed_beta}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{
Network level friendship and quality paradox for Bernoulli quality distribution. The markers in Figures (a) and (b) represent simulation results, and the solid curves are the theoretical expression. The depicted results are averaged over 100 Monte Carlo trials.
}
\label{bernoulli}
\end{figure}
Now we focus on the exponential quality distribution with the decay factor denoted by $q$. As depicted in Figure~\ref{NQP_fixed_theta_decay}, for a given $\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}$, the NQP decreases as $\beta$ increases. Also, it is observed that as $\beta$ increases, the sensitivity of the NQP to the quality distribution diminishes. These are both similar to the results of the Bernoulli distribution.
As can be seen in Figure~\ref{NFP_fixed_theta_decay}, the NFP increases as $\beta$ increases. So similar to the Bernoulli case, the variance of the degree distribution grows faster than the mean degree, as $\beta$ increases.
From Figure~\ref{NQP_fixed_beta_decay} we observe that for a fixed $\beta$, increasing $\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}$ increases the NQP. We observe that as $\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}$ increases, NQP becomes more sensitive to the changes in the decay factor. Finally, Figure~\ref{NFP_fixed_beta_decay} represents the NFP for a fixed $\beta$ and different values of $\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}$. We observe that increasing $\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}$ increases the NFP for positive decays. Also, for very small decay factors (which generate right-skewed distributions that are highly unequal), changing $\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}$ has scant effect on the NFP. This is reasonable because when the decay factor is small, all large values of $\theta$ have small chances of occurrence. Consequently, changing $\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}$ minimally changes the shape of the distribution for small decay factors.
A trend is discernible from Figures~\ref{NQP_fixed_theta_decay},~\ref{NFP_fixed_theta_decay},~\ref{NQP_fixed_beta_decay} and~\ref{NFP_fixed_beta_decay}: as $q$ increases, the NFP decreases (monotonically for all values of $q$), whereas NQP is concave and increases up to a point around ${q=1}$, and then decreases. Since $q=1$ yields a uniform distribution, we can qualitatively conclude that the probability of the network-level quality paradox is higher when qualities are heterogeneous, as compared to when qualities are similar.
Finally, to verify our results, we run Monte Carlo simulations to synthesize networks that grow under the prescribed quality-based preferential attachment mechanism, and then calculate the desired quantities by averaging over nodes in the synthesized network. Due to computational limitations, we restrict this validation to the case where $\beta = 2$ and $\theta_{\max} = 8$ for the Bernoulli quality distribution and the case where $\beta = 2$ and $\theta_{\max} = 16$ for the exponential quality distribution. These results are shown in Figures~\ref{NQP_fixed_theta} ,~\ref{NFP_fixed_theta},~\ref{NQP_fixed_theta_decay} and~\ref{NFP_fixed_theta_decay}. The markers show the results of simulations, averaging over 100 Monte Carlo trials, and the solid curves correspond to our theoretical expressions.
We have tested the results on various other quality distributions and observed similar results; these additional simulations not reported here due to space limitations. In general, we observe that for a fixed $\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}$, increasing $\beta$ increases the NFP and decreases the NQP regardless of the quality distribution. Also, for a fixed $\beta$, increasing $\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}$ increases the NQP and decreases the NFP.
\begin{figure}[!Ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.5 \textwidth}
\includegraphics[width= \textwidth,height=4.25cm]{F1}
\caption{
$\theta=16$
}
\label{NQP_fixed_theta_decay}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width= \textwidth,height=4.25cm]{F3}
\caption{$\theta=16$}
\label{NFP_fixed_theta_decay}
\end{subfigure}%
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width= \textwidth,height=4.25cm]{F2}
\caption{$\beta=4$}
\label{NQP_fixed_beta_decay}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width= \textwidth,height=4.25cm]{F4}
\caption{$\beta=6$}
\label{NFP_fixed_beta_decay}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{
Network level friendship and quality paradox for exponential quality distribution. The markers in Figures (a) and (b) represent simulation results and the solid curves are from the theoretical expressions. The depicted results are averaged over 100 Monte Carlo trials.
}
\label{PLK_second_term}
\end{figure}
Note that in all cases the NQP is nonnegative. This has roots in the correlation between degree and quality of single nodes (intra-node correlation, rather than inter-node correlation). Let us denote the correlation between degree and quality for a node by $\rho_{k \theta}$, which is the Pearson correlation coefficient obtained from the joint distribution $P(k,\theta)$. From~\eqref{NQP_def_2}, we have:
\all{
\textnormal {NQP} &= \fracc{ \sum_{k,\theta} k \theta P(k,\theta)}{ \sum_{k,\theta} k P(k,\theta)} - \mu
=\fracc{\sum_{k,\theta} k \theta P(k,\theta) - \mu \sum_{k,\theta} k P(k,\theta)}{ \sum_{k,\theta} k P(k,\theta)}
\nonumber \\ &
=\fracc{\sum_{k,\theta} k \theta P(k,\theta) - \mu \ave{k}}{ \ave{k}}
= \fracc{\rho_{k \theta} \sigma_k \sigma_{\theta}}{\ave{k}}
.}{NQP_corr}
This implies that the sign of NQP is the same as the sign of $\rho_{k \theta}$ (since $\sigma_k,\sigma_{\theta}$ and $\ave{k}$ are nonnegative). The observation that NQP is always nonegative indicates that $\rho_{k \theta}$ is also always nonegative. We conclude that \emph{the quality-dependent preferential attachment model generates networks in which degree and quality of a node are always positively correlated.} This is what we intuitively expect the model to exhibit; increasing quality increases degree. For example, in citation networks, papers with higher qualities receive more citations. Conversely, a paper with many citations is more likely to have a high quality. In the case of friendship networks, a person that is more sociable ends up with more friends than an anti-social person, and conversely, a popular person is more likely to be friendly than an isolated person.
We also observe that in all cases, $\mu$ (equivalently, $\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}$) and $\beta$ have opposite effects on both the NFP and the NQP. That is, the effect of increasing $\beta$ is akin to that of decreasing $\mu$, and vice versa. We observed similar trends for other quality distributions; these results are omitted here due to space limitations. What causes this disparity is the following: as can be seen in~\eqref{Pkth_fin} and~\eqref{NNQDD}, $\mu$ only appears in the distributions in the form of $ \frac{\mu}{\beta}$. Thus increasing $\mu$ and decreasing $\beta$ have the same effect on this variable, and consequently, on the distribution.
\section{Summary and Future Work}
The aim of the present paper was to put in crisp theoretical focus the seemingly prevalent phenomena of the friendship paradox and the generalized friendship paradox. We proposed a network growth model that incorporates quality. In this model, the probability that a node receives a link increases with both its degree and quality. We analysed the model theoretically in the steady-state (large size limit), and found two theoretical quantities that characterize the interrelation between quality and degree. The first quantity is $P(k,\theta)$, which is the joint degree-quality distribution, and equals the fraction of nodes who have degree $k$ and quality $\theta$. The second quantity characterizes nearest-neighbor correlations, and is the nearest-neighbor quality-degree distribution, denoted by ${P(\ell,\phi|k,\theta)}$.
We then defined two network-level measures for the quality and friendship paradoxes and computed them for two particular examples of quality distributions.
We observed that for a fixed $\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}$, increasing $\beta$ increases the NFP and decreases the NQP regardless of the quality distribution. We also observed that for a fixed $\beta$, increasing $\,\theta_{\textnormal{max}}$ increases the NQP and decreases the NFP. We also observed that $\mu$ and $\beta$ have opposite effects on the NFP and also on the NQP. We also tested these results on various other quality distributions, and they proved robust; the effects of $\beta$ and $\mu$ on paradoxes are opposite regardless of the quality distribution.
There are many interesting extensions of this work to pursue. In addition to the network-level paradox, we can also study the individual-level paradox, which would require the utilization of the NNQDD to compare the degrees and qualities of nodes with those of their neighbors.
The individual-level paradox has empirical implications which enable us to assess the quality distribution of real networks.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
Even if the subject of Large Deviations was not one of the most visited among the many objects of investigation in the large scientific production of Marc Yor, he was able to provide three original contributions in this field (\cite{MR2063378}, \cite{yor-arcsine}, \cite{yor-clock}). On the other hand bridges and conditioned processes have been at the heart of many of his most important contributions.
In this short note we investigate some points concerning the asymptotics of conditioned processes when the conditioning time goes to $0$.
The investigation of Large Deviation and sharp Large Deviation estimates in this context goes back to \cite{Bal:95}, where it was motivated by applications to simulation. This line of research was continued in the subsequent years
(\cite{MR1849251},\cite{gobet},\cite{BC2002-MR1925452}) but when needed by the numerical application usually the conditioned Diffusion
was approximated by the bridge of the Diffusion with its coefficients frozen, thus taking advantage of the well
known asymptotics of the Brownian bridge. The need of more accurate estimates is now prompted by applications to finance, mainly in connection with
stochastic volatility models.
Actually when simulating the path of a stochastic process (with the Euler scheme e.g.) which is to be killed at the exit from some domain $D$, it is important to be able to compute the probability for the conditioned Diffusion with $X_{t_n}=x$, $X_{t_{n+1}}=y$ to exit from $D$ in the time interval $[t_n,t_{n+1}]$, where $t_n,t_{n+1}$ are consecutive times in the time grid and $X_{t_n}, X_{t_{n+1}}$ denote the corresponding simulated positions (see \cite{Bal:95}, p.1645-1646 for a more complete explanation).
In the remainder of this paper most of the time, when speaking of {\it asymptotics} we shall mean in the sense of the
conditioning time to go to $0$ and the terms {\it bridge} or {\it conditioned Diffusion} shall mean the same thing.
To find a sharp estimate for the exit from a given domain of the bridge of a general Diffusion process is a goal that requires
some work. In this note we wish to investigate a minor point in this direction.
It has been proved (\cite{bailleul}, \cite{BCR2}) that the (non sharp) Large Deviation asymptotics
for conditioned Diffusions do not depend on the drift $b$ of the non conditioned process $X$ as
in \paref{SDE1}. It has been a general belief that this remains true also for the sharp asymptotics of
the bridge of a Diffusion. This was actually proved for a large family of
one dimensional Diffusion processes in \cite{BC2002-MR1925452}. Our object is to prove that this
property actually holds in general
in the multidimensional situation, provided the drift satisfies a simple condition, that is
of course always satisfied in dimension $1$.
Our results stem from two main tools: the asymptotics of W.H. Fleming and M.R. James
\cite{FleJ:92} and the asymptotics for small time of the transition density of a diffusion process of S. A.
Mol{\v{c}}anov \cite{molchanov-MR0413289} together with those of G. Ben Arous \cite{benarous}.
Our goal here is mainly to put forward some ideas and techniques,
without trying to look for minimal regularity assumptions.
\section{Conditioned Diffusions}\label{CD}
Let $X$ be a $d$-dimensional (possibly inhomogeneous) diffusion process with transition density
$p$. The conditioned Diffusion
given $X_t=y$, $t>0$, is the one associated to the transition density
$$
\widehat
p(u,v,x,z)=\frac{p(u,v,x,z)p(v,t,z,y)}{p(u,t,x,y)}\ ,\quad 0\le u\le v<t,\ x,z\in\R^d\ .
$$
Remark that this is a time inhomogeneous transition density, even if $X$ was time homogeneous.
Let us assume moreover that $X$ is the solution of the Stochastic Differential Equation (SDE)
\begin{equation}\label{SDE1}
dX_t=b(X_t)\, dt+\sigma(X_t)\, dB_t
\end{equation}
(we consider therefore a process $X$ that is time homogeneous) and let us denote by $L$ its generator
$$
L=\frac 12\sum_{i,j=1}^d a_{ij}(z)\frac {\pa^2}{\pa z_i\pa z_j}+\sum_{i=1}^d
b_i(z)\frac {\pa}{\pa z_i}\ ,
$$
where, as usual, $a=\sigma\sigma^*$. By a straightforward computation, the generator $\widehat L_v$ of the conditioned Diffusion is
$$
\widehat L_v=L+\sum_{i=1}^d\widehat b_i^{y,t}(z,v)\frac{\pa\hfil}{\pa z_i}\ ,\quad 0\le v<t\ ,
$$
where
$$
\widehat b_i^{y,t}(z,v)=\frac1{p(t-v,z,y)}
\sum_{i,j=1}^d a_{ij}(z)\frac{\pa\hfil}{\pa z_j}p(t-v,z,y)=
\sum_{i,j=1}^d a_{ij}(z)\frac{\pa\hfil}{\pa z_j}\log p(t-v,z,y)\ ,
$$
i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{grad}
\widehat b^{y,t}(z,v)=a(z)\nabla_z p(t-v,z,y)\ .
\end{equation}
The conditioned Diffusion has therefore the same distribution as the solution of the SDE
$$
d\xi_v=\bigl(b(\xi_v)+\widehat b^{y,t}(\xi_v,v)\bigr)\, dv+\sigma(\xi_v)\,dB_v
$$
for $u<t$. Let
$\eta^t_v=\xi_{vt}$, the time changed conditioned Diffusion so that it is defined on $[0,1[$.
The new Diffusion $\eta^t$ is the solution of
\begin{equation}\label{time-changed}
d\eta^t_v=\bigl(b(\eta^t_v)+\widehat b^{y,t}(\eta^t_v,tv)\bigr)t\, dv+
\sqrt{t}\sigma(\eta^t_v)\,dB_v
\end{equation}
(with respect to a possibly different Brownian motion). We can therefore obtain estimates concerning the conditioned Diffusion
using the Ventsel-Freidlin Large Deviation estimates as soon as we are able to compute the limit
\begin{equation}\label{limite}
\widehat b^{y}(z,v):=\lim_{t\to 0}t\,\widehat b^{y,t}(z,tv)
\end{equation}
uniformly on compact sets (\cite{az-stflour,priouret,baldi-chaleyat}) and prove that the limit function $\widehat b^{y}$ is smooth enough.
Recall that
$$
\widehat b^{y,t}(z,tv)=\sum_{i,j=1}^d a_{ij}(z)\frac{\pa\hfil}{\pa z_j}\log p(t(1-v),z,y)=
a(z)\,\nabla_z \log p(t(1-v),z,y)\ .
$$
Let us denote $\widehat\P^{y,t}_{x,s}$ the law of $\eta^t$ with the starting condition $\eta^t_s=x$.
Let $D\subset\RR^d$ be an open set with a smooth boundary and $\tau=\tau_{x,s}$ the
exit time from $D$. The Ventsel-Freidlin theory of Large Deviations states that
\begin{equation}\label{ell}
\lim_{t\to0}t\log\widehat\P^{y,t}_{x,s}(\tau<1)=-\inf_{\gamma(s)=x,\tau(\gamma)<1}I_s(\gamma)=:-\ell_{x,s}\ ,
\end{equation}
$I_s$ denoting the rate Ventsel-Freidlin function
\begin{equation}\label{I1}
I_s(\gamma)=\frac 12 \int_s^1
\langle{a(\gamma_v)^{-1}(\dot\gamma_v-\widehat b^{y}(\gamma_v,v))},{\dot\gamma_v-\widehat b^{y}(\gamma_v,
v)}\rangle \, dv\ ,
\end{equation}
where $a=\sigma\sigma^*$ as above.
\section{The sharp asymptotics}
We want to prove the stronger result
\begin{equation}\label{dev1}
q_t(x,s):=\widehat\P^{y,t}_{x,s}(\tau<1)\sim c_{x,s}\,\e^{-\ell_{x,s}/t}\ ,
\end{equation}
as $t\to 0$, for some constant $c_{x,s}> 0$.
We stress that it is relevant that $c_{x,s}$
is a constant independent of $t$ (see Remark \ref{relevant} for more comments).
We shall investigate the situation where the positions $x$ (the starting point of the process)
and $y$ (the conditioning position) are close to each other.
This is justified by the application mentioned in \S\ref{intro}:
$x$ and $y$ being consecutive positions in a simulation scheme it should be safe to
assume that they are not far one from the other.
The computation of the asymptotics \paref{dev1} was performed in \cite{Bal:95} in the case where
$X$ is a multidimensional Brownian motion. The idea there was to take advantage of the results of W.A.~Fleming and M.~James
\cite{FleJ:92}.
Let us recall these estimates. Let $X^\ep$ be the solution of
\begin{equation}\label{be}
\begin{cases}
dX^\ep_t=\widetilde b_\ep(X^\ep_t,t)\,dt+\sqrt{\ep}\,\sigma(X^\ep_t)\,dB_t\ ,\quad t>s&\cr
X^\ep_s=x\in D\ .&\cr
\end{cases}\end{equation}
Let $T>0$ be fixed and let us assume that
$$
\lim_{\ep\to0}\widetilde b_\ep(x,s)=\widetilde b(x,s)
$$
uniformly for $(x,s)$ on the compact sets of $D\times [0,T]$.
Let us define the function $u:D\times [0,T[\to\RR$ by
\begin{equation}\label{eq-for-u}
u(x,s)=\inf_{\gamma(s)=x,\tau(\gamma)<T} \widetilde I_s(\gamma)
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde I_s$ is, similarly as in \paref{I1},
\begin{equation}\label{Itilde}
\widetilde I_s(\gamma)=\frac 12 \int_s^{T}
\langle{a(\gamma_t)^{-1}(\dot\gamma_t-\widetilde b(\gamma_t,t))},{\dot\gamma_t-\widetilde b(\gamma_t,
t)}\rangle \, dt\ .
\end{equation}
It can be shown that $u$ is the solution of the Hamilton-Jacobi problem
\begin{equation}\label{HJ1}
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle{\partial u\over\partial s}+\langle \widetilde b,\nabla u\rangle-\frac 12\langle a \nabla u,\nabla u\rangle=0& {\rm in\ }D\times ]0,T[\cr
u(x,s)=0&{\rm on\ }\partial D\times [0,T]\cr
u(x,s)\to +\infty&{\rm as\ }s\nearrow T,\ x\in D\cr
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
to be considered in the sense of viscosity solutions (\cite{FS})
and in the classical sense at each point of differentiability of $u$.
Now let $N\subset D\times [0,T'],\, T'<T$ and define
\begin{equation}\label{betaa}
\beta(x,s)=\widetilde b(x,s)-a(x)\nabla u(x,s),\qquad (x,s)\in \overline N\ .
\end{equation}
Let $\gamma_{x,s}$ be the solution of
\begin{equation}\label{e159}
\begin{cases}
\dot\gamma_{x,s}( t)=\beta(\gamma_{x,s}( t),t)&\cr
\gamma_{x,s}(s)=x\ &\cr
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
and set $t^*_{x,s}=\inf\{t>s, (\gamma_{x,s}( t),t)\not\in N\}$, moreover define
$$
\Gamma_1=\{(\gamma_{x,s}(t^*_{x,s}),t^*_{x,s}),(x,s)\in N\}\ .
$$
\begin{assum}\label{(A)} {\sl {a)} $N$ is an open set;
\tin {b)} $u\in\cl C^\infty(\overline N)$;
\tin{c)} $N$ is a Region of Strong Regularity (RSR)
w.r.t. $\beta$, i.e.
$\Gamma_1$ is a $C^\infty$ manifold, relatively open in $\pa N$,
$(\gamma_{x,s}(t),t)_{t\in [s, t^*_{x,s}]}$ crosses $\Gamma_1$ non tangentially and
$\Gamma_1 \subset \partial D\times (0,T')$\ .}
\end{assum}
The following result is a particular case of Theorem 4.2 of \cite{FleJ:92}.
\begin{theorem}\label{FJ}
Let $D$ be a bounded open set with a smooth boundary.
Let $N\subset D\times [0,T']\, , T'<T$ satisfy Assumption \ref{(A)}. For the SDE \paref{be}
assume that $\sigma$ is infinitely many times differentiable and bounded,
the drift $\widetilde b_\ep$ is Lipschitz continuous uniformly with respect
to $\ep$ and enjoys the development
\begin{equation}\label{dev-drift}
\widetilde b_\ep=\widetilde b+\ep \widetilde b_1+o(\ep)\ ,
\end{equation}
uniformly on compact sets of $N$ where $\widetilde b$, $\widetilde b_1$ are $C^\infty$ functions.
Then for $(x,s)\in N$ the following expansion holds
\begin{equation}\label{dev-pr}
\P^\ep_{x,s}(\tau\le T)=\e^{-w(x,s)}\,\e^{-u(x,s)/\ep}\bigl(
1+o(\ep)\bigr)
\end{equation}
uniformly on compact subsets of $N$, where $w: N\to \RR^+$ is the solution of
\begin{equation}\label{sys1}
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle{\partial w\over\partial s}+
\langle \widetilde b-a\nabla u,\nabla w\rangle=-\frac 12\,\tr(a\cdot{\rm Hess}\, u)-
\langle \widetilde b_1,\nabla u\rangle&{\rm in\ }N\cr
w=0&{\rm on\ }\partial D\times [0,T[\cap \overline N\ .
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\rm The original result in \cite{FleJ:92}
deals with a more general situation in particular providing a full development of $\ep\mapsto\P^\ep_{x,s}(\tau\le T)$.
Beware of some notation mismatch between Theorem \ref{FJ} and the original Theorem 4.2 of
\cite{FleJ:92}; in particular our $\widetilde b_1$ corresponds with $b_2$ there.
\end{remark}
The hypotheses in Theorem \ref{FJ} ensure that for $(x,s)\in N$, there exists a unique
minimizing path for the quantity in the right-hand side of \paref{eq-for-u},
which moreover coincides with the solution $\gamma_{x,s}$ of the ordinary equation \paref{e159}
for $t\in [s, t^*_{x,s}]$, $t^*_{x,s}$ turning out to be the first time at which $\gamma_{x,s}$ reaches $\partial D$.
Furthermore, the differential systems \paref{sys1} for $w$ can be solved by characteristics: one has to solve the ordinary
equation \paref{e159} and then
\begin{equation}\label{140}
w(x,s)=\int_s^{t^*_{x,s}} \Bigl(\frac 12\,\tr(a\cdot{\rm Hess}\, u)(\gamma_{x,s}(t),t))+
\langle \widetilde b_1(\gamma_{x,s}(t),t),\nabla u(\gamma_{x,s}(t),t)\rangle\Bigr)\, dt\ .
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}\label{relevant}\rm It is useful to point out two features of Theorem \ref{FJ}.
First, because of Assumption \ref{(A)},
it requires that the characteristic $\gamma_{x,s}$ reaches the boundary at a time
$t^*_{x,s}<T$.
Second, remark that, by the theory of Large Deviations, the asymptotics as $\ep \to 0$
of the quantity of interest $\P^\ep_{x,s}(\tau\le T)$ are of the form
$c(\ep)\,\e^{-\ell/\ep}$, where $c$ is a subexponential function of $\ep$, i.e. such that $\lim_{\ep\to0}\ep\log c(\ep)=0$.
Theorem \ref{FJ} states that, under the assumptions considered, the term before the exponential, $c$,
is a constant as a function of $\ep$.
A typical situation when Theorem \ref{FJ} does not apply, for instance,
is when $dX^\ep_t=\sqrt{\ep}\,dB_t$ and $D=]-\infty,L[$ for some $L>0$.
In this case $\gamma_{x,s}(t)=x+\frac{t-s}{1-s}(L-x)$
(so that $\gamma_{x,s}$ reaches the boundary
$\pa D=\{L\}$ at time $T=1$ and the assumptions of Theorem \ref{FJ} are not satisfied) and,
easily by the reflection principle,
$$
\dlines{
\P^\ep_{x,s}(\tau\le 1)=\P\Bigl(\sup_{t\le 1}\ x + \sqrt{\ep} (B_t-B_s) \ge L\Bigr)=\cr
=2\P\Bigl(B_1-B_s\ge \frac{L-x}{\sqrt{\ep}}\Bigr)\sim \frac 2{\sqrt{2\pi(1-s)}L}\,\sqrt{\ep}\,
\e^{-(L-x)^2/2(1-s)\ep}\ ,\cr
}
$$
so that here the term before the exponential is not a constant.
On the other hand the assumptions of Theorem \ref{FJ} are satisfied in
most cases where $X^\ep$ is the time changed bridge of a Diffusion conditioned
to be at some point $y\in D$ at time $\ep$,
in the sense that a ``large'' subset $N$ of $D\times [0,1[$
satisfies Assumption \ref{(A)}.
\end{remark}
\section{Applications and remarks}
In this section we see how to adapt Theorem \ref{FJ} to the case of the asymptotics \paref{dev1} for the exit probability of a
conditioned Diffusion.
A first problem arises from the fact that the drift of the time changed conditioned Diffusion
has a singularity at time $t=1$ (think of the case of the Brownian bridge where
$\widetilde b(x,t)=-\frac x{1-t}$) so that Theorem \ref{FJ} cannot be applied with $T=1$.
This difficulty is easily overcome, as remarked in
\cite{Bal:95}, because it turns out that
\begin{equation}\label{asym}
\widehat\P^{y,t}_{x,s}(\tau<1)\sim \widehat\P^{y,t}_{x,s}(\tau<1-\delta)
\end{equation}
for some $\delta>0$, in the sense that the difference between these two probabilities is
exponentially negligible as $t\to0$. In order to see this, recall
Large Deviation estimates recently obtained for conditioned Diffusions
(see \cite{inahama}, \cite{bailleul} for the case of a compact manifold).
These state that, as $t\to 0$, the time changed conditioned Diffusion starting at $x$ at time $s$
satisfies
a Large Deviation Principle with rate function given by
\begin{equation}\label{Js}
\widehat J_s(\gamma)=\begin{cases}
J_s(\gamma)-J_s(\gamma_0)&\mbox{if }\gamma(1)=y\cr
+\infty&\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where
$$
J_s(\gamma)=\frac 12\int_s^1\langle a^{-1}(\gamma(t))\dot\gamma(t),\dot\gamma(t)\rangle\, dt
$$
and $\gamma_0$ denotes a minimizing geodesic (see below) joining $x$ to $y$. Therefore we have
$$
t\log\widehat\P^{y,t}_{x,s}(\tau<1)\sim -\inf_{\gamma_s=x,\tau(\gamma)<1} \widehat J_s(\gamma)\ .
$$
Assume that there exists a unique $\widehat\gamma$ minimizing the right-hand side above, then we can split
\begin{equation}\label{rightmost}
\widehat\P^{y,t}_{x,s}(\tau<1)=\widehat\P^{y,t}_{x,s}(\tau<1,U(\eta,\widehat\gamma))+
\widehat\P^{y,t}_{x,s}(\tau<1,U(\eta,\widehat\gamma)^c)\ ,
\end{equation}
where $U(\eta,\widehat\gamma)$ denotes a neighborhood of radius $\eta$ of the minimizer $\widehat\gamma$.
As the infimum of $\widehat J_s$ on the set of paths $\{\tau<1,U(\eta,\widehat\gamma)^c\}$ is strictly
larger than the
infimum over $\{\tau<1,U(\eta,\widehat\gamma)\}$, the rightmost term in \paref{rightmost} is
exponentially negligible. Let us choose $\eta=\frac 14\, dist(y,\pa D)$ and let $\delta$ be such
that $dist(\widehat\gamma_t, y)\le \eta$ for every $t\ge 1-\delta$. Then for every
$\gamma\in U(\eta,\widehat\gamma)$ and $t\ge 1-\delta$ we have
$dist(\gamma_t, y)\le 2\eta=\frac 12\, dist(y,\pa D)$. Therefore if $\tau(\gamma)<1$,
then necessarily $\tau(\gamma)<1-\delta$.
A second question in order to apply the Fleming-James Theorem \ref{FJ} to our problem is the determination of the development of the drift
of the equation for $\eta^t$ in \paref{time-changed}, i.e. of finding vector fields $\widetilde b$ and $\widetilde b_1$ (of course depending on the conditioning point $y$) such that
$$
\bigl(b(\eta^t_v)+\widehat b^{y,t}(\eta^t_v,tv)\bigr)t= \widetilde b(z,v)+t \widetilde b_1(z,v)+o(t),\quad \mbox{as }t\to 0
$$
uniformly on compact sets and then to compute the corresponding quantities $u$ and $w$ of Theorem \ref{FJ}. This in particular requires
to obtain the development of the quantity $\nabla_z \log p(t(1-v),z,y)$, as explained in \S\ref{CD}.
The tool to this goal is provided by Mol{\v{c}}anov results \cite{molchanov-MR0413289} (see also \cite{AZ:81}, Theorem 1.1 p.56) together with those of
Ben Arous \cite{benarous}.
Let us assume that $a=\sigma\sigma^*$ is elliptic. One can then consider on $\R^d$ the Riemannian metric associated to the matrix field $a^{-1}$.
This allows to define the length of a smooth curve $\zeta:[0,1]\to\R^d$ by
$$
l(\zeta)=\int_0^1\sqrt{\langle a^{-1}(\zeta(t))\dot\zeta(t),\dot\zeta(t)\rangle}\, dt
$$
and the corresponding Riemannian distance by
\begin{equation}\label{d1}
d(x,y)=\inf_{\zeta,\zeta(0)=x,\zeta(1)=y}l(\zeta)\ .
\end{equation}
Under an assumption of closeness of the points $x,y$, to be made precise below,
we have (\cite{molchanov-MR0413289}) the
development as $t\to0$
\begin{equation}\label{p56-az}
\log p(t,x,y)\sim-\frac d2\,\log (2\pi t)+\log H(x,y)-\frac 1{2t} d(x,y)^2+A(x,y)
\end{equation}
where $d$ denotes the Riemannian distance \paref{d1} of the metric $a^{-1}$, $H(x,y)=(\det\exp_x'(\xi))^{-1/2}$, $\exp_x$ denoting the exponential map of the
Riemann structure associated to the metric $a^{-1}$ and $\xi$ the tangent vector at $t=0$ of the minimizing geodesic joining $x$ to $y$, and
\begin{equation}\label{only-b}
A(x,y)=\int_0^1\langle a^{-1}(\gamma(t))b(\gamma(t)),\dot\gamma(t)\rangle\, dt
\end{equation}
$\gamma$ denoting again the unique geodesic joining $x$ to $y$. These results are obtained under some regularity assumptions on the coefficients $b$ and $\sigma$ that should be 4 times differentiable.
As mentioned above this development holds under the assumption for the two points $x,y$ to
be close i.e. that they are joined by a unique geodesic along which they are not conjugated. It is a well known fact in Riemannian geometry that for every $x$ there exists a neighborhood $\cl U_x$ of $x$ such that this assumption is satisfied for every $y\in \cl U_x$.
Both $H$ and $d$ are quantities only depending on
the metric $a^{-1}$ and not on the drift $b$ which appears only in the quantity \paref{only-b}.
Moreover Th\'eor\`eme 3.4 in \cite{benarous} allows to state that the behavior
as $t\to0$ of $\nabla_x \log p(t,x,y)$ is obtained by taking formally the derivatives of the right-hand side in \paref{p56-az}. We have therefore, as $t\to0$,
\begin{equation}\label{dev-der}
t\,\nabla_x \log p(t(1-v),x,y)\sim -\frac 1{2(1-v)}\nabla_x d(x,y)^2 +t(\nabla_x \log H(x,y)+\nabla_x A(x,y))\ .
\end{equation}
We plan, in a forthcoming paper, to use this development in order to be able to obtain explicitly the values
of the constants $c=\e^{-w(x,s)}$,
$\ell=u(x,s)$ appearing in the asymptotics \paref{dev1} for the most common models of stochastic volatility.
In this note, as pointed out at
the beginning, we just wish to investigate the question whether the drift $b$ has an influence
in the development \paref{dev1}. We already know that
the answer is no for a large class of Diffusions in dimension $d=1$ (\cite{BC2002-MR1925452}) and also, in a
multidimensional setting, if $X$ is a Brownian motion with a constant drift:
the bridge of a Brownian motion with a constant drift is exactly equal to a Brownian bridge,
so here to the (constant) drift has no effect.
We start first with an example.
\begin{ex}\label{OU-d}\rm Let
\begin{equation}\label{eds ou}
dX_t=M X_t\, dt+dB_t
\end{equation}
be a $d$-dimensional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process where $M$ is a $d\times d$-dimensional matrix.
Let us start computing the development of the drift of
the conditioned Diffusion with $X_t=y$ as $t\to0$.
The transition function $p(t,x,\cdot)$ is the density of a $N(\e^{Mt} x,S_t)$-distributed r.v., where
$$
S_t=\int_0^t\e^{Mu}\e^{M^*u}\, du\ .
$$
Therefore
$$
\log p(t(1-v),z,y)=-\frac d2\,\log 2\pi-\frac 12\,\log \det(S_{t(1-v)})-\frac 1{2}\,\langle S^{-1}_{t(1-v)}(y-\e^{Mt(1-v)}z),(y-\e^{Mt(1-v)}z)\rangle
$$
and
$$
\nabla_{z}\,\log p(t(1-v),z,y)=\frac 12\, \e^{M^* t(1-v)}S^{-1}_{t(1-v)}\,(y-\e^{Mt(1-v)}z)+\frac 12\, (y-\e^{Mt(1-v)}z)^*S^{-1}_{t(1-v)}\e^{M t(1-v)}\ .
$$
Writing down the developments as $t\to 0$ of the various terms appearing above we have
$$
\dlines{
S_{t}=tI+(M+M^*)\frac {t^2}2+o(t^2)\ ,\quad
S_{t}^{-1}=\frac 1t\,\bigl(I-(M+M^*)\tfrac {t}2+o(t^2)\bigr)\cr
\e^{tM^*}=I+tM^*+o(t),\quad \e^{tM}=I+tM+o(t)\cr
}
$$
so that
\begin{align*}
&\e^{tM^*}S_{t}^{-1}=\frac 1t\,I-\frac 12\,(M+M^*)+M^*+o(1)=\frac 1t\,I+\frac 12\,(M^*-M)+o(1)\cr
&S_{t}^{-1}\e^{tM}=\frac 1t\,I-\frac 12\,(M+M^*)+M+o(1)=\frac 1t\,I+\frac 12\,(M-M^*)+o(1)\ .\cr
\end{align*}
Also
$y-\e^{M t}z=y-z+z-\e^{M t}z=y-z-Mtz+o(t)$, hence
$$
\dlines{
\frac 12\, \e^{M^* t(1-u)}S^{-1}_{t(1-u)}\,(y-\e^{Mt(1-u)}z
=\frac 12\, \Bigl(\frac 1{t(1-u)}\,I+\frac 12\,(M-M^*)+o(1)\Bigr)(y-z-Mt(1-u)z+o(t))=\cr
=\frac 12\,\Bigl(\frac {y-z}{t(1-u)}+\frac 12\,(M-M^*)(y-z)-Mz+o(1)\Bigr)\ .
}
$$
Similarly
$$
\dlines{
\frac 12\, (y-\e^{Mt(1-u)}z)^*S^{-1}_{t(1-u)}\e^{M t(1-u)
=\frac 12\,\Bigl(\frac {y-z}{t(1-u)}+\frac 12\,(M^*-M)(y-z)-M^*z+o(1)\Bigr)
}
$$
and putting things together, after some straightforward computations we find
$$
\dlines{
t\nabla_{z}\,\log p(t(1-v),z,y)
=\frac {y-z}{1-v}-\frac 12\,t(M+M^*)z+o(t)\ .
}
$$
Remark that the same result would have been obtained very quickly also computing the terms appearing in \paref{dev-der}, as here
$H(x,y)\equiv 1$ and $d(x,y)=|x-y|$. Therefore the asymptotics for the drift of the bridge of $X$ given $X_t=y$ is
$$
t\bigl(b(z)+\widehat b^{y,t}(z,tv)\bigr)=\frac {y-z}{1-v}-\frac 12\,t(M+M^*)z+tM z+o(t)=\frac {y-z}{1-v}+\frac 12\,t(M-M^*)z+o(t)\ .
$$
Hence we are in the situation of \paref{dev-drift} with
$$
\widetilde b(z,v)=\frac {y-z}{1-v},\quad \widetilde b_1(z,v)=\frac 12\,(M-M^*)z\ .
$$
Remark that $\widetilde b_1\equiv0$ if and only if the matrix $M$ is symmetric. Therefore, in general, the quantity $w$ which determines the value
of the constant $c$ in the expansion \paref{dev1} will depend on the drift $z\mapsto Mz$, if the matrix $M$ is not symmetric.
To be more precise let us consider the case where $D$ is the half-space
$\{z,\langle \vec{v},z\rangle < k\}$ for some $\vec{v}\in\R^d$, $|\vec{v}|=1$ and $k>0$.
Let $x,y\in D$ and let us evaluate the expansion of
\paref{dev1} for the process $X$ conditioned by $X_t=y$, where $\tau$ denotes the exit time from $D$.
Note first that the function $u$ defined in \paref{eq-for-u} coincides with the one
for the bridge of the Brownian motion, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{bridge u}
u(x,s)=\frac{2}{1-s} \left(k-\langle x,\vec{v} \rangle \right) \left(k-\langle y,\vec{v} \rangle \right)
\end{equation}
(moreover it is easy to check that such a function $u$ satisfies \paref{HJ1}). Of course
we have $\Delta u \equiv 0$ and
$$
\nabla u(x,s) = -\frac{2}{1-s}\left(k-\langle y,\vec{v} \rangle\right)\vec{v}\ .
$$
Therefore the sharp asymptotics for the exit time probability $q_t(x,s)$ of \paref{dev1},
as the conditioning time $t$ tends to $0$, for the Diffusion starting at $X_s=x$ and
conditioned by $X_t=y$ is
\begin{equation}
q_t(x,s) \sim \e^{-w(x,s)}\e^{ -\frac{u(x,s)}{t}}\ ,
\end{equation}
where, recalling \paref{140},
\begin{equation}\label{w1}
w(x,s) = -\left(k-\langle y,\vec{v} \rangle\right)\int_s^\tau \frac{1}{1-t}
\langle (M-M^*)\gamma_{x,s}(t), \vec{v} \rangle\,dt\ ,
\end{equation}
$\gamma_{x,s}$ being the solution of
\begin{equation}\label{eq gamma}
\dot \gamma_{x,s}(t) =\widetilde b(\gamma_{x,s}(t),t) -\nabla u(\gamma_{x,s}(t),t)\ ,\qquad \gamma_{x,s}(s)=x
\end{equation}
and $\tau=t^*_{x,s}$ the time at which $\gamma_{x,s}$ reaches the boundary $\pa D$.
Straightforward computations lead to the solution
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{x,s}(t) = x+\frac{t-s}{\tau-s}(\eta-x)\,\qquad s\le t \le \tau\ ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{ttt}
\tau = s+(1-s)\frac{k-\langle x,\vec{v}\rangle}{2k - \langle x+y , \vec{v} \rangle}\quad\mbox{and}\quad \eta =
x+ \frac{k-\langle x,\vec v\rangle}{2k - \langle x+y, \vec v\rangle}
(y-x+2(k-\langle y, \vec{v} \rangle)\vec{v})\ .
\end{equation}
Remark that $\tau<1$, $\eta\in \pa D$ and does not depend on $s$, furthermore $\gamma_{x,s}$ is the
line segment connecting $x$ with $\eta$.
Going back to \paref{w1} we have
$$
w(x,s)=-\left(k-\langle y,\vec{v} \rangle \right)\int_s^\tau \frac{1}{1-t}\langle \vec{v}, (M-M^*)\left(
x + \tfrac{t-s}{\tau-s}(\eta -x)
\right)
\rangle\,dt
$$
which gives easily
\begin{equation}\label{w-explicit}
w(x,s)
=\bigl(k-\langle y,\vec{v} \rangle\bigr)\Bigl[\frac{k-\langle x,\vec{v}\rangle}{2k - \langle x+y , \vec{v} \rangle}\langle \vec{v}, (M-M^*)(y -x) \rangle+\log \Bigl(\frac{k-\langle y,\vec{v}\rangle}{2k - \langle x+y , \vec{v} \rangle} \Bigr)\,\langle \vec{v}, (M-M^*)y
\rangle \Bigr]
\end{equation}
($w(x,s)$ does not depend on $s$).
Therefore for the quantity $q_t(x,s)$ in \paref{dev1} we have
\begin{align*}
&c_{x,s}=\Bigl(\frac{k-\langle y,\vec{v}\rangle}{2k - \langle x+y , \vec{v} \rangle}\Bigr)^{-(k-\langle y,\vec{v} \rangle)\langle \vec{v}, (M-M^*)y
\rangle}\,\e^{-\frac{(k-\langle y,\vec{v} \rangle)(k-\langle y,\vec{v} \rangle)}{2k-\langle x+y,v\rangle}\,\langle \vec{v}, (M-M^*)(y -x)
\rangle}\cr
&\ell_{x,s}=\frac 2{1-s} \left(k-\langle x,\vec{v} \rangle\right) \left(k-\langle y,\vec{v} \rangle\right)\ .
\end{align*}
We stress that the expansion \paref{dev1} depends indeed on the matrix $M$, if this is not symmetric. Whereas if $M$
is any symmetric matrix, its value has
no influence on the expansion \paref{dev1}, which is then exactly the same as if $X$ was the Brownian motion, where $w\equiv0$.
We did not bother to check the assumptions of Theorem \ref{FJ}. It is not however difficult, given the computations above, for a given $x\in D$,
to construct a RSR containing $(x,0)$. Indeed remark that the expression of $\tau$ in \paref{ttt} says that every characteristic
$\gamma_{x,s}$ reaches $\pa D$ at a time that is strictly smaller than $1$. One can therefore construct a RSR of the form
$N=\{(z,s);z\in D, t^*_{z,s}<T'\}$, for some $T'$ such that $t^*_{x,0}<T'<1-\delta$ where $\delta$ is given in \paref{asym}. The only remaining assumption to be checked is that $D$ is assumed there to be
bounded, which is not our case. This point is explained in the next remark.
\end{ex}
\begin{remark}\label{rem bounded}\rm
It is easy to show that the asymptotics for the probability of exit from an open set $D$ is, by a standard localization argument, the same
as for the exit from a suitable bounded subset $\widetilde D \subset D$.
To be more precise, a repetition of the argument leading to \paref{asym} yields
$$
q_t(x,0)\sim \widehat \P^{y,t}_{x,0}(\tau < 1, U(\eta, \widehat \gamma))\ ,
$$
where $U(\eta, \widehat \gamma)$ is a neighborhood of radius $\eta$ of the minimizer $\widehat \gamma$
for $\inf_{\gamma_0=x, \tau(\gamma)<1} \widehat J_0(\gamma)$, $\widehat J_s$ being
given in \paref{Js}. One can then set $\widetilde D$ to be the intersection of $D$ with a bounded neighborhood
of the support of $\widehat\gamma$, chosen in such a way as to preserve the smoothness of the boundary.
\end{remark}
The previous example shows, among other things, that the sharp Large Deviation estimate of exit of the
bridge of a multidimensional
Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process depends on the drift of the original process, unless the matrix $M$ is
symmetric. This is a phenomenon that is
better investigated in the following statement.
\begin{prop}
Let $X$ be the $d$-dimensional diffusion process that is the solution of the SDE
\begin{equation}\label{sde X}
dX_t=b(X_t)\, dt+\sigma(X_t)\, dB_t
\end{equation}
and assume that $a=\sigma\sigma^*$ is elliptic and that $b$ and $\sigma$ are $4$ times differentiable.
Let us denote $\eta^t$ the corresponding process conditioned given $X_t=y$, $t>0$ and time changed (see \paref{time-changed}).
Let $x$ be close enough to $y$, in the sense that $x$ and $y$ are joined by unique geodesic $\gamma_0$ of the metric $a^{-1}$
along which they are not conjugated.
Then if there exists a potential $U:\R^d \to \R$ such that $\nabla\, U=a^{-1}b$,
the development for the drift of $\eta^t$ up to the first order as $t\to0$ does not depend on $b$.
\end{prop}
\noindent {\it Proof.} We must prove for the drift $(b(x)+\widehat b^{y,t}(x,tv))t$ of the time changed conditioned process $\eta^t$ a
development of the form $(b(x)+\widehat b^{y,t}(x,tv))t=\widetilde b+t\widetilde b_1+o(t)$ where neither $\widetilde b$ nor
$\widetilde b_1$ depend on $b$. Recall the development \paref{dev-der}: thanks to \paref{only-b}, if $\nabla\, U=a^{-1}b$ we have of course
$$
A(x,y)=U(\gamma_1)-U(\gamma_0)=U(y)-U(x)
$$
and $\nabla_x A(x,y)=-\nabla U(x)=-a^{-1}(x)b(x)$. Hence, by \paref{dev-der}, as $t\to0$,
$$
\widehat b^{y,t}(x,tv)=a(x)\nabla_x\log p(t(1-v),x,y)\sim a(x)\Bigl(\nabla_x\log H(x,y)-\frac 1{2t(1-v)}\nabla_x d(x,y)^2- a^{-1}b(x)\Bigr)
$$
so that the drift of the time changed conditioned process is
$$
\dlines{
\bigl(b(x)+\widehat b^{y,t}(x,tv)\bigr)t=tb(x)+ta(x)\Bigl({\nabla_x} \log H(x,y)-
\frac 1{2t(1-v)}\nabla_x d(x,y)^2- a^{-1}b(x)\Bigr)=\cr
=t\nabla_x \log H(x,y)-\frac 1{2(1-v)}\nabla_x d(x,y)^2\ ,\cr
}
$$
thus $\widetilde b(x,v)=-\frac 1{2(1-v)}\nabla_x d(x,y)^2,$ whereas $\widetilde b_1(x,v)= \nabla_x \log H(x,y)$ and neither of these terms
depends on $b$.
\qed
\begin{remark}\rm
If the hypotheses in Theorem \ref{FJ} are satisfied, then the drift of the unconditioned Diffusion does not influence the sharp
asymptotics for the probability of exit from the domain $D$, i.e. neither of the functions $u$ and $w$ in \paref{dev-pr} depend on $b$ in \paref{sde X}.
Recall that $D$ could be unbounded, actually the argument in Example \ref{OU-d} holds in great
generality.
\end{remark}
Coming back to Example \ref{OU-d}, of course if $M$ is symmetric then the drift $z\mapsto Mz$ turns out to be the gradient field of the potential $U(z)=\frac 12\,\langle Mz,z\rangle$.
We have therefore proved that, whenever the Fleming-James Theorem~\ref{FJ} can be applied, the asymptotics \paref{dev1} do not depend on the drift $b$ of the original Diffusion as far
as $a^{-1}b$ is a gradient field and also (Example \ref{OU-d}) that the drift can be influential if this assumption is not satisfied.
\def\cprime{$'$} \def\cprime{$'$}
|
\section{The theoretical model}\label{sec:Theory}
\section{Introduction}
Laser-induced periodic surface structures (LIPSSs) are the result of the strong interaction between light and matter near the ablation threshold of metals, semi-conductors or dielectrics.\cite{Birnbaum1965,Sipe1983,Young1983} The inhomogeneous absorption of energy under the target surface leads to a deeper ablation at the maxima of the electromagnetic field and the formation of wavy nanometric structures. With an increasing number of different kinds of observed structures, it has recently become one of the most direct way to study a great variety of complex light-matter interactions on various materials.\cite{Driel1982,Young1983,Bolle1992,Wu2003,Bonse2005,Couillard2007,Bonse2009,Dufft2009,Bonse2012,Hohm2012}
LIPSSs can be categorized by their orientation with respect to the polarization of light and their periodicity $\Lambda$ compared to the wavelength $\lambda$ of the incident beam. The most common structures, which have a spatial periodicity of $\Lambda \sim \lambda$, are oriented perpendicular to the polarization direction and are called low spatial frequency LIPSSs (LSFLs) or ripples. They can be observed, for instance, on strongly absorbing materials (metals or highly ionized semi-conductors/dielectrics) when $\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})<\mathrm{Im}(\tilde{n})$, where $\tilde{n}$ is the complex refractive index. This type of LIPSSs is referred as type-s because of the sinusoidal dependency between their periodicity and the angle of incidence of the laser beam.\cite{Young1983} On dielectrics or semi-conductors, the dominant observed structures are called high spatial frequency LIPSSs (HSFLs) when $\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})>\mathrm{Im}(\tilde{n})$. Their periodicity is closer to $\Lambda \sim \lambda/$Re$(\tilde{n})$ and they are oriented parallel to the polarization of the incident light. They are referred to as type-d LIPSSs (\textit{d} stands for \textit{dissident}). HSFLs with $\Lambda \ll \lambda$ oriented perpendicular to the polarization\ can also be observed and are referred to as type-r.\cite{Skolski2014} A summary of these behaviors is presented in Table \ref{behaviors}.
Various mechanisms have been proposed to explain the formation of these structures. It has been suggested that perpendicular to polarization HSFLs are caused by second harmonic generation\cite{Borowiec2003}, self-organization \cite{Reif2002} and a number of other electromagnetic explanations.\cite{Wu2003,Dufft2009,Skolski2014}
For LSFLs (type-s), it is generally accepted that they are the result of the excitation of surface plasmon polaritons (SPPs),\cite{Zayats2005,Bonse2009} which consist of trapped light at the surface of a conducting material, including ionized dielectrics. They can be produced when the incident light interacts with the surface roughness and they have a periodicity slightly smaller than $\lambda$, as for LSFLs. The effect of a single source of SPPs on laser ablation can be observed experimentally by controlling the surface roughness; for instance, by depositing a single nanoparticle on a flattened surface before the laser processing.\cite{Hecht1996,Bonse2009,Yang2014} The importance of radiation remnants has also been pointed out by Sipe {\it et al.} \cite{2Young1983,Sipe1985}in the LIPSSs formation process as non-radiative waves that can behave like SPPs on any surface, even dielectrics.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Classification of the different types of LIPSSs with their qualitative representation in the frequency domain. Dashed circles indicate where $|\vec{k}_{x,y}|=1$ and dotted circles where $|\vec{k}_{x,y}|=$ Re$(\tilde{n})$, both normalized to the norm of the incident wave number, $|\vec{k}_i|=2\pi/\lambda$. Polarization orientation of the incident light is indicated by the white arrows. \label{behaviors}}
\begin{tabular}{m{3cm} m{7cm} c}
\hline \hline
\centering \vspace{1mm} Classification & \vspace{1mm} \centering Description & Representation \\
\hline
\centering type-d & HSFLs parallel to polarization with periodicity of $\Lambda \sim \lambda/\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})$. Dominant in dielectrics and semi-conductors when $\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})>\mathrm{Im}(\tilde{n})$ due to radiation remnants close to the rough surface. & \includegraphics[valign=m,scale=0.25]{d.png} \\
\centering type-s & Structures perpendicular to polarization with periodicity of $\Lambda \sim \lambda$. Dominant in most materials when $\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})<\mathrm{Im}(\tilde{n})$ due to the excitation of \textit{p}-polarized SPPs around surface inhomogeneities. & \includegraphics[valign=m,scale=0.25]{s.png} \\
\centering type-m & Novelty of the present work. Structures parallel to polarization with periodicity of $\Lambda \sim \lambda$. They occur near the crossing point of $\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})$ and $\mathrm{Im}(\tilde{n})$ when $\gamma/\omega$ is small. They are the results of radiation remnants and decay slowly in the material when compared with type-s behavior. & \includegraphics[valign=m,scale=0.25]{m.png} \\ \centering type-r & HSFLs perpendicular to polarization with periodicity of $\Lambda \ll \lambda$. In the FDTD approach of the Sipe-Drude theory, they are strongly roughness dependent and rapidly decay in the material. & \includegraphics[valign=m,scale=0.25]{r.png} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
In this paper, we demonstrate the possibility of the formation of a new type of LIPSSs. A superposition of LSFLs oriented simultaneously in the direction perpendicular \textit{and} parallel to the polarization of incident light with $\Lambda \sim \lambda$ in both directions, resulting in structures similar to a two dimensional grid at the target's surface. We refer to these structures as crossed LIPSSs, or c-LIPSSs, which are different from other observed bidimensional structures consisting of a superposition of type-s and much smaller type-d structures.\cite{Skolski2014} c-LIPSSs result from the superposition of type-s structures and of what we will refer to as type-m structures. The \textit{m} stands for \textit{mixed} because they present characteristics of both type-s and type-d behaviors. Type-m structures are an extension of type-d features when $\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})$ is small, explaining their larger periodicity and parallel orientation. As for type-s structures, their periodicity remains at $\Lambda \sim \lambda$ even when $\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})$ is close to $0$. Also, the radiation remnants responsible for the type-m structures are similar to the type-s behavior at low $\mathrm{Im}(\tilde{n})$ values. Type-m and type-s structures coexist with similar amplitudes near the crossing point $\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})=\mathrm{Im}(\tilde{n})$ when the reduced collision frequency $\gamma/\omega$ taken from the Drude model\cite{Ashcroft1976} is small.
Our study is organized as follows. In Sec. \ref{sec:Theory}, we introduce the theoretical model and its constituting physical ingredients, the Sipe-Drude theory. This is followed in Sec. \ref{sec:FDTD} with the details of our numerical implementation of the finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) algorithm. The results of the simulations (over a wide range of parameters) and their interpretations are then presented in Sec. \ref{Results}. In particular, our study confirms the existence of c-LIPSSs and explain their formation process via the excitation of both SPPs and radiation remnants in orthogonal orientations. Finally, our conclusions are stated in the last section.
\section{The theoretical model}\label{sec:Theory}
The analytical approach of choice to explain the formation of LIPSSs is the Sipe-Drude theory.\cite{Sipe1983,Bonse2009} The main idea is to solve Maxwell's equations
\begin{align}
\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{H} = \sigma \vec{E}+\epsilon_0\epsilon_r \frac{\partial \vec{E}}{\partial t}\\
\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E} = -\mu_0 \frac{\partial \vec{H}}{\partial t}\label{maxwell2}
\end{align}
for the propagation of a plane wave through the rough surface of a material with relative complex permittivity $\tilde{\epsilon}=\epsilon'+i\epsilon''$. Conductivity is defined as $\sigma=\epsilon_0\epsilon'' \omega$ where $\omega$ is the angular frequency of the incident light and the relative (real) permittivity is expressed as $\epsilon_r=\epsilon'/\epsilon_0$ in units of the free-space permittivity $\epsilon_0$. Permeability $\mu_0$ is assumed constant. The ensuing theory predicts periodic maxima and minima of the energy profile at the surface in good agreement with experimental data\cite{Sipe1983,Young1983} under the reasonable assumption that the ablation process ejects more matter where the energy is greater. Surface roughness is confined to a thin region above the surface in which a fraction of the volume is randomly filled. The thickness of this region is realistically chosen to be significantly smaller than the incident beam wavelength.
The second ingredient consists of using the model of Drude for the complex permittivity to account for the excitation of the material,\cite{Sokolowski1999,Bonse2009}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\epsilon}=\epsilon + \tilde{\epsilon}_{\mathrm{Drude}}= \epsilon + (1 -i \gamma/\omega) \left[ - \frac{\omega_p^2/\omega^2}{(1 + \gamma^2/\omega^2)} \right]
\label{drude}
\end{equation}
with the permittivity of the non excited material $\epsilon$, the collision frequency $\gamma = 1/\tau_D$ defined as the inverse of the Drude damping time $\tau_D$ and the plasma frequency $\omega_p$ expressed as
\begin{equation}
\omega_p = \left[ \frac{e^{2}N_e}{\epsilon_0 m^{*}_{\mathrm{opt}} m_e} \right]^{1/2} ,
\label{plasma_freq}
\end{equation}
where $e$ is the electric charge, $N_e$ is the electronic density in the conduction band and $m^{*}_{\mathrm{opt}}m_e$ is the effective optical mass of the electron. The complex refractive index $\tilde{n}$ is then simply $\tilde{n}=\tilde{\epsilon}^{1/2}$ or, specifically,
\begin{align}
&\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{\epsilon})=\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n}^{2})-\mathrm{Im}(\tilde{n}^{2}) \nonumber \\
&\mathrm{Im}(\tilde{\epsilon})=2\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})\mathrm{Im}(\tilde{n}).\label{re(epsilon)}
\end{align}
The dimensionless parameters $\omega_p/\omega$ and $\gamma/\omega$ will be used hereafter to characterize the different physical regimes. The electronic density in the conduction band can be calculated from $\omega_p/\omega$ and the laser source wavelength $\lambda$ with
\begin{equation}
N_e[10^{21}\mathrm{cm}^{-3}]=m^{*}_{\mathrm{opt}}\left( \frac{\omega_p}{\omega} \right)^{2}\frac{1.11 \cdot 10^{6}}{(\lambda [\mathrm{nm}])^{2}}.
\end{equation}
The analytical solutions of Maxwell equations under these assumptions predict,\cite{Bonse2009} for small plasma frequencies $\omega_p$ or low excitation densities $N_e$ (dielectrics of semi-conductors for which $\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})>\mathrm{Im}(\tilde{n})$), a dominant type-d behavior. These structures are parallel to the polarization of the incident light with periodicity $\Lambda \sim \lambda/\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})$. In contrast, for higher plasma frequencies, or high excitation densities $N_e$ (material with $\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})<\mathrm{Im}(\tilde{n})$), this theoretical model predicts\cite{Sipe1983,Bonse2009} a dominant type-s behavior, structures oriented perpendicular the the incident light polarization and periodicity of $\Lambda \sim \lambda$.
The analytic solutions of the Sipe-Drude theory, however, cannot properly describe the type-r behavior because they are obtained under a small frequency approximation.\cite{Skolski2012} In the frequency domain, the amplitude of the type-r behavior tends to grow indefinitely for larger frequencies. In this regime, a numerical solution easily solves this difficulty.
The effects of the parameter $\gamma/\omega$ are still largly unexplored in this theory. Most theoretical studies\cite{Bonse2009,Bonse2010,Skolski2012,Skolski2014} have restricted their efforts to a laser source of $\lambda=800$ nm ($\omega=2.35 \cdot 10^{15}$ s$^{-1}$, $T=2\pi/\omega=2.67$ fs) incident on a silicon target ($\tau_D = 1.1$ fs), corresponding to a reduced collision frequency $\gamma/\omega \sim 0.39$. Since this parameter is linked to the relaxation of the electron density and is expected to vary for different materials of interest,\cite{Johnson1972,Ashcroft1976} we will scan different values of $\gamma/\omega$ in order for our computations to access a variety of target materials.
\section{The numerical implementation}\label{sec:FDTD}
We follow the lead of Skolski {\it et al.} \cite{Skolski2012} who were recently successful in numerically modeling the formation of LIPSSs
with a FDTD solver.\cite{Yee1966,Taflove2005} We thus use this method for its versatility and adapt it to explain the formation of the c-LIPSSs. The details of our geometry and its spatio-temporal discretization are presented next.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.82]{geometrySD.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Schematic representation of the geometry used in the FDTD simulations. The black zones re\-present PMLs, the upper grey zone consists of vacuum and the lower orange zone is the material. The plane wave source is the bottom layer of the upper PML and propagates in the $+z$ direction towards the material. Note that vertical walls also have PMLs of 20 cells wide (not shown).} \label{geometry}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{index.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Real (full lines) and imaginary (dashed lines) parts of the refractive index $\tilde{n}=\tilde{\epsilon}^{1/2}$. The non-excited material has a purely real permittivity of $\epsilon=4.84$ (index $n=2.2$) and the excited permittivity $\tilde{\epsilon}$ follows Eq. \eqref{drude}. The crossing points, $(\omega_p/\omega)_c$, are indicated with black dots. Their numerical values are 2.2 and 3.11 for $\gamma/\omega=1/16$ and 1 respectively.}\label{index}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{fourier.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Fourier transforms amplitudes (linear color scale with arbitrary normalization) of $\langle|\vec{E}|^{2}\rangle_{x,y}$ for $\gamma/\omega=1$ in subfigures (a) - (f), $\gamma/\omega=1/16$ in subfigures (g) - (l) and the indicated value of $\omega_p/\omega$. The wave numbers $\vec{k}_{x,y}$ are normalized to the norm of the incident wave number, $|\vec{k}_i|=2\pi/\lambda$. Dashed circles indicate where $|\vec{k}_{x,y}|=1$ and dotted circles where $|\vec{k}_{x,y}|=~$Re$(\tilde{n})$. Polarization of the incident light is along the $x$ axis. }\label{fourier}
\end{figure*}
Each simulation is performed on a space domain of 32 wavelengths in the $x$ and $y$ directions and 8 wavelengths in the $z$ direction with a discretization of 20 cells per wavelength:
$\delta_{x,y,z}=\delta= \lambda/20$ for a total simulation volume of $[X_S \times Y_S \times Z_S]$ with $X_S=Y_S= 640\ \delta$ and $Z_S= 160\ \delta$.
Time increments have to be carefully chosen in order to ensure stability over the entire simulation. The stability condition for the FDTD method is
\begin{equation}
\delta_{t,\mathrm{max}}=\frac{1}{c}\left[ \frac{1}{\delta x^{2}}+ \frac{1}{\delta y^{2}}+ \frac{1}{\delta z^{2}} \right]^{-1/2},
\end{equation}
or $\delta_{t,\mathrm{max}}=T/(20\sqrt{3})$ with our spatial discretization. We therefore use a time discretization $\delta_t<\delta_{t,\mathrm{max}}$ of 40 time steps per optical cycle, $T=2 \pi/\omega$, and the simulations last for 10 cycles: $\delta_t= T/40$ for a total time interval of $T_S= 10\ T = 400\ \delta_t$. Furthermore, absorbing material, represented by perfectly matched layers (PMLs) \cite{Johnson2010} of 20 cells wide are positioned at each boundary of the domain. Also, to reduce unwanted boundary effects, only a central 28x28 wavelengths sub-domain is used in the subsequent analysis. The surface rugosity is modeled by a small region $-\delta < z \leqslant 0$ with a surface content following a random binary function. Specifically, on the surface, one random computational cell out of ten is occupied with material, ensuring an approximate filling factor of 10\%. The geometry and the spatial discretization are displayed in Figure \ref{geometry}.
A plane wave is propagated on the spatio-temporal grid in the $+z$ direction with a linear polarization along the $x$ axis. The region $z\geqslant 0$ consists of a material with permittivity $\tilde{\epsilon}=\epsilon + \tilde{\epsilon}_{\mathrm{Drude}}$ where the non-excited material contributes the constant $\epsilon$. The same $\tilde{\epsilon}$ accounts for the surface material. The values of the refractive index, $\tilde{n}=\tilde{\epsilon}^{1/2}$, used in this work are shown in Figure \ref{index}.
Some features in the figure are worth noting. The region where $\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})=\mathrm{Im}(\tilde{n})$ will be of special importance, since it defines the boundary between different physical regimes, as we will see later. Clearly this crossing point is the position where $\epsilon'$ changes sign, precisely when $(\omega_p/\omega)_c=\epsilon^{1/2}(1+\gamma^{2}/\omega^{2})^{1/2}$. Furthermore, as seen from equation \eqref{re(epsilon)}, at the point of intersection of the curves, $\epsilon''=(\gamma/\omega)\epsilon^{1/2}$ and the value at $(\omega_p/\omega)_c$ varies as $\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})_c=\mathrm{Im}(\tilde{n})_c=(\gamma/\omega)^{1/2}\epsilon^{1/4}/\sqrt{2}$.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1.1]{gamma1framesLegend.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Evolution of the Fourier transforms along both $k_x=0$ and $k_y=0$ axes for $\gamma/\omega=1$ as $\omega_p/\omega$ varies from below (a) to above (c) $(\omega_p/\omega)_c=3.11$ (b). Amplitudes of the Fourier transforms are normalized to maintain the maximum value at $1$, but their relative amplitude is preserved. The insets display $\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})$ with a full line and $\mathrm{Im}(\tilde{n})$ with a dashed line together with a vertical line indicating the current $\omega_p/\omega$ value.}\label{gamma1frames}
\end{figure*}
To obtain Figure \ref{fourier}, we perform $50$ simulations for each pair ($\omega_p/\omega$, $\gamma/\omega$) with a reshuffled rugosity and apply a bidimensional Fourier transform on
the function $\langle|\vec{E}|^{2}\rangle_{x,y}$ which is the squared electric field evaluated at $z= +\delta$ averaged over the second half of the time domain, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\langle |\vec{E}|^2 \rangle_{x,y} = \frac{2}{T_S} \int_{T_S/2}^{T_S} |\vec{E}(x,y,z=+\delta;t)|^2 dt.
\label{moyenne}
\end{equation}
Finally, we average over the $50$ Fourier transforms for each pair of parameters to obtain smoother results.
Three points should be mentioned. First, the time average performed in equation \eqref{moyenne} extends over an integer number of complete optical cycles, $5$ with our temporal discretization. Second, we evaluate the solutions at $z=+\delta$ (corresponding to $40$ nm for a $800$ nm laser source) in order to minimize any effects related to the specific representation of the surface roughness. Something that the Sipe equations cannot achieve, as they are restricted to the plane $z=0$. Third, the possibility to investigate below the surface is then a notable advantage of the FDTD approach, providing solutions over the entire simulation volume.
\section{Results of the simulations}\label{Results}
We have carried out an exhaustive scan of parameter space $(\omega_p/\omega,\gamma/\omega)$ for $\omega_p/\omega \in [0,10]$ and $\gamma/\omega \in [0,4]$ with the model described in Sec. \ref{sec:FDTD}. For convenience, the non-excited permittivity $\epsilon$ has been kept fixed to the numerical value 4.84 ($n=2.2$) for the entire sets of calculations. Our exploration has allowed us to isolate two separate regimes of different qualitative behaviors. The \emph{approximate} boundary between them is found at $\gamma/\omega \sim 1/4$. This value will vary somewhat with $\epsilon$ since the two regimes are affected by the position of $(\omega_p/\omega)_c \propto \epsilon^{1/2}$ delimiting itself dynamical changes within each regime.
To appreciate the qualitative features of the two regimes, we have chosen to display two representative series of calculations with the choices $\gamma/\omega=1$ and $\gamma/\omega=1/16$.
\subsection{Formation of c-LIPSSs} \label{subsec:OldNew}
The case $\gamma/\omega=1$ (see Figures \ref{fourier}(a) - (f)) shows the more common transition from the type-d behavior to the type-s behavior as $\omega_p/\omega$ increases. The real and imaginary parts of the refractive index cross at $(\omega_p/\omega)_c = 3.11$ roughly corresponding to Figure \ref{fourier}(c). At higher plasma frequencies, Figures \ref{fourier}(d) - (f), perpendicular structures (type-s behavior) become gradually dominant, since it is the region where $\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})<\mathrm{Im}(\tilde{n})$ and SPPs can be excited. This transition has been extensively studied before with the parameters $\lambda = 800$ nm and $\tau_D = 1.1$ fs, corresponding to $\gamma/\omega = 0.39$.\cite{Bonse2009,Bonse2010,Skolski2012,Skolski2014,Yang2014} The evolution of the Fourier transforms along both $k_x=0$ and $k_y=0$ axes as $\omega_p/\omega$ grows for $\gamma/\omega=1$ is shown in Figure \ref{gamma1frames}. These are two orthogonal slices of the correspong two-dimensional calculations of Figures \ref{fourier}(a) - (f). The amplitudes of the Fourier transforms are normalized to maintain the maximum value at $1$, but their relative amplitude is preserved. The transition from type-d (Figure \ref{gamma1frames}(a)) to type-s (Figure \ref{gamma1frames}(c)) behavior arises very close to $(\omega_p/\omega)_c$ (Figure \ref{gamma1frames}(b)).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1.1]{gamma2framesLegend.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Evolution of the Fourier transforms along both $k_x=0$ and $k_y=0$ axes for $\gamma/\omega=1/16$ as $\omega_p/\omega$ varies from below (a) to above (c) $(\omega_p/\omega)_c=2.2$ (b). Amplitudes of the Fourier transforms are normalized to maintain the maximum value at $1$, but their relative amplitude is preserved. The insets display $\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})$ with a full line and $\mathrm{Im}(\tilde{n})$ with a dashed line together with a vertical line indicating the current $\omega_p/\omega$ value.}\label{gamma2frames}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.95]{singleScat3.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Spatial domain solutions of $\langle|\vec{E}|^{2}\rangle_{x,y}$ for (a) $(\gamma/\omega,\omega_p/\omega)=(1,0)$, (b) $(\gamma/\omega,\omega_p/\omega)=(1,8.4)$ and (c) - (d) $(\gamma/\omega,\omega_p/\omega)=(1/16,1.9)$. Only one inhomogeneity is positioned at the center of the surface. Polarization of the incident light is along the $x$ axis. Color scaling is arbitrary with blue for minimal values and red for maximal values.}\label{singlePara}
\end{figure}
For smaller values of $\gamma/\omega$, below $\sim 1/4$, we find the same type-d behavior for low values of $\omega_p/\omega$ and as we get closer to $(\omega_p/\omega)_c=2.2$, the type-s behavior gradually becomes dominant, in addition to other structures parallel to the incident light polarization with periodicity of $\Lambda \sim \lambda$, the type-m behavior. The simultaneous presence of type-s and type-m behaviors with a similar amplitude forms the c-LIPSSs. Figures \ref{fourier}(g) - (l) illustrates this behavior for $\gamma/\omega=1/16$. The transition occurs in the region $\omega_p/\omega \sim 1.9-2.2$ (see Figure \ref{fourier}(k)), where the real and imaginary parts of the refractive index are nearly equal and small (see Figure \ref{index}). The evolution of the Fourier transforms along axes $k_x=0$ and $k_y=0$ as $\omega_p/\omega$ varies, with $\gamma/\omega=1/16$ is shown in Figure \ref{gamma2frames}. Again, the relative amplitude of the two Fourier transforms is preserved. The initial maxima (Figure \ref{gamma2frames}(a)) correspond to type-d behavior at $\Lambda \sim \lambda/\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})$ which gradually shifts to $\Lambda \sim \lambda$ (type-m) as $\omega_p/\omega$ grows. Near $(\omega_p/\omega)_c$, type-m and type-s coexist with similar amplitudes (Figure \ref{gamma2frames}(b)). It is interesting to see that the type-m maxima is present and remains at $\Lambda \sim \lambda$ even when $\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})<\mathrm{Im}(\tilde{n})$ and $\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{n})$ is close to $0$. At higher plama frequencies, type-m behavior is still present, but type-s becomes dominant (Figure \ref{gamma2frames}(c)).
In Sec. \ref{subsec:singleScat}, we investigate the effects of a single source of radiation remnants or SPPs by replacing the surface rugosity with one single inhomogeneity.
\subsection{Collective effects of single scatterers} \label{subsec:singleScat}
Figure \ref{fourier} shows results of incident light interacting with a large number of surface inhomogeneities or scatterers. We can reduce the problem to a single scatterer to isolate the effects on the field caused by one inhomogeneity for different values of ($\gamma/\omega$,$\omega_p/\omega$). We have therefore performed a number of simulations using the same method as described in Sec. \ref{sec:FDTD}, but with the scatterer positioned at the center of the surface and a reduced domain of $X_S=Y_S= 320\ \delta $ and $Z_S= 160\ \delta$. This inhomogeneity has the same size (one cell) and properties as before. These simulations serve two purposes: first, to confirm that we obtain the same pattern as the experimental findings\cite{Bonse2009,Yang2014} for parameters leading to the type-s behavior and second, to compare with the effects of the radiation remnants around one inhomogeneity with the parameters that should lead to c-LIPSSs.
The resulting fields $\langle |\vec{E}|^2 \rangle_{x,y}$ in the space domain are shown in Figure \ref{singlePara}. For the pair of parameters $(\gamma/\omega,\omega_p/\omega)=(1,0)$, we obtain Figure \ref{singlePara}(a) where no SPP is expected. For the pair of parameters $(\gamma/\omega,\omega_p/\omega)=(1,8.4)$, on Figure \ref{singlePara}(b), we see the result of interaction between SPPs propagating along the $x$ axis (\textit{p}-polarized SPPs) and incident light, a pattern similar to the experimental results of laser processed surfaces around single nanoparticles.\cite{Bonse2009,Yang2014} With the pair of parameters $(\gamma/\omega,\omega_p/\omega)=(1/16,1.9)$ that should lead to the formation of c-LIPSSs, we still obtain, as shown in Figure \ref{singlePara}(c), oscillations along the $x$ axis responsible for type-s behavior in addition to \textit{s}-polarized radiation remnants resulting in oscillations along the $y$ axis, themselves responsible for type-m behavior. They are \textit{s}-polarized because they propagate in the $y$ direction with nearly all of their energy is in the $x$ component of the electric field. These latter excitations cannot be SPPs since \textit{s}-polarized SPPs can only propagate on metamaterials which exhibit a negative permeability.\cite{BaoRong2010} This can be shown by solving Maxwell's equations in a 2D domain, or the equivalent Helmholtz equation $(\vec{\nabla}^{2}+\vec{k}^{2})\vec{E}=0$, near the interface. In the $(y,z)$ plane, a \textit{s}-polarized interface mode between two media is described by
\[
\vec{E}(y,z,t) =
\begin{cases}
\hat{x}E_1\exp(ik_{y1}y+\alpha_{1}z-i\omega t), & z < 0, \\
\hat{x}E_2\exp(ik_{y2}y-\alpha_{2}z-i\omega t), & z > 0,
\end{cases}
\]
where the indices $1$ and $2$ denote the two different media above and below the surface respectively. The wavenumbers $(k_{y1},k_{y2})\geq 0$ represent oscillations in the $y$ direction and the purely real wavenumbers $(\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2})\geq 0$ describe the exponential field decay away from the surface. Using equation \eqref{maxwell2}, we find the corresponding magnetic field
\begin{flalign*}
&\quad\vec{H}(y,z,t) =& \\
& \begin{cases}
-\left[ \hat{y}\frac{E_1\alpha_{1}}{i\omega \mu_1}+\hat{z}\frac{E_1k_{y1}}{\omega \mu_1}\right]\exp(ik_{y1}y+\alpha_{1}z-i\omega t), & z < 0, \\
\left[ \hat{y}\frac{E_2\alpha_{2}}{i\omega \mu_2}-\hat{z}\frac{E_2k_{y2}}{\omega \mu_2}\right]\exp(ik_{y2}y-\alpha_{2}z-i\omega t), & z > 0,
\end{cases}&
\end{flalign*}
with the permeabilities $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$. The phase matching condition is obtained by equating the tangential fields at the interface $z=0$,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\alpha_{1}}{\mu_1}+\frac{\alpha_{2}}{\mu_2}=0.
\end{equation}
Phase matching is then possible when $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ have opposite signs. But since our simulations use constant permeabilities $\mu_1=\mu_2=\mu_0$, the phase matching condition can only be satisfied for $\alpha_{1}=\alpha_{2}=0$ resulting in \textit{s}-polarized excitations along the $y$ axis not confined near the surface and therefore, not SPPs. This result is consistent with the fact that these excitations occur where the imaginary part of the refractive index is still small implying a nearly lossless material. This can be further verified by looking at depth $z$ below the surface.
With the complete rugosity simulations, as in Sec. \ref{subsec:OldNew}, and the same parameters as Figure \ref{fourier}(j), $(\gamma/\omega,\omega_p/\omega)=(1/16,1.9)$, we observe a strong attenuation of type-r and type-s structures beyond $z>3\delta$ together with an increasingly dominant type-m structures as we look deeper into the bulk. Figure \ref{typem} shows the remaining field amplitude at $z=5\delta$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{typem.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Fourier transforms amplitude (linear color scale with arbitrary normalization) of $\langle|\vec{E}|^{2}\rangle_{x,y}$ at $z=5\delta$ for $(\gamma/\omega,\omega_p/\omega)=(1/16,1.9)$. The wave numbers $\vec{k}_{x,y}$ are normalized to the norm of the incident wave number, $|\vec{k}_i|=2\pi/\lambda$. Dashed circle indicates where $|\vec{k}_{x,y}|=1$ and dotted circle where $|\vec{k}_{x,y}|=~$Re$(\tilde{n})$. Polarization of the incident light is along the $x$ axis. }\label{typem}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:Conclusions}
The formation of c-LIPSSs has been demonstrated using the FDTD version of the Sipe-Drude theory. We have found that structures parallel to the polarization direction with periodicity $\Lambda \sim \lambda$, or type-m, appear together with type-s structures for $\gamma/\omega \lesssim 1/4$ near $(\omega_p/\omega)_c$, where the real part of the permittivity vanishes. Type-m structures are caused by the presence of radiation remnants produced by the interaction between the incident light and the surface rugosity. We also find that these structures decay slowly in the bulk compared to type-s, meaning that it could be possible to grow exclusively type-m structures with deeper ablation, in less resistant materials for instance. Perhaps the most interesting feature however is that type-m and type-s structures have similar amplitudes closer to the surface. This may open the possibility to grow c-LIPSSs. The next step of this study will be the implementation of an inter-pulse feedback mechanism\cite{Skolski2014} where we could see c-LIPSSs grow and acquire better definition and stability from one pulse to the next. We also have initiated an experimental study on glassy materials and we hope to report our findings shortly in a separate contribution.
The authors acknowledge the financial support form the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Photonics Innovations of Y. Messaddeq and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). We also acknowledge computational resources from Calcul Qu\'ebec and the free software project Meep.\cite{Meep2010}
|
\section{Introduction and Main Result}
Let $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, P)$ be a complete probability space
with a filtration $\{\mathcal{F}_t\}$ satisfying the usual conditions. Let
$B_t$ be a standard $\mathcal{F}_t$-Brownian motion on the
space.
We consider a stochastic differential equation with
reflecting boundary:
\begin{equation} \label{mainSDE}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
dX_t & = b(X_t)dt + \sigma(X_t)dB_t + dL_t \\
X_t & \geq 0 \\
L_t & = 1_{\{0\}}(X_t) dL_t ,\\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $b:\mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a bounded and
measurable function and $\sigma: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a continuously differential bounded function, bounded away from zero. This equation has a unique strong solution
as proved in \cite{Tusheng94}, namely there exists a pair
$(X,L)$ of processes such that
\begin{itemize}
\item
$X_t$ is $\mathcal{F}_t$-adapted, $X_t \geq 0$ for all $t$.
\item
$L_t$ is $\mathcal{F}_t$-adapted, continuous, non-decreasing and
such that
$$
L_0 = 0 , \, \, L_t = \int_0^t 1_{\{0\}}(X_s) dL_s,
$$
\item
$X_t = x + \int_0^t b(X_s)ds+ \int_0^t \sigma(X_s) B_s + L_t , \, \, P-a.s.$
\end{itemize}
We call $x \geq 0$ the initial value of the equation.
For simplicity, we shall consider the equation defined on $t \in [0,1]$.
The aim of this paper is to show the following
\begin{thm} \label{MalliavinThm}
Assume $b$ is bounded and measurable, $\sigma \in C_b^1(\mathbb{R})$ and there exists $\delta >0$ such that $|\sigma(x)| \geq \delta$ for all $x$.
Then the strong solution to (\ref{mainSDE}) is Malliavin-differentiable, i.e. for a fixed $t \in [0,1]$, we have $X_t \in \mathbb{D}^{1,2}$.
\end{thm}
The outline of this paper is as follows:
The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \ref{MalliavinThm}.
In Section \ref{spatialRegularity} we study how the solution depends on the initial value $x \geq 0$. We then use this to study the corresponding Kolmogorov equation and obtain a Bismut-Elworthy-Li formula in Section \ref{bismutFormula}.
Section \ref{skorohodEquation} is the Appendix where we include an approximation of the Skorohod equation.
\bigskip
We return to the proof of Theorem \ref{MalliavinThm} which is divided into three steps. In the two first steps we
consider (\ref{mainSDE}) with a drift $b \in C^1_b(\mathbb{R})$ such that $b(0) = 0$.
In \emph{step 1} we introduce an approximation of the solution in terms of an ordinary SDE, i.e. not reflected.
In \emph{step 2} we use the approximation from step 1 to find bounds on the Malliavin derivative which are not depending on $b'$.
In \emph{step 3} we consider a general $b$ and construct an approximation of the solution such that the sequence of Malliavin derivatives are bounded uniformly.
\bigskip
{\bf Step 1}
The function $(\cdot)^- :\mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is
defined by
\begin{equation*}
(y)^- = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-y & \textrm{ if } y < 0\\
0 & \textrm{ if } y \geq 0 .\\
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
Let $\rho \in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ be a positive function
such that supp$\{\rho\} \subset (-1,1)$ and $\int \rho(z) dz
=1$. Define $\rho_n(z) = n \rho(nz)$ and let
$$
h_n(y) = \int \rho_n(y-z) (z)^- dz .
$$
It is readily checked that $h_n \in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$,
$h_n'(z) \leq 0$ and $h_n \rightarrow (\cdot)^-$ almost
everywhere. Then there exists a unique strong solution to the SDE
$$
X^{n, \epsilon}_t = x + \int_0^t b(X^{n,\epsilon}_s) +
\frac{1}{\epsilon} h_n (X_s^{n, \epsilon}) ds+ \int_0^t \sigma(X_s^{n,\epsilon}) dB_s .
$$
As $n \rightarrow \infty$ it is easy to see that $X_t^{n, \epsilon}
\rightarrow X_t^{ \epsilon }$ in $L^2(\Omega)$, where
$$
X^{ \epsilon}_t = x + \int_0^t b(X^{\epsilon}_s) +
\frac{1}{\epsilon} (X_s^{ \epsilon})^- ds+ \int_0^t \sigma(X_s^{\epsilon}) B_s .
$$
The following lemma is a classical result. We include a proof for the sake for self-containdness.
\begin{lemma}
As $ \epsilon \rightarrow 0$, we get $(X_t^{\epsilon}, \epsilon^{-1}\int_0^t (X_s^{\epsilon})^- ds) \rightarrow (X_t, L_t)$ - the solution to (\ref{mainSDE}).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the comparison principle, we note that there exists a subset with full measure $\Omega_0 \subset \Omega$ such that $\{X_t^{\epsilon}(\omega)\}$ is increasing as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ for all $(t,\omega) \in [0,1] \times \Omega_0$.
We may define
$$
X_t(\omega) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} X_t^{\epsilon}(\omega)
$$
for $\omega \in \Omega_0$ and $0$ otherwise.
By It\^{o}'s formula we have
\begin{align} \label{approxSquare}
(X_t^{\epsilon})^2 & = x^2 + \int_0^t 2X_s^{\epsilon} (\epsilon^{-1} (X_s^{\epsilon})^- + b(X_s)) + \sigma^2(X_s^{\epsilon}) ds + \int_0^t 2X_s^{\epsilon} \sigma(X_s^{\epsilon}) dB_s \\
\notag & \leq x^2 + \int_0^t 2X_s^{\epsilon} b(X_s) + \sigma^2(X_s^{\epsilon}) ds + \int_0^t 2X_s^{\epsilon} \sigma(X_s^{\epsilon}) dB_s
\end{align}
and taking expectation yields
\begin{align*}
E[(X_t^{\epsilon})^2] & \leq x^2 + \int_0^t E[ 2X_s^{\epsilon} b(X_s)] + E[\sigma^2(X_s^{\epsilon})] ds \\
& \leq x^2 + \|b\|^2_{\infty}t + \|\sigma\|^2_{\infty}t + \int_0^t E[(X_s^{\epsilon})^2] ds \\
& \leq (x^2 + \|b\|^2_{\infty}t + \|\sigma\|^2_{\infty}t) e^t \\
\end{align*}
where we have used the inequality $2 ab \leq a^2 + b^2$ and Gronwall's inequality.
It follows by Fatou's lemma that $X_t$ is $P$-a.s. finite.
Define $Y_t^{\epsilon}$ to be the solution of
$$
dY_t^{\epsilon} = \epsilon^{-1} (Y_t^{\epsilon})^- dt + b(X_t)dt + \sigma(X_t)dB_t, \, \, Y_0^{\epsilon} = x .
$$
From Proposition \ref{SkorohodApproximation} we get that on the subset on which $\int_0^{\cdot} b(X_s)ds + \int_0^{\cdot} \sigma(X_s)dB_s$ is continuous, we have that $Y^{\epsilon}$ (respectively $\epsilon^{-1} \int_0^{\cdot} (Y_s^{\epsilon})^- ds$) converges to $Y$ (respectively $\phi$) in $C([0,1])$ which is the solution to the Skorohod equation.
We have by It\^{o}'s formula,
\begin{align*}
(X_t^{\epsilon} - Y_t^{\epsilon})^2 & = \frac{2}{\epsilon} \int_0^t \left( (X_s^{\epsilon})^- - (Y_s^{\epsilon})^- \right) \left( X_s^{\epsilon} - Y_s^{\epsilon}\right) ds \\
& + 2 \int_0^t \left( X_s^{\epsilon} - Y_s^{\epsilon}\right) \left( b(X_s^{\epsilon}) - b(X_s) \right) ds \\
& + 2 \int_0^t \left( X_s^{\epsilon} - Y_s^{\epsilon}\right) \left( \sigma(X_s^{\epsilon}) - \sigma(X_s) \right) dB_s \\
& + \int_0^t \left( \sigma(X_s^{\epsilon}) - \sigma(X_s) \right)^2 ds .\\
\end{align*}
The first term above is always negative. Taking expectation we get :
\begin{align*}
E[ (X_t^{\epsilon} - Y_t^{\epsilon})^2 ] & \leq 2 \int_0^t E |\left( X_s^{\epsilon} - Y_s^{\epsilon}\right) \left( b(X_s^{\epsilon}) - b(X_s) \right)| ds \\
& + \int_0^t E[ \left( \sigma(X_s^{\epsilon}) - \sigma(X_s) \right)^2 ]ds \\
& \leq \int_0^t E [\left( X_s^{\epsilon} - Y_s^{\epsilon}\right)^2] ds + \int_0^t E[\left( b(X_s^{\epsilon}) - b(X_s) \right)^2] ds \\
& + \int_0^t E[ \left( \sigma(X_s^{\epsilon}) - \sigma(X_s) \right)^2] ds \\
& \leq e^t \left( \int_0^t E[\left( b(X_s^{\epsilon}) - b(X_s) \right)^2] ds + \int_0^t E[ \left( \sigma(X_s^{\epsilon}) - \sigma(X_s) \right)^2] ds \right).\\
\end{align*}
Above we have used Gronwalls lemma in the last inequality. As $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ the above goes to zero, and we see that $Y_t^{\epsilon} \rightarrow X_t$ $P$-a.s. for all $t \in [0,1]$.
Using the Burkholder-Davies-Gundy inequality, one can show that this convergence actually takes place in $L^2(\Omega; C([0,1]))$.
It follows from Proposition \ref{SkorohodApproximation} that $X_t$ is continuous and that $\epsilon^{-1} \int_0^{\cdot} (X_s^{\epsilon})^- ds$ converges to $L_{\cdot}$ where $(X,L)$ is a solution (\ref{mainSDE}).
\end{proof}
{\bf Step 2 }
We have the following estimate on the Malliavin derivatives:
\begin{lemma} \label{firstEstimateLemma}
For fixed $t \geq 0$ we have $X_t \in \mathbb{D}^{1,2}$ and there exists an increasing function $K_1 : \mathbb{R}_+ \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ such that the
Malliavin derivative satisfies
$$
E[(D_{\theta}X_t)^2] \leq K_1(\| \sigma \|_{C^1_b}) \left(E[ \exp \{ 4\int_{\theta}^t b'(X_s)ds \}] \right)^{1/2}.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We observe that $X_t^{n, \epsilon} \in \mathbb{D}^{1,2}$ and the
Malliavin derivative satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{MalliavinDerivative}
D_{\theta}X_t^{n, \epsilon} = \sigma(X_{\theta}^{n,\epsilon}) + \int_{\theta}^t (b'(X_s^{n,
\epsilon}) + \epsilon^{-1} h_n'(X_s^{n,\epsilon}))
D_{\theta}X_s^{n, \epsilon} ds + \int_{\theta}^t \sigma'(X_s^{n,\epsilon}) D_{\theta}X_s^{n, \epsilon} dB_s.
\end{equation}
This is a linear SDE which is uniquely solved by
\begin{align*}
D_{\theta}X_t^{n, \epsilon} & = \sigma(X_{\theta}) \exp \left\{ \int_{\theta}^t
b'(X_s^{n, \epsilon}) + \epsilon^{-1} h_n'(X_s^{n, \epsilon}) - \frac{1}{2} \left( \sigma'(X_s^{n, \epsilon} \right)^2ds \right\} \\
& \times \exp \{ \int_{\theta}^t \sigma'(X_s^{n, \epsilon}) dB_s \} \\
& \leq \exp \{ \int_{\theta}^t b'(X_s^{n, \epsilon}) ds \} \exp \{ \int_{\theta}^t \sigma'(X_s^{n, \epsilon}) dB_s \} \\
\end{align*}
since $h_n'$ is negative.
Using that for a bounded adapted process $\{ \psi(s) \}_{s \in [0,1]}$ we have
$$
E[ \exp \{ \int_{\theta}^t \psi(s) dB_s \} ] \leq \exp \left\{ \frac{(t- \theta)}{2} \| \psi\|_{\infty}^2 \right\}
$$
and H\"{o}lder's inequality, we get
$$
E[(D_{\theta}X_t^{n,\epsilon})^2] \leq \|\sigma\|_{\infty}^2 \exp \{ c \| \sigma' \|^2_{\infty} \} \left(E[ \exp \{ 4\int_{\theta}^t b'(X_s^{n, \epsilon})ds \}] \right)^{1/2}.
$$
Letting first $n$ go to infinity and $\epsilon$ tend to zero we
get the result.
\end{proof}
What is left is to find a bound on $E[ \exp \{ 4\int_{\theta}^t b'(X_s^{n, \epsilon})ds \}]$ that is depending only on $\|b\|_{\infty}$.
The following Proposition is based on Proposition 3 in \cite{Davie2011}.
\begin{prop} \label{DavieEstimate}
There exists a constant $C$ such that for every positive integer $k$ we have
$$
E \left( \int_{\theta}^t b'(X_s)ds \right)^k \leq \frac{C^k \|b\|_{\infty}^k |t - \theta|^{k/2} k!}{\Gamma( \frac{k}{2}+1)}
$$
for all $b \in C_c^{\infty}((0, \infty))$.
\end{prop}
Let us explain briefly the idea of the proof. Using the Markov property we can write the above left-hand-side as
$$
\int_{\theta < t_1 < \dots < t_k < t} \int_{\mathbb{R}_+^k} \prod_{j=1}^k b'(z_j)P(t_j-t_{j-1}, z_j,z_{j-1}) dz_k \dots dz_1 dt_1 \dots dt_k ,
$$
where $P$ is the transition density of (\ref{mainSDE}). Then use integration by parts to move the derivatives onto the density function. Then one can show the result by using estimates on $P$ and its derivatives.
Let us remark that the proof of Proposition \ref{DavieEstimate} is the same as the proof of Proposition 3 in \cite{Davie2011} when we replace Lemma 1 in \cite{Davie2011} by the following:
\begin{lemma} \label{boundedOperator}
The operator $T : L^2([0,1] \times \mathbb{R}_+) \rightarrow L^2([0,1] \times \mathbb{R}_+)$ defined by
$$
Th(s,y) = \int_s^1 \int_{\mathbb{R}_+} \partial_x \partial_y P(t-s, y,z) h(t,z) dz dt
$$
is bounded.
\end{lemma}
We note that $P(t,x,y)$ the fundamental solution to
$$
\partial_t u = b \partial_x u + \frac{1}{2} \sigma^2 \partial^2_x u, \, \, \, \partial_x u |_{t=0} = 0 .
$$
Lemma \ref{boundedOperator} follows from a 'T(1) theorem on spaces of homogeneous type' using the Schauder estimates obtained in the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}
We equip $[0,1] \times \mathbb{R}$ with the parabolic metric $d(t,x) = \sqrt{t} + |x|$.
There exists constants $C$, $c >0$ such that we have
\begin{itemize}
\item
$
|P(t,x,y)| \leq Ct^{-1/2} \exp\{ \frac{ -c(x-y)^2}{t} \}
$
\item
$
| \partial_x \partial_y P(t,x,y) | \leq C t^{-3/2} \exp \{ \frac{-c(x-y)^2}{t} \}
$
\item
$
| \partial_x \partial_y P(t,x,y) | \leq d(t,x-y)^{-3}
$
\item
$
| \partial_x \partial_y P(t-s,x,y) - \partial_x \partial_y P(t' - s, x,y') | \leq C \frac{d(t-t', y-y')^{\delta}}{d(t-s,x-y)^{3 + \delta}}
$
for some $\delta > 0$, whenever $\frac{d(t-t', y-y')}{d(t-s,x-y)} < \frac{1}{2}$.
\item
$
\int_{\mathbb{R}} \partial_x \partial_y P(t,x,y) dy = \int_{\mathbb{R}} \partial_x \partial_y P(t,x,y) dx = 0
$
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
Combining Poposition \ref{DavieEstimate} and Lemma \ref{firstEstimateLemma} we are able finish step 1:
\begin{prop} \label{mainEstimate}
There exists a continuous function
$C_{\delta}: \mathbb{R}^2_+ \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ increasing in both variables such that
$$
E[(D_{\theta}X_t)^2] \leq C_{\delta}(\|b\|_{\infty}, \|\sigma\|_{C^2_b}) .
$$
Moreover, $C_{\delta}$ is independent of $t$ and $\theta$.
\end{prop}
\begin{remark}
By approximation, one can get the same estimate as in Proposition \ref{mainEstimate} when assuming that $b$ is Lipschitz continuous.
\end{remark}
We now turn to step 3 of our proof, which is concludes the proof of Theorem \ref{MalliavinThm}.
\bigskip
\textbf{ Step 3 }
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{MalliavinThm}]
Assume $b : \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is bounded and measurable.
Choose a function $\psi \in C^{\infty}$ such that
$$
\psi(y) =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1 & \textrm{ if } y \geq 1\\
0 & \textrm{ if } y \leq 0 \\
\end{array} \right. .
$$
For $n \in \mathbb{N}$ we define $\psi_n^0(y) = \psi(ny)$, $\psi^1_n(y) = 1 - \psi(n^{-1}y - n)$
and $\psi_n(y) = \psi_n^0(y) + \psi_n^1(y)$. It is readily checked that $\psi_n$ is smooth and has compact support. Moreover, $\psi_n(0) =0$ and
$$
\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \psi_n(y) =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1 & \textrm{ if } y > 0\\
0 & \textrm{ if } y \leq 0 \\
\end{array} \right. .
$$
Define $b_j(y) := \int \rho_j(y-z) b(z)dz \psi_n(y)$, and let
$$
b_{n,k} := \bigwedge_{j=1}^k b_j,
$$
and
$$
\hat{b}_n = \bigwedge_{j=n}^{\infty} b_j .
$$
Then $b_{n,k}$ is Lipschitz continuous, $b_{n,k}(0) = 0$, $\hat{b}_n$, $b_{n,k}$ are uniformly bounded and we have
$$
b_{n,k} \geq b_{n,k+1} \geq \dots \rightarrow \hat{b}_n, \, \, \textrm{ as } k \rightarrow \infty,
$$
and
$$
\hat{b}_n \leq \hat{b}_{n+1} \rightarrow b \, \, \textrm{ as } n \rightarrow \infty
$$
almost surely with respect to Lebesgue measure.
Using the comparison theorem for SDE's one can show that for the corresponding sequences of solutions, denoted $(X^{n,k}, L^{n,k})$ and $(X^n, L^n)$ , we have the following convergence in $L^2(\Omega)$:
$$
(X_t^n,L^n_t) = \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} (X_t^{n,k}, L_t^{n,k}) \, \, \textrm{ uniformly in } t
$$
and
$$
(X_t,L_t) = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} (X_t^{n}, L_t^{n}) \, \, \textrm{ uniformly in } t
$$
where $(X,L)$ is a solution to (\ref{mainSDE}). Details can be found in \cite{Tusheng94}.
By Proposition \ref{mainEstimate} we have $\sup_{n,k \geq 1} \| X_t^{n,k}\|_{1,2} < \infty$. The result follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Spatial Regularity} \label{spatialRegularity}
In this section we want to emphazise that the equation (\ref{mainSDE}) depends on the initial value $x \geq 0$. We write $X_t(x)$ for the unique strong solution.
\begin{prop} \label{WeakDifferentiability}
The solution to (\ref{mainSDE}) is locally weakly differentiable in the sense that for a bounded, open subset $U \subset \mathbb{R}_+$ and any $p > 1$ we have
$$
X_t(\cdot) \in L^2(\Omega ; W^{1,p}(U)) .
$$
\end{prop}
The proof follows the same steps as in the previous section and we just indicate the proof here.
For the first step we assume $b \in C^1_b(\mathbb{R})$, $b(0) =0$, and we consider the approximating sequence of solutions
$$
X^{n, \epsilon}_t(x) = x + \int_0^t b(X^{n,\epsilon}_s(x)) +
\frac{1}{\epsilon} h_n (X_s^{n, \epsilon}(x)) ds+ \int_0^t \sigma(X_s^{n,\epsilon}(x)) dB_s .
$$
Then the solution is in $C^1$ and we have that the spatial derivative satisfies
\begin{align*}
\partial_x X^{n, \epsilon}_t(x) & = 1 + \int_0^t b'(X^{n,\epsilon}_s(x))\partial_x X^{n, \epsilon}_s(x) ds \\
& + \int_0^t\frac{1}{\epsilon} h_n' (X_s^{n, \epsilon}(x)) \partial_x X^{n, \epsilon}_s(x)ds+ \int_0^t \sigma'(X_s^{n,\epsilon}(x)) \partial_x X^{n, \epsilon}_s(x)dB_s . \\
\end{align*}
We recognize this equation as the same as (\ref{MalliavinDerivative}) when we let $\theta = 0$. It is then easy to see that the results of Lemma \ref{firstEstimateLemma}, Propositions \ref{DavieEstimate} and \ref{mainEstimate} when we replace the Malliavin derivative by the spatial derivative.
More specifically, we in place of Proposition \ref{mainEstimate} we get that when $b$ is Lipschitz,
$$
\sup_{x \geq 0} E| \partial_x X_t(x)|^p \leq C(\|\sigma\|_{C^1_b}, \|b\|_{\infty}) .
$$
Since $U \subset \mathbb{R}_+$ is bounded we see that $X_t(\cdot) \in L^2(\Omega; W^{1,p}(U))$.
If now $b$ is merely bounded and measurable we use the same method as step 2 in the previous section to conclud:
\begin{lemma} \label{WeakDifferentiabilityApproximation}
There exists a sequence $X_t^k(\cdot)$, bounded in $L^2(\Omega ; W^{1,p}(U)$, such that $X_t^k(x) \rightarrow X_t(x)$ in $L^2(\Omega)$ for all $x \geq 0$.
\end{lemma}
We arrive at the proof of Proposition \ref{WeakDifferentiability}
\begin{proof}[ Proof of \ref{WeakDifferentiability} ]
From Lemma \ref{WeakDifferentiabilityApproximation} we get that there exists a subsequence $\{X_t^{k_j}( \cdot) \}_{ j \geq 1}$ that is converging in the weak topology of $L^2(\Omega; W^{1,p}(U)$ to some element $Y_t$. Since $X_t^{k_j}(x) \rightarrow X_t(x)$, we have for any $A \in \mathcal{F}$ and $\varphi \in C^{\infty}_c(U)$
\begin{align*}
E[ 1_A \int_U \varphi'(x) X_t(x) dx ] & = \lim_{j \rightarrow \infty} E[ 1_A \int_U \varphi'(x) X_t^{k_j}(x) dx ] \\
&= - \lim_{j \rightarrow \infty} E[ 1_A \int_U \varphi(x) \partial_x X_t^{k_j}(x) dx ] \\
&= - E[ 1_A \int_U \varphi(x) \partial_x Y_t(x) dx ] .\\
\end{align*}
It follows that $X_t(\cdot)$ is $P$-a.s. weakly differentiable and it's weak derivative is equal to $\partial_x Y_t(x)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Bismut-Elworthy-Li Formula} \label{bismutFormula}
In this section we study the PDE
\begin{equation} \label{PDE}
\partial_t u(t,x) = b(x) \partial_x u(t,x) + \frac{1}{2} \sigma^2(x) \partial_x^2 u(t,x), \textrm{ for } x \geq 0
\end{equation}
with initial and boundary condition
$$
u(0,x) = u_0(x), \, \, \, \partial_xu(t,0) = 0 .
$$
We shall use the same assumptions on $b$ and $\sigma$ as in Theorem \ref{MalliavinThm} and $u_0 \in C^1_b(\mathbb{R}_+)$.
Existence and uniqueness of a solution to (\ref{PDE}) is already known. More specifically, the solution is given by
$$
u(t,x) = E[ u_0(X_t(x))]
$$
and lies in $W^{(1,2),p}_{loc}((0,1] \times \mathbb{R}_+)$ - the space of functions which are once weakly differentiable w.r.t $t$ and twice weakly differentiable w.r.t. $x$ and these functions are locally $p$-integrable. Moreover, the solution is in $C([0,1] \times \mathbb{R}_+)$.
In this section, however, we shall prove a Bismut-Elworthy-Li formula for the derivative of the solution to (\ref{PDE}) which does not depend on the derivative of $u_0$.
\begin{thm}
For a bounded subset $U \subset \mathbb{R}_+$ the (weak) spatial derivative of $u$ takes the form
\begin{equation} \label{BismutFormula}
\partial_x u(t,x) = E[ u_0(X_t(x)) t^{-1} \int_0^t \partial_x X_s(x) dB_s ] ,
\end{equation}
for almost every $x \in U$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
As in the proof of Proposition \ref{WeakDifferentiability} we have a sequence of processes $\{ X_t^k(x) \}$ that are $P$-a.s. differentiable in $x$, $X_t^k (x) \rightarrow X_t(x)$ in $L^2(\Omega)$ and $X_t^k(\cdot) $ converges to $X_t(\cdot)$ in the weak topology of $L^2(\Omega; W^{1,p}(U))$.
We certainly get that
$$
u_k(t,x) := E[u_0(X_t^k(x))] \rightarrow u(t,x)
$$
as $k \rightarrow \infty$ for every $(t,x) \in [0,1] \times \mathbb{R}_+$. We will now show that $\partial_xu_k(t,\cdot)$ converges weakly to the right-hand-side of (\ref{BismutFormula}), thus proving the assertion.
We start by noting that $\partial_x X^k_t(x) = D_sX^k_t(x) \partial_x X^k_s(x)$, and by the chain-rule for the Malliavin derivative we have
\begin{align*}
u_0'(X_t^k(x)) \partial_x X_t^k(x) & = u_0'(X_t^k(x)) t^{-1}\int_0^t D_sX^k_t(x) \partial_x X^k_s(x) ds \\
& =t^{-1} \int_0^t D_s ( u_0(X_t^k(x))) \partial_x X_s^k(x) ds .\\
\end{align*}
Taking expecations in the above formula and using the duality between the Malliavin derivative and the It\^{o}-integral we get
\begin{align*}
\partial_x u_k(t,x) & = E[u_0'(X_t^k(x)) \partial_x X_t^k(x)] \\
& = t^{-1} E[ \int_0^t D_s( u_0(X_t^k(x))) \partial_x X_s^k(x) ds ] \\
& = t^{-1} E[ u_0(X_t^k(x)) \int_0^t \partial_x X_s^k(x) dB_s ] .\\
\end{align*}
For a test function $\varphi \in C^{\infty}_c(U)$ we have
\begin{align*}
\int_U \varphi'(x) u(t,x)dx &= - \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \int_U \varphi(x) \partial_x u_k(t,x)dx\\
& = - \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \int_U \varphi(x) t^{-1} E[ u_0(X_t^k(x)) \int_0^t \partial_x X_s^k(x) dB_s ]dx .\\
& = - \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \int_U \varphi(x) t^{-1} E[ (u_0(X_t^k(x)) - u_0(X_t(x))) \int_0^t \partial_x X_s^k(x) dB_s ]dx .\\
& \, \, \, \, \, \, - \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \int_U \varphi(x) t^{-1} E[ u_0(X_t(x)) \int_0^t \partial_x X_s^k(x) dB_s ]dx. \\
\end{align*}
To see that the first term converges to zero, note that for all $x \in U$
\begin{align*}
& E[ (u_0(X_t^k(x)) - u_0(X_t(x))) \int_0^t \partial_x X_s^k(x) dB_s ] \\ \leq & \|u'\|_{\infty} \| X_t^k(x) - X_t(x) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \| \int_0^t \partial_x X_s^k(x) dB_s \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \\
= & \|u'\|_{\infty} \| X_t^k(x) - X_t(x) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \left( \int_0^t E[ | \partial_x X_s^k(x) |^2 ] ds \right)^{1/2} \\
\leq & \|u'\|_{\infty} \| X_t^k(x) - X_t(x) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \left( t \sup_{m,y,s}E[ | \partial_x X_s^m(y) |^2 ] \right)^{1/2} \\
\end{align*}
which converges to zero as $ k \rightarrow \infty$.
For the second term, notice that since $X_t(x)$ is Malliavin differentiable and $u_0 \in C^1_b(\mathbb{R}_+)$, we have by the Clark-Ocone formula
\begin{equation*}
u_0(X_t(x)) = E [u_0(X_t(x))] + \int_0^t E [ D_s u_0(X_t(x)) | \mathcal{F}_s ] dB_s
\end{equation*}
and so
\begin{align*}
\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \int_U \varphi(x) t^{-1} E[ u_0(X_t(x)) \int_0^t \partial_x X_s^k(x) dB_s ]dx \\
= \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \int_U \varphi(x) t^{-1} E[\int_0^t D_s (u_0(X_t(x))) \partial_x X_s^k(x) ds ]dx \\
= \int_U \varphi(x) t^{-1} E[\int_0^t D_s (u_0(X_t(x))) \partial_x X_s(x) ds ]dx \\
\end{align*}
where we have used dominated convergence w.r.t $s$ and weak convergence w.r.t. $x$.
We finally note that
$$
E[\int_0^t D_s (u_0(X_t(x))) \partial_x X_s(x) ds ] = E[ u_0(X_t(x)) \int_0^t \partial_xX_s(s) dB_s ]
$$
again by the Clark-Ocone formula.
\end{proof}
\section{Appendix: The Skorohod equation} \label{skorohodEquation}
Given a continuous function $g$ such that $g(0) = 0$ and $x \geq 0$ we are searching for nondecreasing function $\phi \in C([0,1])$ such that if we \emph{ define }
$$
f(t) := x + \phi(t) + g(t),
$$
then $f(t) \geq 0$ for all $t \in C([0,1])$ and $\int_0^1 1_{\{ f(s) > 0\}} d\phi(s) = 0$. We call the pair $(f,\phi)$ a solution to the Skorohod equation if they satisfies the above.
It is well known that such a solution exists and it is uniquely given by
$$
\phi(t) = \max \{ 0, \max_{0 \leq s \leq t} -(x + g(s)) \} .
$$
The topic of this Appendix is however to approximate the solution in a suitable sense.
Let $\epsilon > 0$ and denote by $f^{\epsilon}$ the solution of the following ODE:
\begin{equation} \label{ODE}
f^{\epsilon}(t) = x + \frac{1}{\epsilon}\int_0^t (f^{\epsilon}(s))^- ds + g(t) .
\end{equation}
We have:
\begin{lemma} \label{DeterministicConvergence}
Assume $g \in C^1([0,1])$, $g(0)=0$. As $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$, there exists a subsequence of $(f^{\epsilon}, \epsilon^{-1} \int_0^{\cdot} (f^{\epsilon}(s))^-ds)$ converging uniformly to $(f, \phi)$ - the solution to the Skorohod equation.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the comparison principle for ODE's we have that $f^{\epsilon}$ is pointwise increasing to some function denoted $f$. We have
\begin{align*}
(f^{\epsilon}(t))^2 & = x^2 + \frac{2}{\epsilon} \int_0^t f^{\epsilon}(s) (f^{\epsilon}(s))^- ds + 2\int_0^t f^{\epsilon}(s) \dot{g}(s) ds \\
& \leq x^2 + \int_0^t (f^{\epsilon}(s))^2 + (\dot{g}(s))^2 ds \\
& \leq \left( x^2 + \int_0^t (\dot{g}(s))^2 ds \right)e^t \\
\end{align*}
where the last inequality comes from Gronwalls lemma. It follows that $f(t) < \infty$ for all $t$.
Furthermore, we have
\begin{align*}
(f^{\epsilon}(t))^- & = \frac{1}{\epsilon} \int_0^t 1_{(f^{\epsilon} \leq 0)} (f^{\epsilon}(s))^- ds + \int_0^t 1_{(f^{\epsilon} \leq 0)} \dot{g}(s) ds \\
& = \frac{1}{\epsilon} \int_0^t (f^{\epsilon}(s))^- ds + \int_0^t 1_{(f^{\epsilon} \leq 0)} \dot{g}(s) ds \\
& = \int_0^t 1_{(f^{\epsilon} \leq 0)} \dot{g}(s) e^{-\epsilon^{-1}(t-s)} ds
\end{align*}
where the last inequality comes from solving the linear ODE that $(f^{\epsilon}(t))^-$ satisfies. It follows from the above that
$$
(f^{\epsilon}(t))^- \leq \|\dot{g}\|_{\infty} \epsilon .
$$
From (\ref{ODE}) and the above shows that
$$
\dot{f}^{\epsilon}(t) = \epsilon^{-1} f^{\epsilon}(t) + \dot{g}(s)
$$
is then uniformly bounded by $2 \|\dot{g}\|_{\infty}$. Using the relative compactness of $\dot{f}^{\epsilon}$ in $L^2([0,1])$ with respect to the weak topology we can extract a converging subsequence (still denoted $\dot{f}^{\epsilon}$ for simplicity). Denote the limit by $\tilde{f}$.
Then,
$$
f(t) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} f^{\epsilon}(t) = x + \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \int_0^1 1_{[0,t]} (s) \dot{f}^{\epsilon}(s) ds = x + \int_0^1 1_{[0,t]} (s) \tilde{f}(s) ds
$$
so that $f$ is continuous. It follows from Dini's theorem that the convergence is uniform in $t$.
To see that $f(t)$ is positive assume that there exists $t_0$ such that $f(t_0) < 0$. By continuity we may choose $\delta > 0$ such that $f(t) \leq \frac{f(t_0)}{2}$ for all $t \in (t_0 - \delta, t_0 + \delta)$. Moreover, by the uniform convergence there exists $\epsilon_0 > 0$ such that
$$
f^{\epsilon}(t) \leq \frac{f(t_0)}{4}, \, \forall t \in (t_0 - \delta, t_0 + \delta) \textrm{ and } \forall \epsilon < \epsilon_0.
$$
It follows that
\begin{align*}
f^{\epsilon}(t_0 + \frac{\delta}{2}) - f^{\epsilon}(t_0 - \frac{\delta}{2}) & = \int_{t_0 - \delta/2}^{t_0 + \delta/2} (f^{\epsilon}(s))^- ds + g(t_0 + \frac{\delta}{2}) - g(t_0 - \frac{\delta}{2}) \\
& \geq - \frac{f(t_0) \delta}{4\epsilon} + g(t_0 + \frac{\delta}{2}) - g(t_0 - \frac{\delta}{2}) \\
& \rightarrow +\infty \\
\end{align*}
as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ which contradicts the finiteness of $f$. Consequently, $f(t) \geq 0$ for all $t$.
It is clear from (\ref{ODE}) that also $\epsilon^{-1} \int_0^{\cdot} (f^{\epsilon}(s))^- ds$ is converging in $C([0,1])$, and we denote the limit by $\phi(t)$. Being the limit of a sequence of nondecreasing functions, $\phi$ itself is increasing. Moreover, we have that $\phi$ is constant on $\{ t \in [0,1] | f(t) > 0 \}$. Indeed, assume $f(t) > \gamma > 0$ for all $t \in (a,b) \subset [0,1]$. We may choose $\epsilon_0>0$ such that $f^{\epsilon}(t) \geq \gamma/2>0$ for all $t \in (a,b)$.
For $r<s \in (a,b)$ we have
$$
\phi(s) - \phi(r) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \epsilon^{-1} \int_r^s (f^{\epsilon}(u))^- du = 0 ,
$$
the claim follows and we get $\int_0^1 1_{(0, \infty)}(f(s)) d\phi(s) = 0$.
\end{proof}
We write $f_g$ to emphasize that the above function depends on $g$. We can then get the following
\begin{lemma} \label{DeterministicExtension}
The mapping $g \mapsto f_g$ is can be extended to a Lipschitz-continuous mapping from $C([0,1])$ into itself.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If we denote by $f_j^{\epsilon}$ the solution to (\ref{ODE}) when we replace $g$ by $g_j \in C^1([0,1])$, $j=1,2$, it is enough to find the uniform bound
\begin{equation} \label{ODEbound}
\|f_1^{\epsilon} - f_2^{\epsilon} \|_{\infty} \leq 2 \|g_1 - g_2\|_{\infty} .
\end{equation}
To this end, define the functions
$$
h_j^{\epsilon} (t) := f_j^{\epsilon}(t) - g_j(t) = x + \int_0^t \left( h_j^{\epsilon}(s) + g_j(s) \right)^- ds .
$$
With $K := \|g_1 - g_2\|_{\infty}$ we have
$$
\left( h_1^{\epsilon}(t) - h_2^{\epsilon}(t) - K \right)^+
$$
$$
= \int_0^t 1_{ \left(h_1^{\epsilon}(s) - h_2^{\epsilon}(s) > K \right)} \left( (h_1^{\epsilon}(s) + g_1(s) )^- - ( h_2^{\epsilon}(s) + g_2(s))^- \right) ds .
$$
We see that the above integrand is negative for all $s$. Indeed, fix $s \in [0,t]$.
If $(h_1^{\epsilon}(s) + g_1(s) )^- - ( h_2^{\epsilon}(s) + g_2(s))^-$ is negative we are done.
If $(h_1^{\epsilon}(s) + g_1(s) )^- - ( h_2^{\epsilon}(s) + g_2(s))^-$ is positive, we write
$$
h_1^{\epsilon}(s) - h_2^{\epsilon}(s) \leq h_1^{\epsilon}(s) + g_1(s) - h_2^{\epsilon}(s) + g_2(s) + K
$$
so that
$$
1_{ \left(h_1^{\epsilon}(s) - h_2^{\epsilon}(s) > K \right)} \leq 1_{ \left(h_1^{\epsilon}(s) + g_1(s) - h_2^{\epsilon}(s) + g_2(s) > 0 \right)} .
$$
It is then easy to check that the function $(x,y) \mapsto 1_{(x-y) > 0} ((x)^- - (y)^-)$ is always non-positive.
\end{proof}
We are ready to conclude:
\begin{prop} \label{SkorohodApproximation}
Let $g \in C([0,1])$ be such that $g(0)=0$ and $x \geq 0$. Then the solution to
$$
f_g^{\epsilon}(t) = x + \epsilon^{-1} \int_0^t (f_g^{\epsilon}(s))^- ds + g(t)
$$
converges in $C([0,1])$ as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ to the solution to the Skorohod equation.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\delta > 0$. Choose $g_{\delta} \in C^1([0,1])$ such that $\| g -g_{\delta}\|_{\infty} < \delta$. By Lemma \ref{DeterministicConvergence} we can choose $\epsilon_0 > 0$ such that for all $\epsilon \in (0, \epsilon_0)$ we have $ \| f_{g_{\delta}} - f^{\epsilon}_{g_{\delta}} \|_{\infty} < \delta$. By the proof of Lemma \ref{DeterministicExtension} we get
\begin{align*}
\|f_g - f_g^{\epsilon}\|_{\infty} & \leq \| f_g - f_{g_{\delta}}\|_{\infty} + \| f_{g_{\delta}} - f_{g_{\delta}}^{\epsilon} \|_{\infty} + \| f_{g_{\delta}}^{\epsilon} - f_g^{\epsilon} \|_{\infty} \\
& < 2 \|g - g_{\delta}\| + \delta + 2 \|g - g_{\delta}\|_{\infty} = 5 \delta .
\end{align*}
The conditions of the Skorohod equation are easy to check.
\end{proof}
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
\lettrine[nindent=0em,lines=3]{I} n this paper we attempt to explore the methods that can be used to make the results made by a software or simulation tool more authentic or believable. A set of statistical data taken from real life experience can be used to check the output values created by the simulation tools to validate the simulation model. This method is referred to as statistical technique method and can be applied to simulation models, depending on which real-life data is available \cite{Dijkum1998}. In general lack of empirical data makes the verification of any simulation model a complicated task.
In case the real data are not available - the simulation data obtained by the simulation tools
are still guided by the condition of a statistical theory and probability distributions on the design of experiments \cite{Knepell1993}.
In case only output data is available - the values carried by the simulation model can be compared with well-known statistical data \cite{Knepell1993}.
If data can be collected on both system input and output trace-driven simulation becomes possible, model validation can be done through comparing the collected data with the simulation results. In trace-driven simulation, the simulation input data are identified by the trace data collected by a myriad of instruments and methods \cite{Knepell1993}.
What, however, does 'validation' mean? The term validation will be used to refer to various processes.
The process of examining whether the acceptability and credibility of the conceptual model is referred to as validation, it is an accurate method to check the actual system being analysed. Validation can help to develop the right model. Verification is a process to check simulation output for acceptability and controlling whether the results made by the computer program are compatible with the real data collected about the same system \cite{Knepell1993}.
Concerning this topic many books could be written to describe the philosophical and practical aspects involved in validation (see, the monograph by Knepell, and Arangno 1993)\cite{Knepell1993}. For this reason, I identify validation as systematic examination of the simulation model whether (if) it displays or illustrates the real world in a reasonable time, either as a procedure to check for correctness or meaningfulness of the resulting data. Validation is a process to check the ability of the model to reproduce the real system. In the next sections we will concentrate on validation that uses mathematical statistics and comparison with video recordings of real situations.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{validation-2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Validation procedure for a given simulation model.}
\label{fig:validation-2}
\end{figure}
Since modelling and simulating has become very important in many domains in modern science, much literature on verification and validation of a simulation models have appeared: see the web (http://manta.cs.vt.edu/biblio/), and the detailed surveys in
Beck et al. (1997)\cite{Beck1997}, Kleijnen (1995b)\cite{Kleijnen1995b}, and Sargent (1996)\cite{Sargent1996}. Important work concerning the choice of statistical tests to validate a model was made by Kleijnen (1999)\cite{Kleijnen1999}.
For the first step we try to compare our video taking with the simulation results. A lot of phenomena (like the lane formation, oscillation effect and edge effect) can be seen, to make sure if our simulation reproduces a part of the reality. For this investigation we need to make scenarios for the next video observation in the great mosque in Mecca.
\section{Validation}
\subsection{Verification, validation and testing techniques}
This paragraph describes different validation techniques and tests, used in model examination and validation. Most techniques described here are found in literature, although some may be described slightly differently. They can be used either subjectively or objectively. In the "objectively" case we attempt to implement mathematical methods using a kind of statistical test e.g.\ confidence intervals and hypothesis testing. A combination of techniques is generally used. These techniques are used for the examination and validation of sub-models and the universal model \cite{Sargent2005}.
\begin{itemize}
\item Comparison to other models:
In a verification and validation of a simulation model process, different results (e.g. outputs) of the simulation model will be compared with the results of other models. For example, (1) comparison of a simple case of a simulation model with well-known results of empirical models, and (2) the comparison of the simulation model with other validated models with the same properties.
\item Event validity:
The appearance of events in a simulation model will be compared with those of the real system to determine if they are identical.
\item Extreme condition tests:
The model structure and outputs should be credible for any extreme and improbable combination of levels of factors in the system.
\item Face validity:
Experts or specialists in the system will be asked about the suitability of the model and its behaviour. For example, is the logic in the conceptual model true and are the model input-output relationships appropriate.
\item Historical data validation: The system can take advantage of the historical collected data to calibrate itself, specifically the data collected on a system for building and examining the model, a part of the data can be used to establish the model and the remaining data is used to determine whether the model behaves as the system does. (This testing is led by driving the simulation model samples from the distributions or traces) \cite{Balci1982a, Balci1982b, Balci1984b}.
\item Multi stage validation:
Another efficient method for validation a simulation tool was proposed by Naylor and Finger\ (1967)\cite{Naylor1967}. It consists in associating three well known methods of rationalism, empiricism, and positive economics into a multi-stage process of validation. This technique is based on (1) evaluation and development of the simulation model with respect to the theory, observations, and practical experience, (2) validating the model using possible existing empirical data, and (3) comparing the results (output) made by the simulation model with the real system.
\item Operational graphics: Measured values of various performances e.g.\ using statistics for time series, are illustrated graphically while the model runs over time; i.e. a visual indicator of performance shows how the program behaves during run time to ensure the correct performance of the simulation tools.
\item Sensitivity analysis: A sensitivity analysis is a powerful technique for validating systems.
This validation method consists in changing the input parameters of the simulation or internal parameters of the model to realize how the model's output will be affected. If the system does the right things, the same relationships resulting from the model should be visible in the real system.
Using this technique both qualitative (directions only of outputs) and quantitative (both directions and exact amount of outputs) properties of the system can be verified.
Parameters cause important changes in the behaviour of the model (sensitive parameters). These parameters have a high importance for the model and the simulation results (this may require iterations in model development).
\end{itemize}
\section{Calibration and validation of PedFlow model}
\label{PedFlow-Calibratioin}
In this section we present a variation of different techniques used to calibrate and validate the PedFlow simulation model.
PedFlow is a microscopic simulation model, which was developed by L\"{o}hner Simulation Technologies International, Inc. (LSTI) \cite{Loehner}.
For verification and validation, data was provided by the Institute of
Hajj research and the Ministry of Hajj, consisting of layout information, pilgrim numbers, and Hajj schedules. We augmented this data with camera-based
observations at several stairways, gates and the piazza inside and outside the Great Mosque in Mecca. This collected data can be used as input parameters of the simulation and improves the acceptability and accuracy of the data carried by the simulation.
PedFlow must model all processes that are related to pedestrians inside and outside the Haram at the normal and the busiest rush hours of the Hajj events such as: walking, performing activities, and route choice.
In order to validate pedestrian flow modelling in PedFlow and to study pedestrian traffic flow movement during the Hajj in detail, observations were collected on the Haram in Mecca during the Hajj 2009. These observations concerned the Tawaf, Sa'y, (individual) walking times, and other sites such as the Haram gates before and after each prayer.
These observations are very helpful in obtaining the data that will be used to verify our simulation tool PedFlow. This data concerns the numbers of pilgrims going in and out of the Haram and individual walking times and densities of pedestrians on the Mataf. Finally, a comparison is made between the observations and modelling results of PedFlow, in order to check the validity of PedFlow with respect to pedestrian traffic flow operations.
Since this investigation is concerned with studying safety and fluidity of large scale pilgrim flows at pilgrimage places in Mecca, the validation of the simulation tool is mainly concentrated on pedestrian traffic flow at the holy places. The main variables to be observed and compared with the model predictions are:
\begin{itemize}
\item Walking speeds.
\begin{itemize}
\item On the stairs (upward and downward directions).
\item On the piazza and the Mataf of the Haram.
\end{itemize}
\item Densities over time and space.
\begin{itemize}
\item Video recording.
\item Fundamental diagrams Predtechenski and Milinski \cite{Predtetschenski-Milinski1969}.
\end{itemize}
\item Layout information
\begin{itemize}
\item Data about the boundary condition and environmental information.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Validation through comparison with other models}
The credibility of the data produced by the pedestrian microscopic simulation model can be validated through comparing with results obtained by other models having the same characteristics, although we mention that the comparison with other simulation tools is necessary for the acceptance of the data but not sufficient.
Different results (e.g. outputs) of the PedFlow simulation
model, being validated, are compared with results of other
models. For example, emergent lane
formation generated by many simulation models, e.g. Blue \cite{Blue2001}, who used a cellular automata model. Lane formation in bidirectional flow and clogging effects at bottlenecks in case of emergency situation were realized by Helbing, Molnar, and Vicsek \cite{Helbing-Farkas2000a}, who use a social force model.
First a simple case of a simulation model is compared with known results of analytic models \cite{Predtetschenski-Milinski1969}, and second the simulation model is
compared with other simulation models that have been validated, such as social-force models (see \cite{Helbing-Farkas2002} and the references therein) and cellular automata, e.g \cite{Fukui1999, Muramatsu2000}.
\subsubsection{Walking through a narrow passage;}
Our first set of simulations consisted of pedestrian flow through a hallway with a narrow passage (see fig. \ref{fig:bottleneck1}) (a). The hallway was 80 m wide and the
narrow passage was 16 m long and 4 m at the narrowest point. Each
pedestrian's desired speed was set at a walking speed for adult pedestrians in normal conditions $v_{d}$ = 1 $\pm$ 0.02 m/s;
relaxation time: $\tau$ = 0.50 $\pm$ 0.1 s; (smaller times $\rightarrow$ more aggressive) and
pedestrian radius: $R$ = 0.2 $\pm$ 0.02 m; (smaller radius $\rightarrow$ smaller repulsive forces).
Repulsive potentials were assumed to decrease exponentially.
The relaxation time is the time needed to reach 90 percent of the desired velocity.
This experiment is realized with constant influx, that means if a pedestrian has passed through the passage, he will be replaced by a new pedestrian at a random starting location, i.e. at the
entrance of the hallway to keep the number of people in the hallway constant. The mean velocities (measured in the passage area) for different pedestrian influxes and the results are illustrated in figure \ref{fig:bottleneck1} (d). These results are consistent with those obtained by Predtetschenski and Milinski \cite{Predtetschenski-Milinski1969} and other fundamental diagrams, who also found out reduced velocities due to the tendency of pedestrians to converge at the same time in the direction of the passage area when the
hallway is narrow. This caused blocking and the velocities to drop and the density to increase with time, creating bottlenecks and clogging, (see fig. \ref{fig:walkingpassage-1}).
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{bottleneck2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{This figures illustrates a pedestrian flow walking through a narrow passage: (a) bottleneck geometry; (b) the density index; the density map illustrates how the pedestrian density rises in the congested area. Red color indicates high density which can reach 7 people/m$^{2}$, while blue color indicates low pedestrians density; (c) the velocity index, the blue color indicates the lowest velocity; (d) decrease of the pedestrian velocity in the passage area as a function of the local density, the measured data are represented by the crosses in the graph, they are consistent with the empirical data of Predtetschenski and Milinski \cite{Predtetschenski-Milinski1969} represented by the solid line.}
\label{fig:bottleneck1}
\end{figure*}
Pedestrian motion in passages is one of the few cases where reliable empirical data exists. In order to assess the validity of the proposed pedestrian motion model, a typical passage flow was selected. The geometry of the problem is shown in figure \ref{fig:bottleneck1} (a). Pedestrians enter the domain from the left and exit to the right. In this case, each pedestrian has the goal of first reaching the entrance of the passage, then traversing it to the other end, and finally to exit on the right. Typical snapshots during one of the simulations are shown in figure \ref{fig:walkingpassage-1}.
The resulting data of the simulation are shown as crosses in figure\ref{fig:bottleneck1} (d). The data flows are shown in a graph besides the analytical data from Predtetschenski and Milinski. This graph corresponds to specific parameters and illustrates a defined simulation state, although they exhibit the relation between the input parameters and the simulation results. In the low density range the data are synchronized with a high accuracy. There are no deviations of the simulation values and the analytically data. The walking speed drops in dependency of density. The small deviation in the start-velocity, can be traced back to the input parameters.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{walkingpassage-1.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Step by step simulation of a pedestrian crowd walking through a passage (PedFlow animation results).}
\label{fig:walkingpassage-1}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Example: simulation of the Tawaf movement}
In this test we try to verify the simulation response by running a simplified version of the simulation program with a known analytical result. If the output data resulting from the simulation model do not exhibit a significant deviation from the known empirical data, this result can then be used to validate the model.
Through the simulation of pedestrian flow on the well known geometry of the Mataf in the Haram Mosque (see fig. \ref{verification2}) we intended to check simulation output for credibility.
We performed different simulation runs for several input scenarios and tested whether the output is reasonable. It is easy to compare certain performed measurements with other computed results.
Using animation is another method to improve the simulation model. The resulting data of the simulated system is displayed in a series of snapshots of the animation of the model users.
Since the model developers and model users are familiar with the real system, they can ameliorate the performance of the program and detect programming and conceptual errors.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{verification2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Tawaf movement simulation. (A) This figure illustrates the Mataf area at rush hour divided in regular cells. The number of pedestrians in every cell as a function of time is determined through repeating the counting process many times. The average value is identified as local density $\rho(\vec{r}, t)$; (B) velocity-density diagram: Empirical relation between density and velocity according to Milinski and Predtetschenski \cite{Predtetschenski-Milinski1969}. The partition refers to domains with qualitatively different decrease of the velocity; (C) pilgrims movement simulation within the Mataf area, the red color indicates the desired velocity 0.9 to 1 m/s while turquoise color the lowest; (D) velocity-density distribution as a function of the distance from the Kabaa wall, the curves (b, d) illustrate the simulation results while the curves (a, c) show the results obtained by a calculation according to the Predtetschenski and Milinski fundamental diagram.}
\label{verification2}
\end{figure*}
Figure \ref{verification2} (C) illustrates typical simulation results for Tawaf movement (circling the Kaaba seven times in a counter-clockwise direction). The entire influx consists of three one-directional pedestrian flows coming from three entrances. The velocity indicator shows that the movement in the edges of the Mataf area is faster than in the area of the Kaaba. The picture shows a snapshot of the simulation, which has a particularly high maximum density
of 6.5 persons/m$^{2}$. Note that the pedestrian density is very high at the places where the Tawaf begins and ends, and the clumping of pedestrians going in opposite directions, when the pilgrims finish the Tawaf. The average density for many runs was 5 to 7 persons/m$^{2}$. Figures \ref{verification2} (D; a) and (D; c) illustrate the velocity-density distribution on the Mataf area during the rush hour calculated according to Predtetschenski and Milinski. This result agrees well with the measured data shown in Figures 4 (D; b) and (D; d).
\subsubsection{Example: Al-Jamarat Bridge}
The simulation of high density pedestrian flow streaming the Jamarat area during the rush hour of the Hajj period revealed a great technical progress in the modelling, simulation and better understanding of how large crowds alter.
In the past many fatal accidents happened in this extremely dangerous area, where a large number of pilgrims stream through the site and try to stone
the pillars in a relatively short period of time. Since the movement of pilgrims is very slow an accumulation effect on both sites of the pillars arises. This leads to physical jamming, pilgrims trampling, and in the worst situation to the death of pedestrians underfoot.
To accomplish the safety of millions of pilgrims walking this overcrowded area every year and for better fluidity of pedestrian flow near the pillars, the proposal was made to build a bridge with a 5-level structure to ease the process of performing this ritual. The bridge was designed to satisfy the international standard criterion of pedestrians safety, especially during overcrowding, and this concept arose from the idea to conduct the pilgrims flow in one direction without any counter flow.
The Saudi government designated Professor Dr. Saad A. AlGadhi (expert in transportation management and design) and Dr. G. Keith Still (the crowd dynamics expert) to evaluate a model using crowd dynamic software tools to improve the conceptual design \cite{AlGadhi2003}. This study produced a lot of data and information about:
\begin{itemize}
\item Sufficient arrival capacity
\item Sufficient throwing area
\item Sufficient space (density $\leq$ 4 Hajjis per square meter)
\item Sufficient passing area
\item Sufficient egress capacity
\end{itemize}
in the Jamarat bridge area that can be used to validate other pedestrian simulation tools. For example, published data about the Jamarat bridge capacity, in-flux and out-flux, demonstrate that the total available ingress width must be greater than 28 meters to allow 125,000 pilgrims per hour. This is a minimum requirement and provision for security forces/civil defence, bi-directional/counter flow
and hesitation (pilgrims stopping to rest) where the longer ingress ramps have additional width requirements \cite{AlGadhi2003}.
Figure \ref{fig:Djamarat2} illustrates how a combination of microscopic and macroscopic techniques can assess the progression of queues approaching the Jamarat (above - Simulex/Myriad, below Myriad and site photograph)\cite{Still2003}.
The other set of data about the Jamarat bridge was published by Helbing after the onset of the crush event of 2006 in his paper: The Dynamics of Crowd Disasters: An Empirical Study 2007 \cite{Helbing2007}.
His video analysis revealed a lot of data and information about the average local speed, average local flows and the average local densities in the Jamarat area before and after the deathly crush accident. It was found that the pedestrian density near the pillars area can reach a huge value of 9 persons/m$^2$.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Djamarat2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{During Hajj, pilgrims flock to the Jamarat Bridge in Mina to cast stones at three pillars representing the devil. The cylindrical pillars (A)(top) were replaced by short walls (A)(bottom) after a previous fatal stampede in 2004. The idea was to improve crowd flow and reduce congestion.
(A) shows the geometry and the location of the stoning pillars;
(B) shows a huge number of pilgrims streaming toward the pillars;
(C) Al-Jamarat Bridge microscopic simulations/PedFlow and
(D) Microscopic simulations/Myriad \cite{Still2003} (red color means high density; yellow color means middle density; green and blue color means low density).}
\label{fig:Djamarat2}
\end{figure*}
To assess the validity of the PedFlow simulation model and for improvements of resulting data we apply analytical and comparative tests. These tests are used to compare the simulation output with the output from other simulation tools e.g. Simulex/Myriad \cite{Still2003}.
Compared to other models PedFlow is more sophisticated to predict high density crowd dynamics. The simulation result is shown in figure \ref{fig:Djamarat2} (C) and (D). Of course the simulation input takes advantage of the published data to predict accurate results.
\subsection{Validation through visualization and comparison with the real world}
The aim of most procedures and methods testing model validity is to determine the similarity between the results carried out by the conceptual model and the collected data. The better the simulation output resembles the output from the real system the better the results in general.
The animation and visualization of the output simulation data are necessary to prove the credibility of the system, moreover this test is very important to examine how close the data is to the real world.
\subsubsection{Crowd visualization}
A literature survey reveals several investigations and animation methods which have been proposed to provide more realism in the conceptual model simulating large scale pedestrian motion. Treuille and Shao \cite{Treuille2006, SHAO2007} suggested a method that increases the degree of accuracy and realism of crowd simulations.
For example a realistic human like character is an essential role in the animation of high density crowd simulation. They illustrate the effects and interactions between the individuals itself within the crowd and the individuals and their environment. This yields a better prospect about the density distribution of pedestrians in a given site.
In the context of pedestrian animation we considered the technique of motion graphs \cite{Kovar2002} in order to provide advanced behavioural human characters. We attempted to modify the motion graph approach to associate an existing database of short MoCap (Motion Capture) animations into a larger clip of continuous motion.
However, in our approach the pedestrian movements are expressed as paths or trajectories of the character extracted from unlabelled motion capture data. This technique modifies the character's position and orientation for the entire animation clip. The trajectory and orientation of a character in a BVH (Biovision Hierarchical data) MoCap animation is interconnected, and one cannot be modified without influencing the other, hence rendering the animation unrealistic. Our technique allowed us to produce a continuous and longer sequence of animations using an existing database of MoCap animations and joining the animations together. Behaviour is closely related to the corresponding animation.
It is this binding between behaviour and animation that we intended to utilize to validate our model.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{animation3.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Crowd visualisation, real vs. virtual world: (A) The real world represented in the Mataf top view; (B) simulation snapshot of the Tawaf movement; (C) crowd visualisation (characters implementation); (D) illustrates the reproduced virtual world.}
\label{fig:polygons-1}
\end{figure*}
The processes used to describe animated movement of one or more objects or persons are presented in this paragraph.
From tabular values carried by the microscopic simulation data results the path and velocity vectors of the agents are determined. The coordinates and velocity of every pedestrian at any time is given by the simulation data. The animation of the characters is designed in two steps: first we attach a polygon to every coordinate, and next we attach every polygon to a human character, (see fig. \ref{fig:polygons-1}(C)).
The motion tracking and motion animation is applied in many disciplines and scientific fields like entertainment, and medical applications, and for validation of computer vision \cite{Noonan2009}. However, we distinguish two types of animations: the film and game-makers, who take advantage from this technique to reproduce multitudinous number of avatars. The second type of animation is based on exact simulation results and illustrates more realism, which can be used to help the decision maker to manage huge crowds, detect critical points in a closed area and to help the architects and designer to establish the number of fire exits required for a building. This animation can contribute to the validation of the simulation tools.
\subsubsection{Validation through comparison with the real world}
For validation of a simulation model, it is necessary to compare the simulation output with real-world data, such as video recordings representing the same circumstances of the simulation. This method can ascertain a lot of effects and behaviours that appear in crowds.
Through observation of pilgrim flow we attempt to validate and verify the crowd dynamic model tool PedFlow.
The obtained real data presented in paper \cite{dridi2014} is used to verify a microscopic crowd dynamics model developed to solve complicated problems concerning high density crowd behaviours. The crowd dynamics model attempts to simulate the global movement of each individual influenced by the temporal circumstances and the surrounding crowd. A good agreement between the predictions and observations will validate the prediction model.
\section{Validation of PedFlow using optical flow method}
\subsection{The optical flow method}
In the last years optical flow is considered as one of the most important techniques concerning image processing and computer vision. Computing of optical flow vectors using consecutive image sequences is achieved in two different ways: gradient methods and correlation methods.
Many studies show that optical flow techniques can be successfully used to identify or recognize moving objects, e.g. moving cars or walking person, \cite{Ricquebourg2000}. Compared with other models this approach is able to operate with relatively low computational expenditure or visibility requirements on a diversity of entities, permitting reconstruction of object trajectories with high accuracy from video recordings. The detection of movement can be determined by the introduction of different sets of image sequences - by considering the different details between two images - since this is more accurate in computational calculation and prediction \cite{Masoud2001}. The difference in image brightness can then be analysed further to extract movement vectors that describe the motion of the drops (entity) captured in the respective images. This method is based on video segmentation and position identification, rather than motion recognition by analysing frame by frame sequences of ordered images.
Over the last decades, computer scientists have worked in different ways to reconstruct the trajectory of moving objects. Many studies and investigations appearing in different scientific fields attempt to compute the optical flow given by a sequence of images (see the comprehensive surveys
\cite{Barron1994, Beauchemin1995}).
The gradient and correlation methods are the mainly used techniques for computing and calculation of optical flows. In addition to these, there are other statistical methods which are able to estimate the motion parameters \cite{Fan1996} and the use of phase information \cite{Fleet1990}. The approach proposed by Hayton establishes a relationship between optical flow and image registration techniques \cite{Hayton1999}.
Let us denote by $I(x, y, t)$ the image intensity function associated with to the pixel grey value at location $(x, y)$ of the image at time $t$. Gradient-based techniques are predicated on the intensity conservation assumption
\begin{equation}
I(x, y, t) = I(x+ \delta x, y+ \delta y, t+ \delta t),
\label{eq:opticalflow-1}
\end{equation}
which can be expanded in a Taylor series neglecting higher order terms \cite{Horn1981}. In general,
gradient-based techniques are accurate only when the intensity is preserved,
and the Taylor series approximation stays reasonable when frame-to-frame displacements due to subjects motion are a part of a pixel. To reduce the errors resulting from using this technique and to compute flow vectors over a larger image region an iteration method is deployed.
Correlation-based techniques will be useful if the image sequences do not meet the conditions required for gradient-based techniques, that means the brightness intensity is not preserved, for example in cloud \cite{Wu1995} and combustion \cite{Sun1996} images. Such techniques try to establish correspondences between invariant characteristics between frames. Typical features might be blobs, corners and edges \cite{Clocksin2000}.
\subsection{Motion analysis and object tracking}
As already mentioned optical flow is a method to estimate object motions through brightness intensity changes in sequences of consecutively ordered images. A brightness intensity region variation related to the average pixel intensity of each image in a sequence of crowd images is used to estimate the pedestrian density distribution at various sites.
The technique permitting pedestrian's movement capture e.g. extracting information about pedestrian speed, using video footage obtained from CCTV observation of urban crowd movement surveillance and image processing can be traced back to Velastin \cite{Velastin1994} and \cite{Velastin1993}, who use algorithms operating on pixel intensities under a certain condition (such as a high frame rate) \cite{Johnston2004}. Other techniques and methods to compute the optical flow regarding changes in pixel intensities in a series of images sequences are developed by \cite{Seki2000, Vannoorenberghe1996, Masoud2001, Yonemoto2003}.
Optical flow is defined as an apparent motion of image brightness. Let $I(x,y,t)$ be the image brightness that changes in time to provide an image sequence. Two main assumptions are made:
\begin{itemize}
\item Brightness $I(x,y,t)$ smoothly depends on coordinates $x$, $y$ in a greater part of the image.
\item Brightness of every point of a moving or static object does not change in time.
\end{itemize}
Let some object in the image, or some point of an object, move and denote the object displacement after time $dt$ by $(dx, dy)$. Using Taylor series expansion for brightness $I(x,y,t)$:
\begin{multline}
I(x + dx, y + dy, t + dt) = I(x, y, t)\\ + \frac{\partial I}{\partial x} dx +
\frac{\partial I}{\partial y} dy + \frac{\partial I}{\partial t} dt + ......,
\end{multline}
where $.....$ are higher order terms,
then, according to assumption 2:
\begin{equation}
I(x + dx, y + dy, t + dt) = I(x, y, t),
\label{eq:I}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial I}{\partial x} dx + \frac{\partial I}{\partial y} dy + \frac{\partial I}{\partial t} dt + ......= 0,
\end{equation}
Dividing (\ref{eq:I}) by $dt$ and defining
\begin{equation}
\frac{dx}{dt} = u, \frac{dy}{dt} = v
\end{equation}
results in
\begin{equation}
-\frac{\partial I}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial I}{\partial x} u + \frac{\partial I}{\partial y} v,
\label{eq:2}
\end{equation}
usually called the optical flow constraint equation, where $(u, v)$ are components of the optical flow field vector in $x$ and $y$ coordinates respectively.
The movement recognition in this work is based on the optical flow method extracting data from picture sequences using the
Lucas and Kanade algorithm \cite{Lucas1981}.
It considers a group of adjacent pixels and supposes that all of them (the group of adjacent pixels) have the same velocity. It finds an approximate solution of the above equation (\ref{eq:2}) using the least-square method by solving a system of linear equations. The equations are usually weighted.
Here the following $2\times2$ linear system is used:
\begin{multline}
\sum_{x,y} W(x, y)I_{x}I_{y}u + \sum_{x,y} W(x, y)I_{y}^{2}v\\ = - \sum_{x,y} W(x, y)I_{y}I_{t},
\end{multline}
\begin{multline}
\sum_{x,y} W(x, y)I_{x}^{2}u + \sum_{x,y} W(x, y)I_{y}I_{y}v\\ = - \sum_{x,y} W(x, y)I_{x}I_{t},
\end{multline}
where $W(x,y)$ is the Gaussian window and the subscripts denote derivatives. The Gaussian window may be a representation of a composition of two separable kernels with binomial coefficients. Iterating through the system can yield even better results. It means that the retrieved offset is used to determine a new window in the second image from which the window in the first
image is subtracted, while $I_{t}$ is calculated.
\section{Pedestrian tracking using OpenCV software}
To determine pedestrian dynamics in the mosque of Mecca, with millions of people performing their rituals, we chose to use the OpenCV tools from Intel. This section describes the structure, operation, and functions of the open source computer vision library (OpenCV) for the Intel Corporation architecture \cite{Intel1999}. The OpenCV library is mainly used for real time computer vision. Some example areas are
human-computer interaction (HCI); object identification, segmentation, and
recognition; face recognition; gesture recognition; motion tracking, ego motion, and motion understanding; structure from motion (SFM); and mobile robotics.
\subsection{Results}
Image sequences were obtained from videos collected by hd-cameras at the Hajj-2009.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{echo1.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Picture Analysis through Optical Flow Tools. Pedestrian flow walking around the Kaaba in the Haram in Mecca: (A) and (B) illustrate two consecutive images in the sequence; each one of them consists of 1920$\times$1080 images pixels, (C) shows a set of velocity vectors obtained by the Lucas and Kanade technique computing at each point
of a 64$\times$64 grid centred on the 1920$\times$1080 pixels, (D) shows the echo effect.}
\label{fig:echo1}
\end{figure*}
The flow fields in figure \ref{fig:echo1} (C) show examples of the rotational movement of pilgrims around the Kaaba. We can clearly observe a kind of oscillation in the pilgrim paths around the Kaaba, this oscillation is caused by the shock-wave effect as a result of the repulsive forces between pedestrians in high density crowd dynamics. This was generated by applying the algorithm to every eighth pixel position on a pair of 1920$\times$1080 pixel images of a surface similar to figure \ref{fig:echo1} (A, B).
The rotation field in \ref{fig:echo1}(C) was obtained by rotating pedestrian displacement in the Mataf area near the Kaaba wall. Through OpenCV tracking tools, it is possible to see that the movement around the Kaaba is not a perfect circular movement. The tracking of a simple individual in the pilgrim stream indicates some oscillation movement around the main path of the individual. These phenomena are due to the huge physical repulsive and attractive forces influencing the pedestrians movement. The pedestrian motion disturbance caused by high density crowd movement was also clearly visible in our pedestrian tracking on the Mataf area (see fig. \ref{fig:pilgrimspaths-2}). This finding agrees with the video observation on the piazza of the Haram. For verification of the PedFlow approach we compare our simulation results with those of the optical flow. With help of this approach a lot of phenomena (like the lane formation, oscillation effect and edge effect) can be seen, showing that our simulation reproduces a part of the reality. Therefore we stress that optical flow methods are very efficient for image analysis, structural analysis, image recognition, motion analysis and object tracking.
The above mentioned techniques can be helpful for the validation and verification of simulation tools but is not sufficient, since there are many effects affecting the credibility of this method, for example: ambiguity, aliasing, and the aperture effect. One of these effects the 'aperture problem', has been extensively detailed in optical flow literature \cite{Horn1981}. However, the other two
short-comings (ambiguity, aliasing) are discussed to a lesser extend. Computer scientists and algorithms developer are working to resolve this problem so that the programs can take into account the
three points.
\subsection{Echo Effect After Effects}
'Adobe After Effects \textregistered'\footnote{\href{http://www.adobe.com/de/products/aftereffects.html}{http://www.adobe.com/de/products/aftereffects.html}} is a digital motion graphic and composition software published by Adobe Systems \textregistered, used in the post-production process of film and television production. It is used for creating motion graphics and visual effects.
After Effects helps us to understand the fluidity of the pedestrian flow and the density waves observed in the video recording during the rush hour on the Haram. These density waves are generated by huge pedestrian forces that propagate with the help of body contact through a crowd.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{echo-1.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Density waves (echo-effect): gray cloud-like structures near the Kaaba.}
\label{fig:echo-1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{pilgrimspaths-2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Pilgrims paths. With a new computer
algorithm developed during this research, the trajectories or movements of pedestrians across the
infrastructure over time are determined. Microscopic pedestrian fields require large
amounts of trajectory data of individual
pedestrians. Every red solid curve corresponds to one pedestrian trajectory. The oscillation in the pilgrims paths results from the huge pedestrian forces acting on every individual in the crowd.}
\label{fig:pilgrimspaths-2}
\end{figure*}
In figure \ref{fig:pilgrimspaths-2} we show the path of individuals within the crowd. One clearly recognizes that the movement around the Kaaba is not a circle movement. The tracking of a single individual in the pilgrims stream indicates some oscillation movement around the main path of the individual, as already mentioned it is caused by the physical repulsive and attractive forces acting on the individual. Physical forces become important when an individual comes into physical contact with another individual/obstacle.
When a local density of 6 persons per square meter is exceeded, free movement is impeded and local flow decreases, causing the outflow to drop significantly below the inflow. This causes a higher and higher compression in the crowd, until the local densities become critical in specific places on the Mataf platform. This technique has helped to demonstrate the density waves, and that the movement around the Kaaba is not circular but disturbed movements caused by this density shock waves. The disturbance in the path of the pilgrims is generated by the enormous contact forces that come into play in this region especially near the Kaaba (see fig.\ref{fig:echo-1}). These waves appear in figure \ref{fig:echo-1} as gray structures around the Kaabe.
\subsection{Discussion}
We have used a multi-stage validation method.
One of the most important parameters was verified, the pedestrian density distribution on the Mataf area as a function of the position $\vec{r}$ and velocity $\vec{v}$.
It served in a first step of a comparison of the simulation density results with the observed density behaviour on the Mataf area at different times during the day, before and after the prayer. The maximum registered density obtained by the statistical method was 7 to 8 persons/m$^{2}$. One can clearly recognise the similarity between the statistical data and the results given by the simulation, which can reach 7 persons/m$^{2}$, especially in the congested area (see fig. \ref{fig:verification3} (A) and (B)).
From observation of the Mataf it is well-known that the area indicating the beginning and the end of the Tawaf is the area most congested and accumulated by pilgrims, (see fig.\ref{fig:verification3}) (D). This phenomenon is obviously reproduced by the simulation (see fig. \ref{fig:verification3} (A)). This area appears in the picture on the right lower corner of the Kaaaba, known as black stone corner where the observed pilgrim density reached over 9 persons/m$^{2}$. All statistical results illustrating the density distribution at the Mataf area at different time intervals are demonstrated in the paper \cite{dridi2014}.
The second step of the multi-stage verification was to compare the velocity-density diagram made by the simulation with all well-known fundamental diagrams. According to Predtetschenski and Milinski the average walking speed depends on the the walking facility and the local density which can reach 9 persons/m$^{2}$ \cite{Predtetschenski-Milinski1969}. In figure \ref{fig:verification3} one clearly recognizes density waves with maximum density near the Kaaba wall. There the average local density can reach a critical value of 7 to 8 persons/m$^{2}$. In the congested area the local density increases with significant dropping in the pedestrian velocity. The average local speed $\vec{v} (\vec{r}, t)$ as a function of the local density $\rho(\vec{r}, t)$ made by the simulation is compared with the Predtetschenski and Milinski densities in figure \ref{fig:verification3} (C). Our own data is shown as red crosses in figure \ref{fig:verification3} (B). Moreover the analysis of the data of the Mataf area showed that a reduction of the available navigation space is responsible for the speed reduction and the density increase. The small deviation in pedestrian walking speeds at lower density can be explained by the fitness level of the pedestrian. Through this comparison two phenomena are clearly demonstrated, the density effect in the Mataf area and the edge effects: the edges of a crowd move faster than the center of the crowd. This phenomenon was clearly demonstrated in the statistical results shown in figure \ref{fig:verification3} (D).
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{verification3.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{(A) A snapshot of tawaf simulation results made by PedFlow with velocity index, the blue color indicates the pedestrian stand still while the red color indicates their maximal walking speed; (B) velocity-density diagram: PedFlow simulation results; (C) Predtetschenski and Milinski fundamental diagram; (D) velocity-density distribution as a function of the distance from the Kabaa wall, the curves (b, d) illustrate the simulation results while the curves (a, c) show the statistical results and indicate the density behaviour on the Mataf area at different times during the day, obtained by a calculation according to the Predtetschenski and Milinski fundamental diagram \cite{dridi2014}.}
\label{fig:verification3}
\end{figure*}
Comparing the results of PedFlow with results of other models in the simulation of a special cases like the Jamarat bridge (see fig. \ref{fig:Djamarat2}), showed that the critical points in the Jamarat facility made by microscopic simulations with Myriad \cite{Still2003} are the same critical points exhibited by the PedFlow microscopic simulations of the Jamarat bridge.
\section{Conclusions and recommendations}
For people working in software development and simulation program evolution the verification and validation of the model is a vital procedure to make sure that the tools apply to reality. The validation of the simulation program ensures the users and decision makers that the simulation results are credible and applicable in the development of the project. Moreover Turing and face validity tests contribute to progressive optimization of the program.
The Turing test is a successful method comparing the real world with the simulation output. The output data obtained by the simulation can be presented to people attending the same project and working with the same tools knowledgeable about the system in the same exact format as the system data.
The discussion between the experts about the deviation of the simulation and the system outputs can be helpful to validate the program, their explanation of how they did that should improve the model.
The opinion of the project member and model user for development, progress and verification of the simulation tools is very important. This method will be referred to as face validation. Face validation is necessary to identify the behaviour of the simulation system under the same simulation condition. A preliminary examination of the model one can deduce that this method is useful, necessary, but not sufficient.
In this paper we have discussed verification and validation of microscopic simulation models. Different approaches and methods for deciding verification and validation of the model development process have been presented, as have been various validation techniques.
As a practical example, the Haram Mosque in Mecca and the Jamarat Bridge in Saudi Arabia were used for high density crowd simulation: the huge number of pilgrims cramming the bridge during the pilgrimage to
Mecca gave rise to serious pedestrian disasters in the nineties. Moreover, the analytical and numerical study of the qualitative behaviour of human individuals
in a crowd with high densities can improve traditional socio-biological investigation
methods.
For obtaining empirical data different methods were used, automatic and manual methods. We have analysed video recordings of the crowd movement in the Tawaf in Mosque/Mecca during the Hajj on the 27th of November, 2009. We have evaluated unique video recordings of a
105$\times$ 154 m large Mataf area taken from the roof of the Mosque, where upto 3 million Muslims perform the Tawaf and Sa'y rituals within 24 hours.
For the validation and calibration of the simulation tools, different methods were used.
\begin{itemize}
\item Comparison of the simulation result with the video recording.
\item Comparison with other models: Different results (e.g., outputs) of the simulation model being validated, and compared with the results of other models. For example, (1) simple cases of a simulation model were compared with well-known results of analytic models, and (2) the simulation model were compared with other simulation models that have been validated.
\item Parameter Variability - Sensitivity Analysis: Applying this technique one can determine the behaviour of the model or simulation output, using different input values.
\item A comparison with Optical Flow results was also carried out.
\end{itemize}
At medium to high pedestrian densities, the techniques used in PedFlow can produce realistic crowd motion, with pedestrians moving at different speeds and under different circumstances, following believable trails and taking sensible avoidance action.
\section{Acknowledgements}
I would like to express my sincerest thanks and gratitude to Prof. Dr. G. Wunner for a critical reading of the
manuscript, for his important comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript. Many thanks to Dr. H. Cartarius for his support during writing this work.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}
Dementia is a decline in mental ability, caused by damage to brain
cells, that interferes with daily life. Activities of daily living are
usually divided into basic and instrumental activities of daily living
(IADL) \cite{pmid25109674, pmid17521485}.
Several criteria and methods have been developed as measuring tools
to implement treatments and diagnoses \cite{pmid15158578, pmid7069156, pmid11156757, pmid21778725}.
Despite the efforts developed in this field, the relationship between
IADL performance and mental activity is nowadays implemented using
only simple statistical approaches like Pearson's or Spearman's correlations.
On the other hand, catastrophe theory, particularly cusp catastrophe
models, have been used to describe several psychological processes
and human activities (drinking, sexual interactions, nursing turnover, etc)
\cite{pmid24785249, flay1978catastrophe, BS:BS3830270305, pmid2930621,
BJOP:BJOP2391, van1992stagewise, pmid11317984, Clair1998, pmid16884652,
pmid17355897, pmid18765073, pmid20887691, wagner2010predicting, pmid23735493}.
However, in those studies, the data were fit to a cusp surface without
support from any phenomenological model, so that the physical reasons
of those processes remain obscure. Here, we introduce a physical
representation of brain functions representing the brain tasks as
creation of networks between several neurons.
\section{Theoretical Model}
In order to support a brain task, a network between several neurons is
created. This network is characterized by a correlation length, $x$,
\cite{Barabasi.2003} that depends both on the topology and on the
functionality of the network \cite{PhysRevE.80.046104}. The degree of metabolic
activity necessary to support the task (and the network) is proportional
to the volume of the network determined by
this correlation length. This metabolic activity
is equal to the energy used to maintain the function of the neurons and their links,
$m_{0}$, plus the energy required for the dynamic formation of the specific
network, $m_{x}$.
However each brain task is not instantiated in its own isolated network.
Networks are shared between tasks resulting in connectivity
hubs \cite{pmid24860458}. When several cognitive processes share the same network,
they may do so without a proportional increase in metabolic demand.
In order to characterize this phenomenon, we introduce the concept of
synaptic overlap. The degree of synaptic overlap is proportional to
the mean shared area, which is energized by other processes along the network's correlation
length. This characteristic network overlap has been well described and is
often referred to as a network of networks \cite{Barabasi.2003}.
So, the energetic balance of the network is summarized as,
\begin{equation}
m_{x}+m_{0}=ax{}^{3}-br^{2}x,\label{eq:model0}
\end{equation}
where $a$ and $b$ are coefficients that convert the geometric characterization
of the network into energy units and $r$ characterizes the synaptic overlap.
Equation \eqref{eq:model0} describes the possible values of
the system in the space determined by metabolic energy, synaptic overlap,
and correlation length $(m_{x},r^{2},x)$.
Since neuronal network set up is a synchronized response to an electrical
stimulus \cite{haken2010brain} it seems reasonable that a faster network
configuration involves more energy.
Let us now assume that the metabolic energy for a cognitive task
is proportional to the change rate of the correlation length between neurons,
that is, $m_{x}\sim dx/dt$. So, equation \eqref{eq:model0} could
be written as,
\begin{equation}
\frac{dx}{dt}=x^{3}-\beta x-\alpha=\frac{\partial U}{\partial x},\label{eq:model1}
\end{equation}
where now $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are functions derived from equation
\eqref{eq:model0} that depend, in general, on metabolic energy, synaptic
overlap and time, and where $U$ is a potential function that corresponds
to the Riemann-Hugoniot surface $x^{3}-\beta x-\alpha=0$ for
different $\alpha$ and $\beta$ values. Equation
\eqref{eq:model1}, or the equivalent potential, describes a cusp model
\cite{Arnold:1992:CT,Zeeman:1976:CT} that predicts sudden changes
for $x$ values; here $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are known as asymmetry
control parameter and bifurcation control parameter respectively.
Equation \eqref{eq:model1} is thus a deterministic model
that relates the energy in a cognitive task network to its correlation length.
However, the brain networks are subject to a high level of noise \cite{haken2010brain}.
The coupling of millions of neurons in a network in order
to do a task is necessarily subject to random variations.
In order to apply this model to real data a probabilistic term
should be added to the model.
This casts equation \eqref{eq:model1} into a stochastic differential equation,
\begin{equation}
\frac{dx}{dt}=\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}+\sigma\left(x\right)W\left(t\right),\label{eq:sde}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma\left(x\right)$ represents a diffusion process, that will
be assumed to be constant, and which $W\left(t\right)$ is a white
noise Wiener process. Notice that \eqref{eq:sde} is a Langevin equation
where the correlation length corresponds to the position of the particle under
the potential. The corresponding Fokker-Planck equation for the probability
density can be written as,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial\rho\left(x,t\right)}{\partial t}=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[\frac{\partial U\left(x\right)}{\partial x}\rho\left(x,t\right)\right]+\sigma\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}\rho\left(x,t\right).\label{eq:fokker-planck}
\end{equation}
Nevertheless, equation \eqref{eq:fokker-planck} involves two different
characteristic times. Changes in $x$ occur in the time
of task processing and brain network assembling, that is, in seconds or minutes.
Alterations of $U$, and consequently of $\rho$, are due to the
development of the neurodegenerative diseases that act in a time scale of years.
Since the variation of $x$ in time is faster than the change of $U$,
it can be assumed that $\rho$ changes very slowly over time, and consequently
$\partial\rho/\partial t\simeq0$.
From this, it is straightforward that,
\begin{equation}
\rho\left(x\right)=Ce^{-\left[\frac{1}{4}x^{4}-\frac{1}{2}\beta x^{2}-\alpha x\right]},\label{eq:prob_solution}
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a normalization constant.
This last expression gives the probability density of obtaining a network
of size $x$ for the steady state case, that is, if the system varies
slowly over time.
Since the probability density for a network with correlation length $x$
is known, the entropy of the set of networks,
can be calculated as,
\begin{equation}
S\left(\alpha, \beta\right) = -\int_{0}^{\infty}{\rho\left(y\right) \mathrm{ln}\left(\rho\left(y\right) \right)dy},\label{eq:entropy}
\end{equation}
showing the natural evolution of the system.
\section{Data fitting}
In order to evaluate our model we fit some real data.
We should determine first how to model the correlation length
of the network. On one hand, neurodegenerative diseases affect first the
largest networks \cite{pmid19376066} and this is reflected in the impairment
of the more complex task.
On the other hand, we should consider the evolution of the brain.
From one organism to other, brain has growth in size and complexity. While
the new evolved life forms are able to learn more complex task, their brain
grow in new layers and connected networks \cite{pmid24210963}.
Notice also that high frequency activity in brain has been associated
to cognitive process \cite{pmid16467513} implying that high functioning
requires more energy.
So, the correlation
length of the network will be modeled as proportional to the network output.
That is, a bigger network is assumed as needed in order to accomplish a
more difficult task.
Data used in the preparation of this article were obtained from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging
Initiative (ADNI) database (adni.loni.usc.edu). The ADNI was launched in 2003 as a public-private
partnership, led by Principal Investigator Michael W. Weiner, MD. The primary goal of ADNI has been to
test whether serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), other
biological markers, and clinical and neuropsychological assessment can be combined to measure the
progression of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early Alzheimer’s disease (AD).
ADNI is a global research effort devote to the research of AD.
The website group clinical, imaging, genetic and biospecimen biomarkers
from normal aging to dementia stages. The standardized methods for imaging
and biomarker collection and analysis are intended for facilitating a
cohesive research worldwide. ADNI provides the collected information to
all registered members.
A sample of 1351 subjects was selected from ADNI cohort.
All available data from these individuals gave
a total of 3025 study visits. We selected for analysis: positron emission
tomography fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) standard uptake value ratio,
total brain volume (TBV), intracranial volume (ICV), as well as the functional activities
questionnaire (FAQ) score. This questionnaire is the information obtained
from caregivers about IADL performance of patients.
For each subject the brain ratio (BR) was calculated as
the ratio between TBV and ICV.
For each variable to be fitted into the model, FDG, BR and FAQ,
a linear transformation was applied to
the data in order to normalize it to the interval $[0,1]$.
In the case of FAQ values the transformation was applied
in opposite direction. That is, the FAQ score increases as impairment
of IADL increases but the normalized variable decreases as impairment
of IADL increases.
The network output is proposed as proportional
to IADL; the bifurcation ($\beta$) and asymmetry ($\alpha$) control
parameters are proposed as linear functions of the independent variables \cite{R-Cusp-Package}.
That is,
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{c}
x=w_{0}+w_{1}f\\
\alpha=a_{0}+a_{1}u+a_{2}v\\
\beta=b_{0}+b_{1}u+b_{2}v
\end{array},\label{eq:fitting_model-1}
\end{equation}
where $f$, $u$ and $v$ stand for the normalized values of FAQ, FDG and BR and
$w_{i}$, $a_{i}$ and $b_{i}$ are fitting coefficients.
All the statistical procedures were made using R Statistical Software
\cite{R}. The R package “cusp” calculate the Cobb's pseudo-$R^{2}$ parameter as a measurement
of the goodness of fit \cite{R-Cusp-Package}.
Cobb's pseudo-$R^{2}$ and Pearson's $R^{2}$ corresponding to the linear model
$x=c_{0}+c_{1}f+c_{2}u+c_{3}v$
were calculated and compared each other.
The software fits the data to the \emph{standard} cusp model, where
the bifurcation is centered at $\alpha = 0$, $\beta = 0$ and $x = 0$.
However, by requiring to \eqref{eq:fitting_model-1} that $w_{0}=a_{0}=b_{0}=0$, as boundary conditions,
the data were fitted to \eqref{eq:sde}.
\section{Results}
The Cobb's correlation coefficient for the ADNI data
was pseudo-$R^{2}=0.68$ that seems to be a much better fit compared to
the Pearson's correlation coefficient $R^{2}=0.35$ of the equivalent
linear model. Fitting coefficients of the Riemann-Hugoniot surface on
$(\alpha, \beta, x)$ space were
$w_{1}=4.6$, $a_{1}=6.6$, $a_{2}=5.4$, $b_{1}=2.8$ and $b_{2}=0.1$.
Figure \ref{fig:plot_bifurcation} shows the control plane of the cusp
model and how the data distribute for $\alpha$ and $\beta$ values. It can be seen
that there is a preferential direction along the cusp surface, represented
as a straight line. By translating and rotating the coordinate system,
so that $\alpha$ lies over this straight line and applying the boundary conditions,
$x$ can be expressed in its "natural" coordinate system ($\alpha'$, $\beta'$).
Figure \ref{fig:plot_transv} is the representation
of the data in the new coordinate system.
It shows how the data distribute for $x$ values.
Here, it can be seen that two different results are possible,
IADL task failure for low values of IADL performance, and success, for high
values of IADL performance.
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\unitlength}{0.95\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\unitlength]{fig1}
\caption{\label{fig:plot_bifurcation}Control surface of the cusp model.
Shadowed area represents the bivaluated zone of the cusp. The straight line represents the
most probable trajectory on the plane. Arrow shows the general direction of aging. Darkness of points
is proportional to the value of the correlation length.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\unitlength}{0.95\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\unitlength]{fig2}
\caption{\label{fig:plot_transv}{Change of possible values
of the network correlation length along the most probable trajectory
represented by $\alpha'$ line. The arrow shows the direction of aging.
Darkness of points is proportional to the value of the correlation length.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\unitlength}{0.95\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\unitlength]{fig3}
\caption{\label{fig:entropy}{Entropy of the system as a function
of $\alpha'$. The maximum value of entropy is for
$\alpha' \simeq{} 6.5$.}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\unitlength}{0.95\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\unitlength]{fig4}
\caption{\label{fig:probs}{Probability density of obtaining
a network of size $x$ for different values of $\alpha'$
along the most probable evolution of the system.}}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
The entropy of the system, calculated according to \eqref{eq:entropy} and represented
in Figure \ref{fig:entropy}, defines the possible evolution of the system in time.
The system evolves in the general direction of the known aging
processes of brain, represented with arrows in Figures \ref{fig:plot_bifurcation}
and \ref{fig:plot_transv}. However, the maximum value of entropy
corresponds to the point of $\alpha = 0$ and $\beta \simeq 2.15$, very close
to the point where the data intersects the
$\alpha = 0$ plane ($\beta = 2.06$).
Older age is generally characterized by decreasing brain volume \cite{pmid9341935}
and a decline in brain glucose metabolism \cite{pmid12482085,pmid17630048,pmid12454908}.
Our model shows that even if this declining process
occurs slowly it could end in a catastrophic failures of IADL, that is, in dementia.
Even when older individuals are more likely to present multiple
pathologies \cite{pmid26180144} it has been observed that some very old
people get dementia without the presence of any pathology.
That is, even when age is associated to pathological processes a non small percentage of the
oldest people get dementia without any pathology \cite{pmid22471863}.
As can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:probs}, the "high energy" states produce only networks
with high output. However, when there is a loss of brain volume with older age
and a lower energy use, a point is reached where the probability of producing
a network with a very low output is not zero. That is, the probability of task
failure suddenly becomes greater than zero. This probability of failure increases along the
aging process while the probability of success decreases. At some point along this
continuum, an individual will be diagnosed with dementia. At very low values of BR
and FDG the probability of success will be zero.
Our results show that functional brain decline is clearly
observed through the measures of the energy consumption (FDG) and the
brain volume (BR). Dementia progression has been already associated with
the lesser presence of brain energy consumption \cite{pmid21276856}.
Furthermore, it has been observed that the decline in energy consumption
increases in advanced disease stages \cite{pmid19660834} pointing to a non
linear relation between both magnitudes. Other authors have linked the IADL
impairment to brain atrophy \cite{pmid25109674, pmid21646578} and also
abrupt changes of IADL for different levels of brain atrophy have been
observed \cite{pmid17521485}, very similar to those changes that our
model predicts.
However, there is no deterministic
relation between those biomarkers and the onset of dementia. On the
contrary, an individual's decline could follow a random path
through the surface determined by Equation \eqref{eq:model1}.
Furthermore, the precise moment when the subject falls into dementia
can not be predicted because it is governed by a probability function.
Beyond statistical inference or linear relationships,
a few mathematical models link the brain functioning with observed
measures. However, these models are mainly focused into capturing the patterns
of the disease instead of offering a general dynamics of the subject
impairment progression \cite{pmid23450438, pmid24146290, pmid25600871}.
Here we offer a general framework that can be used to test the weight
of clinical variables over the disease. Role of pathological variables
could be easily determined by rewriting $\alpha$ and $\beta$
expression in equations \eqref{eq:fitting_model-1}. The influence of
comorbidities or other factors usually used as covariables as age or
genetic factors could be tested the same way. Fitting coefficients should
show if these variables need to be taken into account. For instance,
it is clear that in equations \eqref{eq:fitting_model-1} the brain atrophy
can be neglected from $\beta$ since the coeffcient $b_{2}$ is an order of
magnitude smaller than the others. However, the inclusion of
new variables should modulate the trajectory over the surface described
by \eqref{eq:model1}. So, the research over several variables should
require much more data in order to show reliable results.
\section{Conclusions}
It has been argued that dementia is the result of a pathological process
acting on the brain and is fundamentally different from what is called
healthy aging. However, based on the results of our model, normal aging
results in a small, but continuous change in the brain that can drive
loss of performance in IADLs. This presents the provocative possibility
that at least in some case (e.g., the oldest-old) a dementia syndrome
could be an end-point of otherwise normal aging.
However, the solution posed here is only for the steady state.
That is, the curve of Figure \ref{fig:plot_transv} represents the
evolution of system only if changes occur slowly. Stroke, infections,
and the like cause abrupt changes to the system, and these are not
accounted for in our model. We do not exclude the possibility that
dementia could also appear as a consequence of sudden changes
on the brain.
While our model explains the general behavior of the data,
the entropy of the system, shown in Figure \ref{fig:entropy} does not
explain more advanced cases of dementia. This could mean that
the model should not be applied to the more sparse networks that
would be apparent in demented individuals.
This is a novel approach not only in the field of dementia but more
generally for neurodegenerative diseases. By applying only first
principles of physics, in this case the laws of thermodynamics, we can
show how cumulative slow changes in the brain can trigger a catastrophic
change in the performance of the functional networks.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work was supported in part by funds from Fundacio ACE, Institut
Catala de Neurociencies Aplicades, the estate of Trinitat Port-Carbó,
the National Institute on Aging (AG05133) and PRODEP project
DSA/103.5/15/6986 from SEP, Mexico.
Data collection and sharing for this project was funded by the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
(ADNI) (National Institutes of Health Grant U01 AG024904) and DOD ADNI (Department of Defense award
number W81XWH-12-2-0012). ADNI is funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of
Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, and through generous contributions from the following: AbbVie,
Alzheimer’s Association; Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation; Araclon Biotech; BioClinica, Inc.; Biogen;
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; CereSpir, Inc.; Cogstate; Eisai Inc.; Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Eli Lilly and
Company; EuroImmun; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and its affiliated company Genentech, Inc.; Fujirebio; GE
Healthcare; IXICO Ltd.; Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research \& Development, LLC.; Johnson \&
Johnson Pharmaceutical Research \& Development LLC.; Lumosity; Lundbeck; Merck \& Co., Inc.; Meso
Scale Diagnostics, LLC.; NeuroRx Research; Neurotrack Technologies; Novartis Pharmaceuticals
Corporation; Pfizer Inc.; Piramal Imaging; Servier; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company; and Transition
Therapeutics. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is providing funds to support ADNI clinical sites
in Canada. Private sector contributions are facilitated by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health
(www.fnih.org). The grantee organization is the Northern California Institute for Research and Education,
and the study is coordinated by the Alzheimer’s Therapeutic Research Institute at the University of Southern
California. ADNI data are disseminated by the Laboratory for Neuro Imaging at the University of Southern
California.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Introduction}
The current generation of gravitational wave detectors uses variants of long Michelson interferometers to detect minute deformations of space-time that pass through the Earth from distant astrophysical sources~\cite{weiss:1972, drever:1991,meers:1988}. Advanced LIGO~\cite{Fritschel2014b} employs Fabry-Perot arm cavities with a length of 4~km, whereas Advanced VIRGO~\cite{degallaix:2012} and KAGRA~\cite{somiya:2011} are 3~km long. These instruments are likely to make direct detections of gravitational waves in the next several years~\cite{nsns}. Coalescing neutron star binaries are expected to be a regular source for this generation of detectors, with sources at the horizon as far as 400 Mpc away. Observations of signals from pulsars, supernovae, and other sources are not ruled out, though they are likely to be infrequent and with low signal to noise ratios~\cite{nsns}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\centering\includegraphics[width = \columnwidth]{Fig1_40kmIfo}
\caption[Advanced LIGO sensitivity with extended arms.]{Projected sensitivity of a 40~km long interferometer based on Advanced LIGO. The only major added technology with respect to the existing interferometers is the use of a squeezed light source for reducing quantum noise.}
\label{fig:sens}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Even as the scientific community prepares to gain new understanding of the nearby universe from the first detections of gravitational waves, the quest for deeper searches out to cosmological distances is a strong driving force toward significantly more sensitive detectors. The reach of ground based detectors is limited by a class of noises known as displacement noises, which move the optics of the interferometer, and are to be contrasted with sensing noises, which limit the measurement of their position. Reducing displacement noises has been a major component of proposed upgrades to the current generation of detectors; a factor of two improvement in sensitivity is achievable through short-term incremental upgrades to Advanced LIGO \cite{Miller2014}. Later upgrades involving new optical materials and coatings, cryogenic operations, and other technologies currently being developed may achieve up to a factor of five improvement over Advanced LIGO in the existing 4 km facility \cite{adhikari:2014}. Over time, increasingly complex upgrades in the existing facilities will yield smaller improvements in sensitivity.
To date the European Einstein Telescope proposal represents the most complete design of a future gravitational wave detector unfettered by existing facilities~\cite{abernathy:2011b}. The Einstein Telescope is 10~km long, underground, triangular shaped and has a projected astrophysical reach similar to the detector described in this paper, based on admittedly optimistic assumptions about improvements in technologies to reduce displacement noises.
We propose a much simpler approach to improving the sensitivity based on proven technologies: increasing the arm length of existing detectors from 4~km to 40~km. This does not automatically guarantee a ten-fold increase in sensitivity, since all noise sources do not scale trivially with arm length. This approach has two significant advantages: in the early phases it will open up cosmological distances to direct observation with gravitational waves using technology already proven in second generation detectors, and it will provide a facility where even more sensitive detectors can be installed in the future by incorporating advanced technologies.
This paper explores the sensitivity of a 40~km detector which, aside from arm length, requires only a few modest changes relative to the Advanced LIGO design (discussed in the second half of the paper). The projected sensitivity of this detector is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sens}. Compared to Figure~\ref{fig:aLIGO} we see that it is possible to achieve an order of magnitude improvement beyond Advanced LIGO, and also to move the most sensitive part of the detection band to lower frequencies where many astrophysical sources produce stronger signals. We go on to discuss the constraints on detector size which make the 40~km scale of particular interest, and why longer detectors move beyond the point of diminishing returns.
\section{Cosmological Reach}
\label{sec:Horizon}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width = 3.4in]{Fig2_InspiralRange}
\caption[Reach of Advanced LIGO with extended arms.]{Astrophysical reach for compact binary inspiral systems. The horizontal axis in this plot represents the intrinsic chirp mass of a symmetric binary for the solid lines, and the observed chip mass for the dashed lines. Blue lines represent the maximum observable distance for Advanced LIGO, whereas red lines represent the reach of Advanced LIGO with extended arms, based on the sensitivity shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sens}. A Hubble constant of 67.9~km/s/Mpc was assumed~\cite{ade:2013}. }
\label{fig:reach}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
A 40~km gravitational wave detector, with the sensitivity presented in Figure~\ref{fig:sens}, will so greatly change the distance at which sources can be observed that cosmological redshift must be accounted for when describing its potential reach. As for light, the expansion of the universe will shift gravitational wave signals down in frequency, moving signals from stellar mass objects into the most sensitive part of the band, and shifting signals from heavier sources below the detection band.
The frequency dependence of the expected waveforms for nearby compact object binaries is determined by the intrinsic chirp mass of the object, $\mathcal{M}_0 = \sqrt[5]{\mu^3 M^2}$, with $\mu$ the reduced mass and $M$ the total mass. The impact of a cosmological redshift on gravitational wave observations can be described entirely as a change in the observed chirp mass, $\mathcal{M}=(1+z)\mathcal{M}_0$, see Ref.~\cite{finn:1996}. The horizon distance for compact object binaries is defined as the maximum distance at which an optimally oriented system can be observed with a signal-to-noise ratio of 8; when the impact of cosmological redshift is negligible the horizon distance is about twice as far as the inspiral range which includes averaging over source orientation and sky location. We plot the horizon distance as a function of intrinsic chirp mass in Figure~\ref{fig:reach}, as well as the horizon distance as a function of observed chirp mass.
As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:reach}, a pair of $1.4 M_\odot$ binary neutron stars, which has an intrinsic chirp mass of $1.2~M_\odot$ could be observed at a horizon redshift of about 2. The observed chirp mass of this system, $\mathcal{M} \simeq 3.6 M_\odot$, can be found by looking at the intersection of the observed chirp mass curve with a line at $z = 2$. Note that since the signal from a binary system is redshifted into the detection band, the detector's reach for objects of this type is increased by about a factor of 2 in redshift. On the other hand, the horizon distance for symmetric black hole systems with an intrinsic chirp mass above $\mathcal{M}_0 > 15 M_\odot$ is reduced by the cosmological redshift, since the waveform gets redshifted below the detection band.
With a 40~km observatory, the most distant detectable binary would have an intrinsic chirp mass of $\mathcal{M}_0\approx 5 M_\odot$ and a horizon redshift of $z=7.2$. This means the reach extends into the latter part of the re-ionization epoch. While the rate of inspirals at these high redshifts will likely be low, observations of inspirals from the remnants of massive early stars may be possible, shedding light on the populations of early, metal poor stars. Observations of binary black hole inspirals coupled with electromagnetic observations can provide a measurement of the distance-luminosity relation independent of the cosmological distance ladder, an important science goal for space based gravitational wave observatories like LISA \cite{Holz:2005}. Hence, coincident detections of high redshift sources would be able to provide measurements of cosmological parameters, including dark energy, which are completely independent of supernovae \cite{Sathyaprakash:2010}.
\section{Noise scaling with arm length}
\label{sec:scaling}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering\includegraphics[width = 3.4in]{Fig3_AdvLIGO}
\caption{The design noise budget of Advanced LIGO. All dominant noise sources below about 100~Hz are displacement noise, and therefore benefit from longer arms.}
\label{fig:aLIGO}
\end{figure}
It would be easy to erroneously conclude that the sensitivity of a gravitational wave detector will scale linearly with increasing detector length, since the displacement caused by gravitational wave strain scales linearly with detector length. However, \emph{all} of the limiting noise sources will also change as the detector length is changed, meaning that the sensitivity does not have a simple linear scaling with detector length at any frequency. Vertical motion of the optics, driven by suspension thermal noise, couples to the gravitational wave readout due to the curvature of the earth and does not scale linearly; coating thermal noise scaling is modified by the changing beam size; the mass of the optics must be increased to accommodate the larger beams; and the overall quantum noise behavior of the detector must be modified to account for the increased flight time of photons in the interferometer arms.
The power spectral density of the coating and substrate Brownian noise scales as the inverse of the laser beam area~\cite{levin:1998}. The spot sizes $w_1$ and $w_2$ on the mirrors in a two-mirror Fabry-Perot cavity are given by~\cite{siegman}
\begin{equation}
w_{1,2}^2 = \frac{\lambda L}{\pi} \sqrt{\frac{g_{2,1}}{g_{1,2}(1-g_{1,2} g_{2,1})}},
\label{equ:spotsize1}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is the wavelength, $g_{1,2}=1-L_{\mathrm{arm}}/R_{1,2}$ are the $g$ factors for each optic, and $R_{1,2}$ are the radii of curvature of the two optics. The beam size on the optic scales with the square root of the arm cavity length if other factors are constant, meaning that the strain amplitude sensitivity limited by coating Brownian noise could improve as much as $1/L_{\mathrm{arm}}^{3/2}$ as the arm length increases, if suitably large optics are available. In reality, for a longer interferometer both the angular stability and the size of the required optics will require a smaller $g$ factor than Advanced LIGO, so that the scaling of Brownian noise will be between $1/L_{\mathrm{arm}}^{3/2}$ and $1/L_{\mathrm{arm}}$. This increased beam size may require an increase in the mass of the optics used, which leads to a small improvement in the overall sensitivity due to reductions in the noise caused by Newtonian gravity, radiation pressure noise, and an even smaller reduction in the horizontal suspension thermal noise \cite{Saulson1990}.
Due to the curvature of the Earth, for multi-kilometer arm cavities the local vertical direction is not quite perpendicular to the optical axis, and this introduces a small but unavoidable coupling between vertical motion of the test mass and the gravitational wave output of the detector, approximately $\sin\left(L_{\mathrm{arm}}/2R_{\oplus}\right)$ (0.003 for a 40~km arm). Even a small coupling can be problematic, because the vertical thermal noise is orders of magnitude larger than the noise in the horizontal direction, where a large fraction of the energy of oscillations is stored as gravitational potential energy. In the vertical direction however, the energy is stored in the elastic restoring forces of the suspension fibers and springs, which introduce noise through their mechanical losses ~\cite{Gonzalez1994, Cagnoli2000}. By lengthening the final suspension stage from 60 cm to 1 meter, the vertical suspension mode resonant frequency will be lowered from 9~Hz to 7~Hz~\cite{Hammond2012}. This modest change would reduce the suspension thermal noise by more than a factor of 7 at 10~Hz in a 40 km interferometer, while in a 4 km interferometer where the horizontal suspension noise dominates it would provide about a 30\% improvement.
Quantum noise is a combination of sensor noise (shot noise) and displacement noise (radiation pressure noise); the optical parameters of the interferometer must be chosen to optimize the quantum noise in light of the other limiting noise sources in the interferometer. At low frequencies the increased arm length improves the quantum noise limited sensitivity while at high frequencies the shot noise is unchanged as the arm length increases. Quantum radiation pressure noise is reduced by the increased arm length because it is a displacement noise and because the fluctuating radiation pressure force causes smaller displacements in the more massive optics required for a longer detector.
At high frequencies the shot noise limited sensitivity does not change as the arm length increases, but can be improved by increasing the efficiency of the signal extraction~\cite{Mizuno:1993}, injection of squeezed light~\cite{Caves:1980,Caves:1981} and by increasing the circulating power. Since both thermal lensing and thermal distortion from heating of the optics due to absorption of laser light are approximately independent of the beam size~\cite{Winkler1991}, the circulating power in a long interferometer will be similar to that of Advanced LIGO. Since squeezed light injection is the most promising early upgrade for Advanced LIGO~\cite{oelker, Grote2011, LSCH1Sqz2013}, we assume that it will be included in any future interferometer designs. We include modest frequency-dependent squeezing with a 1~km long filter cavity and 80~ppm round-trip losses~\cite{Evans2013,Isogai2013,Kwee2014}.
By increasing the efficiency of signal extraction, the detection band can be broadened by improving the shot noise limited sensitivity at high frequencies while slightly decreasing the quantum noise limited sensitivity from 30--80~Hz, where other noise sources also limit the sensitivity. Table~\ref{tbl:param} compares the optical parameters between Advanced LIGO and the 40~km extended version and includes the change in signal recycling mirror transmission required to maintain detection bandwidth.
\begin{table}[b]
\begin{tabular*}{3.4in}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} l r r }
\hline \hline
& Adv. LIGO & 40\;km LIGO \\
\hline
Arm length & 4 km & 40 km \\
Mirror mass & \multicolumn{2}{r}{40 kg\hspace*{0.4in}}\\
Beam radius & ~6.2 cm & 11.6 cm \\
Measured squeezing & none & 5 dB \\
Filter cavity length & none & 1 km\\
Suspension length & 0.6 m & 1 m \\
Signal recycling mirror trans. & 20\% & 10\%\\
Arm cavity circulating power & \multicolumn{2}{r}{775 kW\hspace*{0.4in}}\\
Arm cavity finesse & \multicolumn{2}{r}{446\hspace*{0.4in}}\\
Total light storage time & 200~ms & 2~s \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular*}
\caption{Optical parameters of the Advanced LIGO detector and the 40~km extended version. The mirror mass may be increased in a larger interferometer to accommodate a larger beam size, leading to a slightly better sensitivity than that shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sens} due to reduction in radiation pressure noise.}
\label{tbl:param}
\end{table}
The statistical fluctuations in the column density of the residual gas in the vacuum system induce noise in the measured optical path of the laser beam~\cite{Zucker:1994}. These fluctuations are averaged over the entire length and size of the beam. For an ${\rm H}_2$ pressure of $5\times10^{-9}$ torr at room temperature, a level normally surpassed by the LIGO vacuum system, and the beam size listed in Table~\ref{tbl:param} the residual gas strain amplitude noise density is about $6\times 10^{-26}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$, below the level of noise shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sens} and a factor of 5 below the limiting sensitivity.
\section{Constraints on arm length}
While many noise sources decrease with increasing arm length, there are several constraints which prevent indefinitely increasing the arm length. Cost is of course a huge consideration; here we consider two of the most important technical constraints: the laser spot size, which drives us to larger area optics and the increased challenges of maintaining interferometer alignment.
The first of these constraints arises from the necessary expansion of beam size with interferometer length due to diffraction, and the difficultly of manufacturing large optics with surfaces suitable for use in low-loss resonant cavities. For a spot of radius $w$, the clipping loss $p$ at a circular aperture (mirror) of radius r is given by
\begin{equation}
\log{ \left( p \right)} =\frac{- 2 r^2}{w^2}.
\end{equation}
Advanced LIGO was designed for a total cavity round trip loss of $75~{\mathrm{ppm}}$, of which $1~{\mathrm{ppm}}$ per optic is clipping loss. If we allow an increase to $15~{\mathrm{ppm}}$ per optic for clipping and if we compensate with input laser power, we find for the maximum allowable arm length, with the simplification $g_1=g_2=g$:
\begin{equation}
L = \frac{2 \pi}{-\log{\left( p \right)} } \frac{r^2}{\lambda} \sqrt{1\!\!-\!\!g^2}
\approx 15\,{\mathrm{km}} \left( \frac{r}{17\,{\mathrm{cm}}} \right)^2 \!\! \sqrt{1\!\!-\!\!g^2},
\end{equation}
where we used Advanced LIGO's optics radius of $17~{\mathrm{cm}}$ and $\lambda=1.064~\mu\mathrm{m}$. With the goal of a ten-fold arm length increase over Advanced LIGO, this implies the need for optics with a diameter of about $55\,\mathrm{cm}$. This arguably is the toughest technical constraint to scaling up gravitational wave interferometers.
Optical surface quality requirements are driven by scattering losses in the arm cavities and contrast defect at the beamsplitter. The relevant spatial size of imperfections on the optics scales with the spot size $w$, i.e., it remains the same relative to the optic's diameter. Hence, the technical challenges of manufacturing suitable optics are not fundamental, but rather a question of adequate tooling and manufacturing capabilities. To keep the beam radius and, therefore, the optics small, lenses could potentially be used in the arm cavities. The noise requirement for such lenses is, however, stringent~\cite{RadiativeThermalNoise}.
The task of maintaining the interferometer alignment could be expected to become more challenging as the arm length is increased, especially during initial lock acquisition before active feedback servos can be engaged. Assuming a symmetric cavity ($g_1=g_2=g$) for simplicity, we find the loss due to a misalignment, $\theta_1$, of one of the mirrors to be proportional to cavity length
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:loss}
P_{\mathrm{loss}} (\theta_1) =
\frac{\pi L}{\lambda} \frac{1}{(1-g^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \theta_1^2.
\end{equation}
To reduce coating Brownian noise by increasing the spot size, Advanced LIGO is already using a relatively high $g$-factor of $g^2=0.83$. By choosing a smaller $g$-factor it is, therefore, possible to build a $40~{\rm km}$ arm cavity without enhancing the sensitivity to misalignment, and so existing suspension hardware may be sufficient even for a much longer interferometer.
Finding a suitable site for a 40~km long interferometer is challenging, but there are several relatively flat, undeveloped sites within the United States and around the world that could be suitable candidates. As examples we may list the Carson Sink in Nevada or the Murray river plane in Sedan, South Australia. Both sites are slight bowls, partly compensating for the Earth's curvature and therefore reducing the amount of earth moving needed. We expect that the disadvantages of location and cost for a long arm facility will be more than compensated for by the immense reduction in complexity and technical risk.
\section{Conclusion}
To summarize, a 40~km interferometer based on Advanced LIGO technologies, with modest levels of squeezed light injection and the minimum beam size possible without focusing optics, can be made an order of magnitude more sensitive than Advanced LIGO. We emphasize again that a factor of 10 change in length doesn't necessarily result in a factor of ten change in sensitivity; the modifications in optical parameters detailed in Table~\ref{tbl:param} were carefully chosen to make this possible.
While the advantages of scaling up current interferometers have some limitations, a factor of 10 scaling is nearly optimal, as it enables the detection of astrophysical events from much of the visible universe. A typical $1.4 M_{\odot}$ binary neutron star system can be detected at a redshift of $z \sim 2$, and a symmetric $10 M_\odot$ black hole binary can be detected back to the epoch of reionization at $z\gtrsim 7$.
The detector described herein will do more than provide more frequent detections, it will open up new scientific possibilities for gravitational wave astrophysics. High signal to noise observations of the sources, accessible to current detectors only at modest fidelity, will allow studies of gravity in the strong field dynamical regime; and it will better reveal the properties of the compact objects involved (e.g., the neutron star equation of state). The reach of this detector will include a significant part of the history of star formation and allow observation of most solar mass compact object binary inspirals throughout the universe. Increased sensitivity will also bring observations of sources rare or unseen by current detectors, such as supernovae and continuous wave signals from spinning neutron stars.
Furthermore, the investment in a new 40~km facility provides the opportunity to integrate more advanced technologies in the future---limited only by fundamentals like the speed of light and the curvature of the Earth.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank Rai~Weiss for encouraging us and for thinking about ways to reduce the costs of a 40~km interferometer. We would like to thank Kiwamu Izumi, David Ottaway, GariLynn Billingsley, and Stefan Hild for many fruitful discussions. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation grants PHY-0823459 and PHY-1068809. This document has been assigned the LIGO Laboratory document number LIGO-P1400147.
\end{acknowledgments}
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
|
\section{Introduction}
Spacetime symmetry has played an important role in general relativity,
particularly isometry that is described by Killing vector fields
\be
\nabla_\mu \xi_\nu + \nabla_\nu \xi_\mu = 0 \,. \label{KV}
\ee
The analysis of the equation leads to the well-known result
that if the spacetime dimension is given by $n$,
the metric admits at most $n(n+1)/2$ linearly independent Killing vector fields.
Only Minkowski, de Sitter and anti-de Sitter spacetimes are maximally symmetric,
which admit the maximum number of Killing vector fields.
At the same time, it is not always easy to find Killing vector fields for a given metric
because one needs to solve coupled partial differential equations obtained from (\ref{KV}).
Alternatively, a Killing vector field $\partial/\partial x$ can be identified
if all metric components are independent of a coordinate $x$.
However, finding such a coordinate is still difficult.
Meanwhile, Killing-Yano (KY) tensors have been recognised to be describing hidden symmetry of spacetimes
because thanks to such symmetry many complicated physical problems become tractable.
For instance, the Kerr spacetime admits a nondegenerate rank-2 KY tensor
that guarantees integrability of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for geodesics
\cite{Carter:1968,Floyd:1973,Penrose:1973,Hughston:1973b}.
KY tensors were originally introduced in \cite{Yano:1952}
as a generalisation of Killing vector fields to higher-rank antisymmetric tensors
\be
\nabla_\mu k_{\nu_1\nu_2\dots \nu_p} + \nabla_{\nu_1}k_{\mu\nu_2\dots \nu_p} = 0 \,. \label{KY}
\ee
In four dimensions, if a spacetime admits a nondegenerate rank-2 KY tensor,
the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for geodesics,
the Klein-Gordon and the Dirac equations can be solved by separation of variables \cite{Carter:1977,Benenti:1979,Carter:1979}.
The similar properties can be seen also in higher dimensions
(see reviews \cite{Frolov:2008,Yasui:2011} and references therein).
However, it is as difficult to find KY tensors as Killing vector fields.
The purpose of this paper is to present a simple method for investigating KY tensors for a given metric.
Since rank-1 KY tensors are 1-forms dual to Killing vector fields,
the method can be applied to Killing vector fields, too.
We also deal with the Hodge duals of KY tensors,
which are known as closed conformal Killing-Yano (CCKY) tensors.
The idea is based on the work of U.\ Semmelmann \cite{Semmelmann:2002}.
It was shown that one can introduce a connection
on the vector bundle $E^p(M)\equiv \Lambda^pT^*M \oplus \Lambda^{p+1}T^*M$, known as a Killing connection,
whose parallel sections are one-to-one corresponding to rank-$p$ KY tensors.
In this paper, using the Killing connection, we calculate the curvature on the vector bundle $E^p(M)$.
From the curvature and its covariant derivative, we obtain some curvature conditions
that provide necessary conditions for the parallel sections.
Solving the curvature conditions,
the number of linearly independent solutions puts an upper bound on the number of KY tensors.
A feature of the method is that the curvature conditions are obtained as algebraic equations,
which enables us to compute the upper bound for any metric.
In Sec.~3, we actually compute the upper bound on the number of Killing vector fields on the Kerr spacetime.
We will see that the Kerr spacetime admits exactly two Killing vector fields
without solving the Killing equation.
Another feature is that the solution of the curvature conditions
gives an ansatz for solving the original differential equations (\ref{KV}) and (\ref{KY}).
As we will see in Sec.~3, the Killing equation for the Kerr metric becomes tractable with such an ansatz.
This paper is organised as follows:
In Sec.~2, we begin with the familiar discussion on the maximum number of Killing vector fields.
Following \cite{Semmelmann:2002}, we introduce the Killing connection and calculate its curvature.
Hence, we obtain the curvature conditions that provide an upper bound on the number of Killing vector fields.
Sec.~3 shows how to exploit the obtained curvature conditions.
As an example, we actually investigate Killing vector fields on the Kerr spacetime.
In Sec.~4, we extend the discussion in Sec.~2 to higher-rank KY tensors.
Similar to Killing vector fields, we introduce a Killing connection.
Calculating its curvature, we derive curvature conditions that provide an upper bound on the number of KY tensors.
We also discuss the curvature conditions on CCKY tensors.
In Sec.~5, only using type D vacuum conditions,
we thoroughly investigate KY symmetry of type D vacuum solutions in four dimensions.
Sec.~6 also investigates KY tensors for some physical metrics in four and five dimensions,
where we only list the results (see Table 1, 2 and 3).
Sec.~7 is devoted to discussion and conclusions.
\section{Curvature conditions on Killing vector fields}
As is well-known, the maximum number of linearly independent Killing vector fields
on an $n$-dimensional spacetime $M$ with a Lorentzian metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ is obtained
by the following discussion (e.g., see the Wald's book \cite{Wald:1984}).
The Killing equation (\ref{KV}) is written as
\be
\nabla_\mu \xi_\nu = L_{\mu\nu} \,, \label{KV1}
\ee
where $L_{\mu\nu}=\nabla_{[\mu}\xi_{\nu]}$
and $\nabla$ is the Levi-Civita connection.
Taking the covariant derivative, eq.\ (\ref{KV1}) leads to
\be
\nabla_\mu L_{\nu\rho} = - R_{\nu\rho\mu}{}^\sigma\xi_\sigma \,, \label{KV2}
\ee
where $R_{\mu\nu\rho}{}^\sigma$ is the Riemann curvature.
Eqs.\ (\ref{KV1}) and (\ref{KV2}) show that a Killing vector field $\xi^\mu$ is determined
by the initial values of $\xi_\mu$ and $L_{\mu\nu}$ at a point on $M$.
Since $L_{\mu\nu}$ is antisymmetric, one can provide at most $n(n+1)/2$ data at each point,
which give the maximum number of Killing vector fields.
We consider the covariant derivative of eq.\ (\ref{KV2}).
Then, we obtain the curvature condition
\ba
& (\nabla_\mu R_{\rho\sigma\nu}{}^\lambda)\xi_\lambda - (\nabla_\nu R_{\rho\sigma\mu}{}^\lambda)\xi_\lambda \nonumber\\
& - R_{\mu\nu\rho}{}^\lambda L_{\sigma\lambda} + R_{\mu\nu\sigma}{}^\lambda L_{\rho\lambda}
- R_{\rho\sigma\mu}{}^\lambda L_{\nu\lambda} + R_{\rho\sigma\nu}{}^\lambda L_{\mu\lambda} = 0 \,, \label{CurvCond2}
\ea
where we have used eq.\ (\ref{KV1}).
Since the condition is no longer differential equations
but linear algebraic equations for $\xi_\mu$ and $L_{\mu\nu}$,
it provides restrictions on the values of $\xi_\mu$ and $L_{\mu\nu}$ at each point on $M$.
In four dimensions, there are 20 equations for 10 functions.
In $n$ dimensions, there are $n^2(n^2-1)/12$ equations for $n(n+1)/2$ functions.
Furthermore, taking the covariant derivative of eq.\ (\ref{CurvCond2}), we obtain the curvature condition
\be \eqalign{
\nabla_\kappa \nabla_{[\mu}R_{|\rho\sigma|\nu]}{}^\lambda \xi_\lambda
+ R_{\mu\nu[\rho}{}^\delta R_{\sigma]\delta\kappa}{}^\lambda \xi_\lambda
+ R_{\rho\sigma[\mu}{}^\delta R_{\nu]\delta\kappa}{}^\lambda \xi_\lambda \\
+ \nabla_{[\mu}R_{|\rho\sigma|\nu]}{}^\lambda L_{\kappa\lambda}
- \nabla_\kappa R_{\mu\nu[\rho}{}^\lambda L_{\sigma]\lambda}
- \nabla_\kappa R_{\rho\sigma[\mu}{}^\lambda L_{\nu]\lambda} =0 \,, } \label{CurvCond4}
\ee
where the derivative terms $\nabla_\mu\xi_\nu$ and $\nabla_\mu L_{\nu\rho}$ have been replaced by $\xi_\mu$ and $L_{\mu\nu}$
with the help of eqs.\ (\ref{KV1}) and (\ref{KV2}).
It provides further restrictions on the values of $\xi_\mu$ and $L_{\mu\nu}$ at each point on $M$.
One can take further derivatives of the curvature condition and,
in principle, one could take the infinite number of the derivatives.
However, in this paper, we only deal with the curvature condition (\ref{CurvCond2})
and its first derivative (\ref{CurvCond4}).
Those conditions are strong enough to restrict the values of $\xi_\mu$ and $L_{\mu\nu}$
at least for metrics that we investigate in this paper, as we will see later.
If the curvature conditions only have the trivial solution, $\xi_\mu=L_{\mu\nu}=0$,
one can conclude that the metric admits no Killing vector field.
\section{Killing vector fields on the Kerr spacetime}
We investigate Killing vector fields on the Kerr spacetime
by use of the curvature conditions (\ref{CurvCond2}) and (\ref{CurvCond4}).
For the Kerr metric, we begin with the metric form \cite{Carter:1968},
\be \eqalign{
ds^2 =& \frac{r^2+p^2}{{\cal Q}}dr^2+\frac{r^2+p^2}{{\cal P}}dp^2 \nonumber\\
& -\frac{{\cal Q}}{r^2+p^2}(d\tau-p^2d\sigma)^2
+\frac{{\cal P}}{r^2+p^2}(d\tau+r^2d\sigma)^2 \,, } \label{Kerr_metric}
\ee
where
\be
{\cal Q} = r^2 - 2mr + a^2 \,, \quad {\cal P} = a^2 - p^2 \,. \label{Kerr_function}
\ee
For later calculation, we introduce an orthonormal frame
\be
\eqalign{
{\bm e}^1 = \frac{dr}{\sqrt{Q_1}} \,, \quad {\bm e}^2 = \frac{dp}{\sqrt{Q_2}} \,, \\
{\bm e}^{\hat{1}} = \sqrt{Q_1}(d\tau-p^2d\sigma) \,, \quad
{\bm e}^{\hat{2}} = \sqrt{Q_2}(d\tau+r^2d\sigma) \,,
} \label{OrthonoramalFrame}
\ee
where
\be
Q_1 = \frac{{\cal Q}}{r^2+p^2} \,, \quad Q_2 = \frac{{\cal P}}{r^2+p^2} \,.
\ee
In such a frame, the metric is written as ${\bm g} = {\bm e}^1{\bm e}^1+{\bm e}^2{\bm e}^2
-{\bm e}^{\hat{1}}{\bm e}^{\hat{1}}+{\bm e}^{\hat{2}}{\bm e}^{\hat{2}}$.
Since all the metric components are independent of the coordinates $\tau$ and $\sigma$,
$\partial/\partial\tau$ and $\partial/\partial\sigma$ are Killing vector fields.
The dual 1-forms are given by
\ba
{\bm \xi}_1 = \sqrt{Q_1}{\bm e}^{\hat{1}}+\sqrt{Q_2} {\bm e}^{\hat{2}} \,, \label{Killing_One_Form_1} \\
{\bm \xi}_2 = p^2\sqrt{Q_1}{\bm e}^{\hat{1}}-r^2\sqrt{Q_2} {\bm e}^{\hat{2}} \,, \label{Killing_One_Form_2}
\ea
which are known Killing 1-forms on the Kerr spacetime.
For the metric, we first solve the curvature condition (\ref{CurvCond2}) for $\xi_\mu$ and $L_{\mu\nu}$.
Suppose that ${\bm \xi} = a_1 \,{\bm e}^1 + a_2 \,{\bm e}^2 + a_3 \,{\bm e}^{\hat{1}} + a_4 \,{\bm e}^{\hat{2}}$ and
${\bm L} = a_5 \,{\bm e}^1\wedge {\bm e}^2 + a_6 \,{\bm e}^1\wedge {\bm e}^{\hat{1}} + a_7 \,{\bm e}^1\wedge {\bm e}^{\hat{2}}
+ a_8 \,{\bm e}^2\wedge {\bm e}^{\hat{1}} + a_9 \,{\bm e}^2\wedge {\bm e}^{\hat{2}} + a_{10} \,{\bm e}^{\hat{1}}\wedge {\bm e}^{\hat{2}}$
where $a_i$ $(i=1,\dots,10)$ are unknown functions.
Solving eq.\ (\ref{CurvCond2}), we obtain $a_1=a_2=a_5=a_{10}=0$ and
\ba
a_7 = \frac{2 r}{r^2+p^2} \left( a_4 \sqrt{Q_1}-a_3 \sqrt{Q_2} \right) \,, \\
a_8 = \frac{2 p}{r^2+p^2} \left( a_4 \sqrt{Q_1}-a_3 \sqrt{Q_2} \right) \,,
\ea
hence, $\xi_\mu$ and $L_{\mu\nu}$ take the form
\ba
{\bm \xi} =& a_3 \,{\bm e}^{\hat{1}} + a_4 \,{\bm e}^{\hat{2}} \,, \label{sol1} \\
{\bm L} =& a_6 \,{\bm e}^1\wedge {\bm e}^{\hat{1}} + \frac{2 r}{r^2+p^2} \left( a_4 \sqrt{Q_1}
- a_3 \sqrt{Q_2} \right) \,{\bm e}^1\wedge {\bm e}^{\hat{2}} \nonumber\\
& + \frac{2 p}{r^2+p^2} \left( a_4 \sqrt{Q_1}-a_3 \sqrt{Q_2} \right) \,{\bm e}^2\wedge {\bm e}^{\hat{1}}
+ a_9 \,{\bm e}^2\wedge {\bm e}^{\hat{2}} \,, \label{sol2}
\ea
where $a_3$, $a_4$, $a_6$ and $a_9$ are arbitrary functions.
Since the solution of the curvature condition (\ref{CurvCond2}) is parametrised
by four parameters at each point,
the Kerr metric admits at most four Killing vector fields.
Furthermore, in addition to the curvature condition (\ref{CurvCond2}),
we solve the curvature condition (\ref{CurvCond4}).
Then, we find the solution
\ba
a_6 = 2 \left(\partial_r \sqrt{Q_1}\right) a_3 - \frac{2r\sqrt{Q_2}}{r^2+p^2} a_4 \,, \\
a_9 = - \frac{2p\sqrt{Q_1}}{r^2+p^2} a_3 + 2\left(\partial_p \sqrt{Q_2}\right) a_4 \,.
\ea
Since the independent parameters have reduced to two parameters $a_3$ and $a_4$,
the Kerr metric admits at most two Killing vector fields.
As we already have two Killing vector fields,
we can conclude that the Kerr metric admits exactly two Killing vector fields.
Finally, we attempt to solve the Killing equation (\ref{KV}).
We already know of course that the two Killing 1-forms are given by (\ref{Killing_One_Form_1}) and (\ref{Killing_One_Form_2}).
However, even if we did not know the Killing 1-forms, we can obtain them as follows.
Since the Killing 1-forms on the Kerr spacetime must take the form (\ref{sol1}),
we make use of the form as an ansatz for solving the Killing equation.
Then, it comes to be easy to solve the Killing equation.
The solution is given by
\be
a_3 = (c_1+c_2 p^2) \sqrt{Q_1} \,, \quad a_4 = (c_1-c_2 r^2) \sqrt{Q_2} \,,
\ee
hence, we have
\be \eqalign{
{\bm \xi} =& c_1 \left( \sqrt{Q_1}{\bm e}^{\hat{1}} + \sqrt{Q_2} {\bm e}^{\hat{2}} \right) \\
& + c_2 \left( p^2 \sqrt{Q_1}{\bm e}^{\hat{1}} - r^2 \sqrt{Q_2} {\bm e}^{\hat{2}} \right) \,, }
\ee
where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are constants.
This is indeed the linear combination of the known Killing 1-forms
(\ref{Killing_One_Form_1}) and (\ref{Killing_One_Form_2}).
\section{Generalisation}
The discussion in Sec.~2 can be interpreted as the following.
From eqs.\ (\ref{KV1}) and (\ref{KV2}), one can introduce a connection ${\cal D}_\mu$
on the vector bundle $E^1(M)\equiv T^*M \oplus \Lambda^2T^*M$,
\be
{\cal D}_\mu
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\xi_\nu \\
L_{\nu\rho}
\end{array}
\right)
\equiv \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\nabla_\mu\xi_\nu-L_{\mu\nu} \\
\nabla_\mu L_{\nu\rho} + R_{\nu\rho\mu}{}^\sigma{}\xi_\sigma
\end{array}
\right) \,, \label{KC}
\ee
where $\xi_\mu$ is a 1-form and $L_{\mu\nu}$ is a 2-form.
The connection is known as a Killing connection.
It is manifest that if a section $\hat{\xi}_A$ of $E^1(M)$ is given by a Killing vector field $\xi^\mu$
and its exterior derivative $\nabla_{[\mu}\xi_{\nu]}$, then $\hat{\xi}_A = (\xi_\mu,\nabla_{[\mu}\xi_{\nu]})$ satisfies
\be
{\cal D}_\mu \hat{\xi}_A = 0 \,, \label{parallel_eq}
\ee
which means that $\hat{\xi}_A$ is a parallel section of $E^1(M)$.
Conversely, one can demonstrate that
if $\hat{\xi}_A=(\xi_\mu,L_{\mu\nu})$ is a parallel section of $E^1(M)$,
$\xi^\mu$ is a Killing vector field and $L_{\mu\nu}$ is its exterior derivative, $L_{\mu\nu}=\nabla_{[\mu}\xi_{\nu]}$.
It follows that Killing vector fields on $M$ are in one-to-one correspondence with
parallel sections of $E^1(M)$.
Since the number of linearly independent parallel sections is bound by the rank of $E^1(M)$,
the number of linearly independent Killing vector fields is also bound by the rank of $E^1(M)$,
which is given by $n(n+1)/2$.
Calculating the curvature of the Killing connection ${\cal D}_\mu$,
we obtain some conditions for the parallel sections $\hat{\xi}_A$ of $E^1(M)$.
Since we have eq.\ (\ref{parallel_eq}), the parallel sections $\hat{\xi}_A$ satisfy the curvature condition
\be
{\cal R}_{\mu\nu A}{}^B\hat{\xi}_B
\equiv ({\cal D}_\mu{\cal D}_\nu-{\cal D}_\nu{\cal D}_\mu )\hat{\xi}_A = 0 \,, \label{CurvCond}
\ee
where ${\cal R}_{\mu\nu A}{}^B$ is called a Killing curvature.
The Killing curvature gives linear maps $\hat{\xi}_A\to\hat{\xi}^\prime_A={\cal R}_{\mu\nu A}{}^B\hat{\xi}_B$
for any choice of $\mu$ and $\nu$ at each point on $M$.
Moreover, taking the covariant derivative of the curvature condition (\ref{CurvCond}) on $E^1(M)$,
we obtain further condition
\be
({\cal D}_\mu {\cal R}_{\nu\rho A}{}^B) \hat{\xi}_B = 0 \,,
\ee
where ${\cal D}_\mu {\cal R}_{\nu\rho A}{}^B$ is defined by (\ref{CovDer_Curvature}).
Since those conditions are algebraic equations for $\hat{\xi}_A$,
they give restrictions on the values of $\hat{\xi}_A$ at each point on $M$.
Hence, investigating the linearly independent solutions of the curvature conditions,
we obtain an upper bound on the number of linearly independent Killing vector fields.
\subsection{Curvature conditions on Killing-Yano tensors}
The discussion about Killing vector fields can be naturally generalised
to higher-rank KY tensors and CCKY tensors.
For the purpose, we slightly change our notation.
Let $(M,{\bm g})$ be an $n$-dimensional Riemannian or Lorentzian manifold
and $\nabla$ be the Levi-Civita connection.
We work in a local orthonormal frame of $TM$ denoted by $\{{\bm X}_a\}$
and its dual frame of $T^*M$ denoted by $\{{\bm e}^a\}$.
Namely, they satisfy ${\bm X}_a\hook {\bm e}^b=\delta_a^b$ where $\hook$ is the interior product.
The Latin indices $a,b,\dots$ range from $1$ to $n$.
To deal with Riemannian and Lorentzian metrics simultaneously,
we define the matrix $\eta_{ab}={\bm g}({\bm X}_a,{\bm X}_b)$ which is diagonal with entries $\pm1$.
The signature is $(+,+,\dots,+)$ for Riemannian or $(-,+,\dots,+)$ for Lorentzian metrics.
We also define ${\bm X}^a=\eta^{ab}{\bm X}_b$ and ${\bm e}_a=\eta_{ab}{\bm e}^b$,
where $\eta^{ab}$ is the inverse of $\eta_{ab}$.
For a vector field ${\bm V}=V^a{\bm X}_a$, we introduce the dual 1-form ${\bm V}^*=V^a{\bm e}_a$.
In other words, ${\bm V}^* = {\bm g}({\bm V}, - )$.
A rank-$p$ KY tensor (or a KY $p$-form) ${\bm k}$ is defined as a $p$-form satisfying
\be
\nabla_{\bm X}{\bm k} = \frac{1}{p+1}{\bm X}\hook d{\bm k} \,, \label{KYeq}
\ee
for any vector field ${\bm X}$.
Covariantly differentiating (\ref{KYeq}), we obtain
\be
\nabla_{\bm X}(d{\bm k}) = \frac{p+1}{p}R^+({\bm X}){\bm k} \,, \label{KYeq2}
\ee
where
\be
R^+({\bm X}) \equiv {\bm e}^a\wedge R({\bm X},{\bm X}_a) \,.
\ee
The Riemann curvature is defined by
\be
R({\bm X},{\bm Y}) \equiv \nabla_{\bm X}\nabla_{\bm Y} - \nabla_{\bm Y}\nabla_{\bm X}
- \nabla_{[{\bm X},{\bm Y}]} \,. \label{CurvatureTensor}
\ee
In accordance with eqs.\ (\ref{KYeq}) and (\ref{KYeq2}),
one can introduce a connection ${\cal D}$
on the vector bundle $E^p(M)\equiv \Lambda^pT^*M\oplus \Lambda^{p+1}T^*M$ \cite{Semmelmann:2002},
\be
{\cal D}_{\bm X}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\bm \omega} \\
{\bm \eta}
\end{array}
\right)
\equiv \nabla_{\bm X} \left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\bm \omega} \\
{\bm \eta}
\end{array}
\right)- \Gamma({\bm X})\left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\bm \omega} \\
{\bm \eta}
\end{array}
\right) \,, \label{KillingConnectionKY}
\ee
where ${\bm \omega}$ is a section of $\Lambda^pT^*M$,
${\bm \eta}$ is a section of $\Lambda^{p+1}T^*M$ and
\be
\Gamma({\bm X}) \equiv
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 &\displaystyle{\frac{1}{p+1}}{\bm X}\hook \\
\displaystyle{\frac{p+1}{p}}R^+({\bm X}) &0
\end{array}
\right) \,.
\ee
If a section $\hat{{\bm \omega}}=({\bm \omega},{\bm \eta})$ of $E^p(M)$ is given by a KY $p$-form ${\bm \omega}={\bm k}$
and its exterior derivative ${\bm \eta}=d{\bm k}$, then it satisfies the parallel equation
\be
{\cal D}_{\bm X} \hat{{\bm \omega}} = 0 \,. \label{paralleleqKY}
\ee
Conversely, if $\hat{{\bm \omega}}=({\bm \omega},{\bm \eta})$ is a parallel section of $E^p(M)$
then ${\bm \omega}$ is a KY $p$-form and ${\bm \eta}$ is its exterior derivative, ${\bm \eta}=d{\bm \omega}$.
It follows that KY $p$-forms on $M$ are in one-to-one correspondence
with parallel sections of $E^p(M)$.
Hence, the maximum number of KY p-forms is bound by the rank of $E^p(M)$ \cite{Semmelmann:2002},
which is given by
\be
\textrm{rank} ~E^p(M) =
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n \\
p
\end{array}
\right)+
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n \\
p+1
\end{array}
\right)=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+1 \\
p+1
\end{array}
\right) \,. \label{MB_KY}
\ee
The equality is attained if a spacetime is maximally symmetric.
Note that when we take $p=1$,
eqs.\ (\ref{KYeq}) and (\ref{KYeq2}) are equivalent to eqs.\ (\ref{KV1}) and (\ref{KV2}).
Eqs.\ (\ref{KillingConnectionKY}) and (\ref{paralleleqKY}) correspond to eqs.\ (\ref{KC}) and (\ref{parallel_eq}), respectively.
The maximum number (\ref{MB_KY}) becomes $n(n+1)/2$ for $p=1$.
As before, we calculate the curvature of the Killing connection (\ref{KillingConnectionKY}) by
\be
{\cal R}({\bm X},{\bm Y}) \equiv {\cal D}_{\bm X}{\cal D}_{\bm Y}-{\cal D}_{\bm Y}{\cal D}_{\bm X}
- {\cal D}_{[{\bm X},{\bm Y}]} \,,
\ee
on the vector bundle $E^p(M)$.
A straightforward calculation leads to the Killing curvature written by
\be
{\cal R}({\bm X},{\bm Y})
= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
N_{11}({\bm X},{\bm Y}) &0 \\
N_{21}({\bm X},{\bm Y}) &N_{22}({\bm X},{\bm Y})
\end{array}
\right) \,. \label{KCurv_KY1}
\ee
The entries are given by
\be \eqalign{
N_{11}({\bm X},{\bm Y}) = R({\bm X},{\bm Y}) + \frac{1}{p}\Big\{{\bm X}\hook R^+({\bm Y})-{\bm Y}\hook R^+({\bm X})\Big\} \,, \\
N_{21}({\bm X},{\bm Y}) = -\frac{p+1}{p}\Big\{(\nabla_{\bm X} R)^+({\bm Y})-(\nabla_{\bm Y}R)^+({\bm X})\Big\} \,, \\
N_{22}({\bm X},{\bm Y}) = R({\bm X},{\bm Y}) + \frac{1}{p}\Big\{R^+({\bm X})({\bm Y}\hook \bullet)-R^+({\bm Y})({\bm X}\hook \bullet)\Big\} \,,
} \label{KillingCurvatureKY}
\ee
where
\be
(\nabla_{\bm X}R)^+({\bm Y}) = {\bm e}^a\wedge (\nabla_{\bm X} R)({\bm Y},{\bm X}_a) \,.
\ee
Since we have eq.\ (\ref{paralleleqKY}),
the parallel sections $\hat{{\bm \omega}}=({\bm \omega},{\bm \eta})$ of $E^p(M)$ satisfy the curvature condition
\be
{\cal R}({\bm X},{\bm Y}) \hat{{\bm \omega}} = 0 \,, \label{CC_KY}
\ee
which is equivalent to the conditions
\ba
N_{11}({\bm X},{\bm Y}) {\bm \omega} = 0 \,, \label{CC_KY_1} \\
N_{21}({\bm X},{\bm Y}) {\bm \omega} + N_{22}({\bm X},{\bm Y}) {\bm \eta} = 0 \,. \label{CC_KY_2}
\ea
To obtain further conditions for the parallel sections,
we calculate the covariant derivative of the curvature condition (\ref{CC_KY}).
Then, we obtain for parallel sections the condition
\be
({\cal D}_{{\bm X}}{\cal R})({\bm Y},{\bm Z}) \hat{{\bm \omega}} = 0 \,, \label{curv_cond_first}
\ee
where
\be \fl \qquad \eqalign{
({\cal D}_{{\bm X}}{\cal R})({\bm Y},{\bm Z})\hat{{\bm \omega}}
&\equiv {\cal D}_{{\bm X}}({\cal R}({\bm Y},{\bm Z}) \hat{{\bm \omega}})
- {\cal R}({\bm Y},{\bm Z})({\cal D}_X\hat{{\bm \omega}}) \\
& ~~~~~ -{\cal R}(\nabla_{{\bm X}}{\bm Y},{\bm Z})\hat{{\bm \omega}}
-{\cal R}({\bm Y},\nabla_{{\bm X}}{\bm Z})\hat{{\bm \omega}} \\
&= (\nabla_{{\bm X}}{\cal R})({\bm Y},{\bm Z})\hat{{\bm \omega}}
-\Gamma({\bm X}){\cal R}({\bm Y},{\bm Z})\hat{{\bm \omega}}
+{\cal R}({\bm Y},{\bm Z})\Gamma({\bm X})\hat{{\bm \omega}} \,. } \label{CovDer_Curvature}
\ee
Note that the Bianchi identity is given by
\be
({\cal D}_{{\bm X}}{\cal R})({\bm Y},{\bm Z}) + ({\cal D}_{{\bm Y}}{\cal R})({\bm Z},{\bm X})
+ ({\cal D}_{{\bm Z}}{\cal R})({\bm X},{\bm Y}) = 0 \,.
\ee
More explicitly, eq.\ (\ref{curv_cond_first}) is given by
\ba
(\nabla_{{\bm X}}N_{11})({\bm Y},{\bm Z}) {\bm \omega}
+ \frac{1}{p+1}N_{11}({\bm Y},{\bm Z}) ({\bm X}\hook{\bm \eta}) = 0 \,, \label{CC_KY_3} \\
(\nabla_{{\bm X}}N_{21})({\bm Y},{\bm Z}){\bm \omega}
+ \frac{p+1}{p}N_{22}({\bm Y},{\bm Z}) R^+({\bm X}) {\bm \omega} \nonumber\\
+ (\nabla_{{\bm X}}N_{22})({\bm Y},{\bm Z}){\bm \eta}
+ \frac{1}{p+1}N_{21}({\bm Y},{\bm Z}) ({\bm X}\hook {\bm \eta}) = 0 \,, \label{CC_KY_4}
\ea
where we have used eqs.\ (\ref{paralleleqKY}), (\ref{CC_KY_1}) and (\ref{CC_KY_2}).
Note that when we take $p=1$, $N_{11}({\bm X},{\bm Y})=0$ holds identically for all ${\bm X}$ and ${\bm Y}$.
It follows consequently that eqs.\ (\ref{CC_KY_1}) and (\ref{CC_KY_3}) are automatically satisfied.
When we take $p=n-1$, $N_{22}({\bm X},{\bm Y})=0$ identically holds for all ${\bm X}$ and ${\bm Y}$.
\subsection{Curvature conditions on closed conformal Killing-Yano tensors}
Similarly, for a CCKY p-form ${\bm h}$, we have
\ba
\nabla_{\bm X}{\bm h} = -\frac{1}{n-p+1}{\bm X}^* \wedge\delta {\bm h} \,, \label{CCKYeq}\\
\nabla_{\bm X}(\delta {\bm h}) = -\frac{n-p+1}{n-p}R^-({\bm X}){\bm h} \,, \label{CCKYeq2}
\ea
where
\be
R^-({\bm X}) \equiv {\bm X}^a\hook R({\bm X},{\bm X}_a) \,.
\ee
Hence, this time, one can introduce a connection ${\cal D}$
on the vector bundle $\tilde{E}^p(M)\equiv \Lambda^pT^*M\oplus \Lambda^{p-1}T^*M$,
\be
{\cal D}_{\bm X}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\bm h} \\
\delta {\bm h}
\end{array}
\right)
\equiv \nabla_{\bm X}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\bm h} \\
\delta {\bm h}
\end{array}
\right) -\Gamma({\bm X}) \left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\bm h} \\
\delta {\bm h}
\end{array}
\right)
\,,
\ee
where
\be
\Gamma({\bm X}) \equiv \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 &\displaystyle{-\frac{1}{n-p+1}}{\bm X}^*\wedge \\
\displaystyle{-\frac{n-p+1}{n-p}}R^-({\bm X}) &0
\end{array}
\right) \,. \label{KillingConnectionCCKY}
\ee
Similar to KY tensors, we can demonstrate that
CCKY tensors on $M$ are in one-to-one correspondence with parallel sections of $\tilde{E}^p(M)$.
Hence, the number of CCKY p-forms is bound by the rank of $\tilde{E}^p(M)$,
which is given by
\be
\textrm{rank} ~\tilde{E}^p(M) =
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n \\
p
\end{array}
\right)+
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n \\
p-1
\end{array}
\right)=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+1 \\
p
\end{array}
\right) \,. \label{MB_CCKY}
\ee
Note that the number of rank-p CCKY tensors is same as that of rank-(n-p) KY tensors
because CCKY tensors are given as the Hodge duals of KY tensors.
Calculating the curvature of the Killing connection (\ref{KillingConnectionCCKY}),
we obtain the Killing curvature
\be
{\cal R}({\bm X},{\bm Y})
= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
M_{11}({\bm X},{\bm Y}) &0 \\
M_{21}({\bm X},{\bm Y}) &M_{22}({\bm X},{\bm Y})
\end{array}
\right)
\ee
with the entries
\be \fl \qquad \eqalign{
M_{11}({\bm X},{\bm Y}) = R({\bm X},{\bm Y}) + \frac{1}{n-p}\Big\{{\bm X}^*\wedge R^-({\bm Y})-{\bm Y}^*\wedge R^-({\bm X})\Big\} \,, \\
M_{21}({\bm X},{\bm Y}) = \frac{n-p+1}{n-p}\Big\{(\nabla_{\bm X} R)^-({\bm Y})-(\nabla_{\bm Y}R)^-({\bm X})\Big\} \,, \\
M_{22}({\bm X},{\bm Y}) = R({\bm X},{\bm Y}) + \frac{1}{n-p}\Big\{R^-({\bm X})({\bm Y}^*\wedge \bullet)-R^-({\bm Y})({\bm X}^*\wedge\bullet)\Big\} \,.
} \label{KillingCurvatureCCKY}
\ee
where
\be
(\nabla_{\bm X}R)^-({\bm Y}) = {\bm e}^a\hook (\nabla_{\bm X} R)({\bm Y},{\bm e}_a) \,.
\ee
Hence, we obtain the curvature conditions
\ba
M_{11}({\bm X},{\bm Y}) {\bm \omega} = 0 \,, \label{CC_CCKY_1} \\
M_{21}({\bm X},{\bm Y}) {\bm \omega} + M_{22}({\bm X},{\bm Y}) {\bm \eta} = 0 \,. \label{CC_CCKY_2}
\ea
Furthermore, as before,
the covariant derivatives of the curvature conditions lead to
further conditions. Now, they are given by
\ba
(\nabla_{{\bm X}}M_{11})({\bm Y},{\bm Z}) {\bm \omega}
- \frac{1}{n-p+1}M_{11}({\bm Y},{\bm Z}) ({\bm X}\hook{\bm \eta}) = 0 \,, \label{CC_CCKY_3} \\
(\nabla_{{\bm X}}M_{21})({\bm Y},{\bm Z}){\bm \omega}
- \frac{n-p+1}{n-p}M_{22}({\bm Y},{\bm Z}) R^-({\bm X}) {\bm \omega} \nonumber\\
+ (\nabla_{{\bm X}}M_{22})({\bm Y},{\bm Z}){\bm \eta}
- \frac{1}{n-p+1}M_{21}({\bm Y},{\bm Z}) ({\bm X}\hook {\bm \eta}) = 0 \,. \label{CC_CCKY_4}
\ea
\section{Killing-Yano tensors on type D vacuum spacetimes}
By use of the method that was shown in previous sections,
we shall reconsider KY symmetry of type D vacuum solutions.
The results in this section cover the previous works
\cite{Walker:1970,Hughston:1972,Hughston:1973,Collinson:1976,Stephani:1978,Hall:1987}
(see propositions \ref{prop1} to \ref{prop4}).
This section also aims to illustrate how simply the method enables us
to investigate KY symmetry of type D vacuum solutions.
We work in the Newman-Penrose formalism,
which introduces the complex null tetrad $\{{\bm X}_a\}=\{{\bm k},{\bm l},{\bm m},\bar{{\bm m}}\}$
that satisfies
\begin{equation}
{\bm g}({\bm k},{\bm l}) = 1 \,, \quad {\bm g}({\bm m},\bar{{\bm m}}) = -1 \,. \label{NP}
\end{equation}
The basis ${\bm k}$ and ${\bm l}$ are real vector fields,
whereas ${\bm m}$ and $\bar{{\bm m}}$ are complex.
The complex conjugate of ${\bm m}$ is denoted by $\bar{{\bm m}}$.
The 1-forms $\{{\bm e}^a\}$, which satisfy ${\bm X}_a\hook {\bm e}^b=\delta_a^b$,
are given by $\{{\bm k}_*,{\bm l}_*,{\bm m}_*,\bar{{\bm m}}_*\}$.
Using the matrix $\eta_{ab}={\bm g}({\bm X}_a,{\bm X}_b)$,
we define 1-forms $\{{\bm e}_a\}=\{{\bm k}^*,{\bm l}^*,{\bm m}^*,\bar{{\bm m}}^*\}$ by ${\bm e}_a=\eta_{ab}{\bm e}^b$.
For the null tetrad, the spin coefficients are defined as usual:
\be \fl \quad \eqalign{
\kappa = {\bm g}({\bm m},\nabla_{{\bm k}}{\bm k}) \,, \quad
\sigma = {\bm g}({\bm m},\nabla_{{\bm m}}{\bm k}) \,, \quad
\lambda = {\bm g}({\bm l}, \nabla_{\bar{{\bm m}}}\bar{{\bm m}}) \,, \quad
\nu = {\bm g}({\bm l}, \nabla_{{\bm l}}\bar{{\bm m}}) \,, \\
\rho = {\bm g}({\bm m}, \nabla_{\bar{{\bm m}}}{\bm k}) \,, \quad
\mu = {\bm g}({\bm l}, \nabla_{{\bm m}}\bar{{\bm m}}) \,, \quad
\tau = {\bm g}({\bm m}, \nabla_{{\bm l}}{\bm k}) \,, \quad
\pi = {\bm g}({\bm l}, \nabla_{{\bm k}}\bar{{\bm m}}) \,, \\
\alpha = \frac{1}{2}\Big\{{\bm g}({\bm l}, \nabla_{\bar{{\bm m}}}{\bm k}) + {\bm g}({\bm m}, \nabla_{\bar{{\bm m}}}\bar{{\bm m}})\Big\} \,, \quad
\beta = \frac{1}{2}\Big\{{\bm g}({\bm l}, \nabla_{{\bm m}}{\bm k}) + {\bm g}({\bm m}, \nabla_{{\bm m}}\bar{{\bm m}})\Big\} \,, \\
\epsilon = \frac{1}{2}\Big\{{\bm g}({\bm l}, \nabla_{{\bm k}}{\bm k}) + {\bm g}({\bm m}, \nabla_{{\bm k}}\bar{{\bm m}})\Big\} \,, \quad
\gamma = \frac{1}{2}\Big\{{\bm g}({\bm l}, \nabla_{{\bm l}}{\bm k}) + {\bm g}({\bm m}, \nabla_{{\bm l}}\bar{{\bm m}})\Big\} \,, }
\label{spincoefficients}
\ee
where the all spin coefficients are complex in general.
Firstly, we consider type D conditions.
There are two principal null directions of multiplicity two in type D spacetimes.
When the ${\bm k}$ and ${\bm l}$ are chosen along the two principal null directions,
type D conditions are given by a complex scalar function $\Psi\neq 0$,
\be \eqalign{
C({\bm k},{\bm l},{\bm k},{\bm l})=-\Psi-\bar{\Psi} \,, \quad
C({\bm k},{\bm l},{\bm m},\bar{{\bm m}})=\Psi-\bar{\Psi} \,, \\
C({\bm k},{\bm m},{\bm l},\bar{{\bm m}})=\Psi \,, \quad
C({\bm k},\bar{{\bm m}},{\bm l},{\bm m})=\bar{\Psi} \,, \\
C({\bm m},\bar{{\bm m}},{\bm m},\bar{{\bm m}})=-\Psi-\bar{\Psi} \,, } \label{curvNP}
\ee
where $C$ is the Weyl curvature. The other components are vanishing.
In addition, we consider vacuum condition,
under which the Riemann curvature is equal to the Weyl curvature.
From the Goldberg-Sachs theorem, type D vacuum conditions lead to
\be
\kappa = \sigma = \nu = \lambda = 0 \,. \label{Goldberg-Sachs}
\ee
Furthermore, making the boost and the rotation of the basis,
we can set $\epsilon=0$ while preserving (\ref{Goldberg-Sachs}).
All type D vacuum solutions in four dimensions
were obtained by W.\ Kinnersley \cite{Kinnersley:1969}.
He classified the solutions into four cases (case I--IV).
However, we do not use the explicit expressions of the solutions.
Only using type D vacuum conditions on the Weyl curvature and its covariant derivatives,
we compute the Killing curvature (\ref{KCurv_KY1})
on the vector bundle $E^p(M)$ (see appendix A for details).
Solving the curvature conditions (\ref{CC_KY}) and (\ref{curv_cond_first}),
the following propositions \ref{prop1} to \ref{prop4} are obtained.
\begin{prop} \label{prop1}
Every type D vacuum solution, with the exception of case III
of Kinnersley's classification \cite{Kinnersley:1969},
admits exactly one rank-2 Killing-Yano tensor.
Case III solution does not admit any rank-2 Killing-Yano tensor.
\end{prop}
\paragraph{Proof.}
The Killing curvature on $E^2(M)$ are given by (\ref{KC2_1})-(\ref{KC2_18}).
Solving the curvature conditions (\ref{CC2_0}),
the solution $\hat{\bm \omega}=({\bm \omega},{\bm \eta})$ is given at each point by
\ba
{\bm \omega} &=& \omega_1 \,{\bm k}_* \wedge {\bm l}_*
+ \omega_2 \,{\bm m}_* \wedge \bar{{\bm m}}_* \,, \\
{\bm \eta} &=& \eta_1 \,{\bm k}_*\wedge {\bm l}_*\wedge {\bm m}_* + \eta_2 \,{\bm k}_*\wedge {\bm l}_*\wedge \bar{{\bm m}}_* \nonumber\\
& & + \eta_3 \,{\bm k}_*\wedge {\bm m}_*\wedge \bar{{\bm m}}_* + \eta_4 \,{\bm l}_*\wedge {\bm m}_*\wedge \bar{{\bm m}}_* \,,
\ea
where $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ are free complex parameters and
\be \eqalign{
\eta_1=-3 \tau(\omega_1-\omega_2) \,, \quad
\eta_2=3 \pi(\omega_1-\omega_2) \,, \\
\eta_3=3 \rho(\omega_1-\omega_2) \,, \quad
\eta_4=-3 \mu(\omega_1-\omega_2) \,. } \label{D_KY5}
\ee
Imposing the reality conditions $\bar{{\bm \omega}}={\bm \omega}$ and $\bar{{\bm \eta}}={\bm \eta}$,
the parameters must satisfy the conditions
$\omega_1=\bar{\omega}_1$, $\omega_2=-\bar{\omega}_2$,
$\eta_2=\bar{\eta}_1$, $\eta_3=-\bar{\eta}_3$ and $\eta_4=-\bar{\eta}_4$.
The reality conditions together with (\ref{D_KY5}) lead to the conditions
\ba
(\rho+\bar{\rho})\,\omega_1-(\rho-\bar{\rho})\,\omega_2=0 \,, \label{D_KY1}\\
(\mu+\bar{\mu})\omega_1-(\mu-\bar{\mu})\omega_2=0 \,, \label{D_KY2}\\
(\tau+\bar{\pi})\,\omega_1-(\tau-\bar{\pi})\,\omega_2=0 \,, \label{D_KY3}
\ea
where $\omega_1$ is a real and $\omega_2$ is a pure imaginary parameter.
For cases I-III ($\rho\neq0$),
the spin coefficients $\rho$, $\mu$, $\tau$ and $\pi$ satisfy the relations
(e.g., see \cite{Ishikawa:1982})
\ba
\mu = -U \rho \,, \quad \rho \tau+\bar{\rho}\pi = 0 \,,
\ea
where $U$ is a certain real function.
Then, eq.\ (\ref{D_KY2}) is equivalent to (\ref{D_KY1}).
Eq.\ (\ref{D_KY3}) is written as
\be
(\rho\tau-\bar{\rho}\bar{\tau})\omega_1
- (\rho\tau+\bar{\rho}\bar{\tau})\omega_2 = 0 \,. \label{D_KY4}
\ee
For cases I and II, $\tau$ is pure imaginary
and hence eq.\ (\ref{D_KY4}) reduces to eq.\ (\ref{D_KY1}).
This implies that the case I and II solutions admit at most one rank-2 KY tensor.
On the other hand, we have two independent conditions (\ref{D_KY1}) and (\ref{D_KY4}) for case III,
to which the nonzero solution for $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ does not exist.
Thus, the case III solution does not admit any rank-2 KY tensor.
For case IV, we have $\rho=\mu=0$ \cite{Kinnersley:1969}.
Eqs.\ (\ref{D_KY1}) and (\ref{D_KY2}) become identities.
Eq.\ (\ref{D_KY3}) remains as the only equation to solve, so that
case IV solution admits at most one rank-2 KY tensor.
Since it is known that every type D vacuum solution, except for the case III solution,
admits (at least) a rank-2 KY tensor \cite{Walker:1970,Hughston:1972,Hughston:1973,Collinson:1976,Stephani:1978},
we arrive at the statement of the present proposition. \hfill$\Box$\\
\noindent{\bf Remark.}\quad
Proposition \ref{prop1} is consistent with the result of \cite{Hall:1987}.
In \cite{Hall:1987}, spacetimes admitting at least two rank-2 KY tensors were discussed in four dimensions.
Since type D vacuum solutions admit just one rank-2 KY tensor,
they are outside the latter calss of metrics.
When considering the Euclidean counterparts of the solutions,
we can construct self-dual Ricci-flat (hyper-K\"ahler) metrics for particular choice of the parameters.
In those cases, we obtain additional rank-2 KY tensors that are hyper-K\"ahler forms (see Sec.~6.3 for details).\\
\begin{prop} \label{prop2}
Case II and III solutions admit exactly two Killing vector fields,
whereas case I and IV admit exactly four Killing vector fields.
\end{prop}
\paragraph{Proof.}
The Killing curvature on $E^1(M)$ is given by (\ref{KC1_1})-(\ref{KC1_12}).
Solving the curvature condition (\ref{CC1_0}) obtained from the Killing curvature,
the parallel sections $\hat{\bm \omega}=({\bm \omega},{\bm \eta})$ of $E^1(M)$
are necessarily written at each point on $M$ as
\ba
{\bm \omega} &=& \omega_1 \,{\bm k}_* + \omega_2 \,{\bm l}_*
+ \omega_3 \,{\bm m}_* + \omega_4 \,\bar{{\bm m}}_*, \\
{\bm \eta} &=& \eta_1 \,{\bm k}_*\wedge {\bm l}_* + \eta_2 \,{\bm k}_*\wedge {\bm m}_*
+ \eta_3 \,{\bm k}_*\wedge \bar{{\bm m}}_* \nonumber\\
& & + \eta_4 \,{\bm l}_*\wedge {\bm m}_* + \eta_5 \,{\bm l}_*\wedge \bar{{\bm m}}_*
+ \eta_6 \,{\bm m}_*\wedge \bar{{\bm m}}_* \,,
\ea
where $\omega_i$ $(i=1,\cdots,4)$ and $\eta_j$ $(j=1,\cdots,6)$ are free complex parameters
with the constraints
\be \eqalign{
\eta_2 = 2 \tau \omega_1-2 \rho \omega_3 \,, \quad
\eta_5 = -2 \pi \omega_2+2 \mu \omega_4 \,, \\
\mu \omega_1 -\rho \omega_2 - \pi \omega_3 + \tau \omega_4 = 0 \,. } \label{const_KY}
\ee
The reality conditions $\bar{{\bm \omega}}={\bm \omega}$ and $\bar{{\bm \eta}}={\bm \eta}$
imply that $\omega_1=\bar{\omega}_1$, $\omega_2=\bar{\omega}_2$, $\omega_4=\bar{\omega}_3$,
$\eta_1=\bar{\eta}_1$, $\eta_3=\bar{\eta}_2$, $\eta_4=\bar{\eta}_5$ and $\eta_6=-\bar{\eta}_6$.
Together with (\ref{const_KY}), the remaining degrees of freedom are given by four real parameters
for case II and IIIB, or given by five real parameters for case I, IIIA and IV.
In addition, solving the condition (\ref{CC_KY_4}) [cf.\ (\ref{CurvCond4})]
that is obtained from the covariant derivative
of the curvature condition (\ref{CC1_0}), we obtain the result of the proposition. \hfill$\Box$\\
\begin{prop} \label{prop3}
All type D vacuum solutions admit no rank-3 Killing-Yano tensor.
\end{prop}
\paragraph{Proof.}
The Killing curvature on $E^3(M)$ are given by (\ref{KC3_1})-(\ref{KC3_6}).
In particular, $N_{11}({\bm k},{\bm l})$ and $N_{11}({\bm m},\bar{{\bm m}})$
are given by diagonal matrices with nonzero entries that are independent of any spin coefficient.
It follows that their kernels are vanishing.
Hence, we find that there exists no rank-3 KY tensor. \hfill$\Box$\\
\noindent{\bf Remark.}\quad
Since the Hodge duals of KY tensors are CCKY tensors,
propositions \ref{prop1} to \ref{prop3} hold
even if we replace the rank-$p$ KY tensors by rank-($4-p$) CCKY tensors.\\
A covariantly constant $p$-form is a rank-$p$ KY tensor and also a rank-$p$ CCKY tensor.
From proposition \ref{prop3}, we immediately find that all type D vacuum solutions do not admit
any covariantly constant 1-forms and 3-forms.
As was seen in the proof of proposition \ref{prop1},
KY 2-forms on type D vacuum solutions must take the form
\be
{\bm \omega} = \omega_1 \,{\bm k}_* \wedge {\bm l}_*
+ \omega_2 \,{\bm m}_* \wedge \bar{{\bm m}}_* \,, \label{KY_CCKY_2-form}
\ee
where $\omega_1$ is a real and $\omega_2$ is a pure imaginary function
that satisfy the conditions (\ref{D_KY1})--(\ref{D_KY3}).
Similarly, CCKY 2-forms on type D vacuum solutions must take the same form as (\ref{KY_CCKY_2-form}),
where $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ satisfy the conditions
\ba
(\rho-\bar{\rho})\,\omega_1-(\rho+\bar{\rho})\,\omega_2=0 \,, \label{D_CCKY1}\\
(\mu-\bar{\mu})\omega_1-(\mu+\bar{\mu})\omega_2=0 \,, \label{D_CCKY2}\\
(\tau-\bar{\pi})\omega_1-(\tau+\bar{\pi})\omega_2=0 \,. \label{D_CCKY3}
\ea
Hence, covariantly constant 2-forms on type D vacuum solutions take the form (\ref{KY_CCKY_2-form})
that satisfy the conditions (\ref{D_KY1})--(\ref{D_KY3}) and (\ref{D_CCKY1})--(\ref{D_CCKY3}).
The conditions only have the trivial solution $\omega_1=\omega_2=0$.
Therefore, we obtain the following proposition.
\begin{prop} \label{prop4}
All type D vacuum solutions do not admit any covariantly constant forms of rank one, two and three.
\end{prop}
\section{Examples}
It would be interesting to compute the Killing curvatures (\ref{KCurv_KY1})-(\ref{KillingCurvatureKY})
and solve the curvature conditions (\ref{CC_KY_1}), (\ref{CC_KY_2}), (\ref{CC_KY_3}) and (\ref{CC_KY_4})
for various physical metrics.
In this section, we thoroughly investigate KY symmetry of
some type D solutions, a cosmological metric and some gravitational instantons in four dimensions.
We also investigate black hole, ring and string metrics in five dimensions.
The procedure is as follows:
After we compute the Killing curvatures (\ref{KCurv_KY1}) and (\ref{KillingCurvatureKY}),
we first solve the curvature conditions (\ref{CC_KY_1}) and (\ref{CC_KY_2}).
Next, with the solutions of (\ref{CC_KY_1}) and (\ref{CC_KY_2}),
we solve the curvature conditions (\ref{CC_KY_3}) and (\ref{CC_KY_4}).
Finally, using the solutions of (\ref{CC_KY_1}), (\ref{CC_KY_2}), (\ref{CC_KY_3}) and (\ref{CC_KY_4}) as an ansatz,
we attempt to integrate the Killing equations.
Thus, we obtain the precise number of Killing vector fields and KY tensors
for every metric in this section.
The obtained results are listed in Table 1, 2 and 3\footnote{
We have computed the Killing curvatures and solved the curvature conditions
with a package of a computational software ``{\it Mathematica}".
The Mathematica package, we developed by ourselves,
is available on the webpage at {\tt http://www.research.kobe-u.ac.jp/fsci-pacos/KY\_upperbound/}.
}.
\subsection{Type D solutions in four dimensions}
The Plebanski-Demianski solution \cite{Plebanski:1976} is a type D solution
of the Einstein-Maxwell equation with the cosmological constant $\lambda$.
The metric is written in the form \cite{Griffiths:2006},
\be \eqalign{
ds^2 =& \frac{1}{(1-b pr)^2}\Bigg\{ -\frac{{\cal Q}}{r^2+p^2}(d\tau-p^2d\sigma)^2 \\
& +\frac{r^2+p^2}{{\cal Q}}dr^2+\frac{r^2+p^2}{{\cal P}}dp^2
+\frac{{\cal P}}{r^2+p^2}(d\tau+r^2d\sigma)^2 \Bigg\} \,, } \label{PD_metric}
\ee
where
\ba
{\cal Q} = -(a^2b^2+\lambda/3)r^4-2b nr^3+ r^2-2mr+a^2+e^2+g^2 \,, \\
{\cal P} = -[(a^2+e^2+g^2)b^2+\lambda/3]p^4+2b mp^3-p^2+2np +a^2 \,.
\ea
The solution contains seven non-vanishing parameters $m$, $n$, $e$, $g$, $a$, $b$ and $\lambda$.
Clearly, the metric admits two Killing vector fields $\partial/\partial\tau$ and $\partial/\partial\sigma$.
No rank-2 and rank-3 KY tensor has been known.
Our calculation shows that the metric admits exactly two Killing vector fields and
no rank-2 and rank-3 KY tensor.
Under a limit of spacetime parameters,
the space of KY solutions might increase in dimension but never reduce,
as was stated in \cite{Geroch:1969}.
In the limit $e=g=\lambda=0$, the Plebanski-Demianski metric becomes
case III solution of Kinnersley's classification,
which has same dimension of the space of KY solutions as the Plebanski-Demianski metric.
This implies that the vanishing of $e$, $g$ and $\lambda$
is not irrespetive of an enhancement of KY symmetry.
However, the vanishing of other parameters does causes an enhancement of KY symmetry.
If the acceleration parameter $b$ is vanishing,
the Plebanski-Demianski metric (\ref{PD_metric}) reduces to
the Carter metric \cite{Carter:1968,Plebanski:1975},
\be \eqalign{
ds^2 =& \frac{r^2+p^2}{{\cal Q}}dr^2+\frac{r^2+p^2}{{\cal P}}dp^2 \nonumber\\
& -\frac{{\cal Q}}{r^2+p^2}(d\tau-p^2d\sigma)^2
+\frac{{\cal P}}{r^2+p^2}(d\tau+r^2d\sigma)^2 \,, } \label{Carter_metric}
\ee
where
\ba
{\cal Q} = -\lambda/3r^4+ r^2 - 2mr + a^2+e^2+g^2 \,, \\
{\cal P} = -\lambda/3p^4- p^2 + 2np + a^2 \,.
\ea
The metric admits two Killing vector fields $\partial/\partial\tau$ and $\partial/\partial\sigma$.
It is known \cite{Dietz:1982} that any metric admitting a nondegenerate rank-2 KY tensor
is written in the form (\ref{Carter_metric}).
Hence, Carter metric admits at least one rank-2 KY tensor.
Our calculation shows that for arbitrary functions ${\cal Q}(r)$ and ${\cal P}(p)$,
the metric admits exactly two Killing vector fields and exactly one rank-2 and no rank-3 KY tensor.
Due to the vanishing of the acceleration parameter $b$,
the rank-2 KY tensor has appeared.
Kerr metric (\ref{Kerr_metric}) recovers when we take $n=e=g=\lambda=0$
in the metric (\ref{Carter_metric}).
Furthermore, we take the static limit of the Kerr metric.
Then, the metric becomes the Schwarzschild metric,
\be
ds^2 = - f(r) dt^2 + \frac{dr^2}{f(r)} + r^2 d\theta^2 + r^2\sin^2\theta d\phi^2 \,,
\ee
where
\be
f(r) = 1 - \frac{2m}{r} \,.
\ee
Since the spacetime is static and spherically symmetric, the metric admits four Killing vector fields.
It is also known that the metric admits a (degenerate) rank-2 KY tensor.
Our calculation proves that the metric admits exactly four Killing vector fields,
exactly one rank-2 and no rank-3 KY tensors.
The Wahlquist metric \cite{Wahlquist:1968,Kramer:1985,Senovilla:1987,Wahlquist:1992}
is a type D solution of the Einstein equation for perfect fluids
with the equation of state $\rho+3p=\textrm{const}$.
The metric is given by
\be \eqalign{
ds^2 =& \frac{r^2+p^2}{{\cal Q}(1+\beta r^2)}dr^2 +\frac{r^2+p^2}{{\cal P}(1+\beta p^2)}dp^2 \\
& -\frac{{\cal Q}}{r^2+p^2}(d\tau-p^2d\sigma)^2
+\frac{{\cal P}}{r^2+p^2}(d\tau+r^2d\sigma)^2 \,, } \label{Wahlquist_metric}
\ee
where
\ba
{\cal Q} =& a^2 -2m r\sqrt{1-\beta^2r^2} + r^2 \nonumber\\
& + \frac{\mu_0}{\beta^2}\left[r^2-\frac{r \textrm{Arcsin}(\beta r)\sqrt{1-\beta^2r^2}}{\beta}\right] \,, \\
{\cal P} =& a^2 +2n p\sqrt{1+\beta^2p^2} - p^2 \nonumber\\
& - \frac{\mu_0}{\beta^2}\left[p^2-\frac{p \textrm{Arcsinh}(\beta p) \sqrt{1+\beta^2p^2}}{\beta}\right] \,.
\ea
The metric contains five constants $m$, $n$, $a$, $\beta$ and $\mu_0$.
One can immediately find that the metric admits two Killing vector fields $\partial/\partial\tau$ and $\partial/\partial\sigma$.
If one takes the limit $\beta\to 0$, the metric becomes the Kerr-NUT-(A)dS metric \cite{Carter:1968}.
For the Wahlquist metric, our calculation shows that it admits
exactly two Killing vector fields, no rank-2 and rank-3 KY tensor.
Note that the Wahlquist metric
admits a rank-2 generalised Killing-Yano tensor with torsion \cite{Hinoue:2014}.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lccc} \hline
&\multicolumn{3}{c}{$\dim KY^p(M)$} \\
4D metrics &$p=1$ &$p=2$ &$p=3$ \\ \hline
Maximally symmetric space
&10 &10 &5 \\[0.1cm]
Plebanski-Demianski
&2 &0 &0 \\
Carter / Kerr &2 &1 &0 \\
Schwarzschild &4 &1 &0 \\
Wahlquist &2 &0 &0 \\[0.1cm]
Friedmann-Lema\^itre-Robertson-Walker
&6 &4 &1 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The numbers of rank-p KY tensors on some physical spacetimes in four dimensions.}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Cosmological model}
The Friedmann-Lema\^itre-Robertson-Walker metric is widely used for a cosmological model.
The metric is given by
\be
ds^2 = -dt^2 + a(t)^2 \left(\frac{dr^2}{1-Kr^2}+r^2d\theta^2+r^2\sin^2\theta d\phi^2\right) \,, \label{FLRW_metric}
\ee
where $a(t)$ is an arbitrary nonzero function of the time $t$.
Since the spatial part is a three-dimensional maximally symmetric space
with the constant curvature $K$, the metric admits at least six Killing vector fields.
For particular choices of $a(t)$ and $K$,
the FLRW metric describes maximally symmetric,
where the metric admits the maximum number of Killing vector fields.
Our calculation shows that such enhancement of isometry happens
only when the spacetime becomes maximally symmetric.
Calculating the curvature condition, we find that
the enhancement of isometry happens only when the condition
\be
a \ddot{a} - \dot{a}^2 - K = 0
\ee
is satisfied.
This shows that the FLRW spacetime becomes maximally symmetric.
A rank-2 KY tensor ${\bm k}$
on $(M^4,{\bm g}_4=-dt^2+a(t)^2\tilde{{\bm g}}_3)$
is given by ${\bm k}=a(t)^3\tilde{{\bm k}}$,
where $\tilde{{\bm k}}$ is a rank-2 KY tensor
on $(M^3,\tilde{{\bm g}}_3)$.
For the FLRW metric, $(M^3,\tilde{{\bm g}}_3)$
is a three-dimensional maximally symmetric space with the constant curvature $K$,
which admits four rank-2 KY tensors.
In a similar fashion to Killing vector fields, our calculation confirms that
the FLRW metric admits the only four rank-2 KY tensors with the exception of maximally symmetric case.
It is also known \cite{Batista:2014} that the metric admits a rank-3 KY tensor.
Our calculation shows that it is the only rank-3 KY tensor in the FLRW spacetime
with the exception of maximally symmetric case.
\subsection{Gravitational instantons}
We discuss Euclidean metrics with the self-dual Weyl curvature in four dimensions,
which are obtained from the Plebanski-Demianski family (\ref{PD_metric}).
We make a shift from $a^2$ to $a^2-n^2$ and then take $n=im$ and $e=ig$.
Moreover, we perform the Wick rotation $r\to ir$ with $m\to im$ and $b\to ib$.
Then, the metric becomes
\be \eqalign{
ds^2 =& \frac{1}{(1+b pr)^2}\Bigg\{ \frac{{\cal Q}}{r^2-p^2}(d\tau-p^2d\sigma)^2 \\
& +\frac{r^2-p^2}{{\cal Q}}dr^2+\frac{p^2-r^2}{{\cal P}}dp^2
+\frac{{\cal P}}{p^2-r^2}(d\tau-r^2d\sigma)^2 \Bigg\} \,, } \label{Euclidean_PD_metric}
\ee
where
\be \eqalign{
{\cal Q} = [(a^2-m^2)b^2-\lambda/3]r^4+2b mr^3 -r^2+2mr+a^2-m^2 \,, \\
{\cal P} = [(a^2-m^2)b^2-\lambda/3]p^4-2b mp^3 -p^2-2mp+a^2-m^2 \,. }
\ee
The metric is an Einstein metric, that is, a vacuum solution
to the Einstein equation with cosmological constant $\lambda$.
The Weyl curvature is self-dual.
The BPS conditions were discussed in \cite{Klemm:2013}.
The metric admits two Killing vector fields.
Our calculation finds a rank-2 KY tensor
\be \eqalign{
{\bm \omega} =& \frac{1}{(r+p)(1+bpr)^3}\Bigg\{\Big(b f(r,p)+\lambda p (r+p)\Big) ~dr\wedge (d\tau-p^2d\sigma) \\
& + 3b{\cal P} ~dr\wedge (d\tau-r^2d\sigma) + 3b{\cal Q} ~dp\wedge (d\tau-p^2d\sigma) \\
& + \Big(b f(r,p)+\lambda r (r+p)\Big) ~dp\wedge (d\tau-r^2d\sigma) \Bigg\} \,,}
\ee
where
\be \eqalign{
f(r,p) =& 3(m^2-a^2)\Big\{(1+bpr)^2+b(r^2+p^2)\Big\} \\
& -3m(1-bpr)(r-p)+\lambda p^2r^2-3pr \,.
}
\ee
This rank-2 KY tensor is, as far as we know, new.
When we take $b=0$, the metric (\ref{Euclidean_PD_metric}) becomes
self-dual Kerr-bolt metric \cite{Gibbons:1980} with cosmological constant \cite{Santillan:2007}.
Furthermore, when we take $a=0$, the metric becomes self-dual Taub-NUT metric with cosmological constant \cite{Cvetic:2003}.
Appropriately performing a coordinate transformation, the metric is written as
\be \eqalign{
ds^2 =& \frac{dr^2}{F(r)} + (r^2-m^2)(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2) \\
& + 4m^2F(r)(d\psi + \cos\theta d\phi)^2 \,, }
\ee
where
\ba
F(r) = \frac{\lambda}{3}\left(\frac{r+m}{r-m}\right)(r_+-r)(r-r_-) \,, \\
r_\pm = m\pm\sqrt{4m^2+\frac{3}{\lambda}} \,.
\ea
In particular, for $\lambda=0$, the metric reduces to the self-dual Taub-NUT metric \cite{Hawking:1977}.
The self-dual Taub-NUT metric admits four Killing vector fields.
It also admits three covariantly constant 2-forms, which are the hyper-K\"ahler forms.
In addition, there is a fourth rank-2 KY tensor that is not covariantly constant \cite{vanHolten:1995}.
Our calculation proves that the metric admits the only four Killing vector fields,
the only four rank-2 and no rank-3 KY tensor.
If a self-dual metric is Ricci flat, it becomes hyper-K\"ahler in four dimensions,
which admits three covariantly constant hyper-K\"ahler forms.
This explains an increasing of the number of rank-2 KY tensors
when the cosmological constant vanishes.
Therefore, it is nontrivial \cite{Gibbons:1988,vanHolten:1995}
that the Kerr-bolt and the Taub-NUT metrics with $\lambda=0$
admit one additional rank-2 KY tensor, respectively.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lccc} \hline
&\multicolumn{3}{c}{$\dim KY^p(M)$} \\
4D Euclidean self-dual metrics
&$p=1$ &$p=2$ &$p=3$ \\ \hline
& & & \\[-0.2cm]
\underline{$\lambda\neq 0$}
& & & \\
Plebanski-Demianski
&2 &1 &0 \\
Kerr-bolt &2 &1 &0 \\
Taub-NUT &4 &1 &0 \\[0.2cm]
\underline{$\lambda= 0$}
& & & \\
Plebanski-Demianski
&2 &3 &0 \\
Kerr-bolt &2 &4 &0 \\
Taub-NUT &4 &4 &0 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The numbers of rank-p KY tensors on some gravitational instantons.}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Black holes, rings and strings in five dimensions}
To see if the method works well also in higher dimensions,
we investigate black holes, rings and strings in five dimensions:
Myers-Perry, Emparan-Reall and Kerr string metrics.
They all are known as stationary, axially symmetric solutions
of the vacuum Einstein equation, which admit three Killing vector fields.
The Myers-Perry metric \cite{Myers:1986} is a vacuum solution
describing rotating black holes in an asymptotically flat spacetime.
The metric in five dimensions is given by
\be \eqalign{
ds^2 =& \frac{r^2+p^2}{{\cal Q}}dr^2+\frac{r^2+p^2}{{\cal P}}dp^2 \nonumber\\
& -\frac{{\cal Q}}{r^2+p^2}(d\psi_0-p^2d\psi_1)^2
+\frac{{\cal P}}{r^2+p^2}(d\psi_0+r^2d\psi_1)^2 \\
& +\frac{ab}{rp}(d\psi_0+(r^2-p^2)d\psi_1-r^2p^2d\psi_2)^2 \,, } \label{MP_metric}
\ee
where
\be
{\cal Q} = -\frac{(r^2+a^2)(r^2+b^2)}{r^2}-2m \,, \quad
{\cal P} = \frac{(a^2-p^2)(b^2-p^2)}{p^2} \,.
\ee
The metric contains three parameters $a$, $b$ and $m$.
The three Killing vector fields are given by $\partial/\partial\psi_0$, $\partial/\partial\psi_1$
and $\partial/\partial\psi_2$.
The metric also admits a rank-3 KY tensor \cite{Page:2007,Krtous:2007}.
Our calculation shows that the Myers-Perry metric admits
exactly three Killing vector fields, exactly one rank-3
and no rank-2 and rank-4 KY tensor.
The Emparan-Reall metric \cite{Emparan:2002} is a vacuum solution
describing singly rotating black rings.
The metric in the ring coordinates is given by
\be
\eqalign{
ds^2 =& -\frac{F(y)}{F(x)}\left(dt-CR\frac{1+y}{F(y)}d\psi\right) \\
& +\frac{R^2F(x)}{(x-y)^2}\left(\frac{dx^2}{G(x)}-\frac{dy^2}{G(y)}+\frac{G(x)}{F(x)}d\phi^2-\frac{G(y)}{F(y)}d\psi^2\right)
}
\ee
where
\be
\eqalign{
F(\xi) = 1+\lambda\xi \,, \quad G(\xi) = (1-\xi^2)(1+\nu \xi) \,, \\
C = \sqrt{\lambda(\lambda-\nu)\frac{1+\lambda}{1-\lambda}} \,. }
\ee
The parameters are $R$, $\nu$ and $\lambda$,
which are corresponding to the radius and the thickness of the ring.
The metric admits three Killing vector fields $\partial/\partial t$,
$\partial/\partial\phi$ and $\partial/\partial\psi$.
No higher rank KY tensors have been discovered for the metric.
Our calculation shows that the Emparan-Reall metric admits exactly three Killing vector fields
and no rank-2, rank-3 and rank-4 KY tensor.
The Kerr string metric is also a vacuum solution describing rotating black strings.
The metric is given by
\be \eqalign{
ds^2 =& \frac{r^2+p^2}{{\cal Q}}dr^2+\frac{r^2+p^2}{{\cal P}}dp^2 \nonumber\\
& -\frac{{\cal Q}}{r^2+p^2}(d\tau-p^2d\sigma)^2
+\frac{{\cal P}}{r^2+p^2}(d\tau+r^2d\sigma)^2+d\psi^2 \,, } \label{Kerr_string_metric}
\ee
where ${\cal Q}$ and ${\cal P}$ are given by (\ref{Kerr_function}).
The metric admits three Killing vector fields $\partial/\partial\tau$, $\partial/\partial\sigma$ and $\partial/\partial\psi$.
The metric also admits a rank-2 KY tensor \cite{Houri:2013}.
Furthermore, the dual 1-form of the Killing vector field $\partial/\partial\psi$, i.e., $d\psi$,
is clearly closed. Hence, the 1-form $d\psi$ is covariantly constant.
This means that the Hodge dual of $d\psi$ is a rank-4 KY tensor.
Our calculation shows that the Kerr string metric admits exactly three Killing vector fields,
exactly one rank-2, no rank-3 and exactly one rank-4 KY tensor.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc} \hline
&\multicolumn{4}{c}{$\dim KY^p(M)$} \\
5D metrics &$p=1$ &$p=2$ &$p=3$ &$p=4$ \\ \hline
Maximally symmetric space
&15 &20 &15 &6 \\[0.1cm]
Myers-Perry &3 &0 &1 &0 \\
Emparan-Reall &3 &0 &0 &0 \\
Kerr string &3 &1 &0 &1 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The numbers of rank-p KY tensors on black hole,
ring and string spacetimes in five dimensions.}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Discussions and conclusions}
In this paper, we have shown a simple method for exploring KY symmetry of spacetimes,
which computes an upper bound on the number of KY tensors,
including Killing vector fields and CCKY tensors,
for a given metric by using the curvature conditions of Killing equations.
Discussing some curvature conditions on Killing vector fields in Sec.~2
and solving them for the Kerr spacetime in Sec.~3,
we have overviewed how the method is applied to obtain Killing vector fields.
In Sec.~4, we have calculated the curvature conditions on KY and CCKY tensors
from the geometric view point.
We have introduced a connection ${\cal D}$, called a Killing connection,
on the vector bundle $E^p(M)\equiv \Lambda^pT^*M \oplus \Lambda^{p+1}T^*M$
whose parallel sections are in one-to-one correspondence with rank-$p$ KY tensors.
Calculating the curvature of the connection,
we have obtained (\ref{CC_KY_1})--(\ref{CC_KY_2}).
Differentiating the curvature conditions,
we have obtained further conditions (\ref{CC_KY_3})--(\ref{CC_KY_4}).
Similarly, we have obtained (\ref{CC_CCKY_1})--(\ref{CC_CCKY_4}) for CCKY tensors.
Since the number of linearly independent solutions of the curvature conditions
puts an upper bound on the number of Killing vector fields, KY and CCKY tensors,
we have provided the explicit expression of the curvature conditions
in terms of the Riemann curvature.
The solutions to rank-$p$ Killing-Yano equations can exist
if the holonomy of the Killing connection ${\cal D}$ lies in some subgroup of $GL(N,R)$
where $N$ is the rank of $E^p(M)$,
whose generators are given by the Killing curvature and its differentials,
${\cal D}^k {\cal R}$, for $0\leq k<\infty$ \cite{Ambrose:1953}.
Therefore, in order to determine the precise number of KY tensors,
one has to compute an infinite series of the curvature conditions.
However, we have found it interesting that the curvature conditions
obtained from the Killing curvature ($k=0$) and its differential of first order $(k=1)$
are strong only to determine the precise number of KY tensors
at least for metrics in four and five dimensions investigated in Sec.~5 and 6.
We have thus obtained Table 1, 2 and 3.
The method has some notable features.
The first point is that the curvature conditions are linear algebraic equations,
which enables us to compute the upper bound on the number of KY tensors for any metric.
Another feature is that the method gives an ansatz for solving Killing equations.
Actually, as was seen in Sec.~3, the Killing equation for the Kerr metric
becomes tractable with such an ansatz.
Furthermore, the method applies well also to degenerate cases,
e.g., to the case of Schwarzschild metric where the rank-2 KY tensor is degenerate,
while the rank-2 CCKY nondegenerate case has been well understood
in \cite{Houri:2007,Houri:2008,Krtous:2008,Houri:2009}.
Similarly, the method is also powerful in covariantly constant cases.
Thus, the method discussed in this paper is practically useful
for finding KY tensors for a given metric.
As a future work, it is of great interest to study the curvature conditions on conformal Killing-Yano (CKY) tensors
\cite{Tachibana:1969, Kashiwada:1968}.
Following \cite{Semmelmann:2002,Gover:2008}, one can introduce a Killing connection
whose parallel sections are one-to-one corresponding to CKY tensors.
In a similar way to this paper, one can calculate the curvature of such a connection \cite{Leitner:2004,Houri:2014b}.
The curvature conditions were partly obtained in \cite{Kashiwada:1968,Semmelmann:2002,Stromenger:2010,Batista:2014b}.
As was discussed in \cite{Leitner:2004,Gover:2008,Batista:2014b},
the curvature conditions on CKY tensors are conformal invariant,
which are entirely written in terms of the Weyl curvature and its covariant derivatives.
Similar to this paper, one could discuss the curvature conditions on CKY tensors for type D vacuum spacetimes,
which would give the counterparts to propositions 5.1 to 5.3.
It would be also interesting to investigate CKY symmetry for various metrics,
e.g, see \cite{Mitsuka:2012} for CKY tensors in the near horizon extreme Kerr (NHEK) geometry.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors are grateful to Claude M. Warnick for his useful comments in the early stage of this work.
The authors would also like to thank Kei Yamamoto for his contribution for developing the Mathematica notebook.
Our acknowledgement extends to Carlos Batista, Tohru Eguchi, Yasushi Homma, Masashi Kimura,
David Kubi\v{z}\'nak, Masato Nozawa and Jiro Soda for their helpful comments.
This work was supported by the JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No.\ 26$\cdot$1237
and the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No.\ 23540317.
While T.H. was working at Rikkyo University (until March, 2014),
this work was supported in part by the Research Centre for Measurement in Advanced Science (RCMAS).
|
\section{Introduction}
White dwarfs are the most usual stellar evolutionary end-point, and as
such they convey important and valuable information about their parent
populations. Moreover, their structure and evolutionary properties are
well understood -- see, for instance \cite{Alt2010a} for a recent
review -- and their cooling times are, when controlled physical inputs
are adopted, as reliable as main sequence lifetimes
\citep{Salaris2013}. These characteristics have allowed the
determination of accurate ages using the termination of the degenerate
sequence for both open and globular clusters. This includes, to cite
a few examples, the old, metal-rich open cluster NGC~6791
\citep{Gar2010} which has two distinct termination points of the
cooling sequence \citep{Bedin05, Bedin08a, Bedin08b}, the young open
clusters M~67 \citep{Bellini} and NGC~2158 \citep{2158}, or the
globular clusters M4 \citep{M4} and NGC~6397 \citep{Hansen_2013}.
However, the precise shape of the cooling sequence also carries
important information about the individual characteristics of these
clusters, and moreover can help in checking the correctness of the
theoretical white dwarf evolutionary sequences. Recently, some
concerns -- based on the degenerate cooling sequence of the globular
cluster 47~Tuc -- have been raised about the reliability of the
available cooling sequences \citep{Goldsbury_2012}. 47~Tuc is a
metal-rich globular cluster, being its metallicity [Fe/H]$=-0.75$ or,
equivalently, $Z\approx0.003$. Thus, there exist accurate cooling
ages and progenitor evolutionary times of the appropriate metallicity
\citep{Renedo_2010}. Hence, this cluster can be used as a testbed for
studying the accuracy and correctness of the theory of white dwarf
evolution. Estimates of its age can be obtained fitting the
main-sequence turnoff, yielding values ranging from 10~Gyr to 13~Gyr
-- see \cite{2010AJ....139..329T} for a careful discussion of the ages
obtained fitting different sets of isochrones to the main sequence
turn off. Additionally, recent estimates based on the location of the
faint turn-down of the white dwarf luminosity function give a slightly
younger age of $9.9\pm0.7\,$Gyr \citep{Hansen_2013}. Here we assess
the reliability of the cooling sequences using the available
observational data. As it will be shown below, the theoretical
cooling sequences agree well with this set of data. Having found that
the theoretical white dwarf cooling sequences agree with the empirical
one we determine the absolute age of 47~Tuc using three different
methods, and also we investigate if the recent determinations using
number counts of main sequence stars of the star formation history is
compatible with the properties of the degenerate cooling sequence of
this cluster.
\section{Observational data and numerical setup}
\subsection{Observational data}
The set of data employed in the present paper is that obtained by
\cite{Kalirai12}, which was also employed later by
\cite{Goldsbury_2012} to perform their analysis. \cite{Kalirai12}
collected the photometry for white dwarfs in 47~Tuc, using 121 orbits
of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). The exposures were taken with the
Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) and the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3),
and comprise 13 adjacent fields. A detailed and extensive description
of the observations and of the data reduction procedure can be found
in \cite{Kalirai12}, and we refer the reader to their paper for
additional details.
\subsection{Numerical setup}
We use an existing Monte Carlo simulator which has been extensively
described in previous works \citep{MC1,MC2,MC3}. Consequently, here
we will only summarize the ingredients which are most relevant for our
work. Synthetic main sequence stars are randomly drawn according to
the initial mass function of \cite{Kroupa}. The selected range of
masses is that necessary to produce the white dwarf progenitors of
47~Tuc. In particular, a lower limit of $M > 0.5\, M_{\sun}$
guarantees that enough white dwarfs are produced for a broad range of
cluster ages. In our reference model we adopt an age $T_{\rm
c}=11.5$~Gyr, consistent with the main-sequence turn-off age of 47~Tuc
-- see \cite{Goldsbury_2012} and references therein. We also employ
the star formation rate of \cite{Ventura_2014}, which consists in a
first burst of star formation of duration $\Delta t=0.5$~Gyr, followed
by a short period of time ($\sim 0.04$~Gyr) during which the star
formation activity ceases, and a second short burst of star formation
which lasts for $\sim 0.06$~Gyr. The fraction of white dwarf
progenitors that are formed during the first burst of star formation
is 25\%, whereas the rest of the synthetic stars (75\%) -- which have
a helium enhancement $\Delta Y\sim 0.03$ -- are formed during the
second one. According to \cite{Ventura_2014} the initial
first-population in 47~Tuc was about 7.5 times more massive than the
cluster current total mass. At present, only 20\% of the stars belong
to the population with primeval abundances \citep{Milone}.
Consequently, there is a small inconsistency in the first-to-second
generation number ratio employed in our calculations. Since we are
trying to reproduce the present-day first-to-second generation ratio,
this inconsistency might have consequences in our synthetic luminosity
function. To check this we conducted an additional set of calculations
varying the percentage of stars with primeval abundances by 5\%, and
we found that the differences in the corresponding white dwarf
luminosity functions were negligible.
Once we know which stars had time to evolve to white dwarfs we compute
their photometric properties using the theoretical cooling sequences
for white dwarfs with hydrogen atmospheres of \cite{Renedo_2010}.
These cooling sequences are appropriate because the fraction of
hydrogen-deficient white dwarfs for this cluster is negligible
\citep{Woodley_2012}. These evolutionary sequences were evolved
self-consistently from the ZAMS, through the giant phase, the
thermally pulsing AGB and mass-loss phases, and ultimately to the
white dwarf stage, and encompass a wide range of stellar masses --
from $M_{\rm ZAMS}=0.85$ to $5\,M_{\sun}$. To obtain accurate
evolutionary ages for the metallicity of 47~Tuc ($Z=0.003$) we
interpolate the cooling ages between the solar ($Z=0.01$) and subsolar
($Z=0.001$) values of \cite{Renedo_2010}. For the second,
helium-enhanced, population of synthetic stars we computed a new set
of evolutionary sequences which encompass a broad range of helium
enhancements. Finally, we also interpolate the white dwarf masses for
the appropriate metallicity using the initial-to-final mass
relationships of \cite{Renedo_2010}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}
{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig1.ps}}
\caption{Observed -- left panel -- and simulated -- right panel --
distributions of photometric errors. See text for details.}
\label{f:errors}
\end{figure}
Photometric errors are assigned randomly according to the observed
distribution. Specifically, for each synthetic white dwarf the
photometric errors are drawn within a hyperbolically increasing band
limited by $\sigma_{\rm l}=0.2\left(m_{\rm F814W}-31.0\right)^{-2}$
and $\sigma_{\rm u}=1.7\left(m_{\rm F814W}-31.0\right)^{-2}+0.06$,
which fits well the observations of \cite{Kalirai12} for the F814W
filter. Specifically, the photometric errors are distributed within
this band according to the expression $\sigma=(\sigma_{\rm
u}-\sigma_{\rm l})x^2$, where $x\in(0,1)$ is a random number which
follows an uniform distribution.. Thus, the photometric errors
increase linearly between the previously mentioned boundaries.
Similar expressions are employed for the rest of the filters. The
observed and simulated photometric errors of a typical Monte Carlo
realization are compared in Fig.~\ref{f:errors} for the F814W filter.
As can be seen in this figure, the observed and the theoretically
predicted distribution of errors display a reasonable degree of
agreement. In particular, the observed and the theoretical
distributions of photometric errors have a relatively broad range of
values for F814W ranging from about 20~mag to 25~mag, for which the
width of the distribution remains almost flat. However, the width of
the distribution increases abruptly for values of F814W larger than
this last value.
\begin{figure}[t]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}
{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig2.ps}}
\caption{Distribution of effective temperatures as a function of
the white dwarf object number (left axis). The observational
values of \cite{Goldsbury_2012} are displayed using a grey shaded
area, while the results of our Monte Carlo simulations are shown
using red lines. The blue dashed lines show the cooling sequence
for $M_{\rm WD}=0.53\, M_{\sun}$ of \cite{Renedo_2010} for
$Z=0.001$ under different assumptions. The correction factor of
the observed sample of white dwarfs is also displayed (right
axis). See the online edition of the journal for a color version
of this plot.}
\label{f:Teff}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}
{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig3.ps}}
\caption{Cooling sequences of \cite{Renedo_2010} for the mass of
the white dwarf corresponding to the main-sequence turn-off mass,
and for two metallicities, compared to the empirical cooling
sequence of \cite{Goldsbury_2012}.}
\label{f:cooling}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}
{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig4.ps}}
\caption{White dwarf luminosity function, color-magnitude diagram
and color distribution of 47~Tuc. Grey dots represent observed
main sequence stars, black dots correspond to white dwarfs
observed in the field, while red points denote the results of our
synthetic population of white dwarfs. The green squares
represent the regions of the color-magnitude for which the
$\chi^2$ test was performed, while the blue thin lines correspond
to the cuts adopted to compute the distributions. The red curves
correspond to the simulated distributions obtained when no cuts
are adopted, the blue ones are the observed distributions
computed using our cuts, while the black lines are the observed
distributions when no cuts are employed. See the online edition
of the journal for a color version of this figure, and the main
text for additional details.}
\label{f:WDLF}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
\subsection{The empirical cooling curve}
To start with, we discuss the distribution of white dwarf effective
temperatures, and we compare it with the observed distribution, which
is displayed in Fig.~\ref{f:Teff}. \cite{Goldsbury_2012} measured the
effective temperatures of a large sample of white dwarfs in 47~Tuc.
Afterwards they produced a sorted list, from the hottest star to the
coolest one, to experimentally determine the rate at which white
dwarfs are cooling. They assumed a constant white dwarf formation
rate. Thus, the position in the sorted list is proportional to the
time spent on the cooling sequence. Their sorted,
completeness-corrected distribution of effective temperatures is shown
Fig.~\ref{f:Teff} as a grey shaded band, which includes the $1\sigma$
statistical errors. Also shown for illustrative purposes is the
completeness correction (solid black line).
The most salient feature of the observed distribution is the existence
of a pronounced break, which occurs at effective temperatures $T_{\rm
eff}=20,000$~K. This feature remained unexplained in
\cite{Goldsbury_2012} -- see their Fig.~10 -- and prompted them to
attribute its origin to some missing piece of physics in all the
existing models at moderate temperatures. The results of our
population synthesis simulations for our reference model are also
shown, and also include the $1\sigma$ statistical deviations (upper
and lower red lines). As can be seen, our calculations are in good
agreement with the observed data, without the need of invoking any
additional physical mechanism in the cooling sequences, although they
do not perfectly match the change in slope of the empirical cooling
curve. In the following we discuss separately several possible
reasons that may explain why our simulations are in better agreement
with the observed distribution than those of \cite{Goldsbury_2012}.
The first reason that explains why our model better fits the observed
list is that we used updated main-sequence lifetimes, the
initial-to-final mass relationship of \cite{Renedo_2010} for the
metallicity of cluster, and interpolated cooling sequences for the
precise metallicity of 47~Tuc, while \cite{Goldsbury_2012} did
not. All this results in a different turn-off mass for the cluster,
and consequently in a different white dwarf mass at the top of the
cooling sequence, hence in different cooling rates. To assess this,
in Fig.~\ref{f:cooling} the sorted list of \cite{Goldsbury_2012} is
compared to the theoretical cooling sequences of two white dwarfs of
masses $M_{\rm WD}=0.525\, M_{\sun}$ and $0.520\, M_{\sun}$, the white
dwarf mass corresponding to the main-sequence turn-off of 47~Tuc, for
two metallicities that embrace the metallicity of the cluster,
$Z=10^{-3}$ and $Z=10^{-2}$, respectively. It is interesting to note
that the $Z=10^{-3}$ sequence provides a good fit to the empirical
cooling sequence of \cite{Goldsbury_2012} for temperatures hotter than
$T_{\rm eff}=20,000$~K, while the $Z=10^{-2}$ sequence is a good fit
for temperatures colder than this value. Moreover, the theoretical
cooling sequences bracket the observed distribution of effective
temperatures, and thus it is not surprising that our simulations fit
better the observed distribution. Finally, another explanation for
the better fit of our simulations to the observed distribution is that
by construction our simulations result in a spread of masses, while
\cite{Goldsbury_2012} adopted a single cooling track to compare with
their observational data.
Nevertheless, although our simulations show an overall good agreement
with the observed distribution of effective temperatures, they do not
fully reproduce the observed break in the empirical cooling curve at
moderately high effective temperatures. We thus explore which is the
origin of this discrepancy. Clearly, metallicity cannot be at the
origin of the break because in the region of interest the cooling
sequences of the white dwarfs corresponding to the main turn-off mass
run almost parallel. Also, we adopt the star formation history of
\cite{Ventura_2014}. We repeated our calculations employing a single
burst of star formation and the differences were found to be minor.
Another possible origin for the break in the observed distribution may
be the sudden increase photometric errors for magnitudes larger than
25 -- see Fig.~\ref{f:errors}. We thus checked if the break in the
distribution of observed errors is responsible for the observed break
in sorted list, and although the inclusion of realistic photometric
errors in the simulated population explains why our model is superior,
we found that the observed break cannot be explained by the sudden
increase in photometric errors for stars with magnitudes larger than
25~mag. Thus, the reason for the observed break in the empirical
curve must be related to either the way the observed data is handled
or to an unknown observational bias. We explore these possibilities
next.
In Fig.~\ref{f:Teff} we also show the results of our simulations when
we adopt the same procedure used by \cite{Goldsbury_2012} -- upper
blue dashed line. This is equivalent to adopt a single white dwarf
cooling sequence of mass $M_{\rm WD}=0.53\, M_{\sun}$ of a progenitor
with metallicity $Z=0.001$. As can be seen, the first white dwarfs in
the cooling curve have effective temperatures larger than $T_{\rm
eff}\sim 40,000$~K, whereas in the sorted list of
\cite{Goldsbury_2012} none is found. If white dwarfs with $T_{\rm
eff}\ga 40,000$~K -- which have very short evolutionary timescales,
and hence are difficult to detect -- are removed from the theoretical
sorted list the entire distribution is shifted towards the left in
this diagram, and we obtain the lower blue dashed line. As can be
seen this simple experiment helps in solving the discrepancy found by
\cite{Goldsbury_2012}, although does not totally remove the reported
difference. To better assess this, we employ a Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test of the cumulative distributions of effective temperatures. We
first compute the statistic separation $D$, which measures the largest
separation between the cumulative distribution of our simulations and
the observed data. The statistical distances computed in this way are
0.0789 when the Monte Carlo simulation and the observed sorted list
are compared, 0.2717 when the model obtained using the procedure of
\cite{Goldsbury_2012} is compared to the observed the sorted list, and
0.2694 when from this last model the hottest white dwarfs are removed
from the sorted list. Using these statistical distances, we compute
the probability of the three models being compatible with the observed
data. We find that the probability of our Monte Carlo distribution
being compatible with the observational one is $P\simeq 0.92$, while
this probability drops to $P\simeq 0.73$ when the procedure employed
by \cite{Goldsbury_2012} is adopted, independently of whether the
hottest white dwarfs are removed from the sorted list or not. Thus,
although in a strict statistical sense none of the models can be
totally excluded to a significant level of confidence -- say, for
instance, 5\% -- our population synthesis model presents a better
agreement with the observed distribution of effective temperatures,
and we judge that there is no reason to invoke a missing piece of
physics at moderately high luminosities.
\subsection{The color-magnitude diagram}
Having assessed the reliability of the theoretical cooling sequences,
we now discuss the overall shape of the color-magnitude diagram, and
the distributions of magnitudes and colors. All this information is
displayed in Fig.~\ref{f:WDLF}. The central panel of this figure shows
the observed stars, and the synthetic white dwarfs. As can be seen,
the distribution of synthetic stars perfectly overlaps with that of
observed ones, except at very low luminosities, for which the
contamination with galaxies is very likely. For this reason we
introduced a magnitude cut at $m_{\rm F814W}=29$~mag, and we do not
consider these objects anymore in the subsequent analysis.
Additionally, since we do not have proper motions of the white dwarfs
in 47~Tuc, we introduced two more cuts, which are also displayed in
this figure. These cuts are also intend to discard all background
objects which are not cluster members. In particular, we do not
consider objects to the left of F606W$-$F814W=0.5~mag for magnitudes
between 29.0~mag and 27.5~mag, and objects to the left of the line
F814W=$3.62\left(\left({\rm F606W}- {\rm F814W} \right)-0.5
\right)+27.5$ for brighter magnitudes. Since the background
contamination is also overimposed to the white dwarf cooling sequence
we also estimated the number of background contaminants still present
in the green boxes in Fig.~\ref{f:WDLF} . We did this in a statistical
way, by assuming that the density of contaminants within these regions
is similar to that close to the exclusion line, and we found that the
percentage of contamination of each of the green boxes in
Fig.~\ref{f:WDLF} is small, $\sim 3\%$. We then compute the
theoretical white dwarf luminosity function, and compare it with the
observed luminosity functions when no cuts are employed, and when the
color and magnitude cuts are used. Note that the differences between
the two observed luminosity functions are neglibible for magnitudes
brighter than that of the peak at $\sim 28$~mag, and very small for
fainter magnitudes. Moreover, the agreement between theory and
observations is again excellent. We emphasize that should some
physics was missing in the theoretical cooling tracks we would not be
able to obtain such a good agreement at high luminosities. Finally,
the bottom panel of this figure shows the color distributions. Again,
the agreement is very good, except for the presence of a small bump in
the observed distribution at F606W$-$F814W$\sim 0.3$~mag when no cuts
are used. However, when we discard the sources that very likely are
not cluster white dwarfs the agreement is excellent.
\begin{table*}[t]
\begin{center}
\caption{$\chi^2$ test of the luminosity function, color distribution
and color-magnitude diagram, for different ages and durations of the
first burst of star formation. We list the normalized value of
$\chi^2$, that is the value of $\chi^2$ over its minimum value.}
\label{t:totalchic}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{crrrrrrrrrrrr}
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{4}{c}{$\chi^2_{\rm F814W}/\chi^2_{\rm min}$} &
\multicolumn{4}{c}{$\chi^2_{\rm F606W-F814W}/\chi^2_{\rm min}$} &
\multicolumn{4}{c}{$\chi^2_{\rm N}/\chi^2_{\rm min}$}\\
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$T_{c}$ (Gyr)} &
\multicolumn{12}{c}{$\Delta t$ (Gyr)}\\
\cline{2-5}
\cline{6-9}
\cline{10-13}
& 0.25 & 0.50 & 0.75 & 1.0 & 0.25 & 0.50 & 0.75 & 1.0 & 0.25 & 0.50 & 0.75 & 1.0\\
\cline{2-5}
\cline{6-9}
\cline{10-13}
10.0 & 3.21 & 3.95 & 4.58 & 5.56 & 1.76 & 1.91 & 2.15 & 2.66 & 9.81 & 11.47 & 12.28 & 13.97 \\
10.5 & 1.96 & 2.44 & 2.97 & 3.57 & 1.29 & 1.44 & 1.63 & 1.81 & 5.93 & 7.67 & 9.22 & 10.46 \\
11.0 & 1.42 & 1.62 & 1.92 & 2.30 & 1.16 & 1.17 & 1.31 & 1.42 & 3.46 & 4.26 & 5.70 & 6.96 \\
11.5 & 1.25 & 1.27 & 1.33 & 1.42 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.03 & 1.10 & 1.49 & 2.08 & 2.95 & 3.81 \\
12.0 & 1.17 & 1.10 & 1.10 & 1.18 & 1.17 & 1.05 & 1.03 & 1.07 & 1.17 & 1.20 & 1.43 & 2.04 \\
12.5 & 1.53 & 1.35 & 1.13 & 1.00 & 1.59 & 1.39 & 1.14 & 1.11 & 1.49 & 1.31 & 1.00 & 1.19 \\
13.0 & 1.97 & 1.78 & 1.43 & 1.29 & 1.90 & 1.67 & 1.53 & 1.36 & 2.13 & 1.97 & 1.50 & 1.37 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
As mentioned, the white dwarf cooling sequence of 47~Tuc carries
interesting information about its star formation history and age. To
derive this information we use the following approach. We compute
independent $\chi^2$ tests for the magnitude ($\chi^2_{\rm F814W}$)
and color ($\chi^2_{{\rm F606W}-{\rm F814W}}$) distributions.
Additionally, we calculate the number of white dwarfs inside each of
the green boxes in the color-magnitude diagram of Fig.~\ref{f:WDLF} --
which are the same regions of this diagram used by \cite{Hansen_2013}
to compare observations and simulations -- and we perform an
additional $\chi^2$ test, $\chi^2_{N}$. We then investigate which are
the values of the several parameters which define the star formation
history of the cluster -- that is, its age, the duration of the two
bursts, and their separation -- that best fit the observed data,
independently. That is, we seek for the parameters of the star
formation history of 47~Tuc that best fit either the white dwarf
luminosity function, or the color distribution or the number of stars
in each of the boxes in Fig.~\ref{f:WDLF}. Obviously, this procedure
results in different values of the parameters that define the star
formation history of 47~Tuc.
The results of our analysis are shown in Table~\ref{t:totalchic},
where only the data for a reduced set of models in which we kept fixed
the separation between the two bursts of star formation and the
duration of the second burst, and varied the age of the cluster and
the duration of the first burst, is listed. We remark, nonetheless,
that we explored a significantly larger range of parameters, and that
for the sake of conciseness we only show here a few models. We do
this because we find that the values of $\chi^2$ are less sensitive to
variations in the rest of parameters, and thus this set of models
turns out to be quite representative. As can be seen, when the white
dwarf luminosity function is employed to obtain the age of the cluster
and the duration of the burst of star formation the $\chi^2$ test
favors an age $T_{\rm c}\simeq 12.5\pm 1.0$~Gyr and a duration $\Delta
t\simeq 1.0\pm 0.5$~Gyr. Instead, when the color distribution is
employed we obtain $T_{\rm c}\simeq 11.5\pm 1.0$~Gyr and $\Delta
t\simeq 0.6\pm 0.5$~Gyr, respectively, while the model that best fits
the number of stars in each bin of the color-magnitude diagram has an
age $T_{\rm c}\simeq 12.5\pm 0.5$~Gyr and a duration of the burst of
star formation $\Delta t\simeq 0.7\pm 0.5$~Gyr. These results are in
accordance with those of \cite{Ventura_2014}, agree with the absolute
age determination of 47~Tuc using the eclipsing binary V69
\citep{2010AJ....139..329T}, and also agreee each other within the
error bars.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper we have assessed the reliability and accuracy of the
available cooling tracks using the white dwarf sequence of 47~Tuc. We
have demonstrated that when the correct set of evolutionary sequences
of the appropriate metallicity are employed, and a correct treatment
of the photometric errors, and observational biases is done, the
agreement between the observed and simulated distributions of
effective temperatures, magnitudes and colors, as well as the general
appearance of the color-magnitude diagram is excellent, without the
need of invoking any missing piece of physics at moderately high
effective temperatures in the cooling sequences. While our models do
not totally reproduce the sudden change of slope in the empirical
cooling sequence, it is worth noting that such change of slope takes
place in the region where the completeness correction factor becomes
relevant. Thus it might be well possible that this feature may be only
due to some unknown observational bias.
In a second phase, and given that we found that there is no reason to
suspect the theoretical cooling sequences are incomplete, we also used
these distributions to study the age and star formation history of the
cluster using three different distributions: the white dwarf
luminosity function, the color distribution, and the number counts of
stars in the color-magnitude diagram. Using these three methods we
obtained that the age of the cluster is $T_{\rm c}\sim 12.0$~Gyr. Our
results are compatible with the recent results of \cite{Ventura_2014},
who found that star formation in this cluster proceeded through two
bursts, the first one of duration $\sim 0.4$~Gyr, while the second one
lasted for $\sim 0.06$~Gyr, separated by a gap of duration $\sim
0.04$~Gyr. We also found that the relative strengths of these bursts
of star formation activity (25\% and 75\%, respectively), and the
presence of a helium-enhanced population of white dwarf progenitors
(born exclusively during the second burst) are also compatible with
the characteristics of the white dwarf population.
Since our analysis of the cooling sequence of 47~Tuc closely agrees
with what is obtained studying the distribution of main-sequence
stars, we conclude that a combined strategy provides a powerful tool
that can be used to study other star clusters, and from this obtain
important information about our Galaxy. In these sense, it is
important to realize that \cite{Hansen_2013} computed the age of
NGC~6397, obtaining $\sim 12$~Gyr, significantly longer than their
computed age for 47~Tuc ($\sim 10$~Gyr). This prompted them to
suggest that there is quantitative evidence that metal-rich clusters
like 47~Tuc formed later than the metal-poor halo clusters like
NGC~6397. Our study indicates that 47~Tuc is older than previously
thought, and consequently, although this may be true, more elaborated
studies are needed.
\begin{acknowledgements}
This work was partially supported by MCINN grant AYA2011--23102 by the
European Union FEDER funds, by AGENCIA through the Programa de
Modernizaci\'on Tecnol\'ogica BID 1728/OC-AR, and by PIP
112-200801-00940 grant from CONICET. We thank R. Goldsbury and
B.M.S. Hansen for providing us with the observational data shown in
Figs.~\ref{f:Teff} and \ref{f:WDLF}.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{aa}
|
\section{Introduction}
Many machine learning setups lead
to the minimization a convex function of the form
\begin{equation}
x^*_f = \mathop{\rm arg\,min}_{x\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}} f(x), ~\mbox{with}~
f(x) = \frac{\mu}{2} \|x\|^2 + \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}
g_i(x),
\label{eqn:f-defn}
\end{equation}
where $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$ is a convex, compact set. When the functions $g_i$ are
also convex, then the overall optimization problem is convex, and can
in principle be solved using any off-the-shelf convex minimization
procedure. In the machine learning literature, two primary techniques
have typically been used to address such convex optimization
problems. The first approach (called the batch approach) uses the
ability to evaluate the function $f$ along with its gradients, Hessian
etc. and applies first- and second-order methods to minimize the
objective. The second approach (called the stochastic approach)
interprets the average in Equation~\eqref{eqn:f-defn} as an
expectation and uses stochastic gradient methods, randomly sampling a
$g_i$ and using its gradient and Hessian information as unbiased
estimates for those of the function $f$.\footnote{There is a body of
literature that recognizes the ability of stochastic optimization to
minimize testing error rather than training error in machine
learning contexts~\citep[see e.g.][]{bottou-bousquet-2008}, but we
will focus on training error for this paper.} Both these classes of
algorithms have extensive literature on upper bounds for the
complexities of specific methods. More fundamentally, there are also
lower bound results on the minimum black-box complexity of the
\emph{best-possible algorithm} to solve convex minimization
problems. In several broad problem classes, these lower bounds further
coincide with the known upper bounds for specific methods, yielding a
rather comprehensive general theory.
However, a recent line of work in the machine learning literature,
recognizes that the specific problem~\eqref{eqn:f-defn} of interest
has additional structure beyond a general convex minimization
problem. For instance, the average in defining the function $f$ is
over a fixed number $n$ of functions, whereas typical complexity
results on stochastic optimization allow for the expectation to be
with respect to a continuous random variable. Recent
works~\citep{RouxScBa2012,Shalev-ShwartzZh2013,JohnsonZh2013} make
further assumptions that the functions $g_i$ involved in this sum are
smooth, and the function $f$ is of course strongly convex by
construction. Under these conditions, the algorithms studied in these
works have the following properties: (i) the cost of each iteration is
identical to stochastic optimization methods, and (ii) the convergence
rate of the method is linear.\footnote{An optimization algorithm is
linearly convergent if it reduces the sub-optimality by a constant
factor at each iteration.} The results are surprising since the
existing lower bounds on stochastic optimization dictate that the
error can decrease no faster than $\Omega(1/k)$ after $k$ iterations
under such assumptions~\citep{nemirovsky-yudin-1983}, leaving an
exponential gap compared to these new results. It is of course not a
contradiction due to the finite sum structure of the
problem~\eqref{eqn:f-defn} (following the terminology of
\citet{bertsekas-2010}, we will call the setup of optimizing a finite
sum \emph{incremental optimization} hereafter).
Given this recent and highly interesting line of work, it is natural
to ask just how much better can one do in this model of minimizing
finite sums. Put another way, can we specialize the existing lower
bounds for stochastic or batch optimization, to yield results for this
new family of functions. The aim of such a result would be to
understand the fundamental limits on any possible algorithm for this
family of problems, and whether better algorithms are possible at all
than the existing ones. Answering such questions is the goal of this
work. To this end, we define the Incremental First-order Oracle (IFO)
complexity model, where an algorithm picks an index $i \in
\{1,2,\ldots, n\}$ and a point $x \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$ and the oracle returns
$g_i'(x)$. We consider the setting where each function $g_i$ is
L-smooth (that is, it has L-Lipschitz continuous gradients). In this
setting, we demonstrate that no method can achieve
\mbox{$\|x_K-x^*_f\|\leq\epsilon\|x^*_f\|$} for all functions $f$ of
the form~\eqref{eqn:f-defn}, without performing
\mbox{$K=\Omega\big(n+\sqrt{n\inPar{{L}/{\mu}-1}}\,\log(1/\epsilon)\big)$}
calls to the IFO. As we will discuss following this main result, this
lower bound is not too far from upper bounds for IFO methods such as
SAG, SVRG and SAGA~\citep{SchmidtRoBa2013,JohnsonZh2013,Defazio2014}
whose iteration complexity is $\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}((n +
L/\mu)\log(1/\epsilon))$. Some dual coordinate methods such as ASDCA
and SPDC~\citep{Shalev-ShwartzZh2014,ZhangXi2014} get even closer to
the lower bound, but are not IFO algorithms. Overall, there is no
method with a precisely matching upper bound on its complexity,
meaning that there is further room for improving either the upper or
the lower bounds for this class of problems.
Following the statement of our main result, we will also discuss the
implications of these lower bounds for the typical machine learning
problems that have inspired this line of work. In particular, we will
demonstrate that caution is needed in comparing the results between
the standard first-order and IFO complexity models, and worst-case
guarantees in the IFO model might not adequately capture the
performance of the resulting methods in typical machine learning
settings. We will also demonstrate regimes in which different IFO
methods as well as standard first-order methods have their strengths
and weaknesses.
Recent work of~\citet{Arjevani2014} also studies the problem of lower
bounds on smooth and strongly convex optimization methods, although
their development focuses on certain restricted subclasses of
first-order methods (which includes SDCA but not the accelerated
variants, for instance). Discussion on the technical distinctions in
the two works is presented following our main result.
As a prerequisite for our result, we need the result on black-box
first-order complexity of minimizing smooth and strongly convex
functions. We provide a self-contained proof of this result in our
paper in Appendix~\ref{sec:sproblem} which might be of independent
interest. In fact, we establish a slight variation on the original
result, in order to help prove our main result. Our main result will
invoke this construction multiple times to design each of the
components $g_i$ in the optimization problem~\eqref{eqn:f-defn}.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The next section
formally describes the complexity model and the structural
assumptions. We then state the main result, followed by a discussion
of consequences for typical machine learning problems. The proofs are
deferred to the subsequent section, with the more technical details in
the appendix.
\section{Setup and main result}
Let us begin by formally describing the class of functions we will
study in this paper. Recall that a function $g$ is called $L$-smooth,
if it has $L$-Lipschitz continuous gradients, that is
\[
\forall\: x,y \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}} \quad \|g'(x)-g'(y)\|_*\leq L \|x-y\|~,
\]
where $\|\cdot\|_*$ is the norm dual to $\|\cdot\|$. In this paper, we
will only concern ourselves with scenarios where $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$ is a convex
subset of a separable Hilbert space, with $\|\cdot\|$ being the
(self-dual) norm associated with the inner product. A function $g$ is
called $\mu$-strongly convex if
\[
\forall\: x,y \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}} \quad g(y) \geq g(x) + \inprod{g'(x)}{y-x} +
\frac{\mu}{2} \|x-y\|^2.
\]
Given these definitions, we now define the family of functions being
studied in this paper.
\begin{definition}
Let ${\calF^{\mu,L}_n}(\Omega)$ denote the class of all convex functions $f$ with the
form~\eqref{eqn:f-defn}, where each $g_i$ is $(L-\mu)$-smooth and
convex.
\label{defn-calfo}
\end{definition}
Note that $f$ is $\mu$-strongly convex and $L$-smooth by construction,
and hence ${\calF^{\mu,L}_n}(\Omega) \subseteq {\calS^{\mu,L}}(\Omega)$ where ${\calS^{\mu,L}}(\Omega)$ is the set of all
$\mu$-strongly convex and $L$-smooth functions. However, as we will
see in the sequel, it can often be a much smaller subset, particularly
when the smoothness of the global function is much better than that of
the local functions. We now define a natural oracle for optimization
of functions with this structure, along with admissible algorithms.
\begin{definition}[Incremental First-order Oracle (IFO)]
For a function $f \in {\calF^{\mu,L}_n}(\Omega)$, the Incremental First-order Oracle
(IFO) takes as input a point $x \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$ and index $i \in
\{1,2,\ldots, n\}$ and returns the pair $(g_i(x),\,g'_i(x))$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[IFO Algorithm]
An optimization algorithm is an IFO algorithm if its specification does
not depend on the cost function $f$ other than through calls to an IFO.
\end{definition}
For instance, a standard gradient algorithm
would take the current iterate $x_k$, and invoke the IFO with
$(x_k,i)$ in turn with $i=\{1,2,\ldots, n\}$, in order to assemble the
gradient of $f$. A stochastic gradient algorithm would take the
current iterate $x_k$ along with a randomly chosen index $i$ as inputs
to IFO. Most interesting to our work, the recent SAG, SVRG and SAGA
algorithms~\citep{RouxScBa2012,JohnsonZh2013,Defazio2014}
are IFO algorithms. On the other hand, dual coordinate ascent algorithms
require access to the gradients of the conjugate of $f_i$, and therefore are
not IFO algorithms.
We now consider IFO algorithms that invoke the oracle $K$ times (at
$x_0, \ldots, x_{K-1}$) and output an estimate $x_K$ of the minimizer
$x^*_f$. Our goal is to bound the smallest number of queries $K$
needed for any method to ensure an error $\|x_K -
x^*_f\|\leq\epsilon\|x^*_f\|$, uniformly for all $f \in {\calF^{\mu,L}_n}(\Omega)$. This
complexity result will depend on the ratio $\kappa=L/\mu$ which is
analogous to the condition number that usually appears in complexity
bounds for the optimization of smooth and strongly convex functions.
Note that $\kappa$ is strictly an upper bound on the condition number
of $f$, but also the best one in general given the structural
information about $f \in {\calF^{\mu,L}_n}(\Omega)$.
In order to demonstrate our lower bound, we will make a specific
choice of the problem domain~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$. Let $\ell_2$ be the Hilbert
space of real sequences \mbox{$x=(x\of{i})_{i=1}^{\infty}$} with
finite norm \mbox{$\|x\|^2=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}x\of{i}^2$}, and
equipped with the standard inner product $\inprod{x}{y} =
\sum_{i=1}^\infty x\of{i}y\of{i}$. We are now in a position to state
our main result over the complexity of optimization for the function
class ${\calF^{\mu,L}_n}(\ell_2)$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:fbound}
Consider an IFO algorithm for
problem~(\ref{eqn:f-defn}) that performs $K\geq0$ calls to the
oracle and output a solution $x_K$. Then, for any $\gamma>0$,
there exists a function $f\in{\calF^{\mu,L}_n}(\ell_2)$ such that $\|x^*_f\|=\gamma$ and
\begin{align*}
\|x^*_f-x_K\| ~\geq~ \gamma q^{2t} \quad &\text{\rm with}~~
q=\frac{\sqrt{1+\frac{\kappa-1}{n}}-1}{\sqrt{1+\frac{\kappa-1}{n}}+1}
~,~ \kappa=\frac{L}{\mu}~~\mbox{and}~~ t = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}0 & \mbox{if
$K<n$.} \\ K/n & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{array}\right.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
In order to better interpret the result of the theorem, we state the
following direct corollary which lower bounds the number of steps need
to attain an accuracy of $\epsilon\|x^*_f\|$.
\begin{corollary}
\label{corr:fbound}
Consider an IFO algorithm for problem~(\ref{eqn:f-defn})
that guarantees $\|x^*_f -x_K\| \leq \epsilon \|x^*_f\|$
for any $\epsilon < 1$.
Then there is a function \smash{$f\in{\calF^{\mu,L}_n}(\ell_2)$}\rule{0pt}{1.9ex}
on which the algorithm must perform at least
$K=\Omega(n+\sqrt{n(\kappa-1)}\:\log(1/\epsilon))$ IFO calls.
\end{corollary}
The first term in the lower bound simply asserts that any optimization
method needs to make at least one query per $g_i$, in order to even see
each component of $f$ which is clearly necessary. The second term,
which is more important since it depends on the desired accuracy
$\epsilon$, asserts that the problem becomes harder as the number of
elements $n$ in the sum increases or as the problem conditioning
worsens. Again, both these behaviors are qualitatively
expected. Indeed as $n \rightarrow \infty$, the finite sum approaches
an integral, and the IFO becomes equivalent to a generic
stochastic-first order oracle for $f$, under the constraint that the
stochastic gradients are also Lipschitz continuous. Due to
$\Omega(1/\epsilon)$ complexity of stochastic strongly-convex
optimization (with no dependence on $n$), we do not expect the linear
convergence of Corollary~\ref{corr:fbound} to be valid as $n
\rightarrow \infty$. Also, we certainly expect the problem to get
harder as the ratio $L/\mu$ degrades. Indeed if all the functions
$g_i$ were identical, whence the IFO becomes equivalent to a standard
first-order oracle, the optimization complexity similarly depends on
$\Omega(\sqrt{\kappa - 1}\log(1/\epsilon))$.
Whenever presented with a lower bound, it is natural to ask how it
compares with the upper bounds for existing methods. We now compare
our lower bound to upper bounds for standard optimization schemes for
${\calS^{\mu,L}}(\ell_2)$ as well as specialized ones for ${\calF^{\mu,L}_n}(\ell_2)$. We specialize to
$\|x^*_f\| = 1$ for this discussion.
\paragraph{Comparison with optimal gradient methods:}
As mentioned before, ${\calF^{\mu,L}_n}(\ell_2) \subseteq {\calS^{\mu,L}}(\ell_2)$, and hence standard
methods for optimization of smooth and strongly convex objectives
apply. These methods need $n$ calls to the IFO for getting the
gradient of $f$, followed by an update. Using Nesterov's optimal
gradient method~\citep{nesterov-2004}, one needs at most
$\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}(\sqrt{\kappa}\log(1/\epsilon))$ gradient evaluations to reach
$\epsilon$-optimal solution for $f \in {\calS^{\mu,L}}(\ell_2)$, resulting in at most
$\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}(n\sqrt{\kappa}\log(1/\epsilon))$ calls to the IFO. Comparing
with our lower bound, there is a suboptimality of at most
$\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}(\sqrt{n})$ in this result. Since this is also the best
possible complexity for minimizing a general $f \in {\calS^{\mu,L}}(\ell_2)$, we
conclude that there might indeed be room for improvement by exploiting
the special structure here. Note that there is an important caveat in
this comparison. For $f$ of the form~\eqref{eqn:f-defn}, the
smoothness constant for the overall function $f$ might be much smaller
than $L$, and the strong convexity term might be much higher than
$\mu$ due to further contribution from the $g_i$. In such
scenarios. the optimal gradient methods will face a much smaller
condition number $\kappa$ in their complexity. This issue will be
discussed in more detail in Section~\ref{sec:ml-opt}.
\paragraph{Comparison with the best known algorithms:}
At least three algorithms recently developed for problem
setting~\eqref{eqn:f-defn} offer complexity guarantees that are close
to our lower bound. SAG, SVRG and
SAGA~\citep{RouxScBa2012,JohnsonZh2013,Defazio2014} all reach an
optimization error~$\epsilon$ after less than
\mbox{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}((n+\kappa)\log(1/\epsilon))$} calls to the oracle. There
are two differences from our lower bound. The first term of $n$
multiplies the $\log(1/\epsilon)$ term in the upper bounds, and the
condition number dependence is $O(\kappa)$ as opposed to
$O(\sqrt{n\kappa})$. This suggests that there is room to either
improve the lower bound, or for algorithms with a better
complexity. As observed earlier, the ASDCA and SPDC
methods~\citep{Shalev-ShwartzZh2014,ZhangXi2014} reach a closer upper
bound of \mbox{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}((n+\sqrt{n(\kappa-1)})\log(1/\epsilon))$}, but
these methods are not IFO algorithms.
\paragraph{Room for better lower bounds?} One natural question to ask is
whether there is a natural way to improve the lower bound. As will
become clear from the proof, a better lower bound is not possible for
the \emph{hard problem instance} which we construct. Indeed for the
quadratic problem we construct, conjugate gradient descent can be used
to solve the problem with a nearly matching upper bound. Hence there
is no hope to improve the lower bounds without modifying the
construction.
It might appear odd that the lower bound is stated in the infinite
dimensional space $\ell_2$. Indeed this is essential to rule out
methods such as conjugate gradient descent solving the problem exactly
in a finite number of iterations depending on the dimension only
(without scaling with $\epsilon$). An alternative is to rule out such
methods, which is precisely the approach~\citet{Arjevani2014}
takes. On the other hand, the resulting lower bounds here are
substantially stronger, since they apply to a broader class of
methods. For instance, the restriction to stationary methods
in~\citet{Arjevani2014} makes it difficult to allow any kind of
adaptive sampling of the component functions $f_i$ as the optimization
progresses, in addition to ruling out methods such as conjugate
gradient.
\section{Consequences for optimization in machine learning}
\label{sec:ml-opt}
With all the relevant results in place now, we will compare the
efficiency of the different available methods in the context of
solving typical machine learning problems. Recall the definitions of
the constants $L$ and $\mu$ from before. In general, the full
objective $f$~\eqref{eqn:f-defn} has its own smoothness and strong
convexity constants, which need not be the same as $L$ and $\mu$. To
that end, we define $L_f$ to be the smoothness constant of $f$, and
$\mu_f$ to the strong convexity of $f$. It is immediately seen that $L$
provides an upper bound on $L_f$, while $\mu$ provides a lower
bound on $\mu_f$.
In order to provide a meaningful comparison for incremental as well as
batch methods, we follow~\citet{ZhangXi2014} and compare the methods
in terms of their \emph{batch complexity}, that is, how many times one
needs to perform $n$ calls to the IFO in order to ensure that the
optimization error for the function $f$ is smaller than
$\epsilon$. When defining batch complexity, \citet{ZhangXi2014}
observed that the incremental and batch methods have dependence on $L$
versus $L_f$, but did not consider the different strong convexities
that play a part for different algorithms. In this section, we also
include the dual coordinate methods in our comparison since they are
computationally interesting for the problem~\eqref{eqn:f-defn} even
though they are not admissible in the IFO model. Doing so, the batch
complexities can be summarized as in Table~\ref{tbl:compare-general}.
\begin{table}
\center
\def\mycite#1{{\goodbreak\raggedright{}\small\citep{#1}}}
\begin{tabular}{@{~}c@{~~~}c@{~~~}c@{~}} \hline \rule{0pt}{2.2ex}\relax
Algorithm & Batch complexity & Adaptive?
\\ \hline
\parbox[c]{.35\linewidth}{\flushleft
ASDCA, SDPC \mycite{Shalev-ShwartzZh2014}\mycite{ZhangXi2014}}
& \small{$\ensuremath{\tilde{\order}}\inPar{\inPar{1+\sqrt{\frac{L-\mu}{\mu
n}}}\log\frac{1}{\epsilon}}$}
& no
\\
\parbox[c]{.35\linewidth}{\flushleft
SAG \mycite{SchmidtRoBa2013}}
& \small{$\ensuremath{\tilde{\order}}\inPar{\inPar{1+\frac{L}{\mu_f\,n}}\log\frac{1}{\epsilon}}$ }
& to $\mu_f$
\\
\parbox[c]{.35\linewidth}{\flushleft
AGM$^\dagger$ \mycite{Nesterov2007}}
& \small{$\ensuremath{\tilde{\order}}\left(\sqrt{\frac{L_f}{\mu_f}}\log\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)$}
& to $\mu_f$, $L_f$ \\[3.5ex] \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{A comparison of the batch complexities of different
methods. A method is adaptive to $\mu_f$ or $L_f$, if it does not
need the knowledge of these parameters to run the algorithm and
obtain the stated complexity upper bound. \quad $^\dagger$Although
the simplest version of AGM does require the specification of
$\mu_f$ and $L_f$, Nesterov also discusses an adaptive variant
with the same bound up to additional logarithmic factors.}
\label{tbl:compare-general}
\end{table}
Based on the table, we see two main points of difference. First, the
incremental methods rely on the smoothness of the individual
components. That this is unavoidable is clear, since even the worst
case lower bound of Theorem~\ref{thm:fbound} depends on $L$ and not
$L_f$. As~\citet{ZhangXi2014} observe, $L_f$ can in general be much
smaller than $L$. They attempt to address the problem to some extent
by using non-uniform sampling, thereby making sure that the best of
the $g_i$ and the worst of the $g_i$ have a similar smoothness
constant under the reweighing. This does not fully bridge the gap
between $L$ and $L_f$ as we will show next. However, more striking is
the difference in the lower curvature across methods. To the best of
our knowledge, all the existing analyses of coordinate ascent require
a clear isolation of strong convexity, as in the function
definition~\eqref{eqn:f-defn}. These methods then rely on using $\mu$
as an estimate of the curvature of $f$, and cannot adapt to any
additional curvature when $\mu_f$ is much larger than $\mu$. Our next
example shows this can be a serious concern for many machine learning
problems.
In order to simplify the following discussion we restrict ourselves to
perhaps the most basic machine learning optimization problem, the
regularized least-squares regression:
\begin{equation}
f(x) = \frac{\mu}{2} \|x\|^2 + \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n g_i(x)
~\text{\rm with}~ g_i(x)=\inPar{\inprod{a_i}{x}-\,b_i}^2 ,
\label{eqn:ml-fdefn}
\end{equation}
where $a_i$ is a data point and $b_i$ is a scalar target for
prediction. It is then easy to see that
$g_i^{\prime\prime}(x)=a_i\,a_i^\top$ so that $f\in{\calF^{\mu,L}_n}(\Omega)$ with
$L=\max_i(\mu+\|a_i\|^2)$. To simplify the comparisons, assume that
$a_i\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$ are drawn independently from a distribution defined on
the sphere $\|a_i\|=R$. This ensures that $L=\mu+R^2$. Since each
function $g_i$ has the same smoothness constant, the
importance sampling techniques of~\citet{ZhangXi2014} cannot help.
In order to succinctly compare algorithms, we use the notation
$\Gamma_{\mathrm{ALG}}$ to represent the batch complexity of
$\mathrm{ALG}$ without the $\log(1/\epsilon)$ term, which is common
across all methods. Then we see that the upper bound for
$\Gamma_{\mathrm{ASDCA}}$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:k-asdca}
\Gamma_{\rm ASDCA} ~=~ 1+\sqrt{\frac{\kappa-1}{n}}~=~ 1 +
\sqrt{\frac{R^2}{\mu n}}.
\end{equation}
In order to follow the development of Table~\ref{tbl:compare-general}
for SAG and AGM, we need to evaluate the constants $\mu_f$ and $L_f$.
Note that in this special case, the constants $L_f$ and $\mu_f$ are
given by the upper and lower eigenvalues respectively of the matrix
$\mu I+{\hat{\Sigma}}$, where \mbox{${\hat{\Sigma}}=\sum_{i=1}^na_ia_i^\top/n$}
represents the empirical covariance matrix. In order to understand
the scaling of this empirical covariance matrix, we shall invoke
standard results on matrix concentration.
Let \mbox{$\Sigma=\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}[a_ia_i^\top]$} be the second moment matrix of the
$a_i$ distribution. Let ${\lambda_{\min}}$ and ${\lambda_{\max}}$ be its lowest
and highest eigenvalues. Let us define the condition number of the
penalized population objective
\[
\kappa_{f} ~\stackrel{\Delta}{=}~ \frac{\mu + {\lambda_{\max}}}{\mu+{\lambda_{\min}}} ~.
\]
Equation (5.26) in \citep{Vershynin2012} then implies that there
are universal constants $c$ and $C$ such that the following inequality
holds with probability $1-\delta$\::
\begin{equation*}
\|\Sigma-{\hat{\Sigma}}\| ~\leq~ \|\Sigma\|\,\max\inPar{z,z^2}
~\mbox{\rm with}~
z = c\sqrt{\frac{d}{n}}+C\sqrt{\frac{\log(2/\delta)}{n}} ~.
\end{equation*}
Let us weaken the above inequality slightly to use $\mu + \|\Sigma\|$
instead of $\|\Sigma\|$ in the bound, which is minor since we
typically expect $\mu \ll {\lambda_{\max}}$ for statistical
consistency. Then assuming we have enough samples to ensure that
\begin{equation}
c^2\frac{d}{n} + C^2 \frac{\log(d/\delta)}{n} \leq
\frac{1}{8\kappa_f^2},
\label{eqn:enoughexamples}
\end{equation}
we obtain the following bounds on the eigenvalues of the sample
covariance matrix\::
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\mu_f \geq
\max\inBrace{\mu,\:\mu+{\lambda_{\min}}-{\lambda_{\max}}\max\inPar{z,z^2}} \geq
\frac{\mu + {\lambda_{\min}}}{2}, \\
&L_f \leq
\min\inBrace{L,\:\mu+{\lambda_{\max}}+{\lambda_{\max}}\max\inPar{z,z^2}} \leq
\frac{3(\mu + {\lambda_{\max}})}{2}~,
\end{eqnarray*}
Using these estimates in the bounds of Table~\ref{tbl:compare-general} gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:k-sag}
\Gamma_{\rm SAG} &=& 1 + \frac{L}{\mu_f\,n}
~\leq~ 1 + \frac{2(\mu + R^2)}{n(\mu + {\lambda_{\min}})} ~=~ \ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}(1) \,,~~\quad \\
\label{eq:k-agm}
\Gamma_{\rm AGM} &=& \sqrt{\frac{L_f}{\mu_f}}
~\leq~ \sqrt{3\kappa_{f}} ~=~ \ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}(\sqrt{\kappa_{f}}) ~.
\end{eqnarray}
Table~\ref{tbl:compare-ml} compares the three
methods under assumption~\eqref{eqn:enoughexamples}
depending on the growth of $\kappa$.
\begin{small}
\begin{table}[h]
\bigskip
\center
\begin{tabular}{@{~}c@{~~}cc@{~}} \hline \rule{0pt}{2.2ex}\relax
Algorithm
& $\kappa = \ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}(n)$
& $\kappa \gg n$
\\\hline \rule{0pt}{3.8ex}\relax
ASDCA, SPDC (Eq.~\eqref{eq:k-asdca})
& \small{$\ensuremath{\tilde{\order}}\left(\log\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)$ }
& \small{$\ensuremath{\tilde{\order}}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{\rule{0pt}{1.4ex}n}}\log\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)$}
\\ \rule{0pt}{3.6ex}\relax
SAG (Eq.~\eqref{eq:k-sag})
& \small{$\ensuremath{\tilde{\order}}\left( \log\frac{1}{\epsilon} \right)$ }
& \small{$\ensuremath{\tilde{\order}}\left( \log\frac{1}{\epsilon} \right)$ }
\\ \rule{0pt}{3.6ex}\relax
AGM (Eq.~\eqref{eq:k-agm})
& \small{$\ensuremath{\tilde{\order}}\left( \sqrt{\kappa_{f}} \log\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)$ }
& \small{$\ensuremath{\tilde{\order}}\left( \sqrt{\kappa_{f}} \log\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)$ }
\\[1ex] \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{A comparison of the batch complexities of different methods
for the regularized least squares objective~\eqref{eqn:ml-fdefn}
when the number of examples is sufficiently
large~\eqref{eqn:enoughexamples}. Observe how the ASDCA complexity
bound can be significantly worse than the SAG complexity bound,
despite its better worst case guarantee.}
\label{tbl:compare-ml}
\end{table}
\end{small}
\goodbreak
\paragraph{Problems with $\kappa = \ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}(n)$:}
This setting is quite interesting for machine learning, since it
corresponds roughly to using $\mu = \ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}(n)$ when $R^2$ is a
constant. In this regime, all the incremental methods seem to enjoy
the best possible convergence rate of $\ensuremath{\tilde{\order}}(\log(1/\epsilon))$. When
the population problem is relatively well conditioned, AGM obtains a
similar complexity since $\kappa_f = \ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}(1)$. However, for poorly
conditioned problems, the population condition number might scale with
the dimension $d$. We conclude that there is indeed a benefit from
using the incremental methods over the batch methods in these
settings, but it seems hard to distinguish between the complexities of
accelerated methods like ASDCA and SPDC compared with SAG or SVRG.
\paragraph{Problems with large $\kappa$:} In this setting, the
coordinate ascent methods seem to be at a disadvantage, because the
average loss term provides additional strong convexity, which is
exploited by both SAG and AGM, but not by ASDCA or SPDC
methods. Indeed, we find that the complexity term $\Gamma_{\rm ASDCA}$
can be made arbitrarily large as $\kappa_{i}$ grows large. However, the
contraction factors for both SAG and AGM do not grow with $n$ in this
setting, leading to a large gap between the complexities. Between SAG
and AGM, we conclude that SAG has a better bound when the population
problem is poorly conditioned.
\paragraph{High-dimensional settings (\boldmath $n/d\ll1$)\::} In this
setting, the global strong convexity can not really be larger than
$\mu$ for the function~\eqref{eqn:ml-fdefn}, since the Hessian of the
averaged loss has a non-trivial null space. It would appear then, that
SAG is forced to use the same problem dependent constants as
ASDCA/SPDC, while AGM gets no added benefit in strong convexity
either. However, in such high-dimensional problems, one is often
enforcing a low-dimensional structure in machine learning settings for
generalization. In such structures, the global Hessian matrix can
still satisfy restricted versions of strong convexity and smoothness
conditions, which are often sufficient for batch optimization methods
to succeed~\citep{AgarwalNeWa2012}. In such situations, the comparison
might once again resemble that of Table~\ref{tbl:compare-ml}, and we
leave such development to the reader.
In a nutshell, the superiority of incremental algorithms for the
optimization of training error in machine learning is far more subtle
than suggested by their worst case bounds. Among the incremental
algorithms, SAG has favorable complexity results in all regimes
despite the fact that both ASDCA and SPDC offer better worst case
bounds. This is largely due to the adaptivity of SAG to the curvature
of the problem. This might also explain in some part the empirical
observation of~\citet{SchmidtRoBa2013}, who find that on some datasets
SDCA (without acceleration) performed significantly poorly compared
with other methods (see Figure 2 in their paper for details). Finally,
we also observe that SAG does indeed improve upon the complexity of
AGM after taking the different problem dependent constants into
account, when the population problem is ill-conditioned and the data
are appropriately bounded.
It is worth observing that all our comparisons are ignoring constants,
and in some cases logarithmic factors, which of course play a role in
the running time of the algorithms in practice. Note also that the
worst case bounds for the incremental methods account for the worst
possible choice of the $n$ functions in the sum. Better results might
be possible when they are based on i.i.d. random data. Such results
would be of great interest for machine learning.
\section{Proof of main result}
In this section, we provide the proof of
Theorem~\ref{thm:fbound}. Our high-level strategy is the following. We
will first construct the function $f~:~\ell_2\mapsto {\mathbb{R}}$ such that
each $g_i$ acts on only the projection of a point $x$ onto a smaller
basis, with the bases being disjoint across the $g_i$. Since the $g_i$
are separable, we then demonstrate that optimization of $f$ under an
IFO is equivalent to the optimization of each $g_i$ under a standard
first-order oracle. The functions $g_i$ will be constructed so that
they in turn are smooth and strongly convex with appropriate
constants. Hence, we can invoke the known result for the optimization
of smooth and strongly convex objectives under a first-order oracle,
obtaining a lower bound on the complexity of optimizing $f$. We will
now formalize this intuitive sketch.
\subsection{Construction of a separable objective}
We start with a simple definition.
\begin{definition}
Let $e_1,e_2,\dots$ denote the canonical basis vectors of $\ell_2$,
and let $Q_i$, $i=1\dots n$, denote the orthonormal families
$Q_i\:=\:\inBrack{\:e_i,\,e_{n+i},\,e_{2n+i},\dots,\,e_{kn+i},\dots }$~.
\end{definition}
For ease of presentation, we also extend the transpose notation for
matrices over operators in $\ell_2$ in the natural manner (to avoid
stating adjoint operators each time).
\begin{definition}
Given a finite or countable orthonormal
family $S=[s_1,s_2,\dots]\subset\ell_2$ and $x\in\ell_2$, let
\[
S\,x~{=}~\sum_{i=1}^\infty x\of{i}\,s_i \quad\text{\rm and}\quad
S^\top x~{=}~( \inprod{s_i}{x} )_{i=1}^{\infty}~,
\]
where $s_i$ is assumed to be zero when $i$ is greater than the size of
the family.
\label{defn:orthonormal}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Both $S\,x$ and $S^\top x$ are square integrable and therefore belong to
$\ell_2$.
\end{remark}
Using the above notation, we first establish some simple identities
for the operators $Q_i$ defined above.
\begin{lemma}
Simple calculus yields the following identities:
\begin{align*}
Q_i^\top\,Q_i = \sum_{i=1}^{n} Q_i\,Q_i^\top = I,~\textrm{and}~
\|Q_i\,x\|^2 = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \|Q_i^\top\,x\|^2 = \|x\|^2~.
\end{align*}
\label{lemma:basis-ident}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof*}
We start with the first claim. For any basis vector $e_j$, it is
easily checked that $Q_ie_j = e_{(j-1)n + i}$. By definition of
$Q_i^\top$, it further follows that $Q_i^\top e_{(j-1)n + i} =
e_j$. Linearity now yields $Q_i^\top\,Q_ix = x$ for any $x \in
\ell_2$, giving the first claim. For the second claim, we observe
that $Q_iQ_i^\top\, e_j = 0$ unless $\textrm{mod}(j,n) = i$, in which case
$Q_iQ_i^\top\, e_j = e_j$. This implies the second claim. The third
claim now follows from the first one, since $\inprod{Q_i\,x}{Q_i\,x}
= \inprod{x}{Q_i^\top\,Q_i\,x} = \|x\|^2$. Similarly the final claim
follows from the second claim.
\end{proof*}
We now define the family of separable functions
that will be used to establish our lower bound.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:separated}
f(x) = \frac{\mu}{2} \|x\|^2 + \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} h_i(Q_i^\top x)
~,~~~ h_i(x)\in{\cal S}^{0,L-\mu}(\ell_2) ~~
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}
All functions (\ref{eq:separated}) belong to ${\calF^{\mu,L}_n}(\ell_2)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof*}
We simply need to prove that the functions $g_i(x)=h_i(Q_i^\top x)$
belong to ${\cal S}^{0,L-\mu}(\ell_2)$. Using
$g^\prime_i(x)=Q_i\,h^\prime_i(Q_i^\top x)$ and
Lemma~\ref{lemma:basis-ident}, we can write $\displaystyle \|
g^\prime_i(x)-g^\prime_i(y) \|^2 = \big\| Q_i\,\big(\,h^\prime_i(Q_i^\top
x)-h^\prime_i(Q_i^\top y)\,\big)\,\big\|^2 = $ $\displaystyle \|
h^\prime_i(Q_i^\top x)-h^\prime_i(Q_i^\top y) \|^2 \leq (L-\mu)^2
\|Q_i^\top(x-y)\|^2 \leq (L-\mu)^2 \|x-y\|^2 ~.$
\end{proof*}
\subsection{Decoupling the optimization across components}
We would like to assert that the separable structure of $f$ allows
us to reason about optimizing its components separately.
Since the $h_i$ are not strongly convex by themselves, we first
rewrite $f$ as a sum of separated strongly convex functions.
Using Lemma~\ref{lemma:basis-ident},
\begin{align*}
f(x) &= \frac{\mu}{2} \|x\|^2 + \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}
h_i(Q_i^\top x) = \frac{\mu}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{n}\|Q_i^\top
x\|^2+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}h_i(Q_i^\top x)\\
&= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\inBrack{\frac{n\mu}{2}\|Q_i^\top x\|^2+h_i(Q_i^\top x)}
~\stackrel{\Delta}{=}~ \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} f_i(Q_i^\top x) ~,
\end{align*}
By construction,
the functions $f_i$ belong to ${\cal S}^{n\mu,L-\mu+n\mu}$ and are
applied to disjoint subsets of the $x$ coordinates. Therefore, when
the function is known to have form~(\ref{eq:separated}),
problem~(\ref{eqn:f-defn}) can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fiproblems}
x^* = \sum_{i=1}^n Q_i x^*_i \qquad x^*_i ~=~ \mathop{\rm arg\,min}_{x\in\ell_2} ~
f_i(x)~.
\end{equation}
Any algorithm that solves optimization problem~(\ref{eqn:f-defn})
therefore implicitly solves all the problems listed
in~(\ref{eq:fiproblems}).
We are almost done, but for one minor detail. Note that we want to
obtain a lower bound where the IFO is invoked for a pair $(i,x)$ and
responds with $h_i(Q_i^\top x)$ and $\partial h_i(Q_i^\top x)/\partial x$.
In order to claim that this suffices to optimize each $f_i$ separately,
we need to argue that a first-order oracle for $f_i$ can be obtained
from this information, knowing solely the structure of $f$ and not the
functions $h_i$. Since the strong convexity constant $\mu$ is assumed
to be known to the algorithm, the additional $(n\mu/2)\|x\|^2$ in
defining $f_i$ is also known to the algorithm. As a result, given an IFO
for $f$, we can construct a first-order oracle for any of the
$f_i$ by simply returning $h_i(Q_i^\top x) + (n\mu/2)\|Q_i^\top x\|^2$ and $\partial
h_i(Q_i^\top x)/\partial x + n\mu Q_iQ_i^\top x)$. Furthermore, an IFO
invoked with the index $i$ reveals no information about $f_j$ for
any other $j$ based on the separable nature of our problem. Hence, the
IFO for $f$ offers no additional information beyond having a standard
first-order oracle for each $f_i$.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:fbound}}
Based on the discussion above, we can pick any $i\in\{1\dots n\}$
and view our algorithm as a complicated setup whose sole purpose is to
optimize function $f_i\in{\cal S}^{n\mu,L-\mu+n\mu}$. Indeed, given the
output $x_K$ of an algorithm using an IFO for the function $f$, we can
declare $x^i_K = Q_i^\top x_K$ as our estimate for
$x^*_i$. Lemma~\ref{lemma:basis-ident} then yields
\begin{align*}
\|x_K - x^*_f\|^2 &= \sum_{i=1}^n \|Q_i^\top (x_K - x^*_f)\|^2 =
\sum_{i=1}^n \|x^i_K - x^*_i\|^2.
\end{align*}
In order to establish the theorem, we now invoke the classical result
on the black-box optimization of functions using a first-order
oracle. The specific form of the result stated here is proved in
Appendix~\ref{sec:sproblem}.
\begin{theorem}[Nemirovsky-Yudin]
\label{thm:sbound}
Consider a first order black box optimization algorithm for
problem~(\ref{eq:sproblem}) that performs $K\geq0$ calls to
the oracle and returns an estimate $x_K$ of the minimum.
For any $\gamma>0$, there exists a function $f\in{\calS^{\mu,L}}(\ell_2)$ such that
$\|x^*_f\|=\gamma$ and
\[
\|x^*_f - x_K\| ~\geq~ \gamma \:\: q^{2K} \quad
\text{\rm with}~~ q=\frac{\sqrt{\kappa}-1}{\sqrt{\kappa}+1} ~~
\text{\rm and~~} \kappa=\frac{L}{\mu}~.
\]
\end{theorem}
At a high-level, our oracle will make an independent choice of one of
the functions that witness the lower bound in Theorem~\ref{thm:sbound}
for each $f_i$. At a high-level, each function $f_i$ will be chosen to
be a quadratic with an appropriate covariance structure such that
$K_i$ queries to the function $f_i$ result in the estimation of at
most $K_i+1$ coordinates of $x_i^*$. By ensuring that the remaining
entries still have a substantial norm, a lower bound for such
functions is immediate. The precise details on the construction of
these functions can be found in
Appendix~\ref{sec:sproblem}.\footnote{The main difference with the
original result of Nemirovsky and Yudin is the dependence on
$\gamma$ instead of $\|x_0 - x^*_f\|$. This is quite convenient in
our setting, since it eliminates any possible interaction amongst
the starting values of different coordinates for the different
functions $f_i$.}
Suppose the IFO is invoked $K_i$ times on each index $i$,
with $K = K_1 + K_2 + \ldots + K_n$. We first establish the theorem
for the case $K < n$ in which the algorithm cannot query each
functions $f_i$ at least once. After receiving the response $x_K$,
we are still free to arbitrarily choose $f_i$ for any index $i$
that was never queried. No non-trivial accuracy is possible
in this case.
\begin{proposition}
Consider an IFO algorithm that satisfies the conditions
of Theorem~\ref{thm:fbound} with $K<n$.
Then there is a function $f \in {\calF^{\mu,L}_n}(\ell_2)$ such that
$\|x^*_f-x_K\| ~\geq~ \gamma$.
\label{prop:smallK}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof*}
Let us execute the algorithm assuming that all the $f_i$
are equal to the function $f$ of Theorem~\ref{thm:sbound} that
attains the lower bound with $\gamma = 0$. Since $K<n$,
there is at least one function $f_j$ for which $K_j=0$.
Since the IFO has not revealed anything about this function,
we can construct
function $f$ by redefining function $f_j$ to ensure that
$\|x^j_K - x^*_j\| \geq \|x^*_j\| = \gamma_j$.
Since $x^*_j$ is the only part of $x^*$
which is non-zero, we also get $\gamma_j = \gamma$.
\end{proof*}
We can now assume without loss of generality that $K_i> 0$ for each $i$.
Appealing to Theorem~\ref{thm:sbound} for each $f_i$ in turn,
\begin{align*}
\|x_K - x^*_f\|^2 ~~=~~ \sum_{i=1}^n \|x^i_K - x^*_i\|^2 ~~\geq~~
\sum_{i=1}^n \gamma_i^2 q^{4K_i}
~~=~~ \gamma^2\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{\gamma_i^2}{\gamma^2} q^{4K_i}
~~\geq~~ \gamma^2 q^{\sum_{i=1}^n \gamma_i^2 4K_i/\gamma^2},
\end{align*}
where the last inequality results from Jensen's inequality
applied to the convex function $q^{4\alpha}$ for $\alpha \geq 1$.
Finally, since the oracle has no way to discriminate
amongst the $\gamma_i$ values when $K_i > 0$, it will end up
setting $\gamma_i = \gamma/\sqrt{n}$. With this setting, we now obtain
the lower bound
\begin{align*}
\|x_K - x^*_f\|^2 &\geq \gamma^2 q^{4K/n},
\end{align*}
for $K > n$, along with $\|x_K - x^*_f\|^2 \geq \gamma^2$ for $K <
n$.
This completes the proof of the Theorem. In order to further establish
Corollary~\ref{corr:fbound}, we need an additional technical lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:magicbound}
$\displaystyle
\forall x>1 ~,~~
\log\inPar{\frac{\sqrt{x}-1}{\sqrt{x}+1}}
\: > \: \frac{-2}{\sqrt{x-1}} ~.
$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof*}
The function
$\phi(x)=\log\inPar{\frac{\sqrt{x}-1}{\sqrt{x}+1}}+\frac{2}{\sqrt{x-1}}$
is continuous and decreasing on $(1,+\infty)$ because
\begin{align*}
\phi'(x) &= \frac{1}{(\sqrt{x}-1)(\sqrt{x}+1)\sqrt{x}} -
\frac{1}{(x-1)\sqrt{x-1}}\\ &=~ \frac{1}{(x-1)\sqrt{x}} -
\frac{1}{(x-1)\sqrt{x-1}} < 0 ~.
\end{align*}
The result follows because $\lim_{x\rightarrow\infty}\phi(x)=0$.
\end{proof*}
Now we observe that we have at least $n$ queries due to the
precondition $\epsilon < 1$ and
Proposition~\ref{prop:smallK}, which yields the first term in the
lower bound. Based on Theorem~\ref{thm:fbound} and this lemma, the
corollary is now immediate.
\section{Discussion}
The results in this paper were motivated by recent results and
optimism on exploiting the structure of minimizing finite sums, a
problem which routinely arises in machine learning. Our main result
provides a lower bound on the limits of gains that might be possible
in this setting, allowing us to do a more careful comparison of this
setting with regular first-order black box complexity results. As
discussed in Section~\ref{sec:ml-opt}, the results seem mixed when the
sum consists of $n$ functions based on random data drawn i.i.d. from a
distribution. In this statistical setting, we find that the worst-case
near-optimal methods like ASDCA can often be much worse than other
methods like SAG and SVRG. However, IFO methods like SAG certainly
improve upon optimal first-order methods agnostic of the finite sum
structure, in ill-conditioned problems. In general, we observe that
the problem dependent constants that appear in different methods can
be quite different, even though this is not always recognized. We
believe that accounting for these opportunities might open door to
more interesting algorithms and analysis.
Of course, there is another and a possibly more important aspect of
optimization in machine learning which we do not study in this
paper. In typical machine learning problems, the goal of optimization
is not just to minimize the objective $f$---usually called the
training error---to a numerical precision. In most problems, we
eventually want to reason about test error, that is the accuracy of
the predictions we make on unseen data. There are existing
results~\citep{bottou-bousquet-2008} which highlight the optimality of
\emph{single-pass stochastic gradient} optimization methods, when test
error and not training error is taken into consideration. So far, we
do not have any clear results comparing the efficacy of methods
designed for the problem~\eqref{eqn:f-defn} in minimizing test error
directly. We believe this is an important question for future
research, and one that will perhaps be most crucial for the
adoption of these methods in machine learning.
We believe that there are some important open questions for future
works in this area, which we will conclude with:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Is there a fundamental gap between the best IFO methods and the
dual coordinate methods in the achievable upper bounds? Or is there
room to improve the upper bounds on the existing IFO methods. We
certainly found it tricky to do the latter in our own attempts.
\item Is it possible to obtain better complexity upper bounds when the
$n$ functions involved in the sum~\eqref{eqn:f-defn} are based on
random data, rather than being $n$ arbitrary functions? Can the
incremental methods exploit global rather than local smoothness
properties in this setting?
\item What are the test error properties of incremental methods for
machine learning problems? Specifically, can one do better than just
adding up the optimization and generalization errors, and follow a
more direct approach as the stochastic optimization literature?
\end{enumerate}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank Lin Xiao, Sham Kakade and Rong Ge for helpful
discussions regarding the complexities of various methods. We also
thank the anonymous reviewer who pointed out that the dual coordinate
are not valid IFO algorithms.
|
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
It is a well-known result that over $\mathbb{Q}$ there are no elliptic curves $E$ with everywhere good reduction. However, the same is not true over general number fields. For example, let $K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{29})$ and $a = \frac{5 + \sqrt{29}}{2}$. Then the elliptic curve $$E: y^2 + xy + a^2 y = x^3$$ has unit discriminant, and hence has everywhere good reduction over $K$.
This leads to the natural question: Over which number fields do there exist elliptic curves with everywhere good reduction? This question has often been approached by studying $E/K$ with everywhere good reduction which satisfy additional properties, such as those which have a $K$-rational torsion point, admit a global minimal model, or have rational $j$-invariant. We say that an elliptic curve $E/K$ has $\text{EGR}(K)$ if it has everywhere good reduction over $K$, and that an elliptic curve $E/K$ has $\text{EGR}_{\mathbb{Q}}(K)$ if it additionally has rational $j$-invariant. Similarly, we say a quadratic field has $\text{EGR}$ if there exists a $\text{EGR}(K)$ elliptic curve.
For many real and imaginary quadratic fields $K$ of small discriminant, explicit examples of elliptic curves $E/K$ with everywhere good reduction can be found in the literature, such as \cite{kida1999reduction} and \cite{ishii1986non}. There are also many known examples of such fields for which there do not exist any elliptic curves $E/K$ with everywhere good reduction; see \cite{kida1999reduction}, \cite{kida1997nonexistence}, \cite{kagawa2000nonexistence} for example.
Kida \cite{kida1999reduction} showed that if $K$ satisfies certain hypotheses, every $E/K$ with $\text{EGR}$ has a $K$-rational point of order two. This condition led to a series of non-existence results for particular real quadratic fields with small discriminant. In \cite{Setzer:1981vg}, Setzer classified elliptic curves with $\text{EGR}$ over real quadratic number fields with rational $j$-invariant. Kida extended Setzer's approach by giving a more general method suitable for computing elliptic curves with $\text{EGR}$ over certain real quadratic fields with rational or singular $j$-invariants in \cite{kida2000computing}. Comalada \cite{Comalada:1990ur} showed that there exists $E/K$ with $\text{EGR}$, a global minimal model, and a $K$-rational point of order two if and only if one of his sets of diophantine equations has a solution. Ishii supplements this theorem by studying $k-$rational 2 division points in \cite{ishii1986non} to demonstrate specific real quadratic fields without $\text{EGR}$ elliptic curves. Later Kida and Kagawa in \cite{kida1997nonexistence} generalized Ishii's result to obtain non-existence results for $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{17)}$, $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{73)}$ and $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{97)}$. Yu Zhao determined criteria for real quadratic fields to have elliptic curves with $\text{EGR}$ and a non-trivial 3-division point. In \cite{zhao2013elliptic}, he provides a table for all such fields with discriminant less than 10,000.
For imaginary quadratic fields, Stroeker \cite{Stroeker:1983to} showed that no $E/K$ with $\text{EGR}$ admits a global minimal model. In \cite{Setzer:1978ub}, Setzer showed that there exist elliptic curves with $\text{EGR}$ and a $K$-rational point of order two if and only if $K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-m})$ with $m$ satisfying certain congruence conditions. Comalada and Nart provided criteria to determine when elliptic curves have $\text{EGR}$ in \cite{comalada1992modular}. Kida combined this result with a method of computing the Mordell-Weil group in \cite{kida2001good} to prove there are no elliptic curves with $\text{EGR}$ over the fields $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-35}), \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-37}), \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-51})$ and $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-91})$.
The following tables shows what it known for $0 \leq \Delta_K \leq 47$.
\begin {table}[htbp]
\caption {Existence and Nonexistence of an Elliptic Curve with $\text{EGR}(K)$}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c| }
\hline
\text{Existence} & \text{Non-existence} \\
\hline
6 & 2 \\
7 & 3 \\
14 & 5 \\
22 & 10 \\
26 & 11 \\
29 & 13 \\
33 & 15 \\
37 & 17 \\
48 & 19 \\
41 & 21 \\
65 & 23 \\
& 30 \\
& 31 \\
& 34 \\
& 35 \\
& 39 \\
& 42 \\
& 43 \\
& 46 \\
& 47 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
A combination of the above results gives many methods to prove that a particular quadratic number field has an $\text{EGR}$ elliptic curve. Cremona and Lingham \cite{Cremona:2007vb} described an algorithm for finding all elliptic curves over any number field $K$ with good reduction outside a given set of primes. However, this procedure relies on finding integral points on certain elliptic curves over $K$, which can limit its practical implementation. As a consequence of Setzer's result regarding the classification of elliptic curves over both real and imaginary quadratic number fields with rational $j$-invariant, it is known that there infinitely many quadratic fields which have an $\text{EGR}$ elliptic curve. However, there is no conjectured density result for the proportion of quadratic fields over which there exist elliptic curves $E$ with everywhere good reduction.
Let $R(X)$ be the number of real quadratic number fields $K$ with discriminant at most $X$ and an $\text{EGR}{_\mathbb{Q}}(K)$ elliptic curve. By revisiting the results of Setzer, we prove the following.
\begin{thm}\label{rsqrtbound}
With $R(X)$ as above, we have that
$$R(X) \gg \frac{X}{\sqrt{\log(X)}}.$$
\end{thm}
If $I(X)$ is the number of imaginary quadratic number fields $K$ with $|\Delta_K|<X$ and an $\text{EGR}_{\mathbb{Q}}(K)$ elliptic curve, we also obtain the result below.
\begin{thm}\label{isqrtbound}
With $I(X)$ as above, we have that
$$I(X) \gg \frac{X}{\sqrt{\log(X)}}.$$
\end{thm}
To prove Theorem~\ref{rsqrtbound}, we first show that all real quadratic fields of the form described below in Theorem~\ref{thm237} have $\text{EGR}$, and then count these fields.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm237}
Let $m = 2q$, where $q = q_1 \cdots q_n \equiv 3 \pmod{8}$ with $q_j \equiv 1, 3 \pmod{8}$ distinct primes. Then the real quadratic field $K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$ has $\text{EGR}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
If $m$ is as described in Theorem~\ref{thm237}, there exists $E/K$ with $\text{EGR}$ and $j(E) = 20^3$.
\end{rem}
Similarly, to prove Theorem~\ref{isqrtbound}, we show all imaginary quadratic fields found below in Theorem~\ref{thm238} have $\text{EGR}$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm238}
Let $m = 37q$, where $q = -q_1 \cdots q_n \equiv 1 \pmod{8}$ with $q_j$ distinct primes such that $\pf{q_j}{37} = 1$. Then the imaginary quadratic field $K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$ has $\text{EGR}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
If $m$ is as described in Theorem~\ref{thm238}, there exists $E/K$ with $\text{EGR}$ and $j(E) = 16^3$.
\end{rem}
We can achieve results like Theorem~\ref{thm237} and \ref{thm238} for integers other than 2 and 37; these two cases are all is required to prove Theorem~\ref{rsqrtbound} and \ref{isqrtbound}.
To obtain a density result for $m = qD$, where $D$ is fixed and $q$ varies, we define certain `good' $D$. We say $D$ is good if it is the square free part of $A^3 - 1728$, where $A$ satisfies certain congruence conditions modulo powers of 2 and 3. These congruence conditions will be described explicitly in Section 2. If $D$ is good, then $K = \mathbb{Q}\sqrt{Dq}$ has $\text{EGR}$ whenever $D$ and $q$ satisfy certain explicit conditions, see Section~\ref{Section2}. Define
\begin{displaymath}
\epsilon_D = \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
1 & D \equiv 1 \pmod{4} \\
-1 & \text{otherwise} \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{displaymath}
When $\text{sign}(D) = -\epsilon_D$, we get real quadratic fields $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{qD})$, and when $\text{sign}(D) = \epsilon_D$, we get imaginary quadratic fields.
Using this, we show that $R_D(X)$, the number of $q \leq X$ such that $Q(\sqrt{Dq})$ is a real $\text{EGR}$ quadratic number field, satisfies the following lower bound:
\begin{thm}
\label{genboundr}
Let $D$ be good with $r$ distinct prime factors and $R_D(X)$, the number of $\text{EGR}$ real quadratic number fields $Q(\sqrt{Dq})$ with $q \leq X$.
Assume that $\text{sign}(D) = -\epsilon_D$. Then $$R_D(X) \gg \frac{X}{\log^{1 - 1/2^r} X}.$$
\end{thm}
We obtain a similar result to show that $I_D(X)$, the number of $\text{EGR}$ imaginary quadratic number fields $Q(\sqrt{Dq})$ satisfies the following lower bound.
\begin{thm}
\label{genboundim}
Let $D$ be good with $r$ distinct prime factors and $I_D(X)$, the number of $\text{EGR}$ imaginary quadratic number fields $Q(\sqrt{Dq})$ with $q \leq X$. Assume that $\text{sign}(D) = \epsilon_D$. Then $$I_D(X) \gg \frac{X}{\log^{1 - 1/2^r} X}.$$
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
While we have only looked at curves with rational $j$-invariant, Noam Elkies' computations \cite{Elkies:2014:Online} suggest that very few $E/K$ with $\text{EGR}$ have $j(E) \not \in \mathbb{Q}$ and unit discriminant. Therefore, the theorem below, which to the best of our knowledge has not previously appeared in the literature, suggests that most fields of the form $K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{\pm p})$ for primes $p \equiv 3 \pmod{8}$ are not $\text{EGR}$. This is consistent with Elkies' data.
\end{rem}
Using this approach we were also able to determine nonexistence of $\text{EGR}$ quadratic fields.
\begin{thm}
\label{nonexistence}
Let $p \equiv 3 \pmod{8}$ be prime.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{p})$. Then there are no $E/K$ with $\text{EGR}$ and $j(E) \in \mathbb{Q}$.
\item let $K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-p})$. Then there are no $E/K$ with $\text{EGR}$ and $j(E) \in \mathbb{Q}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
In \cite{kagawa2000nonexistence}, Kagawa showed that if $p$ is a prime number such that $p \equiv 3 (4)$ and $p \neq 3, 11$, then there are no elliptic curves with $\text{EGR}$ over $K=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{3p})$ whose discriminant is a cube in $K$. Since all $\text{EGR}_{\mathbb{Q}}(K)$ curves have cubic discriminant as shown in Setzer \cite{Setzer:1981vg}, this gives a result similar to Theorem 1.7.\end{rem}
In Section~\ref{Section2}, we describe conditions arising from Setzer to define when we have $\text{EGR}$ quadratic fields. In Section~\ref{Section3}, we use these conditions to find a lower bound based on an example of Serre. In Section~\ref{Section4}, we will give examples of $\text{EGR}$ real quadratic fields and $\text{EGR}$ imaginary quadratic fields.
\section{Constructing $\text{EGR}$ Quadratic Fields}
\label{Section2}
In \cite{Setzer:1981vg}, given a rational $j$-invariant, Setzer determines whether there exists an elliptic curve and number field over which this curve has everywhere good reduction. Following his notation, we make the following definitions. Let $\mathcal{R}$ be the following set:
\[
\mathcal{R}= \{A \in \mathbb{Z} : 2|A\Rightarrow 16|A \text{ or } 16|A-4,\text{ and } 3|A \Rightarrow 27|A-12\}.
\]
Then $D$ is good if it is in the following set:
$$\{D: Dt^2 = A^3 - 1728, D \text{ square-free}, A \in \mathcal{R}, t \in \mathbb{Z}\}.$$
Given $D$ good, we define $\epsilon_D$ as follows:
\begin{displaymath}
\epsilon_D = \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
1 & D \equiv 1 \pmod{4} \\
-1 & \text{otherwise} \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{displaymath}
\begin{rem}We note that $\pm 1$ are not good, as the elliptic curves $Y^2 = X^3 - 1728, -Y^2 = X^3 - 1728$ have no integral points with $Y \neq 0$.
\end{rem}
By Setzer \cite{Setzer:1981vg}, the only candidates for elliptic curves $E$ with $\text{EGR}_{\mathbb{Q}}(K)$ over a quadratic field $K$ have $j(E)=A^3$ with $A \in \mathcal{R}$.
\begin{thm}[\cite{Setzer:1981vg}]
\label{Setzer}
Let $K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$ be a quadratic field. Then there exists an elliptic curve $E/K$ with $\text{EGR}$ and rational $j$-invariant if and only if the following conditions are satisfied for some good $D \mid \Delta_K$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\epsilon_D D$ is a rational norm from $K$.
\item If $D \equiv \pm 3 \pmod{8}$, then $m \equiv 1 \pmod{4}$.
\item If $D$ is even then $m \equiv 4 + D \pmod{16}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
To prove the theorem, Setzer shows that given a pair $(m, D)$ satisfying the conditions of the theorem, there exists $u \in K^\times$ such that $$E_{u, A}: y^2 = x^3 - 3A(A^3 - 1728)u^2 x - 2(A^3 - 1728)^2 u^3$$ has $j$-invariant $A^3$ and $\text{EGR}$ over $K$.
\begin{rem}
We correct a mistake in Condition (2) of this theorem as written in \cite{Setzer:1981vg}.
We note that if $u \equiv v \pmod{4 \mathcal{O}_K}$ and $m \equiv 2, 3, \pmod{4}$, then we must have that $N(u) \equiv N(v) \pmod{8}$. However, if $m \equiv 1 \pmod{4}$, we only know that $N(u) \equiv N(v) \pmod{4}$. Moreover, we can pick $w \in 4\mathcal{O}_K$ such that $N(u + w) \equiv N(u) + 4 \pmod{8}$.
Condition (2) as written in Setzer's paper states that if $D \equiv \pm 3 \pmod{8}$, then $m \equiv 5 \pmod{8}$. $D \equiv \pm 3 \pmod{8}$ implies that a certain element $u \in \mathcal{O}_K$ has $N(u) \equiv 5 \pmod{8}$. But for the curve to have good reduction at primes dividing $2$, it is necessary that $u$ is congruent to a square modulo $4 \mathcal{O}_K$. For $m \equiv 2, 3 \pmod{4}$ this is not possible, as no squares can have norm equivalent to $5$ modulo $8$. However, if $m \equiv 1 \pmod{4}$, the condition that $N(u) \equiv 5 \pmod{8}$ is not an obstacle, as $u$ is congruent modulo $4 \mathcal{O}_K$ to elements of norm $1$ modulo $8$. Setzer mistakenly assumes that this can only happen when $m \equiv 5 \pmod{8}$.
\end{rem}
In proving that fields do and do not have elliptic curves with $\text{EGR}$ and rational $j$-invariant, the following equivalent version of Setzer's theorem will be useful.
\begin{thm}\label{congrucond}
Fix $D$ good, and $m=qD$ square-free. $K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$ has $\text{EGR}$ if and only if the following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $(-\epsilon_D q / p_i)=1$ for all primes $p_i$ dividing $D$;
\item $(\epsilon_D D / q_j)=1$ for all primes $q_j$ dividing $q$;
\item $m >0$ if $\epsilon_D D <0$;
\item If $D \equiv \pm 3\pmod 8$ then $q \equiv D \pmod 4$;
\item If $D$ is even then $q \equiv D+1 \pmod 8$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{congrucond}]
We need to show that the conditions in Theorem~\ref{Setzer} are equivalent to those in Theorem~\ref{congrucond}.
Assume that $K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$ where $m$ is square-free.
Clearly if $m=qD$, $D$ divides $\Delta_K$. We need to show that if $D \mid \Delta_K$ then $D \mid m$. This is trivial for $m \equiv 1 \pmod{4}$, as then $\Delta_K = m$. If $m \equiv 3 \pmod{4}$, then $D$ cannot be even because of (3), so $D \mid m$. If $m \equiv 2 \pmod{4}$, then $D$ must be square-free, so $D \mid m$.
Now, $\epsilon_D D$ is a rational norm from $K$ if and only if there exists a rational solution to $\epsilon_D D = a^2 - b^2 D q$. Since $D \mid a$, the above is equivalent to the existence of a rational solution to $\epsilon_D = D (a')^2 - b^2 q$. Condition $(c)$ insures that $\epsilon_D$, $D$ and $-q$ are not all positive nor all negative. Then by Legendre's Theorem, \cite{ireland1982classical}, for $p_i$ a prime not dividing $m$, there are always local solutions to $\epsilon_D D = a^2 - b^2 D q$ if and only if conditions (a) - (c) are satisfied.
Conditions (d) and (e) are directly equivalent to (2) and (3).
\end{proof}
To prove Theorem 1.1, the lower bound for $R_D(X)$ and Theorem 1.2, the lower bound for $I_D(X)$, we require Theorem 1.3 (which considers the case $D=2$) and Theorem 1.4 (which considers the case $D=37$). Below, we prove both those theorems using the result above.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm237}]
Let $A = 20 \in \mathcal{R}$. This shows that $D = 2$ is good. For $m = 2 q$ with $q = q_1 \cdots q_n \equiv 3 \pmod{8}$ and $q_j \equiv 1, 3 \pmod{8}$ distinct primes, all of the conditions in Theorem~\ref{congrucond} are satisfied, and so $K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$ has $\text{EGR}$. \\
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm238}]
Let $A = 16 \in \mathcal{R}$. This that shows that $D = 37$ is good. For $m = 37q$ with $q = -q_1 \cdots q_n \equiv 1 \pmod{8}$ and $q_j$ distinct primes such that $\pf{q_j}{37} = 1$, all of the conditions in Theorem~\ref{congrucond} are satisfied, and so $K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$ has $\text{EGR}$.
\end{proof}
We also can use Theorem~\ref{congrucond} to prove nonexistence results about $\text{EGR}$ quadratic fields.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{nonexistence}]
Let $p \equiv 3 \pmod{8}$ be prime.
To show that there are no $E/\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{p})$ with $\text{EGR}$ and rational $j$-invariant, we must show that neither of the pairs $(D, q) = (\pm p, \pm 1)$ satisfy the conditions of Theorem~\ref{congrucond}. We note that since $p=D \equiv \pm 3 \pmod{8}$, condition (d) implies that $q \equiv 5D \equiv \pm 1 \pmod{8}$, which is a contradiction.
Similarly, to show that there are no $\text{EGR}_{\mathbb{Q}}(\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-p})$, we have to show that neither of the pairs $(D, q) = (\pm p, \pm 1)$ satisfy the conditions of the theorem. We note that in both cases, condition (a) implies that $\pf{-1}{p} = 1$, which is a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\section{Finding Lower Bounds}
\label{Section3}
To prove the lower bounds, we use an example of Serre \cite{Serre72} as a reference.
We define a set $E \subset \mathbb{N}_{>0}$ to be multiplicative if for all pairs $n_1, n_2$ relatively prime, we have that $n_1 n_2 \in E$ if and only if $n_1 \in E$ or $n_2 \in E$. Given a set $E$, let $P(E)$ be the set of primes $p$ in $E$. Let $\bar{E} := \mathbb{N}_{>0} - E$, and $\bar{E}(X) := \{m \in \bar{E}, m \leq X\}$.
\begin{thm}[\cite{Serre72}]
\label{Serre}
Suppose that $E$ is multiplicative and $P(E)$ has Chebotarev set $0 < \alpha < 1$. Then $$\bar{E}(X) \sim cX/\log^\alpha X$$ for some $c > 0$.
\end{thm}
We will use the theorem above to prove Theorem~\ref{genboundr} and Theorem~\ref{genboundim}. As shown in Section 2, the special cases with $D = 2, 37$ will then imply Theorem~\ref{rsqrtbound} and \ref{isqrtbound}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{genboundr}]
Let $D$ be good.
If $D$ is odd, let $D = \pm 1p_1 \cdots p_r$ be its prime factorization. Then we define $$\bar{E} := \{q_1^{a_1} \cdots q_n^{a_n}: \text{$q_j$ is prime, $a_j \geq 0$, $\pf{q_j}{p_i} = 1$}\}.$$
If $D$ is even, let $D = \pm 2 p_1 \cdots p_{r - 1}$ be its prime factorization. Define
\begin{displaymath}
\delta = \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
1 & \text{if $D/2 \equiv 1 \pmod{4}$} \\
-1 & \text{if $D/2 \equiv -1 \pmod{4}$} \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{displaymath}
Let $$\bar{E} := \{q_1^{a_1} \cdots q_n^{a_n}: \text{$q_j$ is prime, $a_j \geq 0$, $\pf{q_j}{p_i} = 1$, $\pf{-2\delta }{q_j} = 1$}\}.$$
In both cases, $E$, the set such that $\bar{E} := \mathbb{N}_{>0} - E$, is multiplicative, and $P(E)$ has Chebotarev set $\alpha = 1 - 1/2^r$. Therefore, by Theorem~\ref{Serre}, we have
$$\bar{E}(X) \sim c X/\log^\alpha X.$$ Now, we have to relate $\bar{E}(X)$ to $R_D(X)$ and $I_D(X)$. We will do this for three cases, when $D \equiv 3, 1, 2 \pmod{8}$, as the others work similarly.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Assume that $D \equiv 3 \pmod{8}$, $D > 0$. Consider the set
$$E'(X) := \{Dq: q \in \bar{E}(X), q \text{ square-free, and $q \equiv 7 \pmod{8}$}\}.$$
We first show that $$E'\subset R_D(X).$$ To do this we must show $E'$ satisfies conditions $(a)-(e)$ in Theorem~\ref{congrucond}. Condition $(a)$ is satisfied as:
$$\pf{-\epsilon_D q}{p_i} = \pf{q}{p_i} = \prod_j\pf{q_j}{p_i} = 1.$$
Condition $(b)$ follows from:
$$\pf{\epsilon_D D}{q_j} = \pf{-D}{q_j} = \pf{q_j}{D} = \prod_i \pf{q_j}{p_i} = 1.$$
Both condition $(c)$ and $(d)$ follow directly from the definition of $E'$.
Since a positive proportion of elements of $\bar{E}(X)$ are also in $E'(X)$ and $E'\subset R_D(X)$, this tells us that a positive proportion of $q \in \bar{E}(X)$ are such that $Dq \in R_D(X)$. Therefore, $$R_D(X) \gg \frac{X}{\log^\alpha(X)}.$$
\item Assume that $D \equiv 1 \pmod{8}, D < 0$. We have that $$E'(X) := \{Dq: -q \in \bar{E}(X), q \text{ square-free}\} \subset R_D(X),$$ as $$\pf{-\epsilon_D q}{p_i} = \pf{-q}{p_i} = \prod_j \pf{q_j}{p_i} = 1$$ and $$\pf{\epsilon_D D}{q_j} = \pf{D}{q_j} = \pf{q_j}{-D} = \prod_i \pf{q_j}{p_i} = 1.$$ As a positive proportion of elements of $\bar{E}(X)$ are also in $E'(X)$, this tells us that a positive proportion of $-q \in \bar{E}(X)$ are such that $Dq \in R_D(X)$. Therefore, $$R_D(X) \gg \frac{X}{\log^\alpha(X)}.$$
\item Assume that $D \equiv 2 \pmod{8}, D < 0$. We have that $$E'(X) := \{Dq: q \in \bar{E}(X), q \text{ square-free, and } q \equiv 3 \pmod{8}\} \subset I_D(X),$$ as $$\pf{-\epsilon_D q}{p_i} = \pf{q}{p_i} = \prod_j \pf{q_j}{p_i} = 1$$ and $$\pf{\epsilon_D D}{q_j} = \pf{-2}{q_j}\pf{-(-D)}{q_j} = \pf{q_j}{-D} = \prod_i \pf{q_j}{p_i} = 1.$$ As a positive proportion of elements of $\bar{E}(X)$ are also in $E'(X)$ (note that $\pf{-2}{q_j} = 1$ implies that $q_j \equiv 1, 3 \pmod{8}$), this tells us that a positive proportion of $q \in \bar{E}(X)$ are such that $Dq \in I_D(X)$. Therefore, $$R_D(X) \gg \frac{X}{\log^\alpha(X)}.$$
Similar calculations can be done for $m<0$, resulting in $$I_D(X) \gg \frac{X}{\log^\alpha(X)}.$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{rsqrtbound}]
The theorem follows immediately from Theorem~\ref{genboundr} and Theorem~\ref{thm237}. Theorem 1.3 shows $D=2$ is good with $r=1$ distinct factors and the real quadratic field $K=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{qD})$ has
$\text{EGR}$. If $R(X)$ is the number of these fields, Theorem 1.5 shows
$$R(X) \gg \frac{X}{\sqrt{\log(X)}}.$$
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{rsqrtbound}]
The theorem follows immediately from Theorem~\ref{genboundim} and Theorem~\ref{thm238}. Theorem 1.4 shows $D=37$ is good with $r=1$ distinct factors and the imaginary quadratic field $K=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{qD})$ has
$\text{EGR}$. If $I(X)$ is the number of these fields, Theorem 1.6 shows
$$I(X) \gg \frac{X}{\sqrt{\log(X)}}.$$
\end{proof}
\section{Examples}
\label{Section4}
In this section, we explain how to find elliptic curves with $\text{EGR}$ when the conditions of Theorem~\ref{congrucond} are satisfied, and give examples of elliptic curves with $\text{EGR}$. The results in this section are based on Setzer's construction in \ref{Setzer}.
We start with a quadratic field $K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$ and a factorization $m = Dq$ with $D$ good which satisfies the conditions of Theorem~\ref{congrucond}. We want to find $u$ such that
$$E_{u, A}: y^2 = x^3 - 3A(A^3 - 1728)u^2 x - 2(A^3 - 1728)^2 u^3$$ has $\text{EGR}_{\mathbb{Q}}(K)$. Let $\alpha \in K$ have norm $\epsilon_D D$, and pick $n$ odd such that $\beta := n \alpha = a + b \sqrt{m} \in \mathcal{O}_K$. Let $A \in \mathcal{R}$ be such that $D$ is the square-free part of $A^3 - 1728$. Define $d_1, d_2$ such that $3^2(A^3 - 1728) = Dd_1^2d_2^4$ with $d_1$ square-free. If $m \equiv 1, 2 \pmod{4}$, then one of $u = \pm \beta d_1$ works. If $m \equiv 3 \pmod{4}$, then either $u = \pm \beta d_1$ both work or $u = \pm \beta d_1 \rho$ both work, where $\rho = \frac{1}{2}(m + 1) + \sqrt{m}$.
The table below has some examples.
$$
\begin{array}{| c | c | c | c | c | c |}
\hline
A & D & d_1 & q & \alpha & u \\
\hline
20 & 2 & 42 & 3 & 2 + \sqrt{6} & -d_1 \alpha = -84 - 42 \sqrt{6} \\
\hline
-15 & -7 & 1 & -11& 35 + 4 \sqrt{77}& -d_1 \alpha = -35 - 4 \sqrt{77}\\
\hline
-32 & -11 & 42 & -15 & 77 + 6 \sqrt{165} & d_1 \alpha = 3234 + 252 \sqrt{165}\\
\hline
-32 & -11 & 42 & -3 & 11 + 2 \sqrt{33} & -d_1 \alpha = -462 - 84 \sqrt{33} \\
\hline
39 & 79 &1 &5 &79 + 4 \sqrt{395} & \pm d_1 \alpha \rho = \pm(17222 + 871 \sqrt{395}) \\
\hline
16 & 37 & 6 & -7 & 37 + 6 \sqrt{-259} & \pm d_1\alpha = \pm(222 +36 \sqrt{-259}) \\
\hline
\end{array}
$$
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section*{\contentsname}%
\def\begin{equation}{\begin{equation}}
\def\end{equation}{\end{equation}}
\def\begin{eqnarray}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\def\end{eqnarray}{\end{eqnarray}}
\def{\rm Tr}{{\rm Tr}}
\begin{document}
\title[Entanglement negativity after a global quench]{Entanglement negativity after a global quantum quench}
\vspace{.5cm}
\author{Andrea Coser$^1$, Erik Tonni$^1$ and Pasquale Calabrese$^{1,2}$}
\address{$^1$\,SISSA and INFN, via Bonomea 265, 34136 Trieste, Italy. \\}
\address{$^2$\,Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`a di Pisa and INFN,
Pisa, Italy.}
\vspace{.5cm}
\begin{abstract}
We study the time evolution of the logarithmic negativity after a global quantum quench.
In a 1+1 dimensional conformal invariant field theory, we consider the negativity between two
intervals which can be either adjacent or disjoint.
We show that the negativity follows the quasi-particle interpretation for the spreading of entanglement.
We check and generalise our findings with a systematic analysis of the negativity after a quantum quench
in the harmonic chain, highlighting two peculiar lattice effects: the late birth and the sudden death of entanglement.
\end{abstract}
\maketitle
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec intro}
The non-equilibrium dynamics of isolated quantum systems is one of the most active research
area of the last years.
In a global quantum quench, a system is initially prepared in the ground state of a translationally invariant Hamiltonian $H_0$
and it is then left evolving with another translationally invariant Hamiltonian $H$ differing from $H_0$ for an experimentally
tuneable parameter.
Key questions in quench dynamics are whether the system reaches for long time a stationary state,
how to characterise it from first principles, and how this steady state is approached in time (see e.g. Refs.~\cite{silva,efg-14} for reviews).
Nowadays a number of advanced analytical and numerical techniques have been developed to study the quench dynamics
for a variety of different situations and realistic models \cite{cc-06,ce-13,a-12,tdmrg,iTEBD,s-11}.
However, many insights on these non-equilibrium dynamics came from the study of oversimplified theories such as 1+1 dimensional
conformal field theory (CFT).
Indeed, phenomena like the light-cone spreading of correlations \cite{cc-06,cc-07-quench}, the linear increase of entanglement
entropy \cite{cc-05-quench} and the structure of revivals in finite systems \cite{c-14} have been first discovered in CFT, later generalised to more realistic models and even verified in experiments (see \cite{cetal-12} for the experimental measure of the light-cone spreading of correlations).
The main goal of this paper is to shed some light on the time evolution of the entanglement {\it between} two different regions in an
extended system following a quantum quench.
We will quantify this entanglement by means of logarithmic negativity for which a general quantum field theory
approach has been recently developed \cite{us-letter,us-long,us-neg-T}.
We consider this problem in the framework of CFT, closely following the approach introduced in
Refs.~\cite{cc-05-quench, cc-07-quench} for the time evolution of entanglement entropy and correlations.
In order to understand the generality and the limits of this approach, we parallel the analytic CFT calculations with some
exact numerical computations for the harmonic chain.
The non-equilibrium evolution of the negativity in CFT, but for different quench protocols, has also
been considered in Refs.~~\cite{ez-14,d-14}.
\subsection{Quench protocol}
The system is prepared in the ground state $| \psi_0 \rangle$ of the Hamiltonian $H_0$.
The quantum quench consists in a sudden (instantaneous) change of a parameter in the Hamiltonian $H_0 \rightarrow H$
at a given time that we set as $t=0$. Thus, the unitary evolution of $| \psi_0 \rangle$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{state t>0}
| \psi(t) \rangle = e^{-\textrm{i} H t} \, | \psi_0 \rangle\,.
\end{equation}
The density matrix associated to this pure state is $\rho(t) = | \psi(t) \rangle \langle \psi(t) |$.
In 1+1-dimensional CFT, the calculations become manageable when $|\psi_0\rangle$ is a boundary conformal state as we will
explain in what follows.
In this approach, analytical results have been obtained for the entanglement entropy of a single and more intervals \cite{cc-05-quench},
for correlation functions of primary operators \cite{cc-06,cc-07-quench}, and a few other quantities \cite{sc-08,gs-12,mg-14,nnt-14}.
We will not be interested here in the time evolution of the entanglement after a local quench, a subject which has been
considered instead in Refs.~\cite{cc-07l,ep-08,ds-11,ep-12,c-12,ab-14}, but only for the entanglement entropies.
\subsection{Quantities of interest}
As we anticipated, we are interested here in the entanglement between two different regions, which in the case of a one dimensional
system are two intervals, either adjacent or disjoint, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig line intervals}.
In order to define the entanglement, we should first introduce the reduced density matrix of the part $A$ of the
system as $\rho_A={\rm Tr}_B \rho(t)$, where we traced over the degrees of freedom in $B$, which is the complement of $A$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace{.4cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{N2intervals1dim.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-.3cm}
\caption{Configurations of two intervals in the infinite line that we consider: adjacent intervals (top) and disjoint intervals (bottom).
}
\label{fig line intervals}
\end{figure}
The entanglement of a bipartite system can be quantified by the entanglement entropy \cite{rev}
\begin{equation}
S_A= - {\rm Tr}\,\rho_A \ln \rho_A\,,
\label{Sdef}
\end{equation}
or alternatively by the R\'enyi entanglement entropies
\begin{equation}
S_A^{(n)} = \frac1{1-n} \ln {\rm Tr} \rho_A^n\,.
\label{SAn}
\end{equation}
The limit $n\to1$ of $S_A^{(n)} $ gives $S_A$, but $S_A^{(n)}$ contain much more information, since one can extract the full spectrum of $\rho_A$ from them \cite{cl-08}.
Notice that, when $A=A_1\cup A_2$ is composed of two disjoint regions $A_1$ and $A_2$, the entanglement entropy quantifies only the entanglement between $A$ and the remainder of the system $B$, but not the entanglement between
$A_1$ and $A_2$.
In this case one can introduce the mutual information
\begin{equation}
\label{MI def}
I_{A_1,A_2}\equiv\, S_{A_1} + S_{A_2} - S_{A_1 \cup A_2}\,,
\end{equation}
and, analogously, the R\'enyi mutual information
\begin{equation}
\label{renyi MI def}
I^{(n)}_{A_1,A_2}\equiv\,
\frac{1}{n-1}
\ln \left( \frac{{\rm Tr} \rho_A^n}{{\rm Tr} \rho_{A_1}^n {\rm Tr} \rho_{A_2}^n} \right) .
\end{equation}
However, these are not measures of the entanglement between $A_1$ and $A_2$, but quantify the amount of
{\it global correlations between the two subsystems}, see e.g. \cite{MI}.
A proper measure of entanglement in a bipartite mixed state is the negativity \cite{vw-01,horodecki-98-neg,eisert-01}.
In order to define it, one first introduces the partial transpose with respect to the $A_2$'s degrees of freedom as
\begin{equation}
\langle e_i^{(1)} e_j^{(2)}|\rho^{T_2}_{A_1\cup A_2}|e_k^{(1)} e_l^{(2)}\rangle=
\langle e_i^{(1)} e_l^{(2)}|\rho_{A_1\cup A_2}| e^{(1)}_k e^{(2)}_j\rangle\, ,
\label{rhoAT2def}
\end{equation}
and then the {\it logarithmic negativity} as
\begin{equation}
{\cal E}_{A_1,A_2}\equiv\ln ||\rho^{T_2}_{A_1\cup A_2}||=\ln {\rm Tr} |\rho^{T_2}_{A_1\cup A_2}|\,,
\label{negdef}
\end{equation}
where $||M|| \equiv \sum_i |\lambda_i|$ is the trace-norm of the hermitian matrix $M$, defined through its eigenvalues $\lambda_i$.
Notice that the negativity is symmetric for exchange of $A_1$ and $A_2$, as any good measure of the relative
entanglement should be.
While the negativity was introduced long time ago, only recently it has become a practical and useful tool for the study of
many-body quantum systems \cite{Neg1,Neg2,Neg3,sod,kor,hv-14,us-letter,us-long,us-neg-T}.
\subsection{Organisation of the manuscript}
The main goal of this paper is to study the time dependence following a quantum quench of the negativity ${\cal E}_{A_1,A_2}$ and
compare it with the mutual information.
The paper is organised as follows.
In Sec.~\ref{sec EE and MI} we review the path integral approach to the
quantum quench problem \cite{cc-05-quench,cc-06,cc-07-quench} and the known results from the time evolution
of the entanglement entropy and mutual information in a CFT.
In Sec.~\ref{sec ent neg} we apply this formalism to the calculation of the negativity of two disjoint intervals after a quench to a CFT.
In Sec.~\ref{QP} we report the quasi-particle picture for the spreading of correlations and entanglement and we argue
that it is valid also for the negativity.
In Sec.~\ref{app hc} we report numerical calculation for the entanglement entropy, mutual information, and entanglement negativity
for a quench of the frequency (mass) in the harmonic chain.
We show that the results are in qualitative agreement with the CFT predictions and the differences are understood in
terms of the effect of slow quasi-particles.
Finally in Sec.~\ref{concl} we draw our conclusions and we discuss some open problems.
\section{Entanglement entropies and mutual information}
\label{sec EE and MI}
In this section we briefly review the imaginary time formalism for the description of quenches in CFTs developed in
Refs.~\cite{cc-05-quench,cc-06,cc-07-quench}.
In particular in Ref.~\cite{cc-05-quench}, the entanglement entropies of an arbitrary number of disjoint intervals
have been already derived.
It is however useful to recall how this has been done, in order to set up the calculation and notations for the negativity.
\subsection{The path integral approach to quenches}
The expectation value of a product of equal-time local operators in the time dependent state (\ref{state t>0}) can be written as \cite{cc-06}
\begin{equation}
\langle {\cal O}(t,\{ { r}_i\})\rangle= Z^{-1} \langle \psi_0 |
e^{\textrm{i} H t-\tau_0 H} {\cal O}(\{ { r}_i\}) e^{-\textrm{i} H t-\tau_0 H}| \psi_0 \rangle\, ,
\label{Oexp}
\end{equation}
where two damping factors $e^{-\tau_0 H}$ have been added in such a way
as the path integral representation of this expectation value is convergent.
The normalisation factor is $Z=\langle\psi_0|e^{-2\tau_0 H}|\psi_0\rangle$.
Following Ref.~\cite{cc-06}, Eq.~(\ref{Oexp}) may be represented by a path integral in imaginary time $\tau$
\begin{equation}
\label{pi} \frac1Z\int[d\phi(r,\tau)]{\cal O}(\{ r_i\},0) \,e^{-\int_{\tau_1}^{\tau_2}Ld\tau}
\langle\psi_0|\phi( r,\tau_2)\rangle \langle\phi( r,\tau_1)|\psi_0\rangle \, ,
\end{equation}
where $L$ is the (euclidean) Lagrangian corresponding to the dynamics of $H$.
In order to match the expectation value (\ref{pi}) with the starting formula (\ref{Oexp}) we need to identify $\tau_1=-\tau_0-\textrm{i}t$ and $\tau_2=\tau_0-\textrm{i}t$.
To further simplify the calculation and following Ref.~\cite{cc-06}, we consider
the equivalent strip geometry between $\tau=0$ and $\tau=2\tau_0$, with
$\cal O$ inserted at $\tau=\tau_0+\textrm{i}t$.
The main idea of Refs.~\cite{cc-05-quench,cc-06} is to make the calculation considering $\tau$
real and only at the end of the computation to analytically continue it to the actual complex value $\tau=\tau_0+\textrm{i}t$.
Eq.~(\ref{pi}) has the form of the equilibrium expectation value in a strip of width $2\tau_0$ with particular boundary conditions.
The above expression is valid for an arbitrary field theory, but it is practically computable in the case we are interested in, i.e.
a conformal invariant Hamiltonian.
As detailed in Ref.~\cite{cc-06} for a CFT, in the limit when $t$ and the separations $| r_i- r_j|$ are much larger than the
microscopic length and time scales, we can replace the boundary condition $|\psi_0\rangle$ with a boundary conformal state
$|\psi_0^*\rangle$ to which $|\psi_0\rangle$ flow under the renormalization group flow.
Within this approach $\tau_0$ is identified with the correlation length (inverse mass) of the initial state and the
predictions made with this approach are expected to be valid only in the regime $t, |r_i-r_j|\gg \tau_0$.
The generalisation of this approach to some other initial conditions (both in one and higher dimensions)
can be found in Refs.~\cite{sc-08,nnt-14,chd-08,cardy-talk-ggi,sc-10,gc-11,stm-14}.
Before reporting the explicit results and technicalities for the entanglement entropies,
it is worth spending few words on the regime of applicability of the above approach that often in the literature has been taken
much beyond its scope, especially when comparing with results in lattice models.
First of all, in a CFT all the quasi-particle excitations move with the same speed which here has been fixed to unity.
This is not the case for a critical model even if its low-energy physics is described by a CFT.
Indeed, while for small momenta $k$ the dispersion relation $\epsilon_k$ has a CFT form $\epsilon_k\sim v |k|$,
for larger values of the momentum $k$ it becomes a non-trivial function.
When performing a global quench, we always inject a large amount of energy into the system (unless we perform an infinitesimal quench)
which populates also high-energy modes having a non-conformal scaling.
Also the identification of $\tau_0$ should be handled with a lot of care.
Indeed, for small initial correlation length $\xi_0$ we have $\tau_0\sim \xi_0$, but this relation should be seen only
as an effective scaling for small $\xi_0$ in the continuum theory.
However, in a given lattice model we need to have $\xi_0\gg a$ in order to be in the field theory scaling.
Thus there is a competition between two different effects, which makes $\tau_0$ a non-univocally defined quantity.
However, this is not our main interest in the following and, when comparing with the numerical results coming from the
harmonic chain, we will simply limit ourself to use $\tau_0$ as a phenomenological fitting parameter which can depend
also on the considered observable (as already noticed a few times in the literature \cite{sc-08,cardy-talk-ggi,fm-10}).
\subsection{The entanglement entropy}
Let us consider a subsystem $A=\cup_{i=1}^N A_i$ composed by $N$ disjoint intervals $A_i =[u_{2i-1}, u_{2i}]$ on the infinite line.
We are interested in the time-dependent R\'enyi entropies $S^{(n)}_A(t)$ as defined in Eq.~(\ref{SAn}) and in the entanglement entropy obtained as a replica limit.
Given that $ {\rm Tr} \rho_A^n$ is equivalent to a $2N$-point function of twist fields \cite{cc-04,cc-rev,ccd-09}, we have that the
desired imaginary-time expectation value is
\begin{equation}
\label{renyi corr strip}
{\rm Tr} \rho_A^n
=
\langle\, \prod_{i=1}^N
\mathcal{T}_n (w_{2i-1})
\bar{\mathcal{T}}_n(w_{2i}) \,\rangle_{\rm strip} \,,
\qquad
w_i= u_i + \textrm{i} \tau \,,
\end{equation}
where we denoted by $w= u + \textrm{i} \tau $ the complex coordinate on the strip ($u \in \mathbb{R}$ and $0< \tau< 2\tau_0$).
The twist fields $\mathcal{T}_n$ and $\bar{\mathcal{T}}_n$ behave under conformal transformation as primary operators whose
scaling dimensions are given by \cite{cc-04, Knizhnik-87}
\begin{equation}
\label{Delta_n def}
\Delta_n = \frac{c}{12}\left( n- \frac{1}{n} \right) .
\end{equation}
The expectation values on the strip of width $2\tau_0$ can be obtained
by employing the conformal map $z = e^{\pi w / (2\tau_0)}$, which maps the strip to the upper half plane (UHP)
parameterised by complex coordinate $z$. Eq.~(\ref{renyi corr strip}) can be then written as
\begin{equation}
\label{renyi cft strip2uhp}
{\rm Tr} \rho_A^n
=
\bigg[
\bigg(\frac{\pi}{2\tau_0} \bigg)^{2N}
\prod_{i=1}^N \big| z_{2i-1} z_{2i} \big|
\bigg]^{\Delta_n}
\langle\, \prod_{i=1}^N
\mathcal{T}_n (z_{2i-1})
\bar{\mathcal{T}}_n(z_{2i}) \,\rangle_{\rm UHP}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\langle \dots \rangle_{\rm UHP} $ are correlators on the UHP and $z_j \equiv e^{\pi w_j / (2\tau_0)} $.
The $2N$-point function of twist fields on the upper half plane occurring in (\ref{renyi cft strip2uhp}) can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{corr uhp renyi}
\langle\, \prod_{i=1}^N
\mathcal{T}_n (z_{2i-1})
\bar{\mathcal{T}}_n(z_{2i}) \,\rangle_{\rm UHP}
\,=\,
\frac{c_n^N}{ \prod_{a=1}^{2N} | z_a - \bar{z}_a|^{\Delta_n}}
\left(\frac{\prod_{j<k}^N \eta_{2k,2j}\, \eta_{2k-1,2j-1}}{\prod_{j,k}\eta_{2j-1,2k}}\right)^{\Delta_n}{\cal F}_{N,n}(\{\eta_{j,k}\})
\,,
\end{equation}
where $\eta_{i,j} $ are the $\binom{2N}{2}$ cross ratios that can be constructed from the $2N$ endpoints $z_j$ (and their images $\bar z_j$)
of the $N$ intervals in the UHP as follows
\begin{equation}
\label{eta cross ratio uhp}
\eta_{i,j}
\equiv
\frac{(z_i - z_j)(\bar{z}_i - \bar{z}_j)}{(z_i - \bar{z}_j)(\bar{z}_i - z_j)}\,.
\end{equation}
The function $ \mathcal{F}_{N,n}(\{\eta_{j,k}\})$ in (\ref{corr uhp renyi}) depends on the full operator content of the model and its
computation is a very difficult task, even for simple models (see
Refs.~\cite{cd-08,fps-08,cct-09,cct-11,ip-09,c-10,ch-09,atc-10,atc-11,h-10,rg-12,f-12,cz-13,ctt-14} for some specific cases in the bulk case,
the references in \cite{hol} for the holographic approach to the same problem, and \cite{c-13b,ch-09b,s-12, sch-14} for some higher dimensional
field theoretical computations).
There is, however, some degree of arbitrariness in the way we wrote Eq.~(\ref{corr uhp renyi}) since the product over the cross-ratios
could be absorbed fully or partially in the function ${\cal F}_{N,n}$.
However, writing it in the above form has the advantage to display the limiting behaviour for $\eta_{i,j}\to 0$ and
$\eta_{i,j}\to 1$. Indeed, by employing the operator product expansion (OPE) (in the sense of Ref.~\cite{cct-11})
\begin{equation}
\label{ope TTbar}
\mathcal{T}_n(z) \bar{\mathcal{T}}_n(w)
=
\frac{c_n}{|z-w|^{2\Delta_n}}\, \mathbb{I} + \dots\,,
\qquad
w \rightarrow z\,,
\end{equation}
it is easy to show that, in both limits $\eta_{i,j}\to 0$ and $\eta_{i,j}\to 1$, the leading power-law behaviour is fully encoded
in the prefactor and the function ${\cal F}_{N,n}$ is just a constant.
As we will see below, for the real time behaviour of the entanglement entropy only these two limits of the various four-point
ratios matter \cite{cc-05-quench,cc-06} and consequently we do not have to worry about the precise value of
the function ${\cal F}_{N,n}$.
Plugging (\ref{corr uhp renyi}) into (\ref{renyi cft strip2uhp}), we find
\begin{equation}
\label{renyi as corr strip}
{\rm Tr} \rho_A^n
\,=\,
c_n^N \Bigg[
\left( \frac{\pi}{2\tau_0} \right)^{2N}
\prod_{a=1}^{2N} \bigg| \frac{ z_a}{z_a - \bar{z}_a} \bigg|
\frac{\prod_{j<k}^N \eta_{2k,2j} \, \eta_{2k-1,2j-1}}{\prod_{j,k} \eta_{2j-1,2k}}\Bigg]^{\Delta_n}{\cal F}_{N,n}(\{\eta_{j,k}\}) \,.
\end{equation}
What still remains to be done is to
write the r.h.s. of (\ref{renyi as corr strip}) in terms of the coordinates on the strip.
The $a$-th term of the product in (\ref{renyi as corr strip}) is simply
\begin{equation}
\frac{|z_a|}{|z_a - \bar{z}_a|} = \frac{1}{ | 2 \sin [ \pi \tau/(2\tau_0)] |} \, ,
\label{a-term}
\end{equation}
independently of $u_a$.
For the cross ratios (\ref{eta cross ratio uhp}) we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{eta strip coords}
\eta_{i,j} \,=\, \frac{2 \sinh^2\big(\tfrac{\pi(u_i - u_j)}{4\tau_0}\big)}{
\cosh\big(\tfrac{\pi(u_i - u_j)}{2\tau_0}\big) - \cos\big(\tfrac{\pi \tau}{\tau_0}\big)}\,.
\end{equation}
This concludes the calculation on the strip of width $2\tau_0$. At this point, to obtain the real time evolution after a quench,
we should analytically continue the parameter $\tau$ to the complex value
\begin{equation}
\label{analytic cont}
\tau = \tau_0 + \textrm{i} \,t\,,
\end{equation}
with $t \gg \tau_0$, as explained above.
In this regime, the $a$-th term (\ref{a-term}) gives $|z_a|/| z_a - \bar{z}_a|= e^{-\frac{\pi}{2\tau_0} t} + \dots$\,.
As for the cross ratio (\ref{eta strip coords}), when $t \gg \tau_0$ and $|u_i - u_j| \gg \tau_0$, it becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{etaij small tau0}
\eta_{i,j}
\,=\,
\frac{e^{\pi |u_i - u_j|/(2\tau_0)}}{
e^{\pi |u_i - u_j|/(2\tau_0)} + e^{\pi t/\tau_0}}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\eta_{i,j} \in [0,1]$.
In the limit $\tau_0 \rightarrow 0$, for the ratio (\ref{etaij small tau0}) we have $\eta_{i,j} \to 0$ for $ t> |u_i -u_j|/2$
and $\eta_{i,j} \to 1$ for $ |u_i -u_j|/2 > t$.
However, we should keep the leading behaviour for $\eta_{i,j} \to 0$ and so we find
useful to write it as
\begin{equation}
\label{log eta time regimes}
\ln (\eta_{i,j}) \to \frac{\pi}{\tau_0} q(t,|u_i - u_j|) \,,
\qquad {\rm for} \quad t,|u_i - u_j| \gg \tau_0 \, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{qdef}
q(t,\ell) \,\equiv\, \frac{\ell}{2} - \textrm{max}(t, \ell/2)
\,=\,
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0 \hspace{2cm}& t <\ell/2\,, \\
\ell/2-t & t >\ell/2\,.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
The time evolution of the R\'enyi entanglement entropies is then obtained by plugging the above analytic continuations
to real time in Eq.~(\ref{renyi as corr strip}), leading to \cite{cc-05-quench}
\begin{multline}
S_A^{(n)}=\frac{c \pi(n+1)}{12\tau_0 n }\left[N t+\sum_{j,k=1}^N q(t,|u_{2j-1}-u_{2k}|) \right. \\ \left. -
\sum_{1<j<k<N}q(t,|u_{2j}-u_{2k}|)+q(t,|u_{2j-1}-u_{2k-1}|)
\right].
\label{Sngen}
\end{multline}
In the above equation a piece-wise constant (in time) term coming from the function ${\cal F}_{N,n}$ and for the various non-universal
prefactors has been {\it intentionally} dropped because it has no physical meaning.
Indeed the above formula describes only the leading term in the so-called {\it space-time scaling limit} \cite{fc-08,CEF,CEFI}
which corresponds to the limit $t\to\infty$, $|u_i-u_k|\to\infty$ with all the ratios fixed.
The term we dropped is just one of the corrections to this leading behaviour and it has no meaning to consider it without
taking into account all other corrections at the same order, such the dependence on the details of the initial state (which in this approach
have been over-simplistically absorbed in the parameter $\tau_0$).
Let us now specialise Eq.~(\ref{Sngen}) to the case of one interval of length $u_2-u_1=\ell$
and $n=1$ obtaining the well-known formula \cite{cc-05-quench}
\begin{equation}
\label{SA one interval}
S_A = \frac{\pi c}{6\tau_0}\big[t + q(t, \ell) \big]=
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}\displaystyle
\frac{\pi c}{6\tau_0}t \hspace{2cm}& t <\ell/2\,, \\ \\ \displaystyle
\frac{\pi c}{12\tau_0} \ell & t >\ell/2\,,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
i.e. the entanglement entropy grows linearly for $t<\ell/2$ and then saturates to an extensive value in the
subsystem length $\ell$.
Notice that the large time value of the entanglement entropy is the same as the thermodynamic entropy of
a CFT at large finite temperature $T=4\tau_0$. This fact indeed holds for all local observable leading to the
remarkable phenomenon of CFT thermalisation \cite{cc-06} (see also \cite{hol-therm} for the holographic
version of this phenomenon in arbitrary dimension).
However, this is a specificity of the uncorrelated initial state we are considering and it has been shown that
even an irrelevant boundary perturbation destroys it leading, for large time, to a generalised Gibbs ensemble
where all the CFT constants of motion enter \cite{cardy-talk-ggi}.
The discussion of this issue is however far beyond the goals of this paper.
In the case of two intervals $A_1$ and $A_2$ (the geometry depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig line intervals} with $u_2-u_1$ and $u_4-u_3$ the
lengths of the two intervals and $u_3-u_2$ their distance) the entanglement entropy is straightforwardly written down from
Eq.~(\ref{Sngen}).
Specialising to the R\'enyi mutual information in Eq.~(\ref{renyi MI def}), we have
\begin{equation}
\label{MI n N2 cft t-dep}
I^{(n)}_{A_1,A_2}
=
\frac{\pi c(n+1)}{12\tau_0 n}\,
\big[
q(t,u_3-u_1) + q(t,u_4-u_2) - q(t,u_4-u_1) - q(t,u_3-u_2)
\big]\,.
\end{equation}
Notice that, once the explicit expressions for the $q$'s from (\ref{qdef}) have been inserted in (\ref{MI n N2 cft t-dep}), the linear combination within the square brackets is such that only the terms involving the max's remain.
For large $t$, we have that $I^{(n)}_{A_1:A_2}$ vanishes for all $n$.
Taking the limit $u_3 \rightarrow u_2$ in (\ref{MI n N2 cft t-dep}), we get $I^{(n)}$ for two adjacent intervals
\begin{equation}
\label{MI n N2 cft t-dep adj}
I^{(n)}_{A_1,A_2}=
\frac{\pi c(n+1)}{12\tau_0 n}\,
\big[\,
t+ q(t,u_2-u_1) + q(t,u_4-u_2) - q(t,u_4-u_1)
\big]\,.
\end{equation}
It is worth mentioning that the time evolution of the entanglement entropy and mutual information
has been also considered in the framework of holographic approach to CFTs~\cite{qe-hol}.
\section{Entanglement negativity}
\label{sec ent neg}
In this section we present the original part of the CFT calculation of this manuscript concerning the temporal evolution of the negativity
between two intervals after a global quench to a conformal Hamiltonian.
We consider $A =A_1 \cup A_2$, where the intervals $A_1$ and $A_2$ can be either adjacent or disjoint,
as in Fig.~\ref{fig line intervals}.
An important special case is when $A$ is the entire system (i.e. $B \to \emptyset$).
The quantum field theory approach to the logarithmic negativity $\cal{E}$ is based on a replica trick \cite{us-letter,us-long}.
Let us consider the traces ${\rm Tr} (\rho_A^{T_2})^n$ of integer powers of $\rho_A^{T_2}$.
For $n$ even and odd, denoted by $n_e$ and $n_o$ respectively, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm Tr} (\rho_A^{T_2})^{n_e}&=&
\sum_i \lambda_i^{n_e}=
\sum_{\lambda_i>0} |\lambda_i|^{n_e}+ \sum_{\lambda_i<0} |\lambda_i|^{n_e}\,,
\label{trne}\\
{\rm Tr} (\rho_A^{T_2})^{n_o}&=&
\sum_i \lambda_i^{n_o}=
\sum_{\lambda_i>0} |\lambda_i|^{n_o}- \sum_{\lambda_i<0} |\lambda_i|^{n_o}\,,
\label{trno}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda_i$ are the eigenvalues of $\rho_A^{T_2}$.
Clearly, the functional dependence of ${\rm Tr} (\rho_A^{T_2})^n$ on $|\lambda_i|$ depends on the parity of $n$.
Setting $n_e=1$ in (\ref{trne}), we formally obtain $ {\rm Tr} |\rho_A^{T_2}|$, whose logarithm gives the logarithmic negativity $\mathcal{E}$.
Instead, if we set $n_o=1$ in (\ref{trno}), we just get the normalization ${\rm Tr} \rho_A^{T_2}=1$.
Thus, the analytic continuations from even and odd values of $n$ are different and
the trace norm that we are interested in is obtained
by performing the analytic continuation of the even sequence (\ref{trne}) at $n_e\to1$.
By introducing
\begin{equation}
\label{neg renyis def}
\mathcal{E}^{(n)} \equiv
\ln \Big[ {\rm Tr}\big(\,\rho_A^{T_{2}}\big)^n \Big]\,,
\end{equation}
we have that $\mathcal{E}^{(1)} =0$ identically and the logarithmic negativity $\mathcal{E} $ is given by the following replica limit
\begin{equation}
\label{neg replica limit}
\mathcal{E} = \lim_{n_e \rightarrow 1} \mathcal{E}^{(n_e)} \,.
\end{equation}
For future convenience we also introduce the ratios
\begin{equation}
\label{R ratio def}
R_{n}
\equiv
\frac{ {\rm Tr} (\rho_A^{T_2})^n }{ {\rm Tr} \,\rho_A^n }
\quad \Longrightarrow \qquad
\ln (R_{n})
= \mathcal{E}^{(n)} +(n-1) S^{(n)}_{A_1 \cup A_2} \quad {\rm and}\quad
\mathcal{E} = \lim_{n_e \to 1} \ln (R_{n_e})\,.
\end{equation}
This replica approach has been introduced in the context of CFT \cite{us-letter, us-long}, but later it has been applied and generalised to
many other circumstances \cite{a-13,ctt-13,rr-14,kpp-14,c-13,lv-13,cabcl-14}.
In a 1+1 dimensional quantum field theory, the traces ${\rm Tr}(\rho_A^{T_{2}})^n$ can be computed through correlators of twist fields,
as shown in Refs.~\cite{us-letter, us-long}.
As we already reported in the previous section, ${\rm Tr} \rho_A^n$ for the union of $N$ disjoint intervals $A=\cup_{i=1}^N [u_{2i-1}, u_{2i}]$
is given by the correlator $\langle \prod_{i=1}^N \mathcal{T}_n (u_{2i-1}) \bar{\mathcal{T}}_n(u_{2i}) \rangle$.
Now let us take the partial transpose of the $j$-th interval $A_j$. The quantity ${\rm Tr}(\rho_A^{T_j})^n$ can be computed from the correlator above where the twist fields $\mathcal{T}_n$ and $\bar{\mathcal{T}}_n$ at the endpoints of $A_j$ are exchanged while the remaining ones stay untouched, i.e. ${\rm Tr}(\rho_A^{T_j})^n=\langle \dots \bar{\mathcal{T}}_n (u_{2j-1}) \mathcal{T}_n(u_{2j}) \dots\rangle$.
This procedure can be generalized straightforwardly to the case where the partial transposition involves two or more intervals.
The configurations including adjacent intervals can be obtained as a limit of the previous one, where the distances between the proper intervals vanish.
After this limit, $\mathcal{T}^2_n$ or $\bar{\mathcal{T}}_n^2$ occur at the joining point between a partial transposed interval and the adjacent one that has not been partial transposed.
Thus, the ratio (\ref{R ratio def}) can be computed through the corresponding correlators of twist fields.
For instance, when $A$ consists of two intervals $A_1$ and $A_2$,
if they are disjoint we need to consider
${\rm Tr}(\rho_A^{T_{2}})^n = \langle \mathcal{T}_n (u_1) \bar{\mathcal{T}}_n(u_2) \bar{\mathcal{T}}_n (u_3) \mathcal{T}_n(u_4) \rangle$
while, when they are adjacent, ${\rm Tr}(\rho_A^{T_{2}})^n = \langle \mathcal{T}_n (u_1) \bar{\mathcal{T}}^2_n(u_2) \mathcal{T}_n(u_3) \rangle$.
Specialising to the case of a 1+1 dimensional CFT, in order to compute correlation functions of twist fields, we need the
scaling dimension of $\mathcal{T}^2_n$ and $\bar{\mathcal{T}}_n^2$ which depends on the parity of $n$ as \cite{us-letter, us-long}
\begin{equation}
\label{delta2 def}
\Delta^{(2)}_n \equiv
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle
\Delta_{n}
\hspace{.5cm}&
\textrm{odd $n$\,,}
\\
\rule{0pt}{.5cm}
\displaystyle
2\Delta_{n/2}
\hspace{.5cm}&
\textrm{even $n$\,,}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\Delta_{n}$ has been defined in (\ref{Delta_n def}).
At this point we have all the needed ingredients to study the temporal evolution of the logarithmic negativity
after a global quench. We can apply the method of Ref.~\cite{cc-05-quench} to the proper correlators on the strip,
which involve both $\mathcal{T}_n$ ($\bar{\mathcal{T}}_n$) and $\mathcal{T}^2_n$ ($\bar{\mathcal{T}}^2_n$).
This means that we have to slightly generalize the setup described in the previous section by taking into account
correlators on the strip of fields which can have different dimensions.
Instead of presenting general formulas, we find more instructive to limit ourselves to discuss few cases of two intervals in
which we are interested.
\subsection{Bipartite systems}
\label{sec neg bipart}
Although trivial, it is useful to first discuss the case in which $A=A_1\cup A_2$ is the entire system and we consider
the partial transpose with respect to $A_2$. Since the time dependent state $| \psi(t) \rangle$ is pure at any time,
$\rho_A$ corresponds to a pure state, and we can use the standard results \cite{vw-01} that for a pure state
the logarithmic negativity is the R\'enyi entropy with $n=1/2$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\label{neg equal renyi12}
\mathcal{E} (t) = S^{(1/2)}_{A_2} (t)\,,
\end{equation}
independently of the Hamiltonian governing the time evolution.
When the evolution is conformal, we can re-obtain this trivial result by using the path integral approach discussed in the previous section.
We need to evaluate $\langle\, \mathcal{T}^2_n (w_1) \bar{\mathcal{T}}^2_n(w_2) \rangle_{\rm strip}$ and then to analytically continue
to real time. The strip two-point function is related to the one in the UHP which has the standard form
\begin{equation}
\label{twist squared uhp N=1}
\langle \mathcal{T}^2_n (z_1)
\bar{\mathcal{T}}^2_n(z_2) \rangle_{\rm UHP}
=
\frac{c^{(2)}_{n}}{|(z_1 - \bar{z}_1)(z_2 - \bar{z}_2) \,\eta_{1,2}|^{\Delta^{(2)}_n}} {\cal F}(\eta_{1,2})\,,
\end{equation}
where the constants $c^{(2)}_{n}$ are related to $c_n$ in a known way \cite{us-long}, but their value is not important for what follows.
Transforming the UHP to the strip, we find
\begin{equation}
\label{neg traces cft N=1}
{\rm Tr} (\rho_A^{T_2})^n
=
\langle\, \mathcal{T}^2_n (w_1)
\bar{\mathcal{T}}^2_n(w_2) \,\rangle_{\rm strip}
=
c^{(2)}_{n}
\bigg(\frac{\pi}{2\tau_0} \bigg)^{2\Delta_n^{(2)}}
\, \Bigg|
\left(\, \prod_{a=1}^{2} \frac{z_a}{z_a - \bar{z}_a} \right)
\frac{1}{\eta_{1,2}}\,\Bigg|^{\Delta_n^{(2)}} {\cal F}(\eta_{1,2}) \, ,
\end{equation}
where $z_a = e^{\pi (u_a+\textrm{i}\tau) / (2\tau_0)}$.
The time evolution of the powers of the partial transpose comes from the analytic continuation in Eq.~(\ref{analytic cont}).
As usual, in the space-time scaling limit ($t \gg \tau_0$ and $u_2-u_1 \gg \tau_0$), we should retain only the leading behaviour
of the above expression and all the various constants and the function ${\cal F}$ can be dropped, obtaining
\begin{equation}
\label{renyi neg N2 cft t-dep}
\mathcal{E}^{(n)} =
-\frac{\pi \Delta_n^{(2)}}{\tau_0}\,
\big[t + q(t, u_2-u_1)\big]\,, \qquad \Rightarrow \quad
\mathcal{E}=
\frac{\pi c}{4\tau_0}
\big[t + q(t, u_2-u_1)\big]\,,
\end{equation}
which coincides with the R\'enyi entropy for $n=1/2$, as it should from (\ref{neg equal renyi12}).
We need to comment at this point on the asymptotic large time value of the negativity.
Indeed, it is obvious that the negativity of one interval with respect to the rest of the system {\it does not thermalise},
being very different from the finite temperature negativity calculated in \cite{us-neg-T} (see also \cite{aw-08,fcga-08}).
This is not a surprise since, by construction, this negativity is not a local quantity because it requires
the partial transposition with respect to the infinitely large part $A_2$.
\subsection{Two adjacent intervals}
\label{sec neg two adjacent}
The conformal evolution of the entanglement negativity between two adjacent intervals after a global quench can be studied
by considering the three point function $\langle \mathcal{T}_n \bar{\mathcal{T}}^2_n \mathcal{T}_n \rangle$ on the strip which can be
obtained by the mapping from the UHP of the three-point function
\begin{equation}
\label{two attached alphagamma}
\langle
\mathcal{T}_n(z_1) \bar{\mathcal{T}}^2_n(z_2) \mathcal{T}_n(z_3)
\rangle_{\rm UHP}
\,=\,
\frac{c_n}{\prod_{a=1}^{3} | z_a - \bar{z}_a |^{\Delta_{(a)}}}
\left(
\frac{\eta_{1,3}^{\Delta_n^{(2)}-2\Delta_n}}{\eta_{1,2}^{\Delta_n^{(2)}} \eta_{2,3}^{\Delta_n^{(2)}}}
\right)^{1/2} {\cal F}(\{\eta_{j,k}\}) \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\Delta_{(1)}=\Delta_{(3)}=\Delta_n$ and $\Delta_{(2)}=\Delta^{(2)}_n$ (given by (\ref{Delta_n def}) and (\ref{delta2 def}) respectively),
the harmonic ratios $\eta_{j,k}$ are defined in Eq.~(\ref{eta cross ratio uhp}) and again the function ${\cal F}$ depends
on the full operator content of the theory and it is very difficult to calculate (see Refs.~\cite{us-long,ctt-14} for some explicit examples).
However, as it should be already clear at this point, we do not need this function in the space-time scaling limit, but we only need
to ensure that the powers in the rest of the expression have been chosen in such a way that ${\cal F}$ is constant in the limits
$\eta_{j,k}\to 0$ or $\eta_{j,k}\to 1$.
This can be easily checked by employing the following OPE
\begin{equation}
\label{ope TT2}
\mathcal{T}_n(z) \bar{\mathcal{T}}^2_n(w)
=
\frac{
C_{\mathcal{T}_n \bar{\mathcal{T}}_n^2\bar{\mathcal{T}}_n}
}{
|z-w|^{\Delta_n^{(2)}}} \,
\bar{\mathcal{T}}_n(z)
+ \dots\,,
\qquad
w \rightarrow z\,.
\end{equation}
Taking separately the limits $z_2 \to z_1$ and $z_2 \to z_3$ in (\ref{two attached alphagamma}), and using (\ref{ope TT2})
it should be clear that ${\cal F}$ is constant in both the interesting limits.
Then, the three-point function on the strip can be straightforwardly written by a conformal mapping, obtaining
\begin{equation}
\label{3points strip}
\langle
\mathcal{T}_n(u_1) \bar{\mathcal{T}}^2_n(u_2) \mathcal{T}_n(u_3)
\rangle_{\rm strip}
\,=\,
c_n
\bigg(\frac{\pi}{2\tau_0} \bigg)^{\Delta}
\prod_{a=1}^{3} \bigg| \frac{z_a}{z_a - \bar{z}_a} \bigg|^{\Delta_{(a)}}
\left(
\frac{\eta_{1,3}^{\Delta_n^{(2)}-2\Delta_n}}{\eta_{1,2}^{\Delta_n^{(2)}} \eta_{2,3}^{\Delta_n^{(2)}}}
\right)^{1/2} {\cal F}(\{\eta_{j,k}\}) \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\Delta = 2\Delta_n+\Delta^{(2)}_n$ and $z_a = e^{\pi (u_a+\textrm{i}\tau) / (2\tau_0)}$.
The time evolution of ${\rm Tr} (\rho_A^{T_2})^n $ for two adjacent intervals is then obtained by the analytic continuation of the above to
$\tau=\tau_0 +\textrm{i} t$.
The CFT prediction for the temporal dependence of $\mathcal{E}^{(n)}$ in the space-time scaling regime
($t \gg \tau_0$ and $|u_j-u_i| \gg \tau_0$) is then found, as usual, by dropping the various multiplicative constants and the
function ${\cal F}$, obtaining
\begin{equation}
\label{En adj cft}
\mathcal{E}^{(n)}
=
-\frac{\pi}{2\tau_0}
\Big[
\big(2\Delta_n+\Delta_n^{(2)}\big) t
+ \Delta_n^{(2)} \big( q(t, u_2-u_1) + q(t, u_3-u_2)\big)
- (\Delta_n^{(2)}-2\Delta_n) \,q(t, u_3-u_1)
\Big] \, .
\end{equation}
Notice that, since $\Delta_2^{(2)}=0$, for $n=2$ the terms containing $u_2$ do not contribute and therefore the curve $\mathcal{E}^{(2)}(t)$ displays a change in its slope only at $t=(\ell_1+\ell_2)/2$.
This is a consequence of the trivial fact that $\bar{\mathcal{T}}^2_2=\mathbb{I}$ in (\ref{3points strip}).
Finally, taking the replica limit of (\ref{En adj cft}), we find the evolution of the logarithmic negativity for adjacent intervals
\begin{equation}
\label{neg 2adj t-dep cft}
\mathcal{E}
\,=\,
\frac{\pi c}{8\tau_0}\,
\big[
\, t - q(t,u_3-u_1) + q(t,u_2-u_1) + q(t,u_3-u_2)
\big]\,.
\end{equation}
Considering the ratio (\ref{R ratio def}) for two adjacent intervals, since $A=A_1 \cup A_2$ is the interval $[u_1, u_3]$ in the spatial slice of the strip, ${\rm Tr} \,\rho_A^n $ corresponds to $[u_1, u_3]$ and (\ref{R ratio def}), in terms of the CFT quantities, reads
\begin{equation}
\label{Radj ratio cft}
R_{n}
\equiv
\frac{
\langle \mathcal{T}_n(u_1) \bar{\mathcal{T}}^2_n(u_2) \mathcal{T}_n(u_3) \rangle_{\rm strip}
}{
\langle \mathcal{T}_n(u_1) \bar{\mathcal{T}}_n(u_3)\rangle_{\rm strip}
}\,.
\end{equation}
Notice that since $ \mathcal{T}^2_2= \bar{\mathcal{T}}^2_2=\mathbb{I}$, we have that $R_{2}=1$ identically.
The time dependence of $R_n$ in the space-time scaling regime is readily obtained by combining the expressions
for the numerator and the denominator in (\ref{Radj ratio cft}), finding
\begin{equation}
\label{logA2t}
\ln ( R_{n})
\,=\,
\frac{\pi \Delta^{(2)}_n}{2\tau_0}
\big[
- t + q(t,u_3-u_1) - q(t,u_2-u_1) -q(t,u_3-u_2)
\big]\,,
\end{equation}
where, once the expressions for the $q$'s from (\ref{qdef}) have been plugged in, only the terms with the max's remain within
the square brackets.
This expression shows why the quantities $R_n$ are very useful when comparing these predictions with numerical calculations,
indeed when comparing with Eq.~(\ref{En adj cft}) for ${\cal E}^{(n)}$ one immediately notices that all the dependence
on $\Delta_n$ is not there.
\subsection{Two disjoint intervals}
\label{sec neg two disjoint}
The time evolution of logarithmic negativity between two disjoint intervals after a global quench can be computed
from the analytic continuation of the four-point function
$\langle \mathcal{T}_n \bar{\mathcal{T}}_n \bar{\mathcal{T}}_n \mathcal{T}_n \rangle$ on the strip
(notice the order of the operators along the line which is crucial).
The strip four-point function is derived from the conformal map from the same function on the UHP,
which can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{two disjoint T2 ansatz}
\langle \mathcal{T}_n(z_1) \bar{\mathcal{T}}_n(z_2)
\bar{\mathcal{T}}_n(z_3) \mathcal{T}_n(z_4) \rangle_{\rm UHP}
\,=\,
\frac{c_n^2}{\prod_{a=1}^{4} |z_a - \bar{z}_a|^{\Delta_n}}
\frac{1}{\eta_{1,2}^{\Delta_n}\,\eta_{3,4}^{\Delta_n}}
\left(
\frac{\eta_{1,4}\,\eta_{2,3}}{\eta_{1,3}\,\eta_{2,4}}
\right)^{\Delta^{(2)}_n/2-\Delta_n} {\cal F}(\{\eta_{j,k}\}) \, .
\end{equation}
Again for the time evolution we do not need the knowledge of the function ${\cal F}$, but only to ensure that for
$\eta_{j,k}\to 0$ and $\eta_{j,k}\to 1$ the form used above gives that ${\cal F}$ is constant.
This can be easily checked by requiring that when the two intervals are far apart (i.e. $|z_3 - z_2| \to \infty$),
the four-point function factorizes into the product of two two-point functions and that for
$z_3 \to z_2$ the following OPE holds
\begin{equation}
\label{ope TT}
\bar{\mathcal{T}}_n(z) \bar{\mathcal{T}}_n(w)
=
\frac{C^{\bar{\mathcal{T}}^2}_{\bar{\mathcal{T}} \bar{\mathcal{T}}}}{
|z-w|^{2\Delta_n - \Delta_n^{(2)}}}
\, \bar{\mathcal{T}}^2_n(z)+ \dots\,,
\qquad
w \rightarrow z\,.
\end{equation}
Mapping this four point-function on the strip, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{two disjoint T2 ris}
{\rm Tr} (\rho_A^{T_2})^n
\,=\,
c_n^2
\bigg(\frac{\pi}{2\tau_0} \bigg)^{\Delta}
\prod_{a=1}^{4} \bigg| \frac{z_a}{z_a - \bar{z}_a} \bigg|^{\Delta_n}
\frac{1}{\eta_{1,2}^{\Delta_n}\,\eta_{3,4}^{\Delta_n}}
\left(
\frac{\eta_{1,4}\,\eta_{2,3}}{\eta_{1,3}\,\eta_{2,4}}
\right)^{\Delta^{(2)}_n/2-\Delta_n} {\cal F}(\{\eta_{j,k}\}) \, ,
\end{equation}
being $\Delta = 4\Delta_n$ and $z_a = e^{\pi (u_a+\textrm{i}\tau) / (2\tau_0)}$.
The time evolution of $\mathcal{E}^{(n)}$ in the space-time scaling regime
($t \gg \tau_0$ and $|u_j-u_i| \gg \tau_0$) is found by employing the analytic continuation (\ref{analytic cont}).
The result reads
\begin{eqnarray}\fl
\label{En dis t-dep cft}
& & \hspace{-2.5cm}
\mathcal{E}^{(n)} =
-\frac{\pi}{\tau_0}
\bigg[\,
2\Delta_n\,t
+ \Delta_n \Big( q(t, u_2-u_1) + q(t, u_3-u_4)\Big) \\
& & \hspace{-.3cm}
- \big(\Delta_n^{(2)}/2 - \Delta_n\big)
\Big( q(t, u_4-u_1) + q(t, u_3-u_2) - q(t, u_3-u_1) - q(t, u_4-u_2) \Big)
\bigg] ,
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
whose replica limit is
\begin{equation}
\label{logneg N2disj cft t-dep}
\mathcal{E}
\,=\,
\frac{\pi c}{8\tau_0}
\big[
q(t,u_3-u_1) + q(t,u_4-u_2) - q(t,u_4-u_1) - q(t,u_3-u_2)
\big]\,.
\end{equation}
The resulting expression for the negativity is identical to Eq.~(\ref{MI n N2 cft t-dep}) for the R\'enyi mutual information
apart from the prefactor.
Notice that in $\mathcal{E}^{(n)}$, for small $t$, the expression (\ref{En dis t-dep cft}) displays a linear regime in the initial
part of the evolution, whose slope is $-2\pi\Delta_n/\tau_0$.
Being $\Delta_{n=1} = 0$, this linear regime does not occur for the logarithmic negativity (\ref{neg replica limit}).
We find it useful to compare (\ref{En dis t-dep cft}) with the corresponding quantity (\ref{En adj cft}) for adjacent intervals
and observe that for $n=2$ all the dependences on $t$ and $u_j$ remain when the intervals are disjoint, while for adjacent
intervals the $n=2$ is characterised by the cancellation of some variables.
The ratio $R_n$ in Eq.~(\ref{R ratio def}) for two disjoint intervals on the strip has the easy form
\begin{equation}
\label{two disjoint T2 ratio}
R_{n}
=
\frac{
\langle \mathcal{T}_n(u_1) \bar{\mathcal{T}}_n(u_2)
\bar{\mathcal{T}}_n(u_3) \mathcal{T}_n(u_4) \rangle_{\rm strip}
}{
\langle \mathcal{T}_n(u_1) \bar{\mathcal{T}}_n(u_2)
\mathcal{T}_n(u_3) \bar{\mathcal{T}}_n(u_4) \rangle_{\rm strip}
}
\,\simeq\,
\left(\frac{\eta_{1,4}\,\eta_{2,3}}{\eta_{1,3}\,\eta_{2,4}}\right)^{\Delta^{(2)}_n/2},
\end{equation}
where we dropped the two functions ${\cal F}$ in numerator and denominator since they do not contribute in the
the space-time scaling limit after analytic continuation in time.
From this expression, we get $R_{2}=1$ identically because $\mathcal{T}_2=\bar{\mathcal{T}}_2$.
Also the time evolution of this ratio in the space-time scaling regime is particularly easy:
\begin{equation}
\label{renyi neg n N2 cft t-dep}
\ln R^{\rm}_{n}
\,=\,
\frac{\pi \Delta_n^{(2)}}{2\tau_0}\,
\big[
q(t,u_4-u_1) + q(t,u_3-u_2) - q(t,u_3-u_1) - q(t,u_4-u_2)
\big]\,.
\end{equation}
Plugging the explicit expressions of the $q$'s (see (\ref{qdef})) in this expression, we find that only the terms involving the max's remain.
Remarkably, also for disjoint intervals, these ratios $R_n$ do not depend on $\Delta_n$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figquasiparticles2.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-.2cm}
\caption{
Graphical representation for the quasi-particle spreading of entanglement (for the case with
all quasi-particles having the same velocity $v=1$ as in a CFT).
The quasi-particles emitted from every point at $t=0$ and reaching one $A_1$ (red)
and the other $A_2$ (blue) are responsible of the entanglement between them.
The entanglement at a given time $t$ is proportional to the section of the
green shaded area, which is the intersection of the light cones starting from all the points of $A_1$ and $A_2$
(in the figure these lengths are the braces).
The time-dependence of the entanglement obtained in this way are depicted as purple curves on the right for a single interval
in the infinite line (top) and two disjoint intervals (bottom): they are proportional to the CFT calculations in
Eqs.~(\ref{SA one interval}) and (\ref{logneg N2disj cft t-dep}) respectively.
The regions from where the corresponding quasi-particles have been emitted at $t=0$ are obtained by projecting the intersections
at time $t=0$ (vertical dashed lines).
}
\label{fig quasi-particles}
\end{figure}
\section{Quasi-particle interpretation and horizon effect}
\label{QP}
The time evolution of entanglement and total correlations after a quantum quench can be understood in terms of
the quasi-particles interpretation for the propagation of entanglement, first suggested in \cite{cc-05-quench}.
According to this argument, since the initial state $|\psi_0\rangle$ has a very high energy relative to
the ground state of the Hamiltonian which governs the time evolution, it acts as a source of quasi-particle excitations.
Particles emitted from points further apart than the correlation length in the initial state are incoherent, but pairs of
particles emitted from a given point and subsequently moving to the left or right are highly
entangled and correlated.
Let us suppose that a pair of quasi-particles with opposite momenta $(p,-p)$ is produced with a probability
$\rho(p)$ (which depends on both the Hamiltonian governing the evolution and on the initial state).
After their production, these quasi-particles move ballistically with velocity $v_{p}=-v_{-p}$.
A quasi-particle of momentum $p$ produced at $x$ is therefore at $x+v_p t$ at time $t$.
In general there is also a maximum allowed speed of propagation $v_{\rm max}$ (which is
connected with the existence of a Lieb-Robinson bound in a lattice model \cite{lr}).
Now let us consider two regions of the system $A_1$ and $A_2$ (which can be either finite, infinite, semi-infinite, etc).
According to the argument in \cite{cc-05-quench},
the field at some point $x_1\in A_1$ will be entangled with that at a point $x_2\in A_2$ if a pair of entangled particles emitted from a
point $x$ arrive simultaneously at $x_1$ and $x_2$.
The entanglement and the total correlation between $A_1$ and $A_2$ are proportional to the length of the interval
in $x$ for which this can be satisfied and it can be written as \cite{cc-05-quench}
\begin{equation}
{\rm entanglement}\approx \int_{x_1\in A_1}dx_1\int_{x_2\in A_2}dx_2
\int_{-\infty}^\infty dx\int dp \, \rho(p) f(p) \,\delta(x_1-x-v_p t)\, \delta(x_2-x+v_p t) \, ,
\label{QPe}
\end{equation}
where $f(p)$ is the contribution of the pair of quasi-particles to the given entanglement or correlation measure.
When all the quasi-particles move with the same speed $|v_p|=v$
(as in the case of a CFT discussed in the previous sections where we fixed $v=1$),
the $\delta$ functions do not depend on the momentum anymore and therefore the integral over $p$ gives just an overall normalisation (depending on the quantity we are considering), while the integral over the space coordinate can be easily done for arbitrary $A_1$ and $A_2$.
In particular, in the cases of one and two intervals, one straightforwardly recovers all the CFT expressions for the entanglement entropy, mutual information and negativity such as Eqs.~(\ref{Sngen}), (\ref{SA one interval}), (\ref{MI n N2 cft t-dep}) and (\ref{logneg N2disj cft t-dep}).
A graphical interpretation of this quasi-particle picture is reported in Fig.~\ref{fig quasi-particles}.
Furthermore, the above argument allows us also to understand what happens in the
case of a non-linear dispersion relation leading to a mode dependent velocity,
which will be fundamental for the interpretation and the understanding of the numerical
data reported in the next section.
Indeed, assuming that a maximum speed $v_{\rm max}$ exists,
we have that the first linear increase of the entanglement is always present, but when $v_{\rm max}t$ equals
the half of some typical length of the configuration given by $A_1$ and $A_2$, the quasi-particles with velocity smaller than $v_{\rm max}$ start influencing the entanglement because we cannot ignore anymore
the integral over $p$ in Eq.~(\ref{QPe}).
These slow quasi-particles lead to non-linear effects discussed e.g. for the entanglement entropy in Refs.~\cite{cc-05-quench,fc-08}.
In particular we have that for very long times, the quasi-particles with approximately zero velocity govern the
approach to the asymptotic value of the entanglement which usually is power-law as can be easily seen expanding Eq.~(\ref{QPe})
close to the points where $v_p=0$.
It is important to stress at this point that, while it was already established \cite{cc-05-quench,lk-08,fc-10} that the mutual information is
correctly described by this quasi-particle picture, it is far from obvious that the same reasoning carries over
to a complicated measure of the entanglement such as the negativity.
The previous section represents a proof of this fact in the context of CFT, while the following one will confirm it also
for the harmonic chain.
\section{Numerical evaluation of the negativity and mutual information for the harmonic chain}
\label{app hc}
In this section we report the numerical evaluation of the time evolution of entanglement negativity and mutual information after a global quantum quench of the frequency parameter.
The Hamiltonian of the periodic harmonic chain with nearest neighbour interactions is
\begin{equation}
\label{HC hamiltonian}
H(\omega) = \sum_{s=0}^{L-1} \left(
\frac{1}{2m}\,p_s^2+\frac{m\omega^2}{2}\,q_s^2 +\frac{K}{2}(q_{s+1} -q_s)^2
\right)\,,
\qquad q_0 = q_L\,,
\qquad p_0 = p_L\,.
\end{equation}
where $L$ is the number of lattice sites of the chain, $m$ a mass scale, $\omega$ the one-particle oscillation frequency,
and $K$ a nearest neighbour coupling.
The variables $p_i$ and $q_i$ satisfy standard commutation relations $[q_i,q_j] = [p_i,p_j] = 0$ and $[q_i,p_j] = \textrm{i}\delta_{ij}$.
We consider the harmonic chain because it is the only lattice model in which the partial transpose and the negativity can
be obtained by means of correlation matrix techniques \cite{Audenaert02,br-04}.
The model is critical for $\omega=0$ and its continuum limit is conformal with central charge $c=1$.
A canonical rescaling of the variables allows to rewrite it in a form where the parameters $\omega$, $m$, $K$
occur only in the global factor and in the coupling between nearest neighbour sites \cite{Audenaert02,br-04}.
We consider a quench in the parameter $\omega$, preparing the system in the ground state of (\ref{HC hamiltonian}) with
$\omega=\omega_0\neq 0$ and letting the system evolve for $t>0$ with the critical Hamiltonian with $\omega=0$.
The quench dynamics of the Hamiltonian (\ref{HC hamiltonian}) has been studied already in several papers
both on the lattice and in the continuum \cite{cc-07-quench,CE-08,bs-08,scc-09,pe-12,sc-14,rajapbour-14,dlsb-14}.
The Hamiltonian (\ref{HC hamiltonian}) is simply diagonalised in Fourier space in terms of standard
annihilation and creation operators $a_k$ and $a_k^\dagger$.
The diagonal form for the Hamiltonian is
\begin{equation}
\label{HC hamiltonian diag}
H(\omega) = \sum_{k=0}^{L-1} \omega_k \left( a^\dagger_k a_k +\frac{1}{2} \right)\,,
\end{equation}
where the dispersion relation is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{hc disp rel evolution}
\omega_k \equiv \sqrt{\omega^2+ \frac{4K}{m} \sin^2(\pi k/L)}
\, \geqslant \omega\,,
\qquad k=0,\dots, L-1\,.
\end{equation}
Notice that the Hamiltonian has a zero-mode for $k=0$ and $\omega=0$.
This usually prevents a straightforward analysis of the critical behaviour, but for the global quench this will not be a problem, as we
will see soon.
From the dispersion relation, we straightforwardly have the velocity of each momentum mode as
\begin{equation}
v_k \equiv \frac{\partial \omega_k}{\partial p_k} =
\, \frac{(K/m)\sin(p_k)}{\sqrt{\omega^2+ (4K/m)\sin^2(p_k/2)}}\,,
\qquad
p_k \equiv \frac{2\pi k}{L}\,,
\label{vk}
\end{equation}
and the maximum one
\begin{equation}
\label{vmax def}
v_{\rm max} \equiv \textrm{max}_k (v_k)\,,
\end{equation}
which determines the spreading of entanglement and correlations.
Notice that for $\omega=0$, $v_{\rm max}=1$ for $K=m=1$.
In the quench protocol in which we are interested in, the system is prepared in the ground state $| \psi_0 \rangle$ of the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
\label{HC hamiltonian diag 0}
H(\omega_0) = \sum_{k=0}^{L-1} \omega_{0,k} \left( a^\dagger_{0,k} a_{0,k} +\frac{1}{2} \right) ,
\end{equation}
whose dispersion relation $\omega_{0,k}$ is Eq.~(\ref{hc disp rel evolution}) with $\omega=\omega_0$.
At $t=0$ the frequency parameter is suddenly quenched from $\omega_0$ to a different value $\omega$
and the system unitarily evolves through the new Hamiltonian (\ref{HC hamiltonian diag}), namely
\begin{equation}
| \psi(t) \rangle = e^{-\textrm{i} H(\omega) t} \, | \psi_0 \rangle\,,
\qquad
t>0\,.
\end{equation}
In order to study the entanglement for the harmonic chain, we need to know the following two-point correlators
\begin{equation}
\label{time dep corrs}
\begin{array}{l}
\mathbb{Q}_{r,s}(t) \equiv \langle \psi_0 | q_r(t) q_s(t) | \psi_0 \rangle \,,
\\
\rule{0pt}{.6cm}
\mathbb{P}_{r,s}(t) \equiv \langle \psi_0 | p_r(t) p_s(t) | \psi_0 \rangle \,,
\\
\rule{0pt}{.6cm}
\mathbb{M}_{r,s}(t) \equiv \langle \psi_0 | q_r(t) p_s(t) | \psi_0 \rangle \,,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $q_r(t)$ and $p_r(t) $ are the time evolved operators in the Heisenberg picture
\begin{equation}
q_r(t) = e^{\textrm{i} H t} q_r(0) e^{-\textrm{i} H t} \,,
\qquad
p_r(t) = e^{\textrm{i} H t} p_r(0) e^{-\textrm{i} H t} \,.
\end{equation}
These correlators can be written as (see also \cite{rajapbour-14} for a slightly different approach)
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Qmat t-dep}
& &
\mathbb{Q}_{r,s}(t)
\;=\;
\frac{1}{2L} \sum_{k=0}^{L-1} Q_k(t) \cos\Big[(r-s)\frac{2\pi k}{L}\Big] \,,
\\
\label{Pmat t-dep}
& &
\mathbb{P}_{r,s}(t)
\;=\;
\frac{1}{2L} \sum_{k=0}^{L-1} P_k(t) \cos\Big[(r-s)\frac{2\pi k}{L}\Big]\,,
\\
\label{Mmat t-dep}
& &
\mathbb{M}_{r,s}(t)
\;=\; \frac{\textrm{i}}{2}\, \delta_{r,s} -
\frac{1}{2L} \sum_{k=0}^{L-1} M_k(t) \cos\Big[(r-s)\frac{2\pi k}{L}\Big] \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where we collected the dependence on $\omega$, $\omega_0$ and $t$ into
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Qmat t-dep-k}
& &
Q_{k}(t)
\;\equiv\; \frac{1}{m \omega_k}
\left( \,\frac{\omega_k}{\omega_{0,k}} \cos^2(\omega_k t)
+ \frac{\omega_{0,k}}{\omega_k} \sin^2(\omega_k t) \right)\,,
\\
\rule{0pt}{.8cm}
\label{Pmat t-dep-k}
& &
P_{k}(t)
\;\equiv\; m \omega_k
\left( \,\frac{\omega_k}{\omega_{0,k}} \sin^2(\omega_k t)
+ \frac{\omega_{0,k}}{\omega_k} \cos^2(\omega_k t) \right)\,,
\\
\rule{0pt}{.8cm}
\label{Mmat t-dep-k}
& &
M_{k}(t)
\;\equiv\;
\left(\,\frac{\omega_k}{\omega_{0,k}} - \frac{\omega_{0,k}}{\omega_k} \right)
\sin(\omega_k t) \cos(\omega_k t) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
We notice that, for $t>0$ and $\omega =0$ the contribution from the mode $k=0$ is finite, indeed
\begin{equation}
Q_{0}(t) \,=\, \frac{1}{m}
\left( \, \frac{1}{\omega_0} + \omega_0 t^2 \right)\,,
\qquad
P_{0}(t) \,=\, m \omega_0 \,,
\qquad
M_{0}(t) \,=\, - \,\omega_0 t \,.
\end{equation}
The other modes are clearly always finite, and so we can consider
the global quench to a massless Hamiltonian (while, as well known, we cannot set $\omega=0$ for the equilibrium properties).
From the correlation functions, the entanglement entropy and negativity are constructed by standard methods.
Indeed, given a subsystem $A$ of the lattice made by $\tilde{\ell}$ sites which could be either all in one interval or splitted
in many disjoint intervals,
the reduced density matrix for $A$ can be studied by constructing the $\tilde{\ell} \times \tilde{\ell}$ matrices
$\mathbb{Q}_A$, $\mathbb{P}_A$ and $\mathbb{M}_A$, which are the restrictions to the subsystem
$A$ of the matrices $\mathbb{Q}$, $\mathbb{P}$ and $\mathbb{M}$ respectively \cite{pc-99, Audenaert02, br-04, pedc-05}.
Given $\mathbb{Q}_A$, $\mathbb{P}_A$ and $\mathbb{M}_A$, the covariance matrix
$\gamma_A$ associated to the subsystem $A$ and the symplectic matrix $J_A$ of the corresponding size are
\begin{equation}
\gamma_A(t) \equiv\,
\textrm{Re}
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathbb{Q}_A(t) & \mathbb{M}_A(t) \\
\mathbb{M}_A(t)^{\textrm{t}} & \mathbb{P}_A(t)
\end{pmatrix} ,
\qquad
J_A \equiv
\begin{pmatrix}
\boldsymbol{0}_{\tilde{\ell}} & \mathbb{I}_{\tilde{\ell}} \\
- \mathbb{I}_{\tilde{\ell}} & \boldsymbol{0}_{\tilde{\ell}}
\end{pmatrix} ,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{I}_{\tilde{\ell}} $ is the $\tilde{\ell} \times \tilde{\ell}$ identity matrix and $\boldsymbol{0}_{\tilde{\ell}} $ is the $\tilde{\ell} \times \tilde{\ell}$ matrix with vanishing elements.
We remark that the matrix $\mathbb{M}(t)$ has a non trivial real part for $t>0$.
At this point we compute the spectrum of $\textrm{i} J_A \cdot \gamma_A(t)$ which can be written as
$\{ \pm \lambda_a(t) ; a=1, \dots \tilde{\ell}\}$ with $\lambda_a(t) >0 $.
The time dependent R\'enyi entropies as function of the eigenvalues $\lambda_a(t)$ are finally written as
\begin{equation}
\label{renyi entropies hc}
\textrm{Tr} \, \rho_A(t)^n = \prod_{a\,=\,1}^{\tilde{\ell}}
\left[
\bigg( \lambda_a(t)+\frac{1}{2} \bigg)^n - \bigg( \lambda_a(t)-\frac{1}{2} \bigg)^n\,
\right]^{-1},
\end{equation}
and the entanglement entropy as
\begin{equation}
\label{EE hc}
S_A(t) = \sum_{a\,=\,1}^{\tilde{\ell}}
\left[
\bigg( \lambda_a(t)+\frac{1}{2} \bigg) \ln\bigg( \lambda_a(t)+\frac{1}{2} \bigg)
- \bigg( \lambda_a(t) -\frac{1}{2} \bigg) \ln\bigg( \lambda_a(t)-\frac{1}{2} \bigg)
\,\right] .
\end{equation}
In order to compute the negativity, we denote by $A = A_1 \cup A_2$ a subregion of the harmonic chain and
we consider the partial transpose with respect to $A_2$.
In the covariance matrix $\gamma_A$, the net effect of the partial transposition
is the inversion of the signs of the momenta corresponding to the sites belonging to $A_2$ \cite{Audenaert02}.
Thus, introducing the $\tilde{\ell} \times \tilde{\ell}$ diagonal matrix $\mathbb{R}_{A_2}$
which has $-1$ in correspondence of the sites of $A_2$ and $+1$ otherwise, we can construct
\begin{equation}
\gamma_A^{T_2}(t)
\equiv\,
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathbb{I}_{\tilde{\ell}} & \boldsymbol{0}_{\tilde{\ell}} \\
\boldsymbol{0}_{\tilde{\ell}} & \mathbb{R}_{A_2}
\end{pmatrix}
\cdot
\gamma_A(t)
\cdot
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathbb{I}_{\tilde{\ell}} & \boldsymbol{0}_{\tilde{\ell}} \\
\boldsymbol{0}_{\tilde{\ell}} & \mathbb{R}_{A_2}
\end{pmatrix} ,
\end{equation}
and compute the spectrum of $\textrm{i} J_A \cdot \gamma_A^{T_2}(t)$,
which again can be written as $\{ \pm \chi_a(t) ; a=1, \dots \tilde{\ell}\}$ with $\chi_a(t) >0 $.
Then, the trace of the $n$-th power of $\rho_A^{T_2}$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{renyi negativities hc}
\textrm{Tr} (\rho_A^{T_2})^n = \prod_{a\,=\,1}^{\tilde{\ell}}
\left[
\bigg( \chi_a(t)+\frac{1}{2} \bigg)^n - \bigg( \chi_a(t) -\frac{1}{2} \bigg)^n\,
\right]^{-1},
\end{equation}
while the trace norm reads
\begin{equation}
\label{trace norm hc}
|| \rho_A^{T_2} ||
=
\prod_{a\,=\,1}^{\tilde{\ell}}
\Bigg[\,
\bigg| \chi_a(t)+\frac{1}{2} \bigg| - \bigg| \chi_a(t) -\frac{1}{2} \bigg| \,
\Bigg]^{-1}
=
\prod_{a\,=\,1}^{\tilde{\ell}}
\textrm{max}
\bigg[ 1 , \frac{1}{2\chi_a(t)} \bigg]\,,
\end{equation}
which gives the logarithmic negativity $\mathcal{E}=\ln (|| \rho_A^{T_2} || )$.
In what follows we will compute entanglement entropies and negativity from the above formulas by calculating the
spectrum of the appropriate covariance matrix.
Since the parameters $K$ and $m$ can be absorbed in a redefinition of the canonical variables, we fix them to $K=m=1$ and we just consider a quench in the frequency (or mass) parameter from $\omega_0$ to $\omega$.
The data obtained by numerically diagonalising the covariance matrix
for several bi- and tripartitions of the harmonic chain are reported in the following
subsections.
\subsection{The entanglement entropy of one interval}
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace{.2cm}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figL400.pdf}
\caption{Left:
Temporal evolution of the entanglement entropy for one interval of $\ell$ sites in a periodic harmonic chain with $L$ sites. At $t=0$ the mass is quenched from $\omega_0=1$ to $\omega=0$. The dashed curve is the CFT prediction (\ref{SA one interval}) with $c=1$ and the best fitted value for $\tau_0$.
Right: Temporal evolution of the R\'enyi entropies and of the logarithmic negativity $\mathcal{E}_A$, which coincides with $S_A^{(1/2)}$ in this case, for a periodic chain with $L=5000$ and $\ell=400$. In the inset, we report the best fitted values of $\tau_0$
for the values of $n$ displayed in the main plot.
}
\label{fig ee N1}
\end{figure}
It is instructive to start our analysis from the study of the quench dynamics of the entanglement entropy of
a single interval, although this has been recently studied in Ref.~\cite{rajapbour-14}.
Indeed, this preliminary analysis allows us to understand the regime of applicability of the CFT
and the optimal quench parameters in order to observe a CFT scaling.
In Fig.~\ref{fig ee N1}, we report the time evolution of the entanglement entropy for a quench from $\omega_0=1$
to $\omega=0$.
We consider finite chains of length up to $L=5000$ and several values of $\ell\ll L$ with $\ell/L$ kept fixed.
It is evident from the figure that the behaviour of von Neumann and R\'enyi entropy is in good qualitative agreement with the
CFT prediction (\ref{SA one interval}) with a linear growth for $t<\ell/2$ followed by saturation for $t>\ell/2$
(we recall that for $\omega=0$ the maximum mode velocity is $v_{\rm max}=1$, cf. Eq.~(\ref{vmax def})).
However, few comments on these results are needed.
First, for $t>\ell/2$ the entanglement entropies do not saturate but they
show a slow growth toward an asymptotic value. This is a well known phenomenon \cite{cc-05-quench,fc-08}
and it is due to the entanglement generated by slow quasi-particles moving with velocity $v_k<v_{\rm max}=1$
as in Eq.~(\ref{vk}). A second comment concerns the fitted value of $\tau_0$: this is shown in the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig ee N1} as function of the order of the R\'enyi entropy $n$. There is a minor dependence on $n$, as already anticipated and noticed in the
literature \cite{rajapbour-14}, but overall $\tau_0$ is very close to the initial correlation length
$\xi_0\sim \omega_0^{-1}=1$.
Finally we must comment on the chosen value of $\omega_0=1$.
In preliminary calculations we considered several values of $\omega_0$ which however we do not report here,
but $\omega_0=1$ is the one for which the conformal scaling describes the data more accurately.
This can be easily understood from the fact that (i) we should be in the regime $t,\ell\gg \omega_0^{-1}$ requiring that
the initial frequency should not be too small,
(ii) we should be in a regime in which the continuum description is appropriate, requiring the initial correlation length not to be too small (i.e.\ $\omega_0$ not too large), in order to avoid a magnification of lattice effects.
The value $\omega_0\sim 1$ appears to be the best compromise between these two effects.
The R\'enyi entropy with $n=1/2$ corresponds to the logarithmic negativity, but, as expected, does not display
any peculiar behaviour compared with the other values of $n$.
\subsection{Two adjacent intervals}
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace{.2cm}
\hspace{-.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{figL200d0.pdf}
\caption{
Adjacent intervals with several equal lengths $\ell_1=\ell_2$ and for various total size $L$ of the periodic harmonic chain.
All panels show the data for $\omega_0=1$ and a critical evolution, $\omega=0$.
Panels (a) and (c) display the mutual information $I$ while (b) and (d) the logarithmic negativity $\mathcal{E}$.
Top and middle panels show different time scales and the revivals due to the finiteness of the system are evident in
the middle panels, where a larger range of $t$ is considered.
The dashed CFT curves in (a) and (b) are given by (\ref{MI n N2 cft t-dep adj}) and (\ref{neg 2adj t-dep cft}) respectively.
In the last two panels we show the time evolution of the R\'enyi mutual information $I^{(n)}$ (e) and of the replicated negativity
$\mathcal{E}^{(n)}$ (f) for various values of $n$.
}
\label{fig N2 L200L200d0}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace{.2cm}
\hspace{-.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{figL200L100d0.pdf}
\caption{
Adjacent intervals with different lengths $\ell_1=2\ell_2$ for different intervals lengths and total size $L$ of the periodic harmonic chain. Critical evolution of the mutual information $I$ (panel (a), (c)) and of the logarithmic negativity $\mathcal{E}$ (panels (b), (d)).
The revivals are reported in panels (c) and (d).
Notice that outside the light cone $\mathcal{E}$ always decays while $I$ reaches a plateau (apart from some
finite size effects responsible of a very slow increase) (panels (c) and (d)).
Compared to Fig.~\ref{fig N2 L200L200d0} for the case of intervals with equal length, we observe
a plateau starting at $t \simeq \textrm{min}(\ell_1,\ell_2)/2$ with temporal width $|\ell_2-\ell_1|/2$.
The panel (e) and (f) report the ratios $R_n$ for several values of $n$.
}
\label{fig N2 L200L100d0}
\end{figure}
We start the study of the entanglement between two different intervals from the case of adjacent ones.
In the various figures that will follow we report both the mutual information and the negativity in order
to simplify the discussion of similarity and differences. As already stressed above,
the principal new results of this manuscript concern the evaluation of the negativity, since the time dependence of the
mutual information in CFT was already established in \cite{cc-05-quench} and these results were checked in a few
numerical works for the Ising chain \cite{fc-10} and the Bose-Hubbard model \cite{lk-08}, but, to the best of our knowledge, not
for the harmonic chain.
The numerical results for two adjacent intervals for a quench from $\omega_0=1$ to $\omega=0$
are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig N2 L200L200d0} and \ref{fig N2 L200L100d0}.
The main differences between the two sets of plots is that in the first one the two intervals have equal lengths, while in the second one the length of one interval is half of the other.
Let us discuss these two sets of plots critically.
In the top panels of Fig.~\ref{fig N2 L200L200d0}, we report the time evolution of the mutual
information (a) and logarithmic negativity (b) on time scales of the order of $\ell$.
They have a very similar behaviour characterised by an initial linear growth, followed by an almost linear dropping up to time
$t=\ell_1$ when a slow power-law relaxation to the asymptotic vanishing value starts.
These results are in agreement with the expectation from CFT and their behaviour is simply understood in terms of the
quasi-particle picture as already explained in Sec.~\ref{QP}. Also the differences between the linear CFT behaviour and the
non-linear one of the actual data is easily understood in terms of the slow quasi-particles in analogy to the
entanglement entropy of a single interval in the previous subsection.
No particular difference is observed in this regime between negativity and mutual information.
In the two middle panels of Fig.~\ref{fig N2 L200L200d0}, we again report the time evolution of the mutual
information (c) and logarithmic negativity (d), but on time scales of the order of the system's size $L$.
The main feature in this case is the presence of quantum revivals at time equal to $t \simeq (L-[\ell_1+\ell_2])/2$.
A first important difference between the mutual information and the negativity appears on these time-scales,
indeed while the former reaches a plateau in a large time-window, the latter decreases monotonically until the revival.
Finally, in the last two panels we also report the R\'enyi mutual information (e) and the replicated negativity ${\cal E}^{(n)}$.
Their behaviour is again in qualitative agreement with the CFT predictions and the differences are easily understood in terms
of slow quasi-particles.
However, we mention that ${\cal E}^{(n)}$ with $n>1$ does not follow the same behaviour as the mutual information or negativity
and indeed it is a monotonically decreasing function of time, changing the slope in the time intervals identified above (i.e.
at $t=\ell_1/2$ and at $t=\ell_1$).
This is not a surprise since ${\cal E}^{(n)}$ is not a measure of entanglement and neither a quantifier of the correlations.
However, as already stressed, the piece-wise quasi-linear behaviour is compatible with the CFT prediction apart
from the effect of the slow modes.
In Fig.~\ref{fig N2 L200L100d0}, we report the case of two adjacent intervals of different lengths $\ell_1=2\ell_2$.
The main difference compared to the case of equal lengths is the appearance of a plateau after the first linear increase for
both the mutual information and the negativity. This is in perfect agreement with the CFT results which indeed
predict (see Eqs.~(\ref{MI n N2 cft t-dep adj}) and (\ref{neg 2adj t-dep cft})) a linear increase up to $t= {\rm min}(\ell_1, \ell_2)/2$, followed by a plateau for
${\rm min}(\ell_1, \ell_2)/2< t < {\rm max}(\ell_1, \ell_2)/2$, a linear decrease for ${\rm max}(\ell_1, \ell_2)/2 < t < (\ell_1 + \ell_2)/2$,
and finally zero constantly.
It is evident that the differences between CFT and actual data for the harmonic chain are due to slow quasi-particles
which give corrections for $t> {\rm min}(\ell_1, \ell_2)/2$.
In the panel (c) and (d) of Fig.~\ref{fig N2 L200L100d0} we show the evolution of mutual information and negativity
for a larger time window and, as before, the revivals are apparent at time $t=(L-\ell_1-\ell_2)/2$.
Finally in the last two panels (e) and (f) we report the behaviour of the universal ratio $R_n$ as a function of time.
Again there are no particular differences with the CFT prediction except for those ones due to slow quasi-particles.
From the last panel (f), one notices that $R_{2}=1$ identically.
In the quantum field theory approach, this exceptional behaviour for $n=2$ is easily understood from the fact that
$ \mathcal{T}^2_2= \bar{\mathcal{T}}^2_2=\mathbb{I}$ (cf. Sec.~\ref{sec neg two disjoint}) and it is true also on the lattice.
Notice that $\ln (R_n)$ has a behaviour which closely resembles the one of the mutual information and the
negativity, showing that, in this particular case, they are somehow measuring the amount of correlations or entanglement.
This is an important difference compared to the quantity ${\cal E}^{(n)}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig N2 L200L200d0}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace{.2cm}
\hspace{-.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{figL200d40d80.pdf}
\caption{
Disjoint intervals with equal lengths $\ell_1=\ell_2$ separated by $d$ sites, for various intervals lengths, separations $d$,
and total size $L$ of the periodic harmonic chain. Time evolution of the mutual information $I$ ((a), (c) and (e)) and of the logarithmic
negativity $\mathcal{E}$ ((b), (d), and (f)).
The revivals at large $t$ are evident in the bottom panels.
}
\label{fig N2 L200L200d40}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Two disjoint intervals}
In this subsection we move to the case of two disjoint intervals.
In Fig.~\ref{fig N2 L200L200d40} we report the numerically calculated mutual information and negativity
for two disjoint intervals of equal length and for two different sets of distances between them.
It is clear from the figure that the main difference compared to the case of adjacent interval is that there
is an initial region for $t<d/2$ in which there is no entanglement and no correlations (we recall that the
initial correlation length is $\omega_0^{-1}=1$, so that the initial entanglement is very small).
Then at time equal to $d/2$ the entanglement starts growing linearly, reaches a maximum and then decreases almost
linearly. Again, this behaviour is compatible with the quasi-particle interpretation and also the power law
relaxation for large times can be understood in terms of slow modes.
Even in the case of disjoint intervals, we have studied the revivals. The results, which are very similar to the ones
shown in the case of adjacent intervals, are reported in Fig.~\ref{fig N2 L200L200d40}, panels (e) and (f).
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace{.2cm}
\hspace{-.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{figL200d.pdf}
\caption{
Mutual information (a) and the logarithmic negativity (b) of disjoint intervals with equal lengths $\ell_1=\ell_2=200$, separated by
distances $d$ in a periodic chain with $L=5000$.
(c) Comparison between $I$ and $\mathcal{E}$.
(d) Zoom of the initial growth: a late birth effect for $\mathcal{E}$ is observed, which decreases as the continuum limit is approached.
The vertical dashed line in (c) and (d) indicates the time $t=d/2$ where the growth should start in the continuum theory.
}
\label{fig N2 L200L200manyd}
\end{figure}
Conversely, a very interesting phenomenon can be observed by looking at very short times after the
entanglement starts growing. This is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig N2 L200L200manyd}, where in the top panels
we show the mutual information and the negativity as function of time for different distances between the two intervals.
As before, the behaviour is very reminiscent of the CFT prediction. In the panel (c) of the same figure,
we show in the same plot the negativity and the mutual information for fixed $d/\ell$ and looking closely
to the time when the entanglement starts growing it is already clear that something is happening.
For this reason in the panel (d) we zoom close to the point $t=d/2$ and we highlight a very peculiar phenomenon:
while the mutual information starts moving from zero slightly before $t=d/2$
the negativity starts slightly after $t=d/2$.
The behaviour of the mutual information is simply the exponential tails of the correlations outside the light-cone,
but the behaviour of the negativity is new.
From the figure, it is evident that increasing the total system size $L$ (at fixed ratios $d/L$ and $\ell/L$)
this phenomenon disappears in such a way to recover the CFT result and the quasi-particle interpretation of the evolution
in the continuum limit.
As a consequence, this remarkable phenomenon is a lattice effect and so
cannot have an explanation in terms of quasi-particles, but it would be interesting to understand its precise origin.
In a suggestive way, and in analogy with the famous
sudden death of entanglement \cite{ye-09} (which will be discussed below),
we term this phenomenon as the {\it late birth of entanglement}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace{.2cm}
\hspace{-.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{figL200L100d.pdf}
\vspace{.1cm}
\caption{
Mutual information (a) and the logarithmic negativity (b) of disjoint intervals with different lengths $\ell_1=2\ell_2=200$, separated by various distances $d$ sites in a periodic chain with $L=5000$.
Comparison between $I$ and $\mathcal{E}$ in (c) and zoom on the initial growth in (d), to highlight the late birth of $\mathcal{E}$.
With respect to the corresponding plots in Fig.~\ref{fig N2 L200L200manyd}, here a plateau occurs whose temporal width is $|\ell_2-\ell_1|/2$.
The vertical dashed line in (c) and (d) indicates the time $t=d/2$ where the growth should begin, according to the quasi-particles picture.
}
\label{fig N2 L200L100manyd}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig N2 L200L100manyd} we consider again the mutual information (a) and the negativity (b) for various distances between
two intervals of different lengths $\ell_1=2\ell_2$.
The behaviour is in perfect agreement with the CFT prediction with a linear growth starting at $d/2$ up to $d/2+\textrm{min}(\ell_1, \ell_2)/2$, followed by a plateau lasting $|\ell_1-\ell_2|/2$, then a linear decrease up to $t= (d+\ell_1+\ell_2)/2$ and finally a power-law approach to zero.
In the panel (c) we report on the same plot the negativity and the mutual information, observing
again the fingerprints of the late birth, which are straightforwardly confirmed by zooming for times close to $d/2$, as done in panel (d).
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace{.3cm}
\hspace{-.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{figm.pdf}
\caption{
Logarithmic negativity $\mathcal{E}$ of disjoint intervals after global quenches with different evolution Hamiltonians.
Here $L=5000$, $\ell_1=\ell_2=200$ and $\omega_0=1$, while for $t>0$ we have $\omega=0$ or $\omega=0.1$.
The velocity $v_{\rm max}$ is given by Eq. (\ref{vmax def}).
}
\label{fig N2 massive}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Massive evolution}
In this section we briefly discuss what happens when the time evolution is governed by a massive Hamiltonian.
This is elucidated with an example in Fig.~\ref{fig N2 massive} where we report and compare
critical ($\omega=0$) and noncritical ($\omega=0.1$) evolution of the logarithmic negativity always starting from $\omega_0=1$.
The data are reported against $v_{\rm max}t$ ($v_{\rm max}$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{vmax def})).
Also in this case, the data are perfectly compatible with the quasi-particle picture, but
we notice an interesting effect.
The slope of the negativity changes as a function of time as a consequence of
the entanglement carried by slower quasi-particles which in the case of the non-critical evolution
have a larger weight because of the non-monotonicity of $v_k$ in Eq.~(\ref{vk}).
However, also this phenomenon does not come as a surprise and indeed it was already
observed for the entanglement entropy of a single interval following a quench in the Ising/XY chain \cite{fc-08,ds-11}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace{.3cm}
\hspace{-.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{figSD.pdf}
\caption{
Mutual information (left panels) and logarithmic negativity (right panels) for disjoint intervals with different lengths ($\ell_1=2\ell_2$).
Here $\omega=0$ and different $\omega_0$ are chosen: $\omega_0=10$, $\omega_0=30$ and $\omega_0=100$
(top, middle and bottom panels respectively).
The sudden death of the logarithmic negativity happens for later time as $L$ increases and as $\omega_0$ decreases.
}
\label{fig sudden death}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Sudden death of entanglement}
A final important feature of the logarithmic negativity $\mathcal{E}$ is the so called {\it sudden death} of entanglement.
The phenomenon has been first introduced for other entanglement measures \cite{ye-09}, but it has been observed
also for the negativity.
For example, in the case of the harmonic chain at thermal equilibrium at some finite $T$, it consists into the exact vanishing
of $\mathcal{E}$ for temperatures larger than a critical value as discussed also in \cite{us-neg-T,aw-08,fcga-08}, where it was
emphasised its lattice nature and its absence in the quantum field theory description of the continuum limit.
In the case of quench, we have already seen that the entanglement and the mutual information of two intervals
are vanishing for large enough time in the CFT, but this is an independent phenomenon compared to the sudden death.
In order to show the true sudden death of $\mathcal{E}$ after a global quench, we report in Fig.~\ref{fig sudden death}
the negativity and we compare it to the mutual information for several initial frequencies
$\omega_0=10$, $\omega_0=30$ and $\omega_0=100$ and for several configurations of the intervals.
It is evident that in all cases, while the mutual information stays finite at any time, the negativity $\mathcal{E}$
drops suddenly to zero after some time.
Thus, the sudden death is a peculiarity of the entanglement and it is not reflected by the correlations (quantified by the
mutual information) which are always a smooth function of the time.
Let us now discuss how this phenomenon depends on the various parameters.
First, we notice that increasing the system size and keeping the ratios between the various lengths fixed,
the sudden death time increases and, when the system and the subsystems are large enough,
the sudden death does not occur anymore.
This agrees with the expectation that the sudden death is a lattice effect.
Second we observe that the sudden death depends also on the initial frequency $\omega_0$:
increasing $\omega_0$, the sudden death time decreases.
Finally, it is worth noticing that, when the revival takes place, the entanglement appears again, but this is not at all
surprising.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{concl}
We studied the evolution of the entanglement negativity following a quantum quench.
We considered the case of a conformal evolution starting from a boundary state.
First, for the sake of completeness, we reviewed the results
for the entanglement entropy and the mutual information of an arbitrary number of (adjacent or disjoint) intervals
within the path integral approach of Refs.~\cite{cc-05-quench,cc-06,cc-07-quench}.
Then we moved to the calculation of the negativity between two adjacent and disjoint intervals
which are respectively given by Eqs.~(\ref{neg 2adj t-dep cft}) and (\ref{logneg N2disj cft t-dep}).
The applicability and generality of these results have been checked against exact numerical
calculations for the same quantities in the harmonic chain.
One of the main results of this study is that the quasi-particle picture \cite{cc-05-quench}
for the time dependence of the entanglement after a global quantum quench applies also to the
negativity between two intervals: this is a remarkable and non-trivial property.
We also highlight two peculiar lattice effects: the late birth of entanglement and its sudden death.
The former one consists in the fact that the negativity starts growing slightly after the time predicted by
the quasi-particle picture, a delay which vanishes in the continuum limit.
The latter one, instead, is well known and concerns the exact vanishing of the negativity after some
given large time (but before revivals take place).
We investigated how these effects depend on the quench parameters.
While we draw a quite complete picture for the evolution of the negativity after a quantum quench,
there are still some questions deserving further investigations.
First, it would be very interesting to obtain analytical forms in the harmonic chain for the evolution of the various entanglement measures
(entropy, mutual information, and negativity) in analogy to what done in Refs.~\cite{fc-08,fc-10,bkc-14} for the Ising model
(but only for entropy and mutual information).
However, we should stress that there are still no analytic results for the entanglement entropy of bosonic models
even in the ground state, in contrast with the many results available for free fermion thanks to
Toeplitz matrix techniques \cite{jk-04,ce-10,fc-11,cmv-12}.
Obtaining such analytic predictions is a prerequisite in order to tackle the quench problem.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
ET thanks Hong Liu and Luca Tagliacozzo for useful discussions and
is grateful to the Center for Theoretical Physics at MIT for warm hospitality during part of this work.
PC and ET acknowledge the financial support by the ERC under Starting Grant 279391 EDEQS.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
It is well known that the addition of three-dimensional (3D) spanwise-periodic perturbations to a two-dimensional (2D) cylinder wake can stabilise vortex shedding \citep{Zdravkovich81, Kim05, Choi08}.
Recently, \cite{Hwang13} proposed an explanation of this effect based on the linear stability of the spanwise-modulated parallel wake flow.
They demonstrated a substantial attenuation of the absolute instability growth rate in a range of wavelengths corresponding to results from experiment and direct numerical simulation.
In a recent paper, \cite{DelGuercio2014} showed that suitable spanwise-periodic perturbations added to nominally parallel wakes significantly reduce the temporal stability growth rate of the inflectional instability and completely quench the absolute instability as well.
Perturbations to the nominally parallel base flow were chosen as non-linear streaks resulting from the optimal lift-up mechanism, i.e. the transient
growth of optimal streamwise-uniform spanwise-periodic vortices.
The absolute and maximum temporal growth rates were found to depend quadratically on the streak amplitudes, as suggested by \cite{Hwang13} who demonstrated that the linear sensitivity was zero for spanwise-periodic disturbances of the base flow.
\cite{Cossu14secondorder} outlined a rigorous mathematical procedure to compute beforehand the quadratic (second-order) sensitivity of an eigenmode when its linear (first-order) sensitivity vanishes. He used this method to explain the stabilisation of global modes of the one-dimensional (1D) Ginzburg-Landau equation, serving as a model equation for spatially developing shear flows submitted to spanwise-periodic modulations.
\cite{Tammi14} applied a similar technique to investigate the stabilisation of the 2D wake behind a flat plate using spanwise-periodic wall actuation.
In these two studies, \textit{particular} base flow modifications were prescribed and the resulting first-order eigenmode variation had to be computed explicitly to obtain the eigenvalue variation.
In this paper, we address the question of \textit{optimal} spanwise-periodic flow modification.
In a first step, we use an asymptotic expansion to express the second-order eigenvalue variation, and we determine a second-order sensitivity operator which allows us to predict the eigenvalue variation resulting from \textit{any} base flow modification without ever computing the first-order eigenmode correction and without solving the modified eigenvalue problem.
Then, we optimise the eigenvalue variation and obtain \textit{optimal} flow modifications, i.e. the optimally destabilising/stabilising spanwise-periodic base flow modulations.
We illustrate this optimisation technique with the classical hydrodynamic stability of nominally parallel flows governed by the linearised Navier--Stokes equations at finite Reynolds number $\Rey$ (the so-called Orr--Sommerfeld equations) in the unstable regime: the plane channel flow and a prototypical mixing layer.
A normal mode expansion yields a set of eigenvalues and eigenmodes for any given streamwise and spanwise wavenumbers $(\alpha_0,\beta_0)$, and in both flows the most unstable mode is two-dimensional ($\beta_0=0$).
We consider base flow modifications that are unidirectional and parallel to the base flow direction, and spanwise-periodic of wavenumber $\beta$.
For each wavenumber pair $(\alpha_0,\beta)$,
we optimise the variation of the leading 2D eigenvalue,
thus obtaining bounds for this variation together with the associated optimally destabilising/stabilising base flow modifications.
The effect on other modes $(\alpha_0,\beta_0)$ is also discussed.
In a second step, we incorporate transient growth in the optimisation procedure and find \textit{combined optimal} perturbations
that achieve the best trade-off between transient amplification and stabilisation.
Indeed, flow modifications optimised for pure stabilisation do not take advantage of non-normal amplification mechanisms and may thus require a substantial amplitude; on the other hand, perturbations optimised for pure transient growth may not be well suited to stabilisation.
\textcolor{black}{
This combined optimisation is conducted under the strong hypothesis of a separation of time scales between the fast instability of the nominal base flow and the slow evolution of purely transverse steady initial perturbations into streaks \citep{Reddy98, Cossu04}.
}
Section \ref{sec:problem} details the derivation of the second-order sensitivity operator and the optimisation method.
Sections \ref{sec:planechannel}-\ref{sec:mixinglayer} are devoted to optimal flow modifications in the plane channel flow and in the mixing layer.
Section \ref{sec:combined} presents the combined optimisation of transient growth and flow modification, and characterises the performance of optimal streaks in different $\beta$ ranges. Comparison of spanwise-uniform and spanwise-periodic optimals is also provided.
\section{Problem formulation}
\label{sec:problem}
Given a steady base flow $(\mathbf{U},P)^T$ solution of the Navier--Stokes (NS) equations, the dynamics of small-amplitude perturbations $\hat\mathbf{q}=(\hat\mathbf{u},\hat p)^T=(\hat u,\hat v,\hat w,\hat p)^T$ superimposed onto this base flow are governed by the linearised NS equations
\be
\partial_t \hat\mathbf{u} + \mathbf{U}\bcdot\bnabla \hat\mathbf{u}
+ \hat\mathbf{u}\bcdot\bnabla \mathbf{U}
+ \bnabla \hat p -\Rey^{-1}\bnabla^2 \hat\mathbf{u} = \mathbf{0},
\quad
\bnabla \bcdot \hat\mathbf{u} = 0.
\label{eq:LNS}
\ee
\subsection{Second-order eigenvalue variation}
Consider a 1D parallel flow $U_0(y){\bf e}_x$ perturbed with a 2D spanwise-periodic modification of small amplitude $\epsilon$:
\begin{equation}
{\bf U}(y,z)= \left( U_0 (y)+\epsilon U_1(y)\cos(\beta z) \right) {\bf e}_x.
\label{eq:U0U1}
\end{equation}
Assuming a normal mode expansion
$\hat \mathbf{q}(x,y,z,t)=\mathbf{q}(y,z)\exp{(i\alpha_0x+\lambda t)}$
in spanwise coordinate $x$
and time $t$ for small-amplitude perturbations
and linearising the NS equations results in the eigenvalue problem
\be
\lambda \mathbf{u} + \mathbf{U}\bcdot\bnabla \mathbf{u}
+ \mathbf{u}\bcdot\bnabla \mathbf{U}
+ \bnabla p -\Rey^{-1}\bnabla^2 \mathbf{u} = \mathbf{0},
\quad
\bnabla \bcdot \mathbf{u} = 0
\label{eq:LNS_evp}
\ee
for the eigenvalue $\lambda=\lambda_r +i \lambda_i$.
The set of growth rates $\lambda_r$ and frequencies $\lambda_i$
determines the linear temporal stability properties of the flow.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\begin{overpic}[height=5cm,tics=10]{./fig1.eps
\put(17,17.) {$x$}
\put( 4, 25.5) {$y$}
\put(-1, 16.) {$z$}
\put(42,30) {\textcolor{black}{$U_0(y)$}}
\put(47,23.5) {+}
\put(47,17) {\textcolor{black}{$\epsilon U_1(y) \cos(\beta z)$}}
\end{overpic}
}
\caption{Sketch of the base flow configuration: a 1D parallel flow $U_0(y)$ is modified with a small-amplitude 2D spanwise-periodic flow $\epsilon U_1(y) \cos(\beta z)$.}
\label{fig:sketch}
\end{figure}
While it is common at this stage, for spanwise-invariant parallel base flows, to transform the primitive variables $\mathbf{q}=(\mathbf{u},p)^T$ into the Orr-Sommerfeld variables
(cross-stream velocity and vorticity), we keep here the primitive variables and write (\ref{eq:LNS_evp}) formally as
$\lambda \bf E \mathbf{q}+{\bf A}\mathbf{q}=\mathbf{0}$.
Since the linearised NS
operator ${\bf A}$
is linear in the base flow ${\bf U}$, it can be expanded exactly to arbitrary order (here to second order) as ${\bf A}={\bf A}_0+\epsilon{\bf A}_1$.
The singular matrix ${\bf E}$ need not be expanded since it does not depend on the base flow. Detailed expressions for all operators are given in
Appendix~\ref{sec:app_stab}.
It should be noted in particular that $\mathbf{A}_0$ depends on the unperturbed base flow $U_0$, and $\mathbf{A}_1$ depends on the base flow modification $U_1$.
We look for perturbed eigenvalues and eigenmodes using the following
expansion in the amplitude $\epsilon$ of the base flow modification:
\begin{equation}
\lambda = \lambda_0+\epsilon \lambda_1+\epsilon^2 \lambda_2+\ldots,
\quad
{\bf q} = {\bf q}_0+\epsilon {\bf q}_1 +\epsilon^2 {\bf q}_2 + \ldots
\label{eq:exp}
\end{equation}
By substituting (\ref{eq:exp}) into (\ref{eq:LNS_evp}), we recover at leading order ($\epsilon^0$) the linearised NS equations
\be
\lambda_0 \mathbf{u}_0 + \mathbf{U}_0\bcdot\bnabla \mathbf{u}_0 + \mathbf{u}_0\bcdot\bnabla \mathbf{U}_0 + \bnabla p_0 -\Rey^{-1}\bnabla^2 \mathbf{u}_0 = \mathbf{0},
\quad \bnabla \bcdot \mathbf{u}_0 = 0,
\label{eq:EVP0}
\ee
which we write as an eigenvalue problem for the eigenvalue $\lambda_0$ and eigenmode ${\bf q}_0$:
\begin{equation}
(\lambda_0 {\bf E}+{\bf A}_0) {\bf q}_0=\bf 0.
\label{eq:evp1111}
\end{equation}
In the following we focus on the leading (most unstable) eigenvalue and its associated eigenmode, which is 2D for inflectional velocity profiles: $\partial_z \mathbf{q}_0=\mathbf{0}, w_0=0$.
At first order ($\epsilon^1$) we obtain
\begin{equation}
(\lambda_0 {\bf E} +{\bf A}_0){\bf q}_1
+ (\lambda_1 {\bf E} +{\bf A}_1){\bf q}_0 = \bf 0.
\label{eq:evp1}
\end{equation}
We introduce the following 1D and 2D Hermitian inner products
\be
\displaystyle \ps{\mathbf{a}}{\mathbf{b}} = \lim_{L_y \rightarrow \infty}
\int_{-L_y/2}^{L_y/2}\overline\mathbf{a}\bcdot\mathbf{b} \,\mathrm{d}y,
\quad
\displaystyle \pps{\mathbf{a}}{\mathbf{b}} = \lim_{L_z \rightarrow \infty}
\frac{1}{L_z}
\int_{-L_z/2}^{L_z/2} \ps{\mathbf{a}}{\mathbf{b}} \,\mathrm{d}z,
\ee
where the overbar stands for complex conjugate.
For any operator $\mathbf{N}$ we denote $\mathbf{N}^\dag$ the adjoint operator such that
$\pps{\mathbf{a}}{\mathbf{N}\mathbf{b}}=\pps{\mathbf{N}^\dag\mathbf{a}}{\mathbf{b}}$ $\forall \, \mathbf{a},\mathbf{b}$.
We obtain the first-order eigenvalue variation $\lambda_1$ by projecting (\ref{eq:evp1}) on the leading adjoint eigenmode $\mathbf{q}^\dag_0$ defined by
$(\overline\lambda_0 \mathbf{E} + \mathbf{A}_0^\dag) \mathbf{q}_0^\dag = \mathbf{0}$
and normalised with $\ps{ {\bf q}_0^\dag } {\mathbf{E} {\bf q}_0}=1$ \citep{Hinch91, Trefethen93, Chomaz05, Giannetti07}:
\be
\lambda_1 = - \pps{ {\bf q}_0^\dag } {{\bf A}_1{\bf q}_0}.
\label{eq:project_adjoint}
\ee
Since ${\bf A}_1$ is periodic in $z$, the inner product in (\ref{eq:project_adjoint}) vanishes and
the first-order eigenvalue variation is zero:
$\lambda_1=0$.
In other words, spanwise-periodic flow modifications have no first-order effect on stability properties \citep{Hwang13, DelGuercio2014,Cossu14secondorder}.
From (\ref{eq:evp1}), the leading eigenmode variation is
$\mathbf{q}_1 = -(\lambda_0\mathbf{E}+\mathbf{A}_0)^{-1}\mathbf{A}_1\mathbf{q}_0$.
In this expression the operator $(\lambda_0\mathbf{E}+\mathbf{A}_0)$ is not invertible in general since (\ref{eq:evp1111}) has a non-trivial solution, but the inverse is taken in the subspace orthogonal to $\mathbf{q}_0$, and $\mathbf{q}_1$ is defined up to any constant component in the direction of $\mathbf{q}_0$ \citep{Hinch91}.
This is made possible by the solvability condition (Fredholm theorem) for (\ref{eq:evp1}) to be satisfied:
the forcing term $(\lambda_0 {\bf E} +{\bf A}_1){\bf q}_0={\bf A}_1{\bf q}_0$ is orthogonal to the solution $\mathbf{q}^\dag_0$ of the adjoint equation
associated with (\ref{eq:evp1111}), as expressed precisely by (\ref{eq:project_adjoint}).
At second order ($\epsilon^2$) we obtain
$ (\lambda_0 {\bf E}+{\bf A}_0){\bf q}_2
+{\bf A}_1{\bf q}_1
+ \lambda_2 {\bf E}{\bf q}_0 = \bf 0,$
which yields after projection on the leading adjoint eigenmode
\begin{equation}
\lambda_2 = -\pps{\mathbf{q}_0^\dag}{\mathbf{A}_1\mathbf{q}_1}
= \pps{\mathbf{q}_0^\dag}{\mathbf{A}_1 (\lambda_0\mathbf{E}+\mathbf{A}_0)^{-1}\mathbf{A}_1\mathbf{q}_0}.
\label{eq:ev2}
\end{equation}
For a \textit{given} flow modification $U_1$, one can explicitely compute the modification $\mathbf{A}_1$ of the linearised NS operator and use (\ref{eq:ev2}) to obtain the second-order eigenvalue variation.
However, in order to investigate the effect of \textit{any} flow modification, it is desirable to manipulate this expression to isolate a sensitivity operator independent of $U_1$, similar to classical first-order sensitivity analyses \citep{Hill92AIAA, Marquet08cyl, Meliga10}.
We use adjoint operators to perform this manipulation in section~\ref{sec:sensit}.
\subsection{Second-order sensitivity}
\label{sec:sensit}
We look for a sensitivity operator $\mathbf{S}_2$ such that the second-order eigenvalue variation induced by any small spanwise-periodic flow modification $(U_1(y)\cos(\beta z),0,0)^T$ as given in (\ref{eq:U0U1}) is easily predicted by the inner product
\begin{equation}
\lambda_2 = \pps{ U_1}{\mathbf{S}_2 U_1}.
\end{equation}
We rewrite (\ref{eq:ev2}) as
$\lambda_2 = \pps{\mathbf{A}_1^\dag \mathbf{q}_0^\dag}{ (\lambda_0\mathbf{E}+\mathbf{A}_0)^{-1}\mathbf{A}_1\mathbf{q}_0}$
and, given that $\mathbf{A}_1$ is linear in $U_1$, we introduce operators $\mathbf{M}$ and $\mathbf{L}$ such that
$\mathbf{A}_1^\dag\mathbf{q}^\dag_0=\mathbf{M} U_1$
and
$\mathbf{A}_1\mathbf{q}_0=\mathbf{L} U_1$ (detailed expressions are given in
Appendix~\ref{sec:app_sensit}).
We finally obtain
\be
\lambda_2
= \pps{ U_1}{ \mathbf{M}^\dag(\lambda_0\mathbf{E}+\mathbf{A}_0)^{-1} \mathbf{L} U_1}
\label{eq:ev21}
\ee
At this point $\mathbf{S}_2=\mathbf{M}^\dag(\lambda_0\mathbf{E}+\mathbf{A}_0)^{-1} \mathbf{L}$ depends on $z$, but
(\ref{eq:ev21}) only contains terms proportional to
$\cos^2(\beta z)$ and $\sin^2(\beta z)$ and can therefore be replaced with
%
\begin{equation}
\lambda_2
= \ps{ U_1}{ \widetilde\mathbf{S}_2 U_1}
= \ps{ U_1}{\frac{1}{2} \widetilde\mathbf{M}^\dag(\lambda_0\mathbf{E} + \widetilde\mathbf{A}_0)^{-1} \widetilde \mathbf{L} U_1}
\label{eq:ev23}
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde\mathbf{M}^\dag$ and $\widetilde \mathbf{L}$ are $z$-independent
versions of $\mathbf{M}^\dag$ and $\mathbf{L}$,
and $z$-derivatives in $\mathbf{A}_0$ are appropriately replaced with $\beta$ terms in $\widetilde\mathbf{A}_0$
(see also Appendix~\ref{sec:app_z}):
\be
\widetilde
\mathbf{M}^\dag
= \left[
i \alpha_0 \overline u_0^\dag,\,
i \alpha_0 \overline v_0^\dag
-\partial_y\overline u_0^\dag
-\overline u_0^\dag\partial_y,\,
-\beta \overline u_0^\dag,\,
0
\right],
\quad
\widetilde \mathbf{L}
= \left[
i \alpha_0 u_0 + v_0 \partial_y,\,
i \alpha_0 v_0,\,
0,\,
0
\right]^T,
\ee
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{\bf A}_0
=
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
i\alpha_0U_0-\Rey^{-1} \nabla_{\alpha_0\beta} & \partial_y U_0 & 0 & i\alpha_0\\
0 & i\alpha_0U_0-\Rey^{-1} \nabla_{\alpha_0\beta} & 0 & \partial_y \\
0 & 0 & i\alpha_0U_0-\Rey^{-1} \nabla_{\alpha_0\beta} & -\beta\\
i \alpha_0 & \partial_y & \beta & 0
\end{array}\right],
\end{equation}
$\nabla_{\alpha_0\beta} = -\alpha_0^2+\partial_{yy} -\beta^2$,
yielding the $z$-independent sensitivity
$\widetilde\mathbf{S}_2 = \frac{1}{2} \widetilde\mathbf{M}^\dag(\lambda_0\mathbf{E} + \widetilde\mathbf{A}_0)^{-1} \widetilde \mathbf{L} $.
An important difference from first-order sensitivity analysis is that $\lambda_1$ ($\neq 0$ in general) depends linearly on $U_1$, while here $\lambda_2$ depends quadratically on $U_1$.
As a consequence, in the case of general first-order sensitivity, one can investigate the effect of any base flow modification $\mathbf{U}_1$ in a very convenient way: since $\lambda_1$ can be written $\pps{\mathbf{S}_1}{\mathbf{U}_1}$ and is linear in $\mathbf{U}_1$, a linear combination of flow modifications results in the same linear combination of eigenvalue variations. In particular, any $\mathbf{U}_1$ can be decomposed into a combination of flow modifications localised in $\mathbf{x}_c$ (e.g. Gaussian functions approximating pointwise Dirac delta functions), each of them resulting in an individual eigenvalue variation obtained from the sensitivity at $\mathbf{x}_c$ only;
since $\mathbf{S}_1$ is a vector field, it is easily visualised with a map, and one can identify the most sensitive regions at a glance \citep{Marquet08cyl, Meliga10}.
In contrast, in the general case of second-order sensitivity, $\lambda_2=\pps{\mathbf{U}_1}{\mathbf{S}_2 \mathbf{U}_1}$ depends quadratically on $\mathbf{U}_1$, and a linear combination of base flow modifications does \textit{not} result in the same combination of eigenvalue variations, not to mention quadratic coupling effects between different components $U_1$, $ V_1$, $W_1$ (as appears clearly in the alternative expression $\lambda_2=(\mathbf{U}_1\mathbf{U}_1^T ): \mathbf{S}_2$
denoting the inner product of $\mathbf{S}_2$ with the tensor $\mathbf{U}_1 \mathbf{U}_1^T$).
Furthermore, the sensitivity operator $\mathbf{S}_2$ is a tensor field, whose visualisation would require an impractically large number of maps.
\cite{Tammi14} proposed to identify sensitive regions with maps showing the effect of a specific base flow modification (localised Gaussian $U_1$, and $V_1=W_1=0$) applied successively in all locations of the domain, essentially reproducing systematic traversing experimental measurements.
We prefer to take advantage of knowing the sensitivity operator $\mathbf{S}_2$,
and we show in section~\ref{sec:optimal} how to extract \textit{optimal} flow modifications resulting in maximal eigenvalue variation.
\subsection{Optimal flow modification}
\label{sec:optimal}
The second-order sensitivity operator is useful in that it predicts the leading eigenvalue variation resulting from any $U_1$ without the need to solve the eigenvalue problem for the modified flow.
In addition, it allows one to determine the largest possible eigenvalue variation for all modifications of given amplitude,
i.e. maximise/minimise $\lambda_2$.
With the eigenvalue variation recast as (\ref{eq:ev23}),
this optimisation problem is equivalent to an eigenvalue problem, formally similar to optimal transient growth and optimal harmonic response.
Specifically, the largest increase (decrease) in growth rate to be expected for a modification of unit norm
$||U_1||=\ps{U_1}{U_1}^{1/2}=1$
is the largest positive (largest negative) eigenvalue of the symmetric real part of $\widetilde \mathbf{S}_2$:
\begin{subeqnarray}
& \displaystyle \max_{||U_1||=1} \lambda_{2r}
= \max_{||U_1||=1}
\ps{U_1} { \frac{1}{2} \left( \widetilde\mathbf{S}_{2r}+\widetilde\mathbf{S}_{2r}^T \right) U_1}
= \lambda_{max}
\left\{
\frac{1}{2}
\left( \widetilde\mathbf{S}_{2r}+\widetilde\mathbf{S}_{2r}^T \right)
\right\},
\label{eq:mostdestab}
\\
& \displaystyle \min_{||U_1||=1} \lambda_{2r}
= \min_{||U_1||=1}
\ps{U_1} { \frac{1}{2} \left( \widetilde\mathbf{S}_{2r}+\widetilde\mathbf{S}_{2r}^T \right) U_1}
= \lambda_{min}
\left\{
\frac{1}{2}
\left( \widetilde\mathbf{S}_{2r}+\widetilde\mathbf{S}_{2r}^T \right)
\right\},
\label{eq:moststab}
\end{subeqnarray}
where $\widetilde \mathbf{S}_2 = \widetilde\mathbf{S}_{2r}+i \widetilde\mathbf{S}_{2i}$,
and the right-hand sides come from
$\widetilde\mathbf{S}_{2r}+\widetilde\mathbf{S}_{2r}^T$
being real symmetric, so that the Rayleigh quotient is maximal (minimal) for the largest positive (largest negative) eigenvalue.
The optimal flow modification, i.e. the most stabilising (destabilising) $U_1$ is the eigenmode of unit norm associated with $\lambda_{max}$ ($\lambda_{min}$).
Similar relations hold for the maximal shift in frequency, real parts being replaced with imaginary parts.
If needed, one can also solve for other eigenvalues and obtain a sequence of orthogonal suboptimal flow modifications associated with smaller values of $|\lambda_{2r}|$.
\section{Results: the plane channel}
\label{sec:planechannel}
We investigate the parallel flow in a plane channel between solid walls located at $y=\pm 1$.
The base flow has a Poiseuille parabolic profile $U_0(y)=1-y^2$ and first becomes linearly unstable at $\Rey=5772$.
We solve the eigenvalue problem (\ref{eq:LNS_evp}) in primitive variables $(\mathbf{u},p)^T$ with a 1D spectral method using $N=100$ Chebyshev polynomials \citep{Trefethen00Matlab} on $y\in[-1;1]$ and homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions on velocity components.
The method was validated against spectral results in Orr-Sommerfeld variables \citep{Schmid01}, yielding $10^{-8}$ accuracy with $N=35$ polynomials.
We focus on the Reynolds number $\Rey=6000$, where the largest growth rate is obtained for wavenumbers $(\alpha_0,\beta_0)=(\alpha_{0,max},\beta_{0,max})=(1.016,0)$, and the leading eigenvalue
$\lambda_0 = 3.694\times 10^{-4} -0.2659 i$ corresponds to a 2D Tollmien–-Schlichting wave.
\subsection{Optimal flow modifications}
\label{sec:POIS_optimflowmodif}
We compute the most destabilising and most stabilising spanwise-periodic flow modifications according to (\ref{eq:mostdestab}).
Figure~\ref{fig:POIS_lam_vs_beta}$(a)$ shows the largest positive and negative second-order eigenvalue variations at
$(\alpha_0,\beta_0)=(1,0)$ as a function of the control spanwise wavenumber $\beta$.
The curves labelled I$^d$ and I$^s$ provide bounds for the largest possible destabilisation and stabilisation.
As shown in figure~\ref{fig:POIS_lam_vs_beta}$(b)$,
the upper and lower bounds increase with $\alpha_0$
indicating that optimal flow modifications have a stronger effect on
leading eigenmodes of smaller streamwise wavelengths.
It should be noted that $\min \lambda_{2r}$ and $\max \lambda_{2r}$ are of the same order of magnitude in absolute value.
Figure~\ref{fig:POIS_lam_vs_beta}$(a)$ also shows growth rate variations for suboptimal flow modifications (thin lines).
The first suboptimal modifications (branches II$^d$, II$^s$) become as effective as the optimal ones when $\beta \geq 2.5$.
For all wavenumbers $\beta$, the optimal stabilising and destabilising modifications for $(\alpha_0,\beta_0)=(1,0)$, shown in figure~\ref{fig:POIS_U0}, are symmetric in $y$,
and are localised close to the critical layer,
where the base flow velocity is equal to the phase speed of the Tollmien--Schlichting wave ($y=\pm0.86$).
The first suboptimals have similar structures but are antisymmetric.
\begin{figure}
\psfrag{beta}[t][]{$\beta$}
\psfrag{alpha}[t][]{$\alpha_0$}
\psfrag{lam2} [][]{}
\psfrag{lam2max}[b][]{}
\psfrag{lam2ds}[b][]{}
\psfrag{betamax}[b][]{}
\vspace{0.8cm}
\centerline{
\begin{overpic}[height=5.5cm,tics=10]{./fig2a.eps
\put(18,103){$(a)$ $\min \lambda_{2r}$, $\max \lambda_{2r}$}
\put(32,77){\textcolor{red}{I$^d$}}
\put(20,70){\textcolor{red}{II$^d$}}
\put(20,34){\textcolor{greenstab}{II$^s$}}
\put(32,25){\textcolor{greenstab}{I$^s$}}
\end{overpic}
\hspace{0.2cm}
\begin{overpic}[height=5.53cm,tics=10]{./fig2b.eps
\put(18,102.5){$(b)$ $\min \lambda_{2r}$, $\max \lambda_{2r}$}
\put(37,85){\footnotesize $\alpha_0=0.9, 1.0, 1.1$}
\end{overpic}
}
\vspace{-0.01cm}
\caption{Variation of the leading growth rate for optimally destabilising flow modification (superscript $d$, dark lines, red online) and optimally stabilising flow modification (superscript $s$, light lines, green online), as predicted by sensitivity analysis.
$(a)$~Optimisation for the leading eigenmode of wavenumbers $(\alpha_0,\beta_0)=(1,0)$. suboptimals are also shown as thin lines.
$(b)$~Optimal growth rate variation for $\alpha_0=0.9, 1.0, 1.1$ and $\beta_0=0$.
}
\label{fig:POIS_lam_vs_beta}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\def\thisfigy{80}
\psfrag{yy} [r][][1][-90]{$y$}
\psfrag{y} [r][][1][-90]{$y$}
\psfrag{UU1}[t][]{$U_1$}
\psfrag{U1} [t][]{$U_1$}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\centerline{
\hspace{0.5cm}
\begin{overpic}[height=4.9cm,tics=10]{./fig3a.eps
\put(-15,90){$\beta=0.4$}
\put(25,96){\textcolor{red}{I$^d$} $\quad$ \textcolor{greenstab}{I$^s$}}
\put(67,96){\textcolor{red}{II$^d$} $\quad$ \textcolor{greenstab}{II$^s$}}
\end{overpic}
\hspace{1.2cm}
\begin{overpic}[height=4.9cm,tics=10]{./fig3b.eps
\put(-15,90){ $\beta=3$}
\put(25,96){\textcolor{red}{I$^d$} $\quad$ \textcolor{greenstab}{I$^s$}}
\put(67,96){\textcolor{red}{II$^d$} $\quad$ \textcolor{greenstab}{II$^s$}}
\end{overpic}
}
\caption{Optimal (branch I) and first suboptimal (branch II)
destabilising (dark, red online) and stabilising (light, green online) base flow modification for the most unstable mode $(\alpha_0,\beta_0)=(\alpha_{0,max},\beta_{0,max})=(1,0)$, at control wavenumbers $\beta=0.4$ and $\beta=3$.
Long ticks on the left show the position of the critical layers at $y=\pm0.86$.}
\label{fig:POIS_U0}
\end{figure}
For small values of $\beta$, the upper and lower bounds diverge like $\beta^{-2}$,
as shown in figure~\ref{fig:POIS_beta2_slope}.
This points to a strong authority of the flow modification as its spanwise wavelength tends to infinity.
This diverging effect at small $\beta$ was also observed by \cite{DelGuercio2014} and \cite{Cossu14secondorder}
for a specific choice of base flow modification (streaks created by optimal streamwise vortices in a 2D wake, and uniform modification in a 1D Ginzburg-Landau equation respectively).
Based on an expansion on the eigenmodes of the unperturbed problem \citep{Hinch91}, this phenomenon was explained by \cite{Tammi14} as a modal resonance between unperturbed eigenmodes having close eigenvalues, namely the eigenmode of interest (2D mode $\beta_0=0$ in our case) and eigenmodes whose spanwise wavenumbers differ by $\pm \beta$ from that of the eigenmode of interest (i.e. $\beta_0=\pm \beta$).
We show in Appendix~\ref{sec:app_scaling} that the eigenvalue difference between the 2D eigenmode of interest and eigenmodes of small spanwise wavenumber $\beta_0=\pm \beta$ scales precisely like $\beta^{2}$, consistent with the divergence behaviour $\lambda_2 \sim \beta^{-2}$ we observe.
It should be mentioned in this context \citep{Tammi14} that if $\beta$ is small enough that the eigenvalue difference between these modes is small and of order $\Delta \lambda \sim \epsilon$, then the modal resonance results in a non-small second-order eigenvalue variation $\lambda_2=\mathcal{O}(\epsilon/\Delta \lambda)=\mathcal{O}(1)$ and the perturbation approach (\ref{eq:exp}) is not valid any longer.
Experimentally, the spanwise extension of the system sets a minimal value for $\beta$.
\begin{figure}
\psfrag{beta}[t][]{$\beta$}
\psfrag{alpha}[t][]{$\alpha_0$}
\psfrag{abs(lam2)}[r][][1][-90]{$|\min \lambda_{2r}|$, $|\max \lambda_{2r}|$}
\psfrag{lam2max}[b][]{}
\psfrag{lam2ds}[b][]{}
\psfrag{betamax}[b][]{}
\centerline{
\begin{overpic}[height=5.46cm,tics=10]{./fig4.eps
\end{overpic}
}
\caption{Optimal eigenvalue variations diverge like $\beta^{-2}$ as the control wavenumber decreases
(same data as figure~\ref{fig:POIS_lam_vs_beta} in logarithmic scale, $\alpha_0=0.9, 1.0, 1.1, \beta_0=0$). }
\label{fig:POIS_beta2_slope}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Validation}
\label{sec:POIS_valid}
In order to validate the sensitivity analysis, full 2D calculations were performed on base flows with optimally stabilising spanwise-periodic modifications.
The numerical method is the following.
Equations (\ref{eq:LNS_evp}) are discretised on the computational domain $y\in[-1;1]$, $z\in[0; 5\cdot 2\pi/\beta]$ with the finite element solver FreeFem++ \citep{freefem} using P2 elements for velocity components and P1 elements for pressure;
homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions $\mathbf{u}=\mathbf{0}$ are imposed at $y =\pm 1$, while periodic boundary conditions are imposed on lateral boundaries ($z=0$, $z=5\cdot 2\pi/\beta$); finally the library SLEPc \citep{slepc} is used to compute generalised eigenpairs of the eigenvalue problem with base flow $U_0(y)+\epsilon U_1(y) \cos(\beta z)$, and $U_1$ of unit 1D norm.
Figure~\ref{fig:POIS_compare1D} shows how the growth rate of the leading eigenmode varies with control amplitude, when most stabilising/destabilising flow modifications are optimised for control wavenumber $\beta=1$ and eigenmode $(\alpha_0,\beta_0)=(1,0)$.
In the stabilising case, the agreement between 1D sensitivity predictions (solid line) and full 2D calculations (symbols) is excellent. As expected, $\lambda_r$ varies quadratically with $\epsilon$.
\begin{figure}
\psfrag{k=1}[t][]{}
\psfrag{U}[t][]{$U_1$}
\psfrag{eps}[t][]{$\epsilon$}
\psfrag{y}[][][1][-90]{$y$}
\psfrag{real(lambda0)}[][][1][-90]{$\lambda_{r}\quad$}
\centerline{
\begin{overpic}[height=6cm,tics=10]{./fig5.eps
\put(24,57){\textcolor{red}{destab., I$^d$}}
\put(70,32){\textcolor{greenstab}{stab., I$^s$}}
\end{overpic}
}
\caption{
Effect of optimal 2D flow modification (spanwise-periodic, control wavenumber $\beta=1$) on the growth rate of the leading eigenmode $(\alpha_0,\beta_0)=(1,0)$.
Lines: 1D sensitivity prediction; symbols: full 2D stability calculations.
}
\label{fig:POIS_compare1D}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Robustness}
\label{sec:POIS_robust}
A question of interest is whether the most stabilising flow modification obtained for $\alpha_0=\alpha_{0,max}$ and $\beta_0=\beta_{0,max}$ is stabilising at other wavenumbers too. In other words, is the optimisation robust?
We investigate this question by choosing flow modifications optimised for the leading mode $(\alpha_0,\beta_0)=(1,0)$ and computing their effect on other modes $(\alpha_0,\beta_0) \neq (\alpha_{0,max},\beta_{0,max})$.
Figure~\ref{fig:POIS_spectrum} shows eigenspectra when the base flow is modified with control wavenumbers $\beta=0.4$ and $\beta=1.6$.
The 2D mode $\beta_0=0$ is fully restabilised as predicted by sensitivity analysis.
Three-dimensional modes
are stabilised or destabilised depending on $\beta$ and $\beta_0$.
A splitting of modes $\beta_0=\pm\beta$ and $\beta_0=\pm\beta/2$
is systematically observed as a result of the flow modification and of a subharmonic resonance,
and is consistent with Floquet analyses in other spatially periodic flows \citep{Herbert88,Hwang13}.
Therefore, the use of small flow modification wavenumbers (fig.~\ref{fig:POIS_spectrum}$(a)$) yields a large stabilising effect on the leading 2D mode, as discussed in section \ref{sec:POIS_optimflowmodif}, but this also destabilises some slightly damped 3D eigenmodes.
The choice of larger values of $\beta$ (fig.~\ref{fig:POIS_spectrum}$(b)$) circumvents this issue since the 3D modes that undergo splitting are more stable, and so remain at the amplitude $\epsilon$ needed to fully restabilise the 2D mode and thus the whole flow.
\begin{figure}
\psfrag{lr}[t][]{$\lambda_r$}
\psfrag{li}[r][][1][-90]{$\lambda_i$}
\centerline{
\hspace{0.1cm}
\begin{overpic}[height=6.6cm,tics=10]{./fig6a.eps
\put(-3,94){$(a)$}
\put(20,91){$\beta=0.4$}
%
\put(77,84.5){$\beta_0=0$}
\put(62,76.0){$\pm0.2$}
\put(58,68.5){$\pm0.4$}
\put(48,54.5){$\pm0.6$}
\put(32,43.5){$\pm0.8$}
\end{overpic}
\hspace{0.6cm}
\begin{overpic}[height=6.6cm,tics=10]{./fig6b.eps
\put(-3,94){$(b)$}
\put(20,91){$\beta=1.6$}
\put(77,84.5){$\beta_0=0$}
\put(62,76.0){$\pm0.2$}
\put(58,68.5){$\pm0.4$}
\put(48,54.5){$\pm0.6$}
\put(32,43.5){$\pm0.8$}
\end{overpic}
}
\caption{
Effect of the most stabilising spanwise-periodic flow modification $\epsilon U_1(y)\cos(\beta z)$ on leading 2D and 3D eigenvalues at $\alpha_0=1$,
with flow modification wavenumber $(a)$~$\beta=0.4$ and $(b)$~$\beta=1.6$,
and $U_1$ optimised for the most unstable eigenmode $(\alpha_0,\beta_0)=(1,0)$.
The 3D eigenpair with $\beta_0=\pm \beta/2$ undergoes a splitting, and one of the two modes becomes unstable. This issue is avoided by choosing larger $\beta$ values, since the 3D eigenmodes affected by splitting are then very stable.
$(a)$ $\epsilon=(0.18, 0.35, 0.53, 0.71)\times10^{-3}$ , $(b)$ $\epsilon=(0.18\ldots, 0.71, 0.88, 1.06)\times10^{-3}$.
}
\label{fig:POIS_spectrum}
\end{figure}
Next, we look at robustness in $\alpha_0$.
Figure~\ref{fig:POIS_robust} shows that whatever the choice of spanwise wavenumber $\beta$, flow modifications optimised to stabilise (destabilise) the leading mode at $\alpha_{0,max}$
have a stabilising (destabilising) effect at all other values of $\alpha_0$ too.
\begin{figure}
\def\thisfigy{70}
\psfrag{alpha}[t][]{$\alpha_0$}
\psfrag{lamr}[r][][1][-90]{$\lambda_{r}$}
\centerline{
\begin{overpic}[width=6cm,tics=10]{./fig7a.eps
\put(15,\thisfigy){$\beta=1$}
\put(76,67){ \textcolor{red} {I$^d$} }
\put(69,40){ \textcolor{greenstab}{I$^s$} }
\end{overpic}
\hspace{0.4cm}
\begin{overpic}[width=6cm,tics=10]{./fig7b.eps
\put(15,\thisfigy){$\beta=3$}
\put(75,67){ \textcolor{red} {I$^d$} }
\put(70,40){ \textcolor{greenstab}{I$^s$} }
\end{overpic}
}
\caption{Effect of optimal spanwise-periodic flow modification $\epsilon U_1(y)\cos(\beta z)$ on the leading growth rate with $U_1$ optimised for $(\alpha_0,\beta_0)=(\alpha_{0,max},\beta_{0,max})=(1,0)$, at control wavenumber $\beta=1$ and 3.
Branch I$^d$: most destabilising; branch I$^s$: most stabilising.
$\epsilon=0.001$.}
\label{fig:POIS_robust}
\end{figure}
\bigskip
In this section we computed the optimal spanwise-periodic flow modifications yielding the largest second-order variation in growth rate, and showed that is was possible to fully restabilise the plane channel flow with small-amplitude modifications.
In the next section, we turn to a more strongly unstable flow and investigate to what extent this strategy remains effective and robust.
\section{Results: the parallel mixing layer}
\label{sec:mixinglayer}
We now focus on the hyperbolic-tangent mixing layer $U_0(y)=1+R\tanh(y)$ \citep{Michalke64} with $R=1$, at $\Rey=100$.
Unlike the plane channel flow of section~\ref{sec:planechannel}, which is unstable only in the neighbourhood of $\alpha_{0,max}=1$ with viscous eigenmodes characterised by weak growth rates, the mixing layer is unstable in the whole band of wavenumbers $0\leq\alpha_0\leq1$, and its inviscid eigenmodes exhibit much stronger growth rates.
We use the same 1D spectral method as in section~\ref{sec:planechannel} on the domain $y\in[-5;5]$ with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions on velocity components.
The largest growth rate is obtained for the streamwise wavenumber
$\alpha_0=\alpha_{0,max}=0.45$, where the leading eigenvalue is $\lambda_0=0.1676 - 0.4500i$, in agreement with existing results \citep{Betchov63, Michalke64, Villermaux98}.
\subsection{Optimal flow modifications}
\label{sec:TANH_optimflowmodif}
We compute the most destabilising and most stabilising spanwise-periodic flow modifications according to (\ref{eq:mostdestab}).
Figure~\ref{fig:TANH_lam_vs_beta}$(a)$ shows the largest positive and negative second-order eigenvalue variations at $\alpha_0=0.5$ as a function of the control spanwise wavenumber.
Again, these curves provide bounds for the largest possible destabilisation and stabilisation.
Each of these two curves has a local extremum, $\lambda_{2r}^{d}$ and $\lambda_{2r}^{s}$ respectively, close to $\beta^{d}=\beta^{s}=0.8$.
As shown in figure~\ref{fig:TANH_lam_vs_beta}$(b)$,
for a fixed choice of $\beta$ the upper and lower bounds strongly increase with $\alpha_0$, indicating that optimal flow modifications have a stronger effect on the leading eigenmode at smaller streamwise wavelengths.
Figure~\ref{fig:TANH_lam_vs_beta}$(c)$ shows that the local extrema $\lambda_{2r}^{d}$ and $\lambda_{2r}^{s}$ increase exponentially, while the corresponding values of $\beta$ become slightly larger but remain of order $\sim$1.
For smaller values of $\beta$, the upper and lower bounds diverge like $\beta^{-2}$, like in the plane channel flow.
\begin{figure}
\psfrag{beta}[t][]{$\beta$}
\psfrag{alpha}[t][]{$\alpha_0$}
\psfrag{lam2} [][]{}
\psfrag{lam2max}[b][]{}
\psfrag{lam2ds}[b][]{}
\psfrag{betamax}[b][]{}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\centerline{
\hspace{-0.35cm}
\begin{overpic}[height=5.46cm,tics=10]{./fig8a.eps
\put(10,105.5){$(a)$ $\min \lambda_{2r}$, $\max \lambda_{2r}$}
\put(25,91){\textcolor{red}{II$^d$}}
\put(68,75){\textcolor{red}{I$^d$}}
\put(42,89){ $(\beta^d, \lambda_{2r}^d)$}
\put(41,32){ $(\beta^s, \lambda_{2r}^s)$}
\put(25,15){\textcolor{greenstab}{II$^s$}}
\put(69,45){\textcolor{greenstab}{I$^s$}}
\end{overpic}
\hspace{-0.1cm}
\begin{overpic}[height=5.59cm,tics=10]{./fig8b.eps
\put(9,103){$(b)$ $\min \lambda_{2r}$, $\max \lambda_{2r}$}
\put(41,82){\footnotesize $\alpha_0=0.3\ldots0.9$}
\end{overpic}
\hspace{0.05cm}
\begin{overpic}[height=5.68cm,tics=10]{./fig8c.eps
\put(7,101.5){$(c)$}
\put(20,88){$\lambda_{2r}^d$, $\lambda_{2r}^s$}
\put(20,39){$\beta^{d}$, $\beta^{s}$}
\end{overpic}
}
\vspace{-0.01cm}
\caption{Upper and lower bounds on $\lambda_2$, i.e. maximal destabilising (dark, red online) and stabilising (light, green online) effect on the leading growth rate, as predicted by sensitivity analysis.
$(a)$~$\alpha_0=0.5$. Crossing of branches I and II, optimal at large and small $\beta$ respectively.
Circles are calculations for the full stability problem.
$(b)$~Upper and lower bounds for $\alpha_0=0.3 \ldots 0.9$.
$(c)$~Variation with $\alpha_0$ of the local maxima and minima shown as triangles in $(a)$, and corresponding spanwise wavenumbers.
}
\label{fig:TANH_lam_vs_beta}
\end{figure}
The upper and lower bounds in figure \ref{fig:TANH_lam_vs_beta}$(a)$ are actually made of two branches which intersect and correspond to different families of flow modifications $U_1$.
We call branch I the optimal family at large $\beta$ (corresponding to the local extrema at $\beta^d$, $\beta^s$) and branch II the optimal family at small $\beta$ (diverging as $\beta \rightarrow 0$).
Optimal modifications are shown in figure~\ref{fig:TANH_U0U1branchI}
for $\alpha_0=\alpha_{0,max}=0.45$.
At small spanwise wavelength $\beta < 0.5$, the most destabilising $U_1$ is antisymmetric and the most stabilising $U_1$ is symmetric;
at larger spanwise wavelength $\beta > 0.5$, symmetry properties are exchanged as branches I and II cross.
\begin{figure}
\psfrag{U1}[t][]{$U_1$}
\psfrag{U0+U1d}[t][]{ }
\psfrag{U0+U1s}[t][]{$U_0\pm\epsilon U_1$}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\centerline{
\begin{overpic}[height=3.5cm,tics=10]{./fig9a.eps
\put(-11.5,34){$(a)$}
\put(-5,20.5){$y$}
\put( 6,37){$\beta=0.2$}
\put(26,37){$\beta=0.4$}
\put(46,37){$\beta=0.6$}
\put(66,37){$\beta=0.8$}
\put(87,37){$\beta=1$}
\end{overpic}
}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\centerline{
\begin{overpic}[height=3.5cm,tics=10]{./fig9b.eps
\put(-11,33.5){$(b)$}
\put(-5,20.5){$y$}
\put(102,20.5){\textcolor{red}{dest.}}
\end{overpic}
}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\centerline{
\begin{overpic}[height=3.5cm,tics=10]{./fig9c.eps
\put(-5,20.5){$y$}
\put(102,20.5){\textcolor{greenstab}{stab.}}
\end{overpic}
}
\caption{$(a)$ Most destabilising (dark, red online) and stabilising (light, green online) for $\alpha_0=\alpha_{0,max}=0.45$, $\beta=0.2$, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.
$(b)$ Total modified flow $U_0(y)+\epsilon U_1(y)\cos(\beta z)$ at $z=0$ and $z=\pi/\beta$ for $\epsilon=0.2$.}
\label{fig:TANH_U0U1branchI}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Validation}
\label{sec:TANH_valid}
Similarly to section \ref{sec:POIS_valid}, we compare the effect of optimal spanwise-periodic flow modifications of unit 1D norm predicted by sensitivity analysis and obtained from full 2D calculations
with the same numerical method as in sections~\ref{sec:POIS_valid}-\ref{sec:POIS_robust} on $y\in[-5;5]$, $z\in[0; 2\cdot 2\pi/\beta]$.
The variation of the leading growth rate $(\alpha_0,\beta_0)=(0.45,0)$ for control wavenumber $\beta=0.8$ (branch I) is illustrated in figure~\ref{fig:TANH_compare1D}.
The agreement is good at small amplitudes $|\epsilon| \lesssim 0.2$.
At larger amplitudes the actual growth rate departs from the expected quadratic dependence, due to non-linear effects and to other modes becoming unstable. We have not investigated the splitting described in section~\ref{sec:POIS_robust} systematically.
\begin{figure}
\psfrag{k=0.45}[t][]{}
\psfrag{U}[t][]{$U_1$}
\psfrag{eps}[t][]{$\epsilon$}
\psfrag{y}[][][1][-90]{$y$}
\psfrag{real(lambda0)}[][][1][-90]{$\lambda_{r}\quad$}
\centerline{
\begin{overpic}[height=6cm,tics=10]{./fig10.eps
\put(25,60){\textcolor{red} {dest., I$^d$}}
\put(70,35){\textcolor{greenstab}{stab., I$^s$}}
\end{overpic}
}
\caption{
Effect of optimal 2D (spanwise-periodic) at $\beta=0.8$ on the leading growth rate at $\alpha_0=\alpha_{0,max}=0.45$. Lines: sensitivity prediction; symbols: full stability calculations.
}
\label{fig:TANH_compare1D}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Robustness}
\label{sec:TANH_robust}
Since the mixing layer is unstable over a wide range of streamwise wavenumbers, it is important to assess the robustness of the flow modifications designed for the most unstable mode $\alpha_0=\alpha_{0,max}$.
We investigate this point by computing the variation in the leading growth rate predicted by (\ref{eq:ev23}) when the flow is modified with $\epsilon U_1(y)\cos(\beta z)$, where $\epsilon=0.1$ and $U_1$ is chosen in branch I for $\alpha_0=\alpha_{0,max}=0.45$.
Figure~\ref{fig:TANH_robust} shows that whatever the choice of spanwise wavenumber $\beta$, flow modifications optimised to stabilise (destabilise) the leading mode at
$\alpha_{0,max}$
have a stabilising (destabilising) effect at almost all other values of $\alpha_0$ too.
This effect is negligible at small $\alpha_0$, and larger at larger $\alpha_0$.
This is due to the dispersion relation at small $\alpha_0$ being independent of the details of the velocity profile:
in particular, according to the Kelvin-Helmholtz dispersion relation
$\lambda_r=\alpha_0 \Delta U/2$ pertaining to the vorticity sheet model, the growth rate is only determined by the velocity difference $\Delta U$ between the two streams.
In contrast, the maximal growth rate and the cut-off wavenumber are influenced by other characteristics of the velocity profile (e.g. thickness and shear).
Here, since $U_1(y)$ vanishes far from $y=0$, the velocity difference $\Delta U=2R$ remains constant, and so does the growth rate at small $\alpha_0$.
\begin{figure}
\psfrag{alpha}[t][]{$\alpha_0$}
\psfrag{lamr}[][]{$\lambda_{r}$}
\hspace{0.2cm}
\centerline{
\begin{overpic}[width=13cm,tics=10]{./fig11.eps
\put(4.5,28){$\beta=0.8$}
\put(23,24){\textcolor{red}{I$^d$}}
\put(18,19){\textcolor{greenstab}{I$^s$}}
%
\put(37,28){$\beta=1.5$}
\put(56,24){\textcolor{red}{I$^d$}}
\put(51,19){\textcolor{greenstab}{I$^s$}}
\put(70,28){$\beta=3$}
\put(89,24){\textcolor{red}{I$^d$}}
\put(84,19){\textcolor{greenstab}{I$^s$}}
\put(-4.5,18){$\lambda_r$}
\end{overpic}
}
\caption{Effect of optimal spanwise-periodic flow modification $\epsilon U_1(y)\cos(\beta z)$ on the leading growth rate with $U_1$ optimised for $\alpha_0=\alpha_{0,max}=0.45$ and $\beta=0.8$, 1.5, 3.
Branch I$^d$: most destabilising; branch I$^s$: most stabilising.
$\epsilon=0.1$.}
\label{fig:TANH_robust}
\end{figure}
\bigskip
In this section we showed that strongly unstable eigenmodes in the mixing layer were made more stable by adding optimal 2D spanwise-periodic modifications to the base flow.
Modifications designed for the most unstable streamwise wavenumber $\alpha_{0,max}$ have a stabilising effect on other unstable wavenumbers $\alpha_0$. A wide range of modification wavenumbers $\beta$ were found to be effective.
In the next section, we investigate how the impact of 2D spanwise-periodic modifications can be increased by taking advantage of non-normal transient growth, and achieving large modifications from initially small perturbations.
\section{Leveraging transient growth to increase stabilisation}
\label{sec:combined}
Non-normal mechanisms can lead to substantial transient growth in many flows \citep{Butler92,Trefethen93,Schmid01}.
This phenomenon is thought to make possible subcritical transition to turbulence in linearly stable flows, like the flow in a circular pipe,
since small-amplitude perturbations can undergo large (linear) amplification and eventually trigger (non-linear) destabilisation.
This potential for large amplification has also been exploited as a control strategy: it has been observed that streamwise vortices amplified into streamwise streaks through the lift-up mechanism are able to stabilise boundary layers \citep{Cossu02,Fra05} and wakes \citep{DelGuercio2014}.
It remains unclear, however,
whether optimally amplified perturbations always have a stabilising effect, and
whether there exist other perturbations that undergo a smaller amplification but eventually yield a larger stabilisation.
In this section we revisit this control strategy in terms of optimal flow modification.
\textcolor{black}{
We consider the stabilising effect of spanwise-periodic perturbations undergoing transient amplification.
This is similar in spirit to the study of
\cite{DelGuercio2014}, but instead of computing
\textit{a posteriori} the stabilising effect of optimally amplified perturbations, we rather optimise
\textit{simultaneously} transient growth and stabilising effect at the time of maximal amplification, and we thus determine
\textit{combined} optimal perturbations.
It should be noted that we do not aim at complete restabilisation but rather wish to determine what kind of structure yields the largest overall stabilising effect.
The approach relies on an extension of the optimisation method presented earlier (section \ref{sec:optimal}).
}
While the stabilisation/destabilisation of streamwise streaks has been shown in the literature to depend on their amplitude, we consider the effect of arbitrary streamwise-invariant spanwise-periodic structures under the strong hypothesis of their linear transient evolution. This is an important limitation of the present analysis.
As the streaks evolve non-linearly, two effects may contribute to mitigate the present results:
first the amplitude may saturate \citep{Cossu04} which would yield a quantitative difference;
second and more importantly, non-linear saturated streaks remain spanwise periodic but they lose their pure sinusoidal character in $z$, as higher harmonics are generated.
Another important limitation of the proposed approach is to consider, following \cite{Cossu04} and
\cite{Reddy98}, that a separation of time scales applies between the fast scale of the exponential instability of the nominal base flow and the rather slow scale of transient growth mechanisms.
Therefore, the proposed combined optimisation is not expected to yield quantitatively accurate results, but rather constitutes a means to investigate the mechanisms at hand in streaky flows.
As explained later on, it will allow us to interpret streamwise streaks as particularly efficient structures that both benefit from transient growth and effectively stabilise the flow.
\subsection{Combined optimisation}
\label{sec:combinedmethod}
We first leave stabilisation aside and recall the concept of transient growth.
Denoting energy amplification from 0 to $t$ as $G(t) = ||\mathbf{u}(t)||^2 / ||\mathbf{u}(0)||^2$,
and $\mathbf{P}$ the linear operator that propagates perturbations in time according to (\ref{eq:LNS}) such that $\mathbf{u}(t)=\mathbf{P}(t)\mathbf{u}(0)$,
the optimal transient growth can be computed at every time $t$ as
\begin{subeqnarray}
G_{opt}(t)
= \max_{||\mathbf{u}(0)||=1} G(t)
&=& \max_{||\mathbf{u}(0)||=1} \ps{\mathbf{u}(t)}{\mathbf{u}(t)}
\\
&=& \max_{||\mathbf{u}(0)||=1} \ps{\mathbf{P}(t)\mathbf{u}(0)}{\mathbf{P}(t)\mathbf{u}(0)}
\\
&=& \lambda_{max} \left\{ \mathbf{P}^\dag \mathbf{P} \right\},
\end{subeqnarray}
and the corresponding optimal initial perturbation is the associated eigenvector $\mathbf{u}_{opt}(0)$.
The largest value of optimal transient growth over all times is reached for some time $T$: $G_{opt}(T) = \max_{t} G_{opt}(t)$.
Optimally amplified perturbations in the plane channel flow and in the mixing layer are shown in figure~\ref{fig:optTG}$(a),(b)$ for oblique perturbation wavenumbers $(\alpha,\beta)=(0,2)$ and $(\alpha,\beta)=(0,0.35)$ respectively. They lead to the maximal optimal growth over all wavenumbers $\max_{\alpha,\beta} G_{opt}(T)=7047$ and $\max_{\alpha,\beta} G_{opt}(T)=1328$.
In both flows, streamwise vortices at $t=0$ (arrows, $v$ and $w$ components) are amplified into streamwise streaks at $t=T$ (contours, $u$ component).
The same computational method also yields a family of orthogonal suboptimal perturbations.
In the plane channel flow, the first suboptimal perturbation (shown in figure~\ref{fig:optTG}$(c)$) leads to a maximal amplification $G_{subopt}=3694$ (figure~\ref{fig:optTG}$(e)$). This is smaller than $G_{opt}(T)$ but of comparable order, while the amplification of following suboptimals is smaller by orders of magnitude, as already observed by \cite{Butler92}.
In the mixing layer, the first suboptimal perturbation (shown in figure~\ref{fig:optTG}$(d)$) leads to a maximal amplification $G_{subopt}=16$, two orders of magnitude smaller than $G_{opt}(T)$ (figure~\ref{fig:optTG}$(f)$).
\textcolor{black}{
In both flows, the typical time scale for transient growth/decay is of the order of $10^2$.
}
\begin{figure}
\psfrag{z}[t][]{$\beta z$}
\psfrag{t}[t][]{$t$}
\psfrag{y}[][][1][-90]{$y\quad$}
\psfrag{G}[][][1][-90]{$G_{opt}\qquad$}
\vspace{1cm}
\centerline{
\begin{overpic}[height=5cm,tics=10]{./fig12a.eps
\put(-3,80.5){$(a)$}
\put(40,89){Plane channel}
\end{overpic}
\hspace{0.9cm}
\begin{overpic}[height=5cm,tics=10]{./fig12b.eps
\put(-3.5,82.5){$(b)$}
\put(40,91.5){Mixing layer}
\end{overpic}
}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\centerline{
\begin{overpic}[height=5cm,tics=10]{./fig12c.eps
\put(-3,80.5){$(c)$}
\end{overpic}
\hspace{0.9cm}
\begin{overpic}[height=5cm,tics=10]{./fig12d.eps
\put(-3.5,82.5){$(d)$}
\end{overpic}
}
\vspace{0.35cm}
\centerline{
\hspace{0.05cm}
\begin{overpic}[height=5cm,tics=10]{./fig12e.eps
\put(-4.5,75){$(e)$}
\put(71,65){\textcolor{magenta}{Optimal} }
\put(32,30){\textcolor{magenta}{First suboptimal} }
\end{overpic}
\hspace{0.45cm}
\begin{overpic}[height=5cm,tics=10]{./fig12f.eps
\put(-5,75){$(f)$}
\put(53,65){\textcolor{magenta}{Optimal} }
\put(28,17){\textcolor{magenta}{First suboptimal} }
\end{overpic}
}
\caption{
$(a),(b)$ Optimal and $(c),(d)$ first suboptimal perturbations for transient growth only.
Arrows: initial $(v,w)$ components (streamwise vortices);
contours: $u$ component after optimal amplification (streamwise streaks, low speed in dark, high speed in light).
$(e),(f)$ Growth versus time for optimal and first suboptimal perturbations.
$(a),(c),(e)$ Plane channel flow, $\Rey=6000$, $(\alpha,\beta)=(0,2)$;
$(b),(d),(f)$ Mixing layer, $\Rey=100$, $(\alpha,\beta)=(0,0.35)$.
}
\label{fig:optTG}
\end{figure}
If we now turn to \textit{combined} optimisation, we look for perturbations that, after amplification, lead to maximal stabilisation.
We optimise for the \textit{combined} stabilising effect $\lambda_{2r}^c$ as
\begin{subeqnarray}
\min_{||\mathbf{u}(0)||=1} \lambda_{2r}^c
& = &
\min_{||\mathbf{u}(0)||=1} \ps{u(t)}{\frac{1}{2} \left( \widetilde\mathbf{S}_{2r}+\widetilde\mathbf{S}_{2r}^T \right) u(t)}
\\
& =& \min_{||\mathbf{u}(0)||=1} \ps{\mathbf{P}_u(t) \mathbf{u}(0)}{\frac{1}{2} \left( \widetilde\mathbf{S}_{2r}+\widetilde\mathbf{S}_{2r}^T \right) \mathbf{P}_u(t) \mathbf{u}(0)}
\\
& =& \lambda_{min} \left\{\frac{1}{2} \mathbf{P}^\dag_u \left( \widetilde\mathbf{S}_{2r}+\widetilde\mathbf{S}_{2r}^T \right) \mathbf{P}_u \right\}
\label{eq:comb}
\end{subeqnarray}
Here we used $U_1=u(t)$ as the flow modification in (\ref{eq:mostdestab}) and neglected $v$ and $w$ components, which will be justified \textit{a posteriori}. Accordingly, $\mathbf{P}_u$ is a shorthand notation for the action of $\mathbf{P}$ followed by an extraction of the streamwise component.
The combined optimal perturbation is denoted $\mathbf{u}_{opt}^c$.
\subsection{Results}
Optimisation was carried out with transient growth at oblique wavenumbers $(\alpha,\beta)=(0,\beta)$, and with destabilisation/stabilisation of the most unstable mode $(\alpha_0,\beta_0)=(\alpha_{0,max},0)$.
\textcolor{black}{
In this section we focus on the mixing layer flow at $\Rey=100$, where the characteristic instability time scale $1/\lambda_r$ is of the order of $10^0$, much smaller than the evolution time scale of the streaks.
In the plane channel flow at $\Rey=6000$, the instability is weaker and the separation of time scales does not hold.
}
The evolution of combined optimal effects is shown as thick lines in figure~\ref{fig:opt_lam_combined}.
At $t=0$, the result of the optimisation is simply the optimal flow modification without transient growth, as already presented in section
\ref{sec:mixinglayer}.
At later times, the combined optimisation identifies perturbations that achieve the best trade-off between amplification from 0 to $t$ and destabilisation/stabilisation at $t$.
Optimisation at $\beta=1$
yields a large stabilising effect over an extended time interval, thanks to the combination of amplification and flow modification.
Indeed, combined optimal perturbations are very similar to transient growth-only optimal perturbations, whose effect (dashed line) is as large as the combined optimal effect.
At $\beta=2$, however,
transient growth-only optimal perturbations have a \textit{destabilising} effect and therefore cannot be used to control the flow.
Nevertheless, a \textit{stabilising} combined effect can be obtained by choosing other perturbations, as indicated by the lower thick line.
The stabilising combined optimal perturbations turn out to be similar to the first suboptimal perturbations for transient growth, which exploit the same lift-up mechanism but have the opposite symmetry in $y$: two vortices amplified into two streaks on each side of the shear layer (fig.~\ref{fig:optTG}$(d)$), whereas optimal perturbations consist of one single vortex amplified into one streak centred in $y=0$ (fig.~\ref{fig:optTG}$(b)$).
\begin{figure}
\psfrag{t}[t][]{$t$}
\psfrag{lam2r}[][][1][-90]{$\lambda_{2r}^c \quad$}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\centerline{
\begin{overpic}[height=6.2cm,tics=10]{./fig13.eps
\put(-3,91){$(a)$}
\put(-2,43){$(b)$}
\put(80,88){$\beta=1$}
\put(80,40){$\beta=2$}
\end{overpic}
}
\caption{
Optimal \textit{combined} transient growth and eigenvalue variation in the mixing layer at $\Rey=100$.
Thick lines show the optimal combined effects for stabilisation and destabilisation;
triangles indicate the maximal stabilising effect over all times.
Dashed lines (resp. thin dash-dotted lines) show to
optimal (resp. first suboptimal) perturbations for transient growth only;
circles: corresponding eigenvalue variation at optimal amplification time.
Transient growth at
$(a)$~$(\alpha=0,\beta=1)$ and
$(b)$~$(\alpha=0,\beta=2)$;
effect on the leading eigenvalue $(\alpha_0,\beta_0)=(0.45,0)$.
}
\label{fig:opt_lam_combined}
\end{figure}
In all cases, we observed that the combined optimal perturbations quickly became and remained unidirectional: the $v_{opt}^c$ and $w_{opt}^c$ components were much smaller than $u_{opt}^c$ well before the time of largest destabilisation/stabilisation, which justifies (\ref{eq:comb}).
Figure~\ref{fig:lam2r_combined} summarises the variation of the maximal combined stabilising effect with $\beta$.
The thick line shows the optimum over all times, and therefore provides a bound for the eigenvalue variation.
At small wavenumbers $\beta \lesssim 1.5$, the effect of optimally amplified streaks closely follows the optimal combined stabilising effect.
Combined optimal perturbations are very similar to optimally amplified perturbations, whose effect (dashed line) is of the same order, and is reached after a comparable amplification time.
In this range of wavenumbers, the optimal strategy to stabilise the flow at minimal cost is therefore precisely to introduce optimally amplified streaks.
Other types of perturbations do not perform as well, either because they undergo a smaller amplification or because the flow modification that they induce has a smaller stabilising effect.
At larger wavenumbers $\beta \gtrsim 1.5$, optimally amplified perturbations are destabilising. Instead, the largest combined stabilisation is obtained with the first suboptimal perturbations for transient growth (dash-dotted line), which exhibit smaller cross-stream structures but undergo the same lift-up mechanism.
\begin{figure}
\psfrag{b}[t][]{$\beta$}
\psfrag{lam2r}[][][1][-90]{$\lambda_{2r}^c$}
\vspace{1cm}
\centerline{
\begin{overpic}[height=4.917cm,tics=10]{./fig14.eps
\put(17,25){\tiny \textcolor{magenta}{Optimal for pure}}
\put(17,20){\tiny \textcolor{magenta}{transient growth}}
\put(28,65){\tiny \textcolor{magenta}{1st suboptimal}}
\put(65,40){\textcolor{myorange}{Combined}}
\put(67,33){\textcolor{myorange}{optimal}}
\end{overpic}
}
\caption{Largest stabilising effect $\lambda_{2r}^c$ (thick line) obtained from the combined optimisation of transient growth and eigenvalue variation, versus control wavenumber $\beta$.
Any other perturbation falls above the thick line, i.e. outside the grey region.
The dashed line (resp. thin dash-dotted line) shows the stabilising effect of transient growth-only optimal (resp. first suboptimal) perturbations.
Mixing layer, $\Rey=100$, $\alpha_0=\alpha_{0,max}=0.45$.}
\label{fig:lam2r_combined}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Discussion}
In previous sections we have presented optimally stabilising flow modifications $U_1$, optimal perturbations $u_{opt}$ for transient growth only, and combined optimal perturbations $u_{opt}^c$ for transient growth and stabilisation.
We now compare the effect of these 2D (spanwise-periodic) modulations with the effect of 1D (spanwise-invariant) base flow modifications.
Since the effect of spanwise-periodic modifications $\epsilon U_1(y) \cos(\beta z)$ is quadratic,
$|\lambda-\lambda_0| \sim \epsilon^2$, one can expect that it should be overcome at small amplitudes $\epsilon$ by the non-zero linear effect
$|\lambda-\lambda_0| \sim \epsilon$ of spanwise-invariant modifications $\epsilon U_1^{1D}(y)$.
We use first-order sensitivity \citep{Bottaro03} to compute the eigenvalue sensitivity to 1D flow modification
$S_1
= \mathbf{e}_x\bcdot(-\uua_0 \bcdot \bnabla \mathbf{u}_0^H + \overline\mathbf{u}_0 \bcdot \bnabla \uua_0)
= i\alpha_0 (2\overline u_0 u^\dag_0 + \overline v_0 v^\dag_0) + \overline v_0 \partial_y u^\dag_0$.
We then deduce the optimal 1D flow modification, equal to the real part of the sensitivity itself, $U_1^{1D}=S_{1r}$, and the maximal growth rate variation, $\max\lambda_{1r}=\ps{S_{1r}}{U_1^{1D}}=\ps{S_{1r}}{S_{1r}}$.
We compare in figure \ref{fig:POIS_compare1D-with_TG}$(a)$ the effects of optimal 1D and 2D flow modifications of unit norm \textit{per unit spanwise length}, taking into account the total cost of modifying the flow over a given $z$ region.
For intermediate wavenumber values (here $\beta=0.8$) and for the amplitudes of interest, the optimal 1D flow modification $U_1^{1D}$ has a stronger stabilising effect than its 2D counterpart $U_1$ (also denoted $U_1^{2D}$ for clarity).
Remarkably, combined optimal perturbations $u_{opt}^c$ have an even larger stabilising effect, as a result of transient growth.
As mentioned earlier, $u_{opt}$ has an effect very similar to that of $u_{opt}^c$ for the wavenumber considered here.
Figure \ref{fig:POIS_compare1D-with_TG}$(b)$ shows the corresponding velocity profiles.
The optimal 1D modification appears to be qualitatively similar to the optimally stabilising 2D modification:
$U_1^{1D}$ has antisymmetric structures localised on each side of the shear layer but farther away than $U_1^{2D}$ (in a fashion actually similar to the optimally destabilising 2D modification at small wavenumber; see fig.~\ref{fig:TANH_U0U1branchI}).
It should be noted that for 1D spanwise-invariant flow modification it is enough to change the sign of $U_1^{1D}$ to turn a stabilising effect into a destabilising one and vice-versa, in contrast to 2D spanwise-periodic flow modification since stabilising and destabilising $U_1^{2D}$ have different structures (figures~\ref{fig:POIS_U0} and \ref{fig:TANH_U0U1branchI}).
Combined optimal perturbations $u_{opt}^c$ have radically different velocity profiles, more widely distributed than $U_1$ and with the opposite symmetry.
This is the result of initial perturbations being
smoothed out by diffusion during transient amplification; one can therefore expect that these optimal structures would be easier to produce robustly in experiments.
Again, it also indicates that combined optimal perturbations have an intrinsic stabilising effect that is suboptimal when considered alone, but they achieve a large combined stabilising effect when taking advantage of amplification.
\begin{figure}
\psfrag{eps}[t][]{$\epsilon$}
\psfrag{real(lambda0)}[][][1][-90]{$\lambda_{r}\quad$}
\psfrag{dreal(lambda0)}[][][1][-90]{$\delta\lambda_{r}\quad$}
\psfrag{y}[][][1][-90]{$y$}
\psfrag{q1D}[t][]{$U_1^{1D}$}
\psfrag{U1}[t][]{$U_1^{2D}$}
\psfrag{qcomb(T)}[t][]{$u_{opt}^c(T)$}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\centerline{
\begin{overpic}[height=5cm,tics=10]{./fig15a
\put(-3,70){$(a)$}
\put(72,47) { \textcolor{greenstab}{$U_1^{2D}$} }
\put(24,32) { $U_1^{1D}$ }
\put(63,25) { \textcolor{myorange}{$u_{opt}^c(T)$,} }
\put(63,18) { \textcolor{magenta}{$u_{opt}(T)$} }
\end{overpic}
\hspace{0.2cm}
\begin{overpic}[height=5.cm,tics=10]{./fig15b
\put(1,74){$(b)$}
\end{overpic}
}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\caption{$(a)$ Growth rate variation for \textit{combined} optimal perturbations as a function of amplitude $\epsilon$, compared to 1D and 2D optimal flow modifications for pure stabilisation.
$(b)$ Corresponding profiles of streamwise velocity:
1D optimal $U_1^{1D}$,
2D optimal $U_1^{2D}$, and
\textit{combined} optimal after amplification $u_{opt}^c(T)$.
The optimal perturbation for pure transient growth $u_{opt}(T)$ is also shown as a dashed line superimposed onto the \textit{combined} optimal, but the two curves are indistinguishable.
Mixing layer, $\beta=0.8$, eigenmode $(\alpha_0,\beta_0)=(0.45,0)$, $\Rey=100$.
}
\label{fig:POIS_compare1D-with_TG}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
We have determined analytically the second-order sensitivity of the leading eigenvalue in parallel flows
with respect to small-amplitude spanwise-periodic velocity modifications of wavenumber $\beta$.
The explicit derivation of a second-order sensitivity operator allowed us to obtain the eigenvalue variation induced by any such flow modification without ever solving the modified eigenvalue problem or calculating the first-order eigenmode correction.
Predictions from sensitivity analysis have been validated against numerical calculations of the full stability problem, and quadratic variations with modification amplitude were observed.
For any pair of eigenmode streamwise wavenumber $\alpha_0$ and base flow modification spanwise wavenumber $\beta$, we have maximised the eigenvalue variation and determined the most destabilising and stabilising flow modifications.
In the plane channel flow, the optimal modifications are localised close to the walls near critical layers, and show little variation with $\beta$;
in the mixing layer, they are centred around the location of maximum shear, and become more concentrated with increasing $\beta$.
We observed that the optimal variations in growth rate increased like $\lambda_{2r}\sim\beta^{-2}$ for small control wavenumbers, and explained that this scaling was consistent with an interaction between unperturbed 2D and 3D eigenmodes.
Spanwise-periodic flow modifications also appeared to have a larger effect on modes of larger streamwise wavenumber $\alpha_0$.
Modifications optimised for the most unstable mode
have a robust effect on modes with other $\alpha_0$. A splitting of 3D modes with $\beta_0=\pm\beta$ and $\beta_0=\pm\beta/2$ suggests the choice of large enough control wavenumbers so as not to destabilise weakly damped 3D modes.
In a second step aimed at increasing the stabilising effect and thus reducing the required control amplitude, we optimised simultaneously the
\textcolor{black}{linear} transient growth of initial perturbations and the subsequent eigenvalue variation induced by the resulting flow modification,
\textcolor{black}{under the assumption of separation of time scales between transient growth and instability.}
In the mixing layer, this combined optimisation revealed that the perturbations undergoing the largest transient growth were also the combined optimals for small enough control wavenumbers, $\beta \lesssim 1.5$, which justifies \textit{a posteriori} the ``vaccination'' strategy proposed by \cite{Cossu02} to take advantage of the amplification of streamwise vortices into streamwise streaks through lift-up.
As $\beta$ increases, optimally amplified perturbations gradually become destabilising, and the combined optimal turns out to correspond to the first suboptimal for pure transient growth.
The method readily applies to the quadratic sensitivity of the eigenmode frequency, if one wishes, for instance, to detune vortex the shedding frequency, and can easily be extended to other flow quantities.
Combined optimal perturbations could be created experimentally with a method similar to that of \cite{Fra05}, who used roughness elements in a boundary-layer flow to produce streamwise vortices amplified by transient growth into streamwise streaks.
In the mixing layer these roughness elements could be placed on one or both sides of the splitting plate used to create the shear layer.
One could also imagine using wall actuation to create the initial streamwise vortices.
We are presently working on generalising the second-order optimisation technique presented in this paper to non-parallel flows.
In spatially developing flows, the method is conceptually similar but involves a number of complications.
First, the large number of degrees of freedom prevents the explicit calculation of the inverse operator $(\lambda_0\mathbf{E}+\mathbf{A}_0)^{-1}$, but optimisation should still be possible since it only requires repeated evaluations of matrix-vector products.
Second, the derivation of adjoint operators is technically more involved.
In view of recent publications which describe the quadratic dependence of the growth rate on the amplitude of spanwise-periodic control in spatially developing flows such as wakes behind a circular cylinder \citep{Kim05,DelGuercio2014} and behind a flat plate of finite thickness \citep{Tammi14}, this generalisation appears to be a promising research direction.
|
\section{\normalsize \textcolor{blue}{Introduction}}\label{sec:intro}
\vfil
\hspace{.5cm}
{\it Higher gauge theory} is a generalisation of ordinary gauge theory
describing the dynamics of charged objects of any dimension.
It has found application in string theory in the study of
$D$-- and $M$--branes \cite{Polchinski:1998rr,Becker:2007zj,Johnson:2003gi}
as well as loop quantum gravity and, in particular, spin foam models
\cite{Baez:1999sr,Rovelli:2004tv}.
See ref. \cite{Baez:2010ya} for an easy to read,
up--to--date exposition of this subject and extensive referencing.
\vfil
From a mathematical point of view, higher gauge theory intersects various branches
of modern mathematics. On the algebraic side, it is related to the theory of higher
algebraic structures, such as higher categories, higher groups \cite{Baez5,Baez:2003fs}
and strong homotopy Lie or $L_\infty$ algebras \cite{Lada:1992wc,Lada:1994mn}; on the
geometrical one, it leads naturally to higher geometrical structures such as gerbes
both in the Abelian and non Abelian variant \cite{Brylinski:1993ab,Breen:2001ie}.
A recent treatment of these matters with a physical outlook can be found
in \cite{Schreiber2011,Gruetzmann:2014ica}.
\vfil
Though higher gauge theory has a long story that can be traced back to the
inception of supergravity theory, in its modern form it has been formulated relatively recently
in the seminal papers by Baez \cite{Baez:2002jn} and Baez and Schreiber \cite{Baez:2004in,Baez:2005qu}.
A pivotal role is attributed to the analysis of higher parallel transport.
Many papers have been written about the precise and rigorous definition of
parallel transport. We have in mind in particular for the influence they had
on our work the papers by Schreiber and Waldorf \cite{Schrei:2009,Schrei:2011,Schrei:2008}
and Martins and Picken \cite{Martins:2007,Martins:2008,Martins:2009}. Recent contributions include
\cite{Morton:2013dla} and \cite{Abad:2014a,Abad:2014b}.
\vfil
In this paper, we propose a new formulation of parallel transport in strict higher gauge
theory. We do not claim any new results but we only offer a new perspective from which to
view old ones, which hopefully may provide new insight.
Our interest in this subject has been prompted by our recent formulation
of semistrict higher gauge theory aimed to higher Chern--Simons theory,
in which we circumvent the difficulties related to
the integration of the underlying semistrict Lie $2$--algebra to a semistrict $2$--group,
when possible, by relying on the automorphism $2$--group of the Lie $2$--algebra, which is
always strict \cite{Zucchini:2011aa,Soncini:2014ara}. (See also
\cite{Jurco:2014mva} for an alternative approach.) In a companion paper, we plan to
study the issue of higher holonomy and invariant traces on the same lines \cite{SZ:2015}.
Our formulation is based on an original notion
of Lie crossed module cocycle and cocycle $1$-- and $2$--gauge
transformation with a non standard double category theoretic
interpretation. (See \cite{Martins:2007,Martins:2008} and
\cite{Morton:2013dla} for related approaches.)
\subsection{\normalsize \textcolor{blue}{The scope and the plan of this paper}}\label{subsec:scope}
\hspace{.5cm}
In this introductory subsection, we want to convey an intuitive idea of our formulation of
higher parallel transport theory by reviewing first the cocycle approach to the ordinary theory
and then outlining the higher generalization of it we propose.
Here, we have no pretension of full mathematical rigor. Everything we say below holds in the smooth category.
Let $G$ be a Lie group. A $G$--cocycle is a map $f:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow G$ obeying
\begin{equation}
f(x'',x')f(x',x)=f(x'',x).
\label{scope1}
\end{equation}
A $G$--connection $a$ is just a $\mathfrak{g}$--valued $1$--form on $\mathbb{R}$.
$G$--cocycles are in one--to--one correspondence with $G$--connections. The $G$--connection $a_f$
corresponding to a $G$--cocycle $f$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
a_{fx}(x)=-d_{x'}f(x',x)f(x',x)^{-1}\big|_{x'=x}.
\label{scope2}
\end{equation}
The $G$--cocycle $f_a$ corresponding to a $G$--connection $a$ is given by $f_a(x,x_0)=u_{x_0}(x)$,
where $u_{x_0}$ is the unique solution of the differential problem
\begin{equation}
d_xu_{x_0}(x)u_{x_0}(x)^{-1}=-a_x(x), \qquad u_{x_0}(x_0)=1_G.
\label{scope3}
\end{equation}
A $G$--gauge transformation is simply a mapping $\varkappa:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow G$.
$G$--gauge transformations act on $G$--cocycles and $G$--connections. The gauge transform of
a cocycle $f$ by a gauge transformation $\varkappa$ is
\begin{equation}
{}^\varkappa f(x',x)=\varkappa(x')f(x',x)\varkappa(x)^{-1}.
\label{scope4}
\end{equation}
The gauge transform of a connection $a$ by a gauge transformation $\varkappa$ is given by the familiar relation
\begin{equation}
{}^\varkappa a_x(x)=\Ad\varkappa(x)(a_x(x))-d_x \varkappa(x)\varkappa(x)^{-1}.
\label{scope5}
\end{equation}
These actions are furthermore compatible with the cocycle to connection correspondence.
The above has a categorical formulation. Let $\mathbb{GR}$ be the oriented segment groupoid of $\mathbb{R}$,
the familiar groupoid of pairs of elements $\mathbb{R}$, and $BG$ be the delooping of $G$, the one object groupoid
whose morphisms set is $G$. Then, a $G$--cocycle $f$ can be viewed as a functor $f:\mathbb{GR}\rightarrow BG$.
Further, any $G$--gauge transformation $\varkappa$ encodes a natural transformation
$\varkappa:f\Rightarrow {}^\varkappa f$.
Parallel transport in a gauge theory with gauge group $G$ on a manifold $M$ can now be defined as follows.
For simplicity we assume that the background principal $G$--bundle is trivial.
A $G$--connection $\theta$ is then simply a $\mathfrak{g}$--valued $1$--form on $M$.
Given two points $p_0$, $p_1$ of $M$ a curve $\gamma:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ in $M$ with sitting instants
joining them, the pull--back $\gamma^*\theta$ is a
$G$--connection in the sense defined in the previous paragraph. With this, there is associated a $G$--cocycle
$f_{\gamma^*\theta}$. The parallel transport induced by $\theta$ along $\gamma$ is then given by
\begin{equation}
F_\theta(\gamma)=f_{\gamma^*\theta}(1,0).
\label{scope6}
\end{equation}
A $G$--gauge transformation is just a $G$--valued map $g$ on $M$. It acts on a $G$--connection $\theta$ in the
well--known way,
\begin{equation}
{}^g \theta=\Ad g(\theta)-dgg^{-1}.
\label{scope7}
\end{equation}
The associated parallel transport transforms correspondingly as
\begin{equation}
F_{{}^g\theta}(\gamma)=g(p_1)F_\theta(\gamma)g(p_0)^{-1}.
\label{scope8}
\end{equation}
since $g$ yields a $G$--gauge transformation $\gamma^*g$ on $\gamma^*\theta$ in the sense defined in the preceding paragraph.
From a categorical point of view, it is found that $F_\theta$ defines a functor $F_\theta:(M, P_1M)\rightarrow BG$
from the path groupoid $(M, P_1M)$ of $M$ to $BG$ and that $g$ defines a natural transformation $g:F_\theta\Rightarrow F_{{}^g\theta}$.
In this paper, we show that the cocycle based formulation of parallel transport of ordinary gauge theory outlined above
admits a non trivial extension to strict higher gauge theory. Let $(G,H)$ be a Lie crossed module. In sect. \ref{sec:highcocy},
we introduce the notion of $(G,H)$--cocycle, a triple of three maps $f:\mathbb{R}^3\rightarrow G$,
$g:\mathbb{R}^3\rightarrow G$ and $W:\mathbb{R}^4\rightarrow H$ obeying relations extending \eqref{scope1} and a target matching
condition relating $f$ $g$ and $W$, and recall that of $(G,H)$--connection doublet, a pair of a $\mathfrak{g}$--valued
$1$--form $a$ and a $\mathfrak{h}$--valued $2$--form $B$ on $\mathbb{R}^2$ satisfying the so--called zero fake curvature
condition familiar in higher gauge theory. We show then that
there is a one--to--one correspondence between $(G,H)$--cocycles and $(G,H)$--connection doublets
analogous to \eqref{scope2}, \eqref{scope3}.
We introduce next the notion of integral $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformation, a triple constituted by three maps
$\kappa:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow G$ and $\varPsi:\mathbb{R}^3\rightarrow H$, $\varPhi:\mathbb{R}^3\rightarrow H$
obeying certain cocycle relations, and of differential $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformation, a pair of a $G$--valued map
$\varkappa$ and a $\mathfrak{h}$--valued $1$--form $\varGamma$ on $\mathbb{R}^2$. We prove then the existence of
a one--to--one correspondence between integral and differential $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformations.
Integral $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformations are next shown to act on $(G,H)$ cocycles by an extension of \eqref{scope5} and, similarly,
differential $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformations on $(G,H)$--connection doublets through the usual
higher gauge theoretic prescription generalizing \eqref{scope6} and these actions are found to be compatible with the
correspondences between cocycles and connection doublets and integral and differential gauge transformations.
Finally, we introduce the notion of $(G,H)$--$2$--gauge transformation, a single mapping $A:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow H$,
and show that $(G,H)$--$2$--gauge transformations act both on integral and differential $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformations
in a way that is compatible with the correspondence between the two.
The above construction has a remarkable double categorical interpretation. The basic ingredients of this are
the double groupoid $\mathbb{GR}^2$ of oriented rectangles of $\mathbb{R}^2$ and the edge symmetric double groupoid
$B(G,H)$ canonically associated to the Lie crossed module $(G,H)$. A $(G,H)$--cocycle amounts to a double functor
$\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow B(G,H)$. An integral $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformation encodes a form of double natural
transformation between a $(G,H)$--cocycle and its $1$--gauge transform. Finally, a $(G,H)$--$2$--gauge transformation
yields a double modifications between an integral $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformation and its $2$--gauge transform.
The notion of double natural transformation and modification we use are not standard
and are precisely defined in the appendix. This may be of some interest in category theory.
In sect. \ref{sec:hiholo}, we rederive higher parallel transport theory originally obtained in the references
recalled above using higher cocycle theory.
We consider a strict higher gauge theory with gauge crossed module $(G,H)$ on a manifold $M$
for a trivial $(G,H)$ $2$--bundle. A $(G,H)$ connection doublet is a pair of a $\mathfrak{g}$--valued
$1$--form $\theta$ and a $\mathfrak{h}$--valued $2$--form $\varUpsilon$ on $M$ satisfying
the zero fake curvature condition. If $\gamma_0$, $\gamma_1$ are curves with the same endpoints and $\varSigma:\gamma_0\Rightarrow \gamma_1$
is a surface connecting them, all with sitting instants, then $\varSigma^*\theta$, $\varSigma^*\varUpsilon$ constitute
a $(G,H)$ connection doublet in the sense defined two paragraphs above with which there is associated
a $(G,H)$--cocycle $f_{\varSigma^*\theta\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}$, $g_{\varSigma^*\theta\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}$,
$W_{\varSigma^*\theta\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}$. The $1$--parallel transport along the $\gamma_i$ and the $2$--parallel
transport along $\varSigma$ are $F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_i)=f_{\varSigma^*\theta\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|i}(1,0)$
and $F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma)=W_{\varSigma^*\theta\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}(0,1;1,0)$, extending the prescription
\eqref{scope6}. Next, a $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformation is a pair of a $G$--valued map
$g$ and a $\mathfrak{h}$--valued $1$--form $J$ on $M$. $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformations
act on $(G,H)$--connection doublets $\theta$, $\varUpsilon$ according the higher gauge theoretic prescription
generalizing \eqref{scope7}
and thus on parallel transport. This action comes through the action of the integral $(G,H)$--$1$--transformation
$\kappa_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J}$, $\varPsi_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J}$, $\varPhi_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J}$
associated to the differential $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformation $\varSigma^*g$, $\varSigma^*J$
on the $(G,H)$--cocycle $f_{\varSigma^*\theta\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}$, $g_{\varSigma^*\theta\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}$,
$W_{\varSigma^*\theta\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}$ and leads to the appropriate extension of \eqref{scope8}.
Similar considerations hold for $2$--gauge transformations.
We find that the higher parallel transport operation constructed in this way agrees with that developed
in earlier literature \cite{Baez:2004in,Baez:2005qu,Schrei:2009,Schrei:2011,Schrei:2008,
Martins:2007,Martins:2008,Martins:2009}. In particular, we recover the remarkable interpretation
of the higher transport $F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}$ as a $2$--functor $F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}:(M,P_1M,P_2M)\rightarrow B_0(G,H)$
from the path $2$--groupoid $(M,P_1M,P_2M)$ of $M$ to the strict $2$--group $B_0(G,H)$ corresponding to $(G,H)$
and of $(G,H)$--$1$-- and $2$--gauge transformation as pseudonatural transformations and modifications, respectively.
\subsection{\normalsize \textcolor{blue}{Outlook}}\label{subsec:look}
\hspace{.5cm}
Using the results of the present work and restricting to the flat case, we plan to reconsider
in the companion paper \cite{SZ:2015} the theory of higher holonomy,
already studied in \cite{Martins:2007,Martins:2008,Martins:2009} and reanalyzed recently
in a very general setting in \cite{Abad:2014a,Abad:2014b}, and tackle the problem of the proper definition of higher
holonomy invariants. The quest for the latter
is particularly important for the applications they may have in a study of $2$--knots in $4$--folds
based on the higher Chern--Simons theory developed in ref. \cite{Soncini:2014ara}.
(See ref. \cite{Cattaneo:2002tk} for a related endeavour.)
\vfil\eject
\section{\normalsize \textcolor{blue}{Lie crossed module cocycle theory}}\label{sec:highcocy}
\hspace{.5cm} In this section, we expound our theory of Lie crossed
module cocycles. Hints of this approach were already present in
refs. \cite{Schrei:2009,Schrei:2011,Schrei:2008}, to which we are
indebted for inspiration. We illustrate our construction stressing its
being an extension of the ordinary Lie group cocycle theory. The
theory of Lie crossed module $1$-- and $2$--gauge transformations is
presented on the same lines.
The basic algebraic and differential geometric structures on which the following analysis is based are
those of Lie group, Lie algebra, Lie crossed module and differential Lie crossed module. These are
reviewed in some detail in the appendix of ref. \cite{Soncini:2014ara}, whose conventions we adopt.
Below, we use throughout the following notation.
\begin{notation}
With each Lie crossed module $(G,H,t,m)$ there is associated a differential Lie crossed module
$(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h},\dot t,\widehat{m})$ with
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\dot t(X)=\frac{dt(C(v))}{dv}\Big|_{v=0},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{hiholo1}
\\
&\widehat{m}(x)(X)
=\frac{\partial}{\partial u}\Big(\frac{\partial m(c(u))(C(v))}{\partial v}\Big|_{v=0}\Big)\Big|_{u=0}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{hiholo2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for $x\in\mathfrak{g}$, $X\in\mathfrak{h}$, where $c(u)$ is any curve in $G$
such that $c(u)\big|_{u=0}=1_G$ and $dc(u)/du\big|_{u=0}=x$ and $C(v)$ is any curve
in $H$ such that $C(v)\big|_{v=0}=1_H$ and $dC(v)/dv\big|_{v=0}=X$.
\end{notation}
\begin{notation}
Each Lie crossed module $(G,H,t,m)$ is characterized by two canonical mappings
$\dot m:G\times\mathfrak{h}\rightarrow \mathfrak{h}$ and
$Q:\mathfrak{g}\times H\rightarrow \mathfrak{h}$ defined by
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\dot m(a)(X)=\frac{d}{dv}m(a)(C(v))\Big|_{v=0},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{hiholo3}
\\
&Q(x,A)=\frac{d}{du}m(c(u))(A)A^{-1}\Big|_{u=0}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{hiholo4}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for $a\in G$, $X\in\mathfrak{h}$, $x\in\mathfrak{g}$, $A\in H$, where $c(u)$ is a curve in $G$
such that $c(u)\big|_{u=0}$ $=1_G$ and $dc(u)/du\big|_{u=0}=x$ and $C(v)$ is a curve
in $H$ such that $C(v)\big|_{v=0}=1_H$ and $dC(v)/dv\big|_{v=0}=X$.
\end{notation}
\vfil\eject
\subsection{\normalsize \textcolor{blue}{Lie crossed module cocycles}}\label{sec:cycle}
\hspace{.5cm} Cocycle theory plays a basic tole in higher holonomy theory and gauge theory.
We begin by recalling the definition and main properties of Lie group cocycles
and then move to state the definition and study the properties
of Lie crossed module cocycles.
Let $G$ be a Lie group.
\begin{defi
A $G$--cocycle is a map $f\in\Map(\mathbb{R}^2,G)$
such that
\begin{equation}
f(x'',x)=f(x'',x')f(x',x),
\label{cycle1}
\end{equation}
for $x,x',x''\in\mathbb{R}$. We denote the set of $G$--cocycles as $\Cyc(G)$.
\end{defi}
A few basic properties of cocycles follow immediately from the definition.
\begin{prop}
If $f$ is a $G$--cocycle, then
\begin{subequations}
\label{cycle2,3}
\begin{align}
&f(x,x)=1_G,
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle2}
\\
&f(x,x')=f(x',x)^{-1},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle3}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for $x,x'\in\mathbb{R}$.
\end{prop}
Lie group cocycles have a categorical interpretation. Though this is well known, we review it here
since it points to and justifies the less known generalization to Lie crossed module cocycle presented below.
The segment groupoid $\mathbb{GR}$ has one object for each real number $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and
one arrow for each pair of real numbers $x,x'\in\mathbb{R}$
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix{{\text{\footnotesize $x'$}}&{\text{\footnotesize $x$}}\ar[l]}\!.
\label{cycle4}
\end{equation}
Composition of arrows is carried out by concatenation at their common end. The identity arrows are those with equal ends.
Inversion of an arrow is performed by exchange of its ends. $\mathbb{GR}$ is evidently isomorphic to the pair groupoid
of $\mathbb{R}$.
A Lie group $G$ can be viewed as a one object groupoid $BG$, the delooping of $G$,
with one arrow for each element of $g\in G$
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix{{\text{\footnotesize $*$}}&{\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]_g}\!.
\label{cycle5}
\end{equation}
Composition is given by group multiplication. The identity arrow is that corresponding to the neutral element $1_G$.
Inversion is the same as group inversion.
\begin{prop}
A $G$--cocycle $f$ is equivalent to a smooth functor $\mathbb{GR}\rightarrow BG$
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix{{\text{\footnotesize $x'$}}&{\text{\footnotesize $x$}}\ar[l]}
\quad
\xymatrix{\ar@{|->}[r]&}
\quad
\xymatrix@C=3.5pc{{\text{\footnotesize $*$}}&{\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]_{f(x',x)}}\!.
\label{cycle6}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. The cocycle relation \eqref{cycle1} is a necessary and sufficient
condition for the functoriality of the above mapping. \hfill $\Box$
Every Lie group cocycle yields and can be reconstructed from a Lie valued differential form datum.
\begin{defi} \label{def:r2gconn}
A $G$--connection is a form $a\in\Omega^1(\mathbb{R},\mathfrak{g})$.
We denote the set of $G$--connections by $\Conn(G)$.
\end{defi}
The following theorem holds \cite{Schrei:2011}.
\begin{prop} \label{theor:cycle1} There is a canonical
one--to--one correspondence between the set $\Cyc(G)$ of $G$--cocycles
and that $\Conn(G)$ of $G$--connections. The $G$--connection $a_f$ corresponding to a $G$--cocycle
$f$ is
\begin{equation}
a_{fx}(x)=-d_{x'}f(x',x)f(x',x)^{-1}\big|_{x'=x}.
\label{cycle7}
\end{equation}
The $G$--cocycle $f_a$ corresponding to a $G$--connection $a$ is
\begin{equation}
f_a(x,x_0)=u_{x_0}(x),
\label{cycle8}
\end{equation}
where $u_{x_0}$ is the unique solution
\begin{equation}
d_xu_{x_0}(x)u_{x_0}(x)^{-1}=-a_x(x)
\label{cycle9}
\end{equation}
with $u_{x_0}:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow G$ smooth and satisfying the initial condition
\begin{equation}
u_{x_0}(x_0)=1_G.
\label{cycle10}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. If $f$ is a $G$--cocycle, then \eqref{cycle7}
clearly defines a $G$--connection $a_f$.
If $a$ is a $G$--connection, then the solution
$u_{x_0}$ of the differential problem \eqref{cycle9}, \eqref{cycle10}
exists, is unique and smooth in $x_0$. The $G$--valued maps
\begin{subequations}
\label{cyclea1,2}
\begin{align}
&u_1(x)=f_a(x,x_1)f_a(x_1,x_0),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cyclea1}
\\
&u_2(x)=f_a(x,x_0)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cyclea2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
solve the differential equation $d_xu(x)u(x)^{-1}=-a_x(x)$ with initial condition
$u(x_1)$ $=f_a(x_1,x_0)$, by \eqref{cycle8}--\eqref{cycle10}. As this differential problem has only one solution,
we have $u_1=u_2$. From \eqref{cyclea1,2}, it follows then
that $f_a$ obeys the cocycle
condition \eqref{cycle1}.
\eqref{cycle9} implies immediately that
$a_{f_a}=a$. By \eqref{cycle7} and \eqref{cycle2}, $f=f_{a_f}$. The mappings $f\to a_f$ and $a\to f_a$
are thus reciprocally inverse.
\hfill $\Box$
We now present the definition of Lie crossed module cocycle.
Let $(G,H,t,m)$ be a Lie crossed module.
\begin{defi}
A $(G,H)$--cocycle consists of three mappings
$f\in\Map(\mathbb{R}^2\times\mathbb{R},G)$, $g\in\Map(\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^2,G)$
and $W\in\Map(\mathbb{R}^2\times\mathbb{R}^2,H)$ satisfying the target matching condition
\begin{equation}
t(W(x',x;y',y))=g(x;y',y)^{-1}f(x',x;y')^{-1}g(x';y',y)f(x',x;y)
\label{cycle15}
\end{equation}
and the relations
\begin{subequations}
\label{cycle11,12,13,14}
\begin{align}
&f_{|y}(x'',x)=f_{|y}(x'',x')f_{|y}(x',x),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle11}
\\
&g_{|x}(y'',y)=g_{|x}(y'',y')g_{|x}(y',y),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle12}
\\
&W_{|y',y}(x'',x)=W_{|y',y}(x',x)m(f_{|y}(x',x)^{-1})(W_{|y',y}(x'',x')),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle13}
\\
&W_{|x',x}(y'',y)=m(g_{|x}(y',y)^{-1})(W_{|x',x}(y'',y'))W_{|x',x}(y',y)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle14}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\vspace{-7truemm}\eject\noindent
for $x,x',x'',y,y',y''\in\mathbb{R}$.
We denote the set of $(G,H)$--cocycles as $\Cyc(G,H)$.
\end{defi}
Above, we have set $f_{|y}(x',x)=f(x',x;y)$,
$g_{|x}(y',y)=g(x;y',y)$ and $W_{|y',y}(x',x)=W_{|x',x}(y',y)=W(x',x;y',y)$ for
convenience.
Lie crossed module cocycles enjoy a number of properties
generalizing \eqref{cycle2,3}.
\begin{prop}
If $(f,g,W)$ is a $(G,H)$--cocycle, then
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&f_{|y}(x,x)=1_G,
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle16}
\\
&f_{|y}(x,x')=f_{|y}(x',x)^{-1},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle17}
\\
&g_{|x}(y,y)=1_G,
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle18}
\\
&g_{|x}(y,y')=g_{|x}(y',y)^{-1},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle19}
\\
&W_{|y',y}(x,x)=W_{|x',x}(y,y)=1_H,
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle20}
\\
&W_{|y',y}(x,x')=m(f_{|y}(x',x))(W_{|y',y}(x',x)^{-1}),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle21}
\\
&W_{|x',x}(y,y')=m(g_{|x}(y',y))(W_{|x',x}(y',y)^{-1})
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle22}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for $x,x',x'',y,y',y''\in\mathbb{R}$.
\end{prop}
As we announced above, Lie crossed module cocycles enjoy a categorical interpretation
analogous to and extending that of ordinary Lie group cocycles.
Its statement requires basic notions of double category theory
that are reviewed in app. \ref{sec:dcat} to the benefit of the reader.
The rectangle double groupoid $\mathbb{GR}^2$ has one object $(x,y)$ for each
$x,y\in\mathbb{R}$, one horizontal arrow \hphantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx}
\begin{equation}
\vbox{
\xymatrix{{\text{\footnotesize $(x',y)$}}&{\text{\footnotesize $(x,y)$}}\ar[l]}}\!,
\label{cycle23}
\end{equation}
for each $x,x',y\in\mathbb{R}$, one vertical arrow
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix{{\text{\footnotesize $(x,y')$}}
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $(x,y)$}}\ar[u]}\!,
\label{cycle24}
\end{equation}
for each $x,y,y'\in\mathbb{R}$ and one arrow square
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix{
{\text{\footnotesize $(x',y')$}} & {\text{\footnotesize $(x,y')$}}\ar[l] \ar@{}[dl]^(.25){}="a"^(.75){}="b" \ar@{=>} "a";"b"
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $(x',y)$}} \ar[u] & {\text{\footnotesize $(x,y)_{\vphantom{g}}$}}\ar[u] \ar[l]
}\!,
\label{cycle25
\end{equation}
for each quadruple $x,x',y,y'\in\mathbb{R}$.
The various operations of composition, identity assignment and inversion of
arrows and arrow squares are defined in subapp. \ref{sec:dcplane}. Arrow operations are essentially the same
as those of the segment groupoid. Intuitively, arrow square operations go by concatenation through a common arrow,
identification of opposite arrows and exchange of opposite arrows in either the horizontal or the vertical
direction.
With a Lie crossed module $(G,H)$ there is canonically associated a double groupoid
$B(G,H)$ in many ways analogous to the delooping of a Lie group. $B(G,H)$
has a single object $*$, one horizontal arrow and one vertical arrow
\begin{equation}
\vbox{
\xymatrix{{\text{\footnotesize $*$}}&{\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]_x}
\vspace{-.75cm}}
\qquad
\xymatrix{{\text{\footnotesize $*$}}
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[u]_x}
\label{cycle26}
\end{equation}
for each element $x\in G$ and one arrow square
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix{
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} & {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]_u \ar@{}[dl]^(.25){}="a"^(.75){}="b" \ar@{=>} "a";"b"_X
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[u]^v & {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[u]_x\ar[l]^y
}
\label{cycle27}
\end{equation}
for each $x,y,u,v\in G$ and $X\in H$ satisfying the target matching condition
\begin{equation}
vy=uxt(X).
\label{cycle28}
\end{equation}
The various operations of composition, identity assignment and inversion of
arrows and arrow squares are defined in subapp. \ref{sec:dccrossed}.
Arrow operations are essentially the same as those of the delooping $BG$ of $G$.
Arrow square operations involve the full crossed module structure of $(G,H)$.
The target matching condition is required for the exchange law to hold.
\begin{prop}
A $(G,H)$--cocycle $(f,g,W)$ is equivalent to a smooth double functor $\mathbb{GR}^2\rightarrow B(G,H)$
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix{
{\text{\footnotesize $(x',y')$}} & {\text{\footnotesize $(x,y')$}}\ar[l] \ar@{}[dl]^(.25){}="a"^(.75){}="b" \ar@{=>} "a";"b"
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $(x',y)$}} \ar[u] & {\text{\footnotesize $(x,y)$}}\ar[u] \ar[l]
}
\!\!\!\quad
\hspace{.4cm}
\vbox{
\xymatrix{\ar@{|->}[r]
&
}
\vspace{-.85cm}}
\quad
\xymatrix@C=9pc@R=2.75pc{
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} & {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]_{f(x',x;y')}
\ar@{}[dl]^(.25){}="a"^(.75){}="b" \ar@{=>} "a";"b"_{W(x',x;y',y)\hspace{.9cm}}
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[u]^{g(x';y',y)} & {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[u]_{g(x;y',y)}\ar[l]^{f(x',x;y)}
}
\label{cycle29}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. Inspection of the double groupoid operations of $\mathbb{GR}^2$, $B(G,H)$
(cf. subapps. \ref{sec:dcplane},\ref{sec:dccrossed})
reveals that the cocycle relations \eqref{cycle11,12,13,14} are
an equivalent to the double functoriality of the above mapping
(cf. subapp. \ref{sec:dcfnctr}).
\hfill $\Box$
Analogously to ordinary Lie group cocycles, any Lie crossed module cocycle
yields and can be reconstructed from differential Lie crossed module
valued differential form data.
\begin{defi} \label{def:r2ghconn}
A $(G,H)$--connection doublet is a pair of forms $(a,B)
\in\Omega^1(\mathbb{R}^2$, $\mathfrak{g})\times \Omega^2(\mathbb{R}^2,\mathfrak{h})$
satisfying the zero fake curvature condition
\begin{equation}
da+\frac{1}{2}[a,a]-\dot t(B)=0.
\label{cycle30}
\end{equation}
We denote the set of $(G,H)$--connection doublets by $\Conn(G,H)$.
\end{defi}
The following theorem holds.
\begin{prop} \label{theor:cycle2} There is a canonical one--to--one correspondence between the set
$\Cyc(G,H)$ of $(G,H)$--cocycles and the set $\Conn(G,H)$ of $(G,H)$--connection doublets.
The connection doublet $(a_{f,g,W},B_{f,g,W})$ corresponding to a $(G,H)$--cocycle $(f,g,W)$ is
given by
\begin{subequations}
\label{cycle31,32}
\begin{align}
&a_{f,g,Wx}(x,y)=-\,\partial _{x'}f(x',x;y)f(x',x;y)^{-1}\big|_{x'=x},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle31}
\\
&a_{f,g,Wy}(x,y)=-\,\partial _{y'}g(x;y',y)g(x;y',y)^{-1}\big|_{y'=y},
\nonumber
\vphantom{\Big]}
\\
&B_{f,g,Wxy}(x,y)=-\,\partial_{x'}(\partial_{y'}W(x',x;y',y)W(x',x;y',y)^{-1})\big|_{x'=x,y'=y}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle32}
\\
&\hphantom{B_{f,g,Wxy}(x,y)}
=-\,\partial_{y'}(W(x',x;y',y)^{-1}\partial_{x'}W(x',x;y',y))\big|_{x'=x,y'=y}.
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The $(G,H)$--cocycle $(f_{a,B},g_{a,B},W_{a,B})$ corresponding to a $(G,H)$--connection doublet
$(a,B)$ is given by
\begin{subequations}
\label{cycle33,34,35}
\begin{align}
&f_{a,B}(x,x_0;y)=u_{|y,x_0}(x),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle33}
\\
&g_{a,B}(x;y,y_0)=v_{|x,y_0}(y),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle34}
\\
&W_{a,B}(x,x_0;y,y_0)=E_{|x_0,y_0}(x,y),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle35}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $u_{|y,x_0}$, $v_{|x,y_0}$, $E_{|x_0,y_0}$ are the unique solution of the differential problem
\begin{subequations}
\label{cycle36,37,38}
\begin{align}
&\partial_xu_{|y,x_0}(x)u_{|y,x_0}(x)^{-1}=-a_x(x,y),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle36}
\\
&\partial_yv_{|x,y_0}(y)v_{|x,y_0}(y)^{-1}=-a_y(x,y),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle37}
\\
&\partial_x(\partial_yE_{|x_0,y_0}(x,y)E_{|x_0,y_0}(x,y)^{-1})
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle38}
\\
&\hspace{3cm}
=-\dot m(v_{|x_0,y_0}(y)^{-1}u_{|y,x_0}(x)^{-1})(B_{xy}(x,y)) ~~\text{or}~~
\nonumber
\vphantom{\Big]}
\\
&\partial_y(E_{|x_0,y_0}(x,y)^{-1}\partial_xE_{|x_0,y_0}(x,y))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{3cm}
=-\dot m(u_{|y_0,x_0}(x)^{-1}v_{|x,y_0}(y)^{-1})(B_{xy}(x,y))
\nonumber
\vphantom{\Big]}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with $u_{|-,x_0},v_{|-,y_0}:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow G$ and
$E_{|x_0,y_0}:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow H$ smooth and satisfying the initial conditions \hphantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxx}
\begin{subequations}
\label{cycle39,40,41}
\begin{align}
&u_{|y,x_0}(x_0)=1_G,
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle39}
\\
&v_{|x,y_0}(y_0)=1_G,
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle40}
\\
&E_{|x_0,y_0}(x_0,y)=E_{|x_0,y_0}(x,y_0)=1_H
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycle41}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
(cf. eq. \eqref{hiholo3}).
The two forms of the differential problem \eqref{cycle38}
with the initial condition \eqref{cycle41} are equivalent:
any solution of one is automatically solution of the other.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}.
If $(f,g,W)$ is a $(G,H)$--cocycle, then \eqref{cycle31}, \eqref{cycle32}
clearly define a $\mathfrak{g}$--valued $1$--form $a_{f,g,W}$ and a
$\mathfrak{h}$--valued $2$--form $B_{f,g,W}$ on $\mathbb{R}^2$.
The identity of the two expressions of $B_{f,g,W}$ follows from the relation \pagebreak
\begin{align}
&\partial_{x'}(\partial_{y'}W(x',x;y',y)W(x',x;y',y)^{-1})
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb1}
\\
&\hspace{1.5cm}
=\Ad W(x',x;y',y)(\partial_{y'}(W(x',x;y',y)^{-1}\partial_{x'}W(x',x;y',y)))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\end{align}
and \eqref{cycle20}. Using relations \eqref{cycle31}, \eqref{cycle32}
and the target matching condition \eqref{cycle15}, we find,
\begin{align}
&\hspace{-.3cm}\dot t(B_{f,g,W\, xy}(x,y))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{}
\\
&=-\,\partial_{x'}(\partial_{y'}t(W(x',x;y',y))t(W(x',x;y',y))^{-1})\big|_{x'=x,y'=y} %
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&=-\,\partial_{x'}\big(\partial_{y'}(g(x;y',y)^{-1}f(x',x;y')^{-1}g(x';y',y)f(x',x;y))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{1cm}\times f(x',x;y)^{-1}g(x';y',y)^{-1}f(x',x;y')g(x;y',y)\big)\big|_{x'=x,y'=y}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&=-\,\partial_x(\partial _{y'}g(x;y',y)g(x;y',y)^{-1}\big|_{y'=y})
+\partial_y(\partial _{x'}f(x',x;y)f(x',x;y)^{-1}\big|_{x'=x})
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{1cm}+[\partial _{x'}f(x',x;y)f(x',x;y)^{-1}\big|_{x'=x},
\partial _{y'}g(x;y',y)g(x;y',y)^{-1}\big|_{y'=y}]
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&=\partial_xa_{f,g,Wy}(x,y)-\partial_ya_{f,g,Wx}(x,y)+[a_{f,g,Wx}(x,y),a_{f,g,Wy}(x,y)]
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\end{align}
verifying the zero fake curvature condition \eqref{cycle30}. Thus,
the pair $(a_{f,g,W},a_{f,g,W})$ is a $(G,H)$--connection doublet.
This shows the first part of the theorem.
Proving the second part of the theorem requires some preparatory work.
We assume that $r$, $l$ are $G$--valued maps and $D$ is an $\mathfrak{h}$--valued $2$--form
on $\mathbb{R}^2$ satisfying the differential relations
\begin{subequations}
\label{cycleb13,14}
\begin{align}
&\partial_x(r(x,y)^{-1}\partial_yr(x,y)-l(x,y)^{-1}\partial_yl(x,y))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb13}
\\
&\hspace{.3cm}+[r(x,y)^{-1}\partial_xr(x,y),r(x,y)^{-1}\partial_yr(x,y)-l(x,y)^{-1}\partial_yl(x,y)]
=\dot t(D_{xy}(x,y)),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\partial_y(r(x,y)^{-1}\partial_xr(x,y)-l(x,y)^{-1}\partial_xl(x,y))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb14}
\\
&\hspace{.3cm}+[l(x,y)^{-1}\partial_yl(x,y),r(x,y)^{-1}\partial_xr(x,y)-l(x,y)^{-1}\partial_xl(x,y)]
=\dot t(D_{xy}(x,y))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and the initial conditions
\begin{equation}
r(x_0,y)l(x_0,y)^{-1}=r(x,y_0)l(x,y_0)^{-1}=1_G.
\label{cycleb8}
\end{equation}
The differential problem
\begin{align}
&\partial_x(\partial_yR(x,y)R(x,y)^{-1})=\dot m(r(x,y))(D_{xy}(x,y)),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb2}
\\
&R(x_0,y)=R(x,y_0)=1_H
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb3}
\end{align}
with $R$ a smooth $H$--valued map on $\mathbb{R}^2$ has a unique solution,
since it is equivalent to the differential problem
\begin{align}
&\partial_yR(x,y)R(x,y)^{-1}=\int_{x_0}^x d\xi\,\dot m(r(\xi,y))(D_{xy}(\xi,y)),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb4}
\\
&R(x,y_0)=1_H,
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb5}
\end{align}
which does. Similarly, the differential problem
\begin{align}
&\partial_y(L(x,y)^{-1}\partial_xL(x,y))=\dot m(l(x,y))(D_{xy}(x,y)),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb6}
\\
&L(x_0,y)=L(x,y_0)=1_H
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb7}
\end{align}
with $L$ a smooth $H$--valued map on $\mathbb{R}^2$ has a unique solution by being equivalent to the problem
\begin{align}
&L(x,y)^{-1}\partial_xL(x,y)=\int_{y_0}^y d\eta\,\dot m(l(x,\eta))(D_{xy}(x,\eta)),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{}
\\
&L(x_0,y)=1_H. \hspace{6.3cm}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{}
\end{align}
Suppose that $Q$ is an $H$--valued map on $\mathbb{R}^2$ such that
\begin{equation}
t(Q(x,y))=r(x,y)l(x,y)^{-1}.
\label{cycleb9}
\end{equation}
Then, $R(x,y)=Q(x,y)$ solves the differential problem \eqref{cycleb2}, \eqref{cycleb3}
if and only if $L(x,y)=Q(x,y)$ does that \eqref{cycleb6}, \eqref{cycleb7}, by the relation
\begin{equation}
\partial_x(\partial_yQ(x,y)Q(x,y)^{-1})
=\Ad Q(x,y)(\partial_y(Q(x,y)^{-1}\partial_xQ(x,y)))
\label{cycleb10}
\end{equation}
and the Peiffer identity.
The auxiliary differential problem
\begin{align}
&\partial_x(\partial_y\rho(x,y)\rho(x,y)^{-1})=\Ad r(x,y))(\dot t(D_{xy}(x,y))),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb11}
\\
&\rho(x_0,y)=\rho(x,y_0)=1_G
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb12}
\end{align}
with $\rho$ a smooth $G$--valued map on $\mathbb{R}^2$ has a unique solution, by
a reasoning completely analogous to that indicated two paragraphs above. Similarly, the
auxiliary differential problem
\begin{align}
&\partial_y(\lambda(x,y)^{-1}\partial_x\lambda(x,y))=\Ad l(x,y))(\dot t(D_{xy}(x,y))),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb15}
\\
&\lambda(x_0,y)=\lambda(x,y_0)=1_G
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb16}
\end{align}
with $\lambda$ a smooth $G$--valued map on $\mathbb{R}^2$ has a unique solution.
Suppose that $Q$ is an $H$--valued map on $\mathbb{R}^2$ such that $R(x,y)=Q(x,y)$ solves
the differential problem \eqref{cycleb2}, \eqref{cycleb3}. Then, $\rho(x,y)=t(Q(x,y))$ solves
\eqref{cycleb11}, \eqref{cycleb12}.
Using \eqref{cycleb13} and \eqref{cycleb8}, it is straightforward to verify that
$\rho(x,y)=r(x,y)l(x,y)^{-1}$ also solves \eqref{cycleb11}, \eqref{cycleb12}.
By uniqueness, it then follows that \eqref{cycleb9} holds.
Similarly, by using \eqref{cycleb14} and \eqref{cycleb8} and making reference to the problem
\eqref{cycleb15}, \eqref{cycleb16} instead, one finds that when
$Q$ is an $H$--valued map on $\mathbb{R}^2$ such that $L(x,y)=Q(x,y)$ solves
the differential problem \eqref{cycleb6}, \eqref{cycleb7}, then \eqref{cycleb9} holds.
We conclude that, under the assumptions \eqref{cycleb13,14} and \eqref{cycleb8},
the differential problems \eqref{cycleb2}, \eqref{cycleb3} and \eqref{cycleb6}, \eqref{cycleb7}
have a unique solution and that this solution is the same for both
and obeys \eqref{cycleb9}.
We can now complete the proof of the second part of the theorem.
Let $(a,B)$ be a $(G,H)$--connection doublet. The solution
$u_{|y,x_0}$ of the differential problem \eqref{cycle36}, \eqref{cycle39}
exists, is unique and is smooth in $y$ and $x_0$. Similarly,
the solution $v_{|x,y_0}$ of the differential problem \eqref{cycle37}, \eqref{cycle40}
exists, is unique and is smooth in $x$ and $y_0$. Using
\eqref{cycle36}, \eqref{cycle37} and \eqref{cycle39}, \eqref{cycle40}
and the zero fake curvature condition \eqref{cycle30}, \pagebreak
it is straightforward to check that the $G$--valued maps $r$, $l$ and
the $\mathfrak{h}$--valued $2$--form $D$ on $\mathbb{R}^2$ defined by
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&r(x,y)=v_{|x_0,y_0}(y)^{-1}u_{|y,x_0}(x)^{-1},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb17}
\\
&l(x,y)=u_{|y_0,x_0}(x)^{-1}v_{|x,y_0}(y)^{-1},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb18}
\\
&D_{xy}(x,y)=-B_{xy}(x,y)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb19}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
obey relations \eqref{cycleb13}, \eqref{cycleb14} and \eqref{cycleb8}.
Therefore, by what was shown above, the solution $E_{|x_0,y_0}$
of the twin differential problems \eqref{cycle38}, \eqref{cycle41}
exists, is unique and is smooth in $x_0$, $y_0$ and furthermore
it is the same for both and satisfies
\begin{equation}
t(E_{|x_0,y_0}(x,y))=v_{|x_0,y_0}(y)^{-1}u_{|y,x_0}(x)^{-1}v_{|x,y_0}(y)u_{|y_0,x_0}(x).
\label{cycleb20}
\end{equation}
Relations \eqref{cycle33}--\eqref{cycle35} define in this way a $G$--valued map
$f_{a,B}$ on $\mathbb{R}^2\times \mathbb{R}$, a $G$--valued map
$g_{a,B}$ on $\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^2$ and an $H$--valued map
$W$ on $\mathbb{R}^2\times \mathbb{R}^2$ fulfilling the target matching condition
\eqref{cycle15}. We have now to show that these objects satisfy the cocycle relations
\eqref{cycle11,12,13,14}.
Consider the $G$-- and $H$--valued maps
\begin{subequations}
\label{cycleb21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28}
\begin{align}
&u_1(x)=f_{a,B|y}(x,x_1)f_{a,B|y}(x_1,x_0),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb21}
\\
&u_2(x)=f_{a,B|y}(x,x_0),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb22}
\\
&v_1(y)=g_{a,B|x}(y,y_1)g_{a,B|x}(y_1,y_0),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb23}
\\
&v_2(y)=g_{a,B|x}(y,y_0),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb24}
\\
&E_1(x,y)=W_{a,B|y,y_0}(x_1,x_0)m(f_{a,B|y_0}(x_1,x_0)^{-1})(W_{a,B|y,y_0}(x,x_1)),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb25}
\\
&E_2(x,y)=W_{a,B|y,y_0}(x,x_0),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb26}
\\
&E_3(x,y)=m(g_{a,B|x_0}(y_1,y_0)^{-1})(W_{a,B|x,x_0}(y,y_1))W_{a,B|x,x_0}(y_1,y_0),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb27}
\\
&E_4(x,y)=W_{a,B|x,x_0}(y,y_0).
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{cycleb28}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
By \eqref{cycle33}, \eqref{cycle36}, \eqref{cycle39},
$u_1$, $u_2$ both solve the differential equation $d_xu(x)u(x)^{-1}=-a_x(x,y)$
with initial condition $u(x_1)=f_{a,B|y}(x_1,x_0)$.
By the uniqueness of the solution of this differential problem, $u_1=u_2$.
By \eqref{cycleb21}, \eqref{cycleb22}, then, $f_{a,B|y}$ fulfills the cocycle
condition \eqref{cycle11} as required. Similarly, by \eqref{cycle34}, \eqref{cycle37}, \eqref{cycle40},
$v_1$, $v_2$ both solve the differential equation
$d_yv(y)v(y)^{-1}=-a_y(x,y)$ with initial condition $v(y_1)=g_{a,B|x}(y_1,y_0)$,
so that $v_1=v_2$. By \eqref{cycleb23}, \eqref{cycleb24}, then, $g_{a,B|x}$ fulfills the cocycle
condition \eqref{cycle12}. By \eqref{cycle35}, \eqref{cycle38}, \eqref{cycle41},
$E_1$, $E_2$ both solve the differential equation
\begin{equation}
E(x,y)^{-1}\partial_xE(x,y)=-\int_{y_0}^yd\eta\,\dot m(f_{a,B|y_0}(x,x_0)^{-1}g_{a,B|x}(\eta,y_0)^{-1})
(B_{xy}(x,\eta))
\nonumber
\end{equation}
with initial condition $E(x_1,y)=W_{a,B|y,y_0}(x_1,x_0)$. Again by the uniqueness of the solution of this
differential problem, we have $E_1=E_2$, from which through \eqref{cycleb25}, \eqref{cycleb26}
it follows that $W_{a,B}$ obeys the cocycle condition \eqref{cycle13}. By considering instead the equation
\begin{equation}
\partial_yE(x,y)E(x,y)^{-1}=-\int_{x_0}^xd\xi\,\dot m(g_{a,B|x_0}(y,y_0)^{-1}f_{a,B|y}(\xi,x_0)^{-1})
(B_{xy}(\xi,y))
\nonumber
\end{equation}
one finds that $E_3=E_4$. from which through \eqref{cycleb27}, \eqref{cycleb28}
it follows that $W_{a,B}$ also obeys the condition \eqref{cycle14}.
To conclude the proof of the theorem, we have to show that the mappings
$(f,g,W)\to(a_{f,g,W},B_{f,g,W})$ and $(a,B)\to(f_{a,B}, g_{a,B}, W_{a,B})$ are reciprocally
inverse. For a given doublet $(a,B)$,
inserting the \eqref{cycle33,34,35} into the \eqref{cycle31,32} and using
\eqref{cycle36,37,38}, \eqref{cycle39,40,41}, it is immediately verified that
$a_{f_{a,B}, g_{a,B}, W_{a,B}}=a$, $B_{f_{a,B}, g_{a,B}, W_{a,B}}$ $=B$. For a given cocycle $(f,g,W)$,
from the \eqref{cycle31,32},
using the cocycle relations \eqref{cycle11,12,13,14}, it is relatively straightforward
to check that $u_{|y,x_0}(x)=f(x,x_0;y)$, $v_{|x,y_0}(y)=g(x;y,y_0)$
and $E_{|x_0,y_0}(x,y)=W(x,x_0;y,y_0)$ solve the differential problem
\eqref{cycle36,37,38}, \eqref{cycle39,40,41} with $a=a_{f,g,W}$, $B=B_{f,g,W}$,
so that $f_{a_{f,g,W},B_{f,g,W}}=f$, $g_{a_{f,g,W},B_{f,g,W}}=g$, $W_{a_{f,g,W},B_{f,g,W}}=W$.
The claim is so shown. \hfill $\Box$
We have so achieved our first goal, the formulation of a
Lie crossed module cocycle theory naturally relating to higher gauge
theory.
\vfil\eject
\subsection{\normalsize \textcolor{blue}{Lie crossed module $1$--gauge transformations}}\label{sec:gauge}
\hspace{.5cm} In ordinary as in higher gauge theory, parallel
transport must be gauge
covariant. It is important therefore to have the appropriate notion of gauge transformation for cocycles.
We review first gauge transformation of ordinary group cocycles and then we define gauge transformation
of crossed module cocycles.
Let $G$ be a Lie group.
\begin{defi}
A $G$--gauge transformation is a map $\varkappa\in\Map(\mathbb{R},G)$.
The $G$-- gauge transformations form a set $\Gau(G)$.
\end{defi}
The following proposition is basic.
\begin{prop} For any $G$--cocycle $f$ and any $G$--gauge transformation $\varkappa$, the mapping
${}^\varkappa f\in\Map(\mathbb{R},G)$ defined by the expression
\begin{equation}
{}^\varkappa f(x',x)=\varkappa(x')f(x',x)\varkappa(x)^{-1}.
\label{gauge1}
\end{equation}
is also a $G$--cocycle, the gauge transform
of $f$ by $\varkappa$.
\end{prop}
\noindent
{\it Proof}. It is readily checked that ${}^\varkappa f$ obeys the cocycle relation \eqref{cycle1}.
\hfill $\Box$
As we showed in subsect. \ref{sec:cycle}, every Lie group cocycle represents secretly a smooth functor form the segment
groupoid to the delooping groupoid of the Lie group. In the same spirit, every gauge transformation
defines a natural transformation between a Lie group cocycle and its gauge transform.
\begin{prop}
If $f$ is $G$--cocycle and $\varkappa$ is a $G$--gauge transformation, then $\varkappa$ yields
a natural transformation $\varkappa:f\Rightarrow {}^\varkappa f$ of the functors
$f,{}^\varkappa f:\mathbb{GR}\rightarrow BG$.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}.
By \eqref{gauge1}, a gauge transformation $\varkappa$ amounts to a mapping
\vspace{-.2cm}
\begin{equation}
\vbox{
\xymatrix{{\text{\footnotesize $x$}}\hspace{.3cm}\ar@{|->}[r]
&
}
\vspace{-.75cm}}
\xymatrix{
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}}
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[u]_{\varkappa(x)}
}
\label{gauge2}
\end{equation}
of the objects of $\mathbb{GR}$ to the arrows of $BG$ such that for each arrow
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix{ {\text{\footnotesize $y$}}&{\text{\footnotesize $x$}}\ar[l]
}
\label{gauge3}
\end{equation}
of $\mathbb{GR}$, the diagram of $BG$ \hphantom{xxxxxxxxxxxx}
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix@C=3.5pc{
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} & {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]_{{}^\varkappa f(x',x)}
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[u]^{\varkappa(y)} & {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[u]_{\varkappa(x)}\ar[l]^{f(x',x)}
}
\label{gauge4}
\end{equation}
commutes. This is precisely the statement that $\varkappa$ is a natural transformation
$f\Rightarrow {}^\varkappa f$ of the functors $f,{}^\varkappa f:\mathbb{GR}\rightarrow BG$.
\hfill $\Box$
By prop. \ref{theor:cycle1}, there is one--to--one correspondence between $G$--cocycles $f$
and $G$--connections $a$. Hence,
the action of a $G$--gauge transformation $\varkappa$ on $f$ must translate into one
on the form $a_f$.
\begin{prop} \label{theor:gauge3} Let $f$ be a $G$ cocycle and
$\varkappa$ be a gauge transformation.
Then, the form $a_{{}^\varkappa f}$ associated with the gauge transformed cocycle ${}^\varkappa f$ is
\begin{equation}
a_{{}^\varkappa f}=\Ad \varkappa(a_f)-d\varkappa\varkappa^{-1}.
\label{gauge30}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. This follows readily from inserting \eqref{gauge1}
into \eqref{cycle7}. See also ref. \cite{Schrei:2011}.
\hfill $\Box$
An action of $G$--gauge transformations on $G$--connections is so yielded.
\begin{defi}
Let $a$ be a $G$--connection. For a $G$--gauge transformation $\varkappa$,
\begin{equation}
{}^\varkappa a=\Ad \varkappa (a)-d\varkappa\varkappa^{-1}.
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge31}
\end{equation}
\end{defi}
We now extend the above to a Lie crossed module $(G,H,t,m)$.
\begin{defi} Let $(f,g,W)$ be a $(G,H)$--cocycle.
An $(f,g,W)$--$1$--gauge transformation, or an integral $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformation when $(f,g,W)$
is understood, consists of three maps $\kappa\in\Map(\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R},G)$,
$\varPsi\in\Map(\mathbb{R}^2\times \mathbb{R},H)$, $\varPhi\in\Map(\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^2,H)$
satisfying the relations
\begin{subequations}
\label{gauge5,6}
\begin{align}
&\varPsi_{|y}(x'',x)=\varPsi_{|y}(x',x)m(f_{|y}(x',x)^{-1})(\varPsi_{|y}(x'',x')),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge5}
\\
&\varPhi_{|x}(y'',y)=\varPhi_{|x}(y',y)m(g_{|x}(y',y)^{-1})(\varPhi_{|x}(y'',y')),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge6}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where we have set
$\varPsi_{|y}(x',x)=\varPsi(x',x;y)$ and $\varPhi_{|x}(y',y)=\varPhi(x;y',y)$
for clarity.
The $(f,g,W)$--$1$--gauge transformations form a set $\Gau_{1\,f,g,W}(G,H)$.
\end{defi}
The following properties of crossed module cocycles are immediately proven.
\begin{prop}
If $(f,g,W)$ is a $(G,H)$--cocycle and $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$ is an $(f,g,W)$ --$1$--gauge transformation, then
\begin{subequations}
\label{gauge7,8,9,10}
\begin{align}
&\varPsi_{|y}(x,x)=1_H,
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge7}
\\
&\varPsi_{|y}(x,x')=m(f_{|y}(x',x))(\varPsi_{|y}(x',x)^{-1}),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge8}
\\
&\varPhi_{|x}(y,y)=1_H,
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge9}
\\
&\varPhi_{|x}(y,y')=m(g_{|x}(y',y))(\varPhi_{|x}(y',y)^{-1})
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge10}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for $x,x',x'',y,y',y''\in\mathbb{R}$.
\end{prop}
Just as ordinary gauge transformations act on group cocycles
$1$--gauge transformations act on crossed module cocycles.
\begin{prop}
Let $(f,g,W)$ be a $(G,H)$--cocycle and $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$ be an $(f,g,W)$ --gauge transformation. Then,
the mappings ${}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f\in\Map(\mathbb{R}^2\times \mathbb{R},G)$,
${}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g\in\Map(\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^2,G)$
and ${}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W\in\Map(\mathbb{R}^2\times\mathbb{R}^2,H)$
defined by the expressions
\begin{subequations}
\label{gauge11,12,13}
\begin{align}
&{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f_{|y}(x',x)
=\kappa_{|y}(x')f_{|y}(x',x)t(\varPsi_{|y}(x',x))^{-1}\kappa_{|y}(x)^{-1},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge11}
\\
&{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g_{|x}(y',y)
=\kappa_{|x}(y')g_{|x}(y',y)t(\varPhi_{|x}(y',y))^{-1}\kappa_{|x}(y)^{-1},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge12}
\\
&{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W(x',x;y',y)
=m(\kappa(x;y))\big(\varPhi_{|x}(y',y)m(g_{|x}(y',y)^{-1})(\varPsi_{|y'}(x',x))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge13}
\\
&\hspace{2.5cm}\times W(x',x;y',y)
m(f_{|y}(x',x)^{-1})(\varPhi_{|x'}(y',y))^{-1}\varPsi_{|y}(x',x)^{-1}\big),
\nonumber
\vphantom{\Big]}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where we have set $\kappa_{|x}(y)=\kappa_{|y}(x)=\kappa(x;y)$ for clarity,
constitute a $(G,H)$--cocycle
$({}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f$, ${}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W)$,
the gauge transform of $(f,g,W)$ by $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. Exploiting the \eqref{gauge5,6}, one checks
that $({}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W)$
satisfies the target matching condition \eqref{cycle15} and the cocycle relations
\eqref{cycle11,12,13,14} whenever $(f,g,W)$ does.
\hfill $\Box $
As we showed in subsect. \ref{sec:cycle}, every Lie crossed module cocycle represents secretly a smooth functor from
the rectangle double groupoid to the delooping double groupoid of the Lie crossed module. Analogously to the ordinary case,
every $1$--gauge transformation defines a double natural transformation between a Lie crossed module cocycle
and its gauge transform.
The notion of double natural transformation we use, however, is not the customary one
and presupposes that the target category is edge symmetric and folded
(cf. subapps. \ref{sec:dcedge}, \ref{sec:dcedsym}, \ref{sec:dccrossed}).
\begin{prop}
If $(f,g,W)$ is $(G,H)$--cocycle and $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$ is a $(f,g,W)$--$1$--gauge transformation,
then $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$ is equivalent to a double natural transformation
$(f,g,W)\Rightarrow ({}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W)$
of the double functors $(f,g,W),({}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f$, ${}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W)
:\mathbb{GR}^2\rightarrow B(G,H)$.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. The data of a $(f,g,W)$--$1$--gauge transformation $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$ are equivalent to
a mapping of the set of object of $\mathbb{GR}^2$ into the set of vertical arrows of $B(G,H)$,
\begin{equation}
\vbox{
\xymatrix{{\text{\footnotesize $(x,y)$}}\hspace{.3cm}\ar@{|->}[r]
&
}
\vspace{-.8cm}}
\xymatrix{
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}}
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}}
\ar[u]_{\kappa(x;y)}
}
\label{gauge14}
\end{equation}
and two compatible functors from the horizontal and vertical arrow groupoids of $\mathbb{GR}^2$ into
the horizontal truncation groupoid $B(G,H)_h$ of $B(G,H)$
\hskip11mm\noindent
\begin{equation}
\vbox{
\hbox{\xymatrix{
{\text{\footnotesize $(x',y)$}}&{\text{\footnotesize $(x,y)$}}\ar[l]
}
\quad\xymatrix{\ar@{|->}[r]
&
}\quad
}
\vspace{-.8cm}}
\xymatrix@C=6pc{
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} & {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]_{{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f(x',x;y)}
\ar@{}[dl]^(.25){}="a"^(.75){}="b" \ar@{=>} "a";"b"_{\varPsi(x',x;y)\hspace{.5cm}}
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[u]^{\kappa(x';y)} & {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[u]_{\kappa(x;y)}\ar[l]^{f(x',x;y)}
}
\label{gauge15}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix{
{\text{\footnotesize $(x,y')$}}
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $(x,y)$}}\ar[u]
}
\quad\vbox{
\xymatrix{\ar@{|->}[r]
&
}
\vspace{-.67cm}}\quad
\xymatrix@C=6pc{
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} & {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]_{{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g(x;y',y)}
\ar@{}[dl]^(.25){}="a"^(.75){}="b" \ar@{=>} "a";"b"_{\varPhi(x;y',y)\hspace{.5cm}}
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[u]^{\kappa(x;y')} & {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[u]_{\kappa(x;y)\,.}\ar[l]^{g(x;y',y)}
}
\nonumber
\end{equation}
\vskip5mm\noindent
(cf. eqs. \eqref{dcnatr1}, \eqref{dcnatr2}).
The fulfillment of the target matching condition \eqref{dccrossed2} is guaranteed by relations
\eqref{gauge11}, \eqref{gauge12}. The functoriality of the mappings \eqref{gauge15}
is equivalent to relations \eqref{gauge5}, \eqref{gauge6} and the ensuing relations
\eqref{gauge7}-\eqref{gauge10}. \eqref{gauge14}, \eqref{gauge15}
are precisely the data required for a double natural transformation
from the first to the second of the double functors
$(f,g,W), ({}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f$, ${}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W)
:\mathbb{GR}^2\rightarrow B(G,H)$.
The only thing left to check is the double naturality condition \eqref{dcnatr5}.
Using the expressions of the operations of the double groupoid $B(G,H)$ of subapp.
\ref{sec:dccrossed}, it is easily checked that
this is equivalent to relation \eqref{gauge13} written in the form
\hskip1.4cm\noindent
\begin{align}
&\varPhi(x;y',y)m(g(x;y',y)^{-1})(\varPsi(x',x;y'))W(x',x;y',y)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge16}
\\
&\hspace{.5cm}=m(\kappa(x;y)^{-1})({}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W(x',x;y',y))
\varPsi(x',x;y)m(f(x',x;y)^{-1})(\varPhi(x';y',y)).
\nonumber
\vphantom{\Big]}
\end{align}
Intuitively, the double naturality condition can be interpreted as the requirement that
the cube diagram of $B(G,H)$
\vskip8mm\noindent
\begin{equation}
\vbox{
\hbox{
\hspace{1.3cm}\xymatrix{\ar@{.>}'[dr]^{\hspace{-.3cm}\varPsi(x',x;y')\vphantom{\ul{\ul{\ul{\ul{g}}}}}}[ddrr]&&
\\
&&
\\
&&
\\
&&}
}
\vspace{-3.cm}
\hbox{
\xymatrix@C=1.3pc@R=2pc{\\
&&&
\\
\ar@{.>}[rrr]^{\varPhi(x';y',y)\hspace{1cm}}&&&
\\
&&&
}
\hspace{-1.7cm}
\xymatrix@C=2.5pc@R=2.5pc{
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} && {\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[ll]_{{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f(x',x;y')}
\ar@{}[dl]^(.25){}="a"^(.75){}="b" \ar@{} "a";"b"|-{{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W(x',x;y',y)}
\\
& {\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[ul]^{{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g(x';y',y)\!\!\!\!}
&& {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[ul]_{\!\!\!\!\!{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g(x;y',y)}
\ar[ll]^{{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f(x',x;y)}
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[uu]^{\kappa(x',y')} && {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}
\ar'[l]_{f(x',x;y')}[ll] \ar'[u]_{\kappa(x;y')}[uu]
\ar@{}[dl]^(.25){}="a"^(.75){}="b" \ar@{} "a";"b"|-{W(x',x;y',y)}
\\
& {\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[ul]^{g(x';y',y)} \ar[uu]^{\kappa(x';y)\vphantom{\ul{\ul{\ul{\ul{\ul{\ul{g}}}}}}}}
&& {\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[ul]_{g(x;y',y)} \ar[ll]^{f(x',x;y)} \ar[uu]_{\kappa(x;y)}
}
\hspace{-1.7cm}
\xymatrix@C=1.3pc@R=2pc{\\
&&&
\\
&&&\ar@{.>}[lll]_{\hspace{1cm}\varPhi(x;y',y)}
\\
&&&
}
}
\vspace{-3.cm}
\hbox{
\hspace{4.7cm}
\xymatrix{
&&
\\
&&
\\
&&
\\
&&\ar@{.>}'[ul]^{\vphantom{\Big[}\varPsi(x',x;y)\hspace{-.4cm}}[uull]}
}
}
\label{gauge17}
\end{equation}
\vfill\eject\noindent
commutes for any arrow square of $\mathbb{GR}^2$,
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix{
{\text{\footnotesize $(x',y')$}} & {\text{\footnotesize $(x,y')$}}\ar[l] \ar@{}[dl]^(.25){}="a"^(.75){}="b" \ar@{=>} "a";"b"
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $(x',y)$}} \ar[u] & {\text{\footnotesize $(x,y)_{\vphantom{g}}$}}\ar[u] \ar[l]
}\!,
\label{cycle25/1
\end{equation}
where we have dropped all double arrows in order not to clog the diagram
(cf. eq. \eqref{dcnatr6}).
The precise meaning of this statement is given by the diagrammatic identity
\eqref{dcnatr5} adapted to the edge symmetric folded groupoid $B(G,H)$. \hfill $\Box$
In contrast to ordinary gauge transformations, a crossed module $1$--gauge transformation
yields and can be reconstructed from differential Lie crossed module
valued differential form data.
\begin{defi} \label{def:r2dghgau}
A differential $(G, H)$--$1$--gauge transformation is a pair $(\varkappa,\varGamma)\in
\Map(\mathbb{R}^2,G)\times \Omega^1(\mathbb{R}^2,\mathfrak{h})$.
We denote the set of differential $(G, H)$--$1$--gauge transformation by $\Gau_1(G,H)$.
\end{defi}
The following theorem holds.
\begin{prop} \label{theor:gauge1} For a fixed $(G,H)$--cocycle $(f,g,W)$,
there is a canonical one--to--one correspondence between the set
$\Gau_{1\,f,g,W}(G,H)$ of $(f,g,W)$--$1$--gauge transformations and the set
$\Gau_1(G,H)$ differential $(G, H)$--$1$--gauge transformations.
The differential $(G, H)$--$1$--gauge transformation
$(\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi},\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi})$ corresponding to
a $(f,g,W)$--$1$--gauge transformation $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$ is given by
\begin{subequations}
\label{gauge18,19}
\begin{align}
&\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}(x,y)=\kappa(x;y),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge18}
\\
&\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi \,x}(x,y)
=-\dot m(\kappa(x;y))(\varPsi(x',x;y)^{-1}\partial_{x'}\varPsi(x',x;y)\big|_{x'=x}),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge19}
\\
&\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi\,y}(x,y)=
-\dot m(\kappa(x;y))(\varPhi(x;y',y)^{-1}\partial_{y'}\varPhi(x;y',y)\big|_{y'=y})
\nonumber
\vphantom{\Big]}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
(cf. eq. \eqref{hiholo3}). Conversely, the $(f,g,W)$--$1$--gauge transformation $(\kappa_{\varkappa,\varGamma},
\varPsi_{\varkappa,\varGamma}$, $\varPhi_{\varkappa,\varGamma})$
corresponding to a differential $(G, H)$--$1$--gauge transformation
$(\varkappa,\varGamma)$ is \vspace{2truemm} \pagebreak
\begin{subequations}
\label{gauge20,21,21x}
\begin{align}
&\kappa_{\varkappa,\varGamma}(x;y)=\varkappa(x,y),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge20}
\\
&\varPsi_{\varkappa,\varGamma}(x,x_0;y)=\varLambda_{|y,x_0}(x),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge21}
\\
&\varPhi_{\varkappa,\varGamma}(x;y,y_0)=\varXi_{|x,y_0}(y),
\label{gauge21x}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\varLambda_{|y,x_0}$, $\varXi_{|x,y_0}$ are the unique solutions of the
differential problem
\begin{subequations}
\label{gauge22,23}
\begin{align}
&\varLambda_{|y,x_0}(x)^{-1}\partial_x\varLambda_{|y,x_0}(x)
=-\dot m(f(x,x_0;y)^{-1}\varkappa(x,y)^{-1})(\varGamma_x(x,y)),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge22}
\\
&\varXi_{|x,y_0}(y)^{-1}\partial_{|y}\varXi_{|x,y_0}(y)
=-\dot m(g(x;y,y_0)^{-1}\varkappa(x,y)^{-1})(\varGamma_y(x,y))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge23}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with the initial conditions
\begin{subequations}
\label{gauge24,25}
\begin{align}
&\varLambda_{|y,x_0}(x_0)=1_H,
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge24}
\\
&\varXi_{|x,y_0}(y_0)=1_H.
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge25}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}.
If $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$ is an $(f,g,W)$--$1$--gauge transformation, then \eqref{gauge18},
\eqref{gauge19} clearly define a $G$--valued map $\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}$ and an
$\mathfrak{h}$--valued $1$--form $\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}$ on $\mathbb{R}^2$,
so a differential $1$--gauge transformation.
This shows the first part of the theorem.
Let $(\varkappa,\varGamma)$ be a differential $1$--gauge transformation. The solution
$\varLambda_{|y,x_0}$ of the differential problem \eqref{gauge22}, \eqref{gauge24}
exists, is unique and is smooth in $y$ and $x_0$. Similarly,
the solution $\varXi_{|x,y_0}$ of the differential problem \eqref{gauge23}, \eqref{gauge25}
exists, is unique and is smooth in $x$ and $y_0$. Relations \eqref{gauge20}, \eqref{gauge21}
define in this way a $G$--valued map $\kappa_{\varkappa,\varGamma}$ on $\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}$
and two $H$--valued maps $\varPsi_{\varkappa,\varGamma}$ and $\varPhi_{\varkappa,\varGamma}$
on $\mathbb{R}^2\times \mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^2$, respectively.
We have now to show that the cocycle relations \eqref{gauge5,6} are identically obeyed.
Consider the $H$--valued maps
\begin{subequations}
\label{gaugeb1,2,3,4}
\begin{align}
&\varLambda_1(x)=\varPsi_{\varkappa,\varGamma|y}(x_1,x_0)m(f_{|y}(x_1,x_0)^{-1})(\varPsi_{\varkappa,\varGamma|y}(x,x_1)),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gaugeb1}
\\
&\varLambda_2(x)=\varPsi_{\varkappa,\varGamma|y}(x,x_0),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gaugeb2}
\\
&\varXi_1(y)=\varPhi_{\varkappa,\varGamma|x}(y_1,y_0)m(g_{|x}(y_1,y_0)^{-1})(\varPhi_{\varkappa,\varGamma|x}(y,y_1)),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gaugeb3}
\\
&\varXi_2(y)=\varPhi_{\varkappa,\varGamma|x}(y,y_0).
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gaugeb4}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
In virtue of \eqref{gauge21}, \eqref{gauge22}, \eqref{gauge24},
$\varLambda_1$, $\varLambda_2$ are both solution of the differential equation
\begin{equation}
\varLambda(x)^{-1}d_x\varLambda(x)=-\dot m(f_{|y}(x,x_0)^{-1}\varkappa(x,y)^{-1})(\varGamma_x(x,y))
\nonumber
\end{equation}
with initial condition $\varLambda(x_1)=\varPsi_{\varkappa,\varGamma|y}(x_1,x_0)$.
By the uniqueness of the solution of this differential problem, $\varLambda_1=\varLambda_2$.
By \eqref{gaugeb1}, \eqref{gaugeb2}, then, $\varPsi_{\varkappa,\varGamma|y}$ fulfills the cocycle
condition \eqref{gauge5} as required. Similarly, by \eqref{gauge21x}, \eqref{gauge23}, \eqref{gauge25},
$\varXi_1$, $\varXi_2$ are both solution of the differential equation
\begin{equation}
\varXi(y)^{-1}d_y\varXi(y)=-\dot m(g_{|x}(y,y_0)^{-1}\varkappa(x,y)^{-1})(\varGamma_y(x,y))
\nonumber
\end{equation}
with initial condition $\varXi(y_1)=\varPhi_{\varkappa,\varGamma|x}(y_1,y_0)$,
so that $\varXi_1=\varXi_2$. By \eqref{gaugeb3}, \eqref{gaugeb4}, then, $\varPhi_{\varkappa,\varGamma|x}$ fulfills the cocycle
condition \eqref{gauge6}.
To conclude the proof of the theorem, we have to show that the mappings
$(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)\to(\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi},\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi})$
and $(\varkappa,\varGamma)\to(\kappa_{\varkappa,\varGamma}, \varPsi_{\varkappa,\varGamma}, \varPhi_{\varkappa,\varGamma})$
are reciprocally inverse. For a given differential $1$--gauge transformation $(\varkappa,\varGamma)$,
inserting the \eqref{gauge20,21,21x} into the \eqref{gauge18,19} and using
\eqref{gauge22,23}, \eqref{gauge24,25}, it is immediately verified that
$\varkappa_{\kappa_{\varkappa,\varGamma}, \varPsi_{\varkappa,\varGamma}, \varPhi_{\varkappa,\varGamma}}=\varkappa$,
$\varGamma_{\kappa_{\varkappa,\varGamma}, \varPsi_{\varkappa,\varGamma},
\varPhi_{\varkappa,\varGamma}}$ $=\varGamma$. For a given integral $1$--gauge transformation $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$,
from the \eqref{gauge18,19},
using the cocycle relations \eqref{gauge5,6}, it is straightforwardly
checked that $\varLambda_{|y,x_0}(x)=\varPsi(x,x_0;y)$,
$\varXi_{|x,y_0}(y)=\varPhi(x;y,y_0)$ solve the differential problem
\eqref{gauge22,23}, \eqref{gauge24,25} with $\varkappa=\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}$,
$\varGamma=\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}$,
so that $\kappa_{\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi},\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}}=\kappa$,
$\varPsi_{\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi},\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}}=\varPsi$,
$\varPhi_{\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi},\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}}=\varPhi$. The claim is so shown.
\hfill $\Box$
\begin{remark}
Since $\varkappa$, $\varGamma$ do not obey any conditions, the sets $\Gau_{1\,f,g,W}(G,H)$
with varying cocycle $(f,g,W)$ are all in canonical one--to--one
correspondence.
\end{remark}
By prop. \ref{theor:cycle2}, there exists one--to--one correspondence between $(G,H)$--cocycles $(f,g,W)$
and connection doublets $(a,B)$. Hence,
the action of a $(f,g,W)$ --$1$--gauge transformation $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$ must translate into one
on the associated doublet $(a_{f,g,W},B_{f,g,W})$.
\begin{prop} \label{theor:gauge2} Let $(f,g,W)$ be a $(G,H)$--cocycle and
$(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$ be an $(f,g$, $W)$--$1$--gauge transformation.
The $(G,H)$--connection doublet $(a_{{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W}$, \linebreak
$B_{{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W})$
associated with the gauge transformed cocycle $({}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g$,
${}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W)$ is then given by the expressions
\begin{subequations}
\label{gauge26,27}
\begin{align}
&a_{{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W}=\Ad \varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi} (a_{f,g,W})
-d\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}{}^{-1}-\dot t(\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\\
&B_{{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W}
=\dot m(\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi})(B_{f,g,W})-d\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}
-\frac{1}{2}[\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi},\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}]
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge27}
\\
&\hspace{2.1cm}-\widehat{m}(\Ad \varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi} (a_{f,g,W})
-d\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi} \varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}{}^{-1}
-\dot t(\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}),\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi})
\nonumber
\vphantom{\Big]}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
(cf. eqs. \eqref{hiholo1}--\eqref{hiholo3}).
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. These relations follow from substituting the
\eqref{gauge11,12,13} into the \eqref{cycle31,32} through
a relatively straightforward calculation. See also ref. \cite{Schrei:2011}.
\hfill $\Box$
If we take the $(G,H)$--connection doublets and the differential
$(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformations as basic cocycle and gauge transformation data
relying on props. \ref{theor:cycle2}, \ref{theor:gauge1},
then the \eqref{gauge26,27} define an action of differential $1$--gauge transformations on connection doublets.
\begin{defi} \label{def:gauconn}
Let $(a,B)$ be a $(G,H)$--connection doublet. For a differential
$(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformations $(\varkappa,\varGamma)$ let
\begin{subequations}
\label{gauge28,29}
\begin{align}
&{}^{\varkappa,\varGamma}a=\Ad \varkappa (a)-d\varkappa\varkappa^{-1}-\dot t(\varGamma),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge28}
\\
&{}^{\varkappa,\varGamma}B=\dot m(\varkappa)(B)-d\varGamma
-\frac{1}{2}[\varGamma,\varGamma]-\widehat{m}(\Ad \varkappa (a) -d\varkappa\varkappa^{-1}-\dot t(\varGamma),\varGamma).
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauge29}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{defi}
It can be checked that this gauge transformation is compatible with the zero fake
curvature condition \eqref{cycle30}.
We have in this way achieved our second goal, the incorporation of
gauge transformation into Lie crossed module cocycle theory
in a manner that naturally relates to gauge invariance in higher gauge
theory.
\vfil\eject
\subsection{\normalsize \textcolor{blue}{Lie crossed module $2$--gauge transformations}}\label{sec:twogau}
\hspace{.5cm} We consider now $2$--gauge transformations, which have no nontrivial counterpart
in ordinary gauge theory.
\begin{defi}
A $(G,H)$--$2$--gauge transformation is a mapping $A\in \Map(\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R},H)$.
We denote by $\Gau_2(G,H)$ the set of all $(G,H)$--$2$--gauge transformations.
\end{defi}
$2$--gauge transformations are gauge for gauge transformations: they
act on $1$--gauge transformations.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:twogau0}
Let $(f,g,W)$ be a $(G,H)$--cocycle, $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$ be an $(f,g,W)$--$1$--gauge transformation
and $A$ be a $(G,H)$--$2$--gauge transformation. Then, the maps ${}^A\kappa\in\Map(\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R},G)$,
${}^A\varPsi\in\Map(\mathbb{R}^2\times \mathbb{R},H)$, ${}^A\varPhi\in\Map(\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^2,H)$
defined by the expressions
\begin{subequations}
\label{twogay1,2,3}
\begin{align}
&{}^A\kappa(x;y)=\kappa(x;y)t(A(x;y)),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twogau1}
\\
&{}^A\varPsi_{|y}(x',x)
=A_{|y}(x)^{-1}\varPsi_{|y}(x',x)m(f_{|y}(x',x)^{-1})(A_{|y}(x')),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twogau2}
\\
&{}^A\varPhi_{|x}(y',y)
=A_{|x}(y)^{-1}\varPhi_{|x}(y',y)m(g_{|x}(y',y)^{-1})(A_{|x}(y')),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twogau3}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where we have set $A_{|y}(x)=A_{|x}(y)=A(x;y)$ for clarity, constitute
an $(f,g,W)$--$1$--gauge transformation $({}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi)$, the
$2$--gauge transform of $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$ by $A$.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}.
Using the defining relations \eqref{twogay1,2,3}, one verifies that $({}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi)$
satisfies $1$--gauge cocycle conditions \eqref{gauge5,6} whenever $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$ does.
\hfill $\Box$
$2$--gauge equivalent $1$--gauge transformations yield the the same gauge transform of the underlying
cocycle.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:twogau1}
Let $(f,g,W)$ be a $(G,H)$--cocycle, $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$ be an $(f,g,W)$--$1$--gauge transformation
and $A$ be a $(G,H)$--$2$--gauge transformation. Then the transformed cocycles
$({}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f, {}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g, {}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W)$,
$({}^{{}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi}f, {}^{{}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi}g, {}^{{}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi}W)$
are equal.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. This is readily checked by computing
$({}^{{}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi}f, {}^{{}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi}g, {}^{{}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi}W)$
inserting the expressions \eqref{twogay1,2,3}
into the \eqref{gauge11,12,13} and using
the target matching condition \eqref{cycle15}. \hfill $\Box$
As we proved in subsects. \ref{sec:cycle}, \ref{sec:gauge}, every Lie crossed module cocycle can be regarded as
a smooth functor form the rectangle double groupoid to the delooping double groupoid of the Lie crossed module
and any $1$--gauge transformation as a double natural transformation between a Lie crossed module cocycle and its gauge transform.
In the same spirit, a $2$--gauge transformation can be viewed as a double modification between a $1$--gauge transformation
and its $2$--gauge transform (cf. subapp. \ref{sec:dcmod}). We warn the reader that our definition of double modification hinges on that
of double natural transformation (cf. subapp. \ref{sec:dcnatr}),
which, as we have recalled above, differs from the one customarily
provided in the literature.
\begin{prop}
If $(f,g,W)$ is $(G,H)$--cocycle, $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$ is a $(f,g,W)$--$1$--gauge transformation
and $A$ is a $(G,H)$--$2$--gauge transformation. Then, $A$ is equivalent to a double modification
$(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)\Rrightarrow ({}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi)$
of the double natural transformations $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$, $({}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi)$.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}.
The data of a $2$--gauge transformation $A$ are equivalent to
a mapping of the set of object of $\mathbb{GR}^2$ into the set of arrow squares of $B(G,H)$,
\begin{equation}
\vbox{
\xymatrix{{\text{\footnotesize $(x,y)$}}\hspace{.3cm}\ar@{|->}[r]
&
}
\vspace{-.8cm}}
\xymatrix@C=6pc{
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} & {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]_{1_G}
\ar@{}[dl]^(.25){}="a"^(.75){}="b" \ar@{=>} "a";"b"_{A(x;y)\hspace{.5cm}}
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[u]^{{}^A\kappa(x;y)} & {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[u]_{\kappa(x;y)}\ar[l]^{1_G}
}
\label{twogau4}
\end{equation}
(cf. eqs. \eqref{dcmod1}).
The fulfillment of the target matching condition \eqref{dccrossed2} is guaranteed by relation
\eqref{twogau1}. \eqref{twogau4} are precisely the data required for a double modification
from the first to the second of the double natural transformations
$(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi), ({}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi):
(f,g,W)\Rightarrow({}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W)
=({}^{{}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi}f$, ${}^{{}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi}g, {}^{{}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi}W)$.
The only thing left to check is the double modification conditions \eqref{dcmod3}, \eqref{dcmod5}.
Using the expressions of the operations of the double groupoid $B(G,H)$ of subapp.
\ref{sec:dccrossed}, it is easily checked that
these are equivalent to relations \eqref{gauge13} written in the form
\begin{subequations}
\label{twogau5,6}
\begin{align}
&A(x;y){}^A\varPsi(x',x;y)
=\varPsi(x',x;y)m(f(x',x;y)^{-1})(A(x';y)),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twogau5}
\\
&A(x;y){}^A\varPhi(x;y',y)
=\varPhi(x;y',y)m(g(x;y',y)^{-1})(A(x;y')).
\label{twogau6}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Intuitively, the double modification condition can be interpreted as the requirement that, for any horizontal and vertical arrow
of $\mathbb{GR}^2$
\begin{equation}
\vbox{
\xymatrix{
{\text{\footnotesize $(x',y)$}} & {\text{\footnotesize $(x,y)$}}\ar[l]}
\vspace{-.75cm}
}
\hspace{1.5cm}
\xymatrix{
{\text{\footnotesize $(x,y')$}}
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $(x,y)$}} \ar[u]}
\label{twogau7}
\end{equation}
the cylinder diagrams
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix@C=1.pc@R=1.1pc
& {\text{\scriptsize $\kappa(x';y)$}}\ar@/_.7pc/[dl]& & &{\text{\scriptsize $\kappa(x;y)$}}\ar@/_.7pc/[dl]
\ar@{.}[lll]|-{\varPsi(x',x;y)}&
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}}& & \text{$\hphantom{x}$} \ar[ll]_{{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f(x',x;y)}& {\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar@{-}[l] &&
\\
&& {\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar@{-}@/_1.15pc/[uul] \ar@{}[ull]^{A(x';y)}
& &&\ar@{-}@/_1.15pc/[uul]\ar[lll]_>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>{f(x',x;y)}{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar@{}[ull]_{A(x;y)}
\\
&{\text{\scriptsize ${}^A\kappa(x';y)$}} \ar@/^1.2pc/[uul]\ar@{-}@/_.7pc/[ur]&&
&{\text{\scriptsize ${}^A\kappa(x;y)$}}\ar@/^1.2pc/[uul]|->>>>>{~\text{$\vphantom{\ul{\ul{\ul{\ul{\ul{f}}}}}}$}}
\ar@{-}@/_.7pc/[ur] \ar@{.}[lll]|-{{}^A\varPsi(x',x;y)}&
}
\label{twogau8}
\end{equation}
\vspace{0mm}
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix@C=1.pc@R=1.1pc
& {\text{\scriptsize $\kappa(x;y')$}}\ar@/_.7pc/[dl]& & &{\text{\scriptsize $\kappa(x;y)$}}\ar@/_.7pc/[dl]
\ar@{.}[lll]|-{\varPhi(x;y',y)}&
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}}& & \text{$\hphantom{x}$} \ar[ll]_{{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g(x;y',y)}& {\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar@{-}[l] &&
\\
&& {\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar@{-}@/_1.15pc/[uul] \ar@{}[ull]^{A(x;y')}
& &&\ar@{-}@/_1.15pc/[uul]\ar[lll]_>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>{g(x;y',y)}{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar@{}[ull]_{A(x;y)}
\\
&{\text{\scriptsize ${}^A\kappa(x;y')$}} \ar@/^1.2pc/[uul]\ar@{-}@/_.7pc/[ur]&&
&{\text{\scriptsize ${}^A\kappa(x;y)$}}\ar@/^1.2pc/[uul]|->>>>>{~\text{$\vphantom{\ul{\ul{\ul{\ul{\ul{f}}}}}}$}}
\ar@{-}@/_.7pc/[ur] \ar@{.}[lll]|-{{}^A\varPhi(x;y',y)}&
}
\label{twogau9}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
\vskip6mm\noindent
both commute, where all double arrows have been dropped for clarity and the identity morphisms
of the modification arrow squares have been collapsed
(cf. eqs. \eqref{dcmod6}, \eqref{dcmod7}).
The precise meaning of this statement is given by the diagrammatic identities
\eqref{dcmod3}, \eqref{dcmod5} adapted to the edge symmetric folded groupoid $B(G,H)$.
\hfill $\Box$
By prop. \ref{theor:gauge1}, there exists a one--to--one correspondence between integral $(f,g,W)$--$1$--gauge
transformations $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$ and differential $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformations
$(\varkappa,\varGamma)$. So, the action of a $(G,H)$--$2$--gauge transformation $A$ must translate into one
on the data $(\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi},\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi})$.
\begin{prop} Let $(f,g,W)$ be a $(G,H)$--cocycle, $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$ be an $(f,g,W)$--$1$--gauge transformation
and $A$ a $(G,H)$--$2$--gauge transformation. Then,
\begin{subequations}
\label{twogau10,11}
\begin{align}
&\varkappa_{{}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi}=t(\tilde A)\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twogau10}
\\
&\varGamma_{{}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi}
=\tilde A\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}\tilde A^{-1}-d\tilde A\tilde A^{-1}
-Q(a_{{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W},\tilde A)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twogau11}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
(cf. eq. \eqref{hiholo4}), where we have set \hphantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxx}
\begin{equation}
\tilde A=m(\kappa)(A)
\label{twogau12}
\end{equation}
with $\tilde A$ viewed as an element of $\Map(\mathbb{R}^2,H)$.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. These relations follow from substituting the
\eqref{twogay1,2,3} into the \eqref{gauge18,19} through
a relatively straightforward calculation. See also ref. \cite{Schrei:2011}. \hfill $\Box$
If we take the
$(G,H)$--connection doublets and the differential
$(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformations as basic cocycle and gauge transformation data
relying on props. \ref{theor:cycle2}, \ref{theor:gauge1}, then
the \eqref{twogau10,11} define an action of $2$--gauge transformations on differential $1$--gauge transformations
for any assigned connection doublet.
\begin{defi} \label{def:gaugau}
Let $(a,B)$ be a $(G,H)$--connection doublet and $(\varkappa,\varGamma)$ be a differential
$(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformation. For any $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformation $\tilde A$, one sets
\hphantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx}
\begin{subequations}
\label{twogau13,14}
\begin{align}
&{}^{\tilde A}\varkappa_{|a,B}=t(\tilde A)\varkappa,
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twogau13}
\\
&{}^{\tilde A}\varGamma_{|a,B}=\tilde A\varGamma \tilde A^{-1}-d\tilde A\tilde A^{-1}-Q({}^{\varkappa,\varGamma}a,\tilde A).
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twogau14}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{defi}
By prop. \ref{theor:cycle2} \pagebreak and def. \ref{def:gauconn}, the action of the integral $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformation
on the $(G,H)$--cocycles translates into an action of the differential $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformations
corresponding to the integral ones
onto the $(G,H)$--connection doublets corresponding to the cocycles, as given
by eqs. \eqref{gauge28,29}.
$2$--gauge equivalent differential $1$--gauge transformations yield the same gauge transformed
connection doublet.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:gaugau}
Let $(a,B)$ be a $(G,H)$--connection doublet, $(\varkappa,\varGamma)$ be a differential $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge
transformation and $A$ be $(G,H)$--$2$--gauge transformation. Then, one has \hphantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx}
\begin{subequations}
\label{twogau15,16}
\begin{align}
&{}^{{}^{\tilde A}\varkappa_{|a,B},{}^{\tilde A}\varGamma_{|a,B}}a={}^{\varkappa,\varGamma}a,
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twogau15}
\\
&{}^{{}^{\tilde A}\varkappa_{|a,B},{}^{\tilde A}\varGamma_{|a,B}}B={}^{\varkappa,\varGamma}B.
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twogau16}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. Let $(f,g,W)$ be a cocycle, $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$ be a $(f,g,W)$--$1$--gauge transformation
and $A$ be a $2$--gauge transformation. By prop. \ref{prop:twogau0},
$({}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi)$ is also a $(f,g,W)$--$1$--gauge transformation.
By \eqref{gauge26,27}, \eqref{gauge28,29} combined, we have
$(a_{{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W},
B_{{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W})$
$=({}^{\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi},\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}}a_{f,g,W},
{}^{\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi},\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}}B_{f,g,W})$
and similarly with $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$ replaced by $({}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi)$.
By \eqref{twogau13,14}, \eqref{twogau15,16}, we have further
$(\varkappa_{{}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi},\varGamma_{{}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi})=
({}^{\tilde A}\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi|a_{f,g,W}B_{f,g,W}},{}^{\tilde A}\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi|a_{f,g,W}B_{f,g,W}})$. By prop.
\ref{prop:twogau1}, we have then that
\begin{align}
&({}^{\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi},\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}}a_{f,g,W},
{}^{\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi},\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}}B_{f,g,W})
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twogaue1}
\\
&\hspace{1cm}
=({}^{{}^{\tilde A}\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi|a_{f,g,W}B_{f,g,W}},{}^{\tilde A}\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi|a_{f,g,W}B_{f,g,W}}}a_{f,g,W},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{4cm}
{}^{{}^{\tilde A}\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi|a_{f,g,W}B_{f,g,W}},{}^{\tilde A}\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi|a_{f,g,W}B_{f,g,W}}}B_{f,g,W}).
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\end{align}
By props. \ref{theor:cycle2}, \ref{theor:gauge1},
$(f,g,W)$ and $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$ being arbitrary, \eqref{twogau15}, \eqref{twogau16} hold true.
\hfill $\Box$
\vfil\eject
\section{\normalsize \textcolor{blue}{Higher parallel transport theory}}\label{sec:hiholo}
\hspace{.5cm} In this section, we rederive the higher parallel transport theory
worked out in refs. \cite{Schrei:2009,Schrei:2011,Schrei:2008} and
\cite{Martins:2007,Martins:2008,Martins:2009} relying on the theory of
Lie crossed module cocycles and their gauge transformation
developed in sect. \ref{sec:highcocy}. We review first
the theory of the path and fundamental $2$--groupoids of a manifold
to recall the reader the basic properties of these which are most
relevant in the following. Next, we show how the $1$-- and
$2$--parallel transport induced by a connection doublet
can be defined in terms of an associated cocycle.
Then, we exhibit how $1$--gauge transformation of the
connection doublet affects the associated parallel transport
by inducing an integral $1$--gauge transformation of the underlying cocycle. The role of
$2$--gauge transformation is also highlighted.
The $2$--categorical interpretation of parallel transport and $1$-- and
$2$--gauge transformation thereof is recovered.
We also touch the issue
of smoothness of the parallel transport. Finally we make explicit
the equivalence of our approach to the earlier ones
recalled above. Again, to help intuition, we present our construction stressing its being an extension of the
ordinary parallel transport theory.
\subsection{\normalsize \textcolor{blue}{Path and fundamental $2$--groupoid}}\label{sec:path}
\hspace{.5cm} In this subsection, we review the basic notions
of smooth thin homotopy and homotopy aiming to the definition of
the path $2$--groupoid of a manifold, one of the essential elements
of higher parallel transport theory.
As this material is not original, we provide no proof of the basic results.
We begin by considering the ordinary path and fundamental groupoids of a manifold $M$.
Roughly, these are
groupoids having points and curves
joining pairs of points as its $0$-- and $1$--cells. We make this more precise next.
\begin{defi}
Let $p_0,p_1$ be points. A curve $\gamma:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ with sitting instants is a
mapping $\gamma\in\Map(\mathbb{R},M)$ such that \pagebreak
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\gamma(x)=p_0\qquad \text{for $x<\epsilon$},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path1}
\\
&\gamma(x)=p_1\qquad \text{for $x>1-\epsilon$}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for some $\epsilon>0$ with $\epsilon<1/2$ depending on $\gamma$.
All curves will have sitting instants unless otherwise stated.
We denote the set of all curves of $M$ by $\Pi_1M$.
\end{defi}
\begin{defi}
Let $p$ be a point. The unit curve $\iota_p:p\rightarrow p$ of $p$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\iota_p(x)=p.
\label{path3}
\end{equation}
Let $p_0,p_1$ be points and $\gamma:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ be a curve. The inverse
curve of $\gamma$ is the curve $\gamma^{-1_\circ}:p_1\rightarrow p_0$ defined by \hphantom{xxxxxxxxx}
\begin{equation}
\gamma^{-1_\circ}(x)=\gamma(1-x).
\label{path4}
\end{equation}
Let $p_0,p_1,p_2$ be points and $\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_1$, $\gamma_2:p_1\rightarrow p_2$
be curves. The composition of $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$ is the curve
$\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_2$ defined by
\begin{subequations}
\label{path5,6}
\begin{align}
&\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1(x)=\gamma_1(2x) \qquad \text{for $x\leq 1/2$},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path5}
\\
&\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1(x)=\gamma_2(2x-1) \qquad \text{for $x\geq 1/2$}.
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path6}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{defi}
\noindent
The above are the type of operations which would be required for $(M,\Pi_1M)$ to be a groupoid,
but $(M,\Pi_1M)$ is not, as is well--known, as invertibility and associativity do not hold.
To construct a groupoid out of $(M,\Pi_1M)$, one has to quotient out
by the relation of either thin homotopy or homotopy.
\begin{defi}
Let $p_0,p_1$ be points and $\gamma_0,\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ be curves.
A thin homotopy of $\gamma_0$, $\gamma_1$ is a mapping $h\in\Map(\mathbb{R}^2,M)$
such that
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&h(x,y)=p_0\qquad \text{for $x<\epsilon$},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path7}
\\
&h(x,y)=p_1\qquad \text{for $x>1-\epsilon$},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path8}
\\
&h(x,y)=\gamma_0(x)\qquad \text{for $y<\epsilon$},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path9}
\\
&h(x,y)=\gamma_1(x)\qquad \text{for $y>1-\epsilon$}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path10}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for some $\epsilon>0$ with $\epsilon<1/2$ and that
\begin{equation}
\rank(dh(x,y))\leq 1.
\label{path11}
\end{equation}
$\gamma_0$, $\gamma_1$ are thin homotopy equivalent, a property
denoted as $\gamma_1\sim_1\gamma_0$,
if there is thin homotopy $h$ of $\gamma_0$, $\gamma_1$.
If condition \eqref{path11}
is not imposed, then $h$ is a homotopy of $\gamma_0$, $\gamma_1$
and $\gamma_0$, $\gamma_1$ are homotopy equivalent, $\gamma_0\sim^0{}_1\gamma_1$.
\end{defi}
\noindent
$\sim_1$, $\sim^0{}_1$ are both equivalence relations.
We denote by $P_1M$ and $P^0{}_1M$ the set of all thin homotopy and homotopy classes
of curves of $M$.
\begin{prop}
$(M,P_1M)$ and $(M,P^0{}_1M)$ are both groupoids,
the path group\-oid and the fundamental groupoid of $M$.
\end{prop}
\noindent
By modding out thin homotopy equivalence,
the algebraic structure we have defined on $\Pi_1M$ induces one of the same form on $P_1M$
satisfying the axioms of invertibility and associativity, rendering $(M,P_1M)$
a true groupoid. Similarly, by modding out homotopy
equivalence,
$(M,P^0{}_1M)$ also turns out to be a groupoid.
Diagrammatically, the content of these groupoids can be represented as
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix{{\text{\footnotesize $p_1$}}&{\text{\footnotesize $p_0$}}\ar[l]_\gamma}\!.
\label{}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is understood as a (thin) homotopy class of curves.
Let $M$ be a manifold.
The path and fundamental $2$--groupoids of $M$ are $2$--groupoids roughly having points, curves
joining pairs of points and surfaces joining pairs of curves with common endpoints
as its $0$--, $1$-- and $2$--cells. They are the simplest higher extensions of
path and fundamental groupoids.
\begin{defi}
For points $p_0,p_1$, a curve $\gamma:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ is defined
as before. The set of all curves is denoted again by $\Pi_1M$.
Let $p_0,p_1$ be points and $\gamma_0,\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ be curves.
A surface $\varSigma:\gamma_0\Rightarrow\gamma_1$ with sitting instants is a map $\varSigma\in\Map(\mathbb{R}^2,M)$
such that \vskip1mm\pagebreak
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\varSigma(x,y)=p_0\qquad \text{for $x<\epsilon$},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path12}
\\
&\varSigma(x,y)=p_1\qquad \text{for $x>1-\epsilon$},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path13}
\\
&\varSigma(x,y)=\gamma_0(x)\qquad \text{for $y<\epsilon$},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path14}
\\
&\varSigma(x,y)=\gamma_1(x)\qquad \text{for $y>1-\epsilon$}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path15}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for some $\epsilon>0$ with $\epsilon<1/2$ depending on $\gamma_0$, $\gamma_1$, $\varSigma$.
All surfaces will be assumed to have sitting instants unless otherwise stated.
The set of all surfaces is denoted by $\Pi_2M$.
\end{defi}
\begin{defi}
For a point $p$, the unit curve $\iota_p:p\rightarrow p$ of $p$ is defined as before.
For points $p_0,p_1$ and a curve $\gamma:p_0\rightarrow p_1$, the inverse
curve $\gamma^{-1_\circ}$ is also defined as before.
For points $p_0,p_1,p_2$ and curves $\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_1$, $\gamma_2:p_1\rightarrow p_2$,
the composed curve $\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_2$ is again defined as before.
Let $p_0,p_1$ be points and $\gamma:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ be a curve. The unit surface
$I_\gamma:\gamma\Rightarrow\gamma$ of $\gamma$ is the surface defined by
\begin{equation}
I_\gamma(x,y)=\gamma(x).
\label{path16}
\end{equation}
Let $p_0,p_1$ be points and $\gamma_0,\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ be curves and
$\varSigma:\gamma_0\Rightarrow\gamma_1$ be a surface. The vertical inverse of $\varSigma$
is the surface $\varSigma^{-1_\bullet}:\gamma_1\Rightarrow \gamma_0$
\begin{equation}
\varSigma^{-1_\bullet}(x,y)=\varSigma(x,1-y).
\label{path17}
\end{equation}
Let $p_0,p_1$ be points and $\gamma_0,\gamma_1,\gamma_2:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ be curves and
$\varSigma_1:\gamma_0\Rightarrow\gamma_1$, $\varSigma_2:\gamma_1\Rightarrow\gamma_2$ be
surfaces. The vertical composition of $\varSigma_1$, $\varSigma_2$
is the surface $\varSigma_2\bullet\varSigma_1:\gamma_0\Rightarrow \gamma_2$ defined by
\begin{subequations}
\label{path18,19}
\begin{align}
&\varSigma_2\bullet\varSigma_1(x,y)=\varSigma_1(x,2y) \qquad \text{for $y\leq 1/2$},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path18}
\\
&\varSigma_2\bullet\varSigma_1(x,y)=\varSigma_2(x,2y-1) \qquad \text{for $y\geq 1/2$}.
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path19}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Let $p_0,p_1$ be points and $\gamma_0,\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ be curves and \pagebreak
$\varSigma:\gamma_0\Rightarrow\gamma_1$ be a surface. The horizontal inverse of $\varSigma$
is the surface $\varSigma^{-1_\circ}:\gamma_0{}^{-1_\circ}\Rightarrow \gamma_1{}^{-1_\circ}$
\begin{equation}
\varSigma^{-1_\circ}(x,y)=\varSigma(1-x,y).
\label{path20}
\end{equation}
Let $p_0,p_1,p_2$ be points and $\gamma_0,\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_1$, $\gamma_2,\gamma_3:p_1\rightarrow p_2$
be curves and $\varSigma_1:\gamma_0\Rightarrow\gamma_1$, $\varSigma_2:\gamma_2\Rightarrow\gamma_3$ be
surfaces. The horizontal composition of $\varSigma_1$, $\varSigma_2$
is the surface $\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1:\gamma_2\circ\gamma_0\Rightarrow \gamma_3\circ\gamma_1$ defined by
\begin{subequations}
\label{path21,22}
\begin{align}
&\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1(x,y)=\varSigma_1(2x,y) \qquad \text{for $x\leq 1/2$},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path21}
\\
&\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1(x,y)=\varSigma_2(2x-1,y) \qquad \text{for $x\geq 1/2$}.
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path22}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{defi}
\noindent
The above are the type of operations which would be required for $(M,\Pi_1M$, $\Pi_2M)$ to be a $2$--groupoid,
but $(M,\Pi_1M,\Pi_2M)$ fails to be one as invertibility and associativity do not hold both for curves and surfaces.
To construct a $2$--groupoid out of $(M,\Pi_1M,\Pi_2M)$, one has to quotient out by a suitable higher version
of the relation of either thin homotopy or homotopy.
\begin{defi}
For points $p_0,p_1$ and curves $\gamma_0,\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ the notions of thin
homotopy $h$ and thin homotopy equivalence of $\gamma_0$, $\gamma_1$
are defined exactly as before.
We denote again by $\sim_1$ thin homotopy equivalence
and by $P_1M$ the set of all
thin homotopy classes of curves of $M$.
Let $p_0,p_1$ be points, $\gamma_0,\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ be curves
and $\varSigma_0:\gamma_0\Rightarrow\gamma_1$, $\varSigma_1:\gamma_2\Rightarrow\gamma_3$
be surfaces. A thin homotopy of $\varSigma_0$, $\varSigma_1$ is a mapping $H\in\Map(\mathbb{R}^3,M)$
with the property that
\begin{subequations}
\label{path23,24,25,26,27,28}
\begin{align}
&H(x,y,z)=p_0 \qquad \text{for $x< \epsilon$},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path23}
\\
&H(x,y,z)=p_1 \qquad \text{for $x>1-\epsilon$},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path24}
\\
&H(x,y,z)=H(x,0,z) \qquad \text{for $y<\epsilon$},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path25}
\\
&H(x,y,z)=H(x,1,z) \qquad \text{for $y>1-\epsilon$},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path26}
\\
&H(x,y,z)=\varSigma_0(x,y) \qquad \text{for $z<\epsilon$},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path27}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
&H(x,y,z)=\varSigma_1(x,y) \qquad \text{for $z>1-\epsilon$}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path28}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for some $\epsilon>0$ and that
\begin{subequations}
\label{path29,30}
\begin{align}
&\rank(dH(x,0,z)),~\rank(dH(x,1,z))\leq 1,
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path29}
\\
&\rank(dH(x,y,z))\leq 2.
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{path30}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
$\varSigma_0$, $\varSigma_1$ are thin homotopy equivalent, which fact
we write as $\varSigma_1\sim_2\varSigma_0$,
if there is thin homotopy $H$ of $\varSigma_0$, $\varSigma_1$.
If condition \eqref{path30}
is not imposed, then $H$ is a homotopy of $\varSigma_0$, $\varSigma_1$
and $\varSigma_0$, $\varSigma_1$ are homotopy equivalent, $\varSigma_0\sim^0{}_2\varSigma_1$.
\end{defi}
\noindent
$\sim_2$, $\sim^0{}_2$ are both equivalence relations by
conditions \eqref{path23}--\eqref{path28}. Condition \eqref{path29} implies that the source and target curves of
of $\varSigma_0$, $\varSigma_1$ are thin homotopy equivalent,
$\gamma_0\sim_1\gamma_2$, $\gamma_1\sim_1\gamma_3$.
We denote by $P_2M$ and $P^0{}_2M$ the set of all thin homotopy and homotopy classes
of surfaces of $M$.
\begin{prop}
$(M,P_1M,P_2M)$ and $(M,P_1M,P^0{}_2M)$ are bot $2$--groupoids,
the path $2$--groupoid and the fundamental $2$--groupoid of $M$, respectively.
\end{prop}
\noindent
By modding out thin homotopy equivalence,
the algebraic structure we have defined on $\Pi_1M$, $\Pi_2M$ induces one of the same
form on $P_1M$, $P_2M$ satisfying the axioms of invertibility and associativity,
rendering $(M,P_1M,P_2M)$ a true $2$--groupoid.
Similarly, modding out homotopy equivalence, $(M,P_1M,P^0{}_2M)$ also turns out to be a
$2$--groupoid.
Diagrammatically, the content of these $2$--groupoids can be represented as
\hphantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx}
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix@C=3pc{
{\text{\footnotesize $p_1$}}
& {\text{\footnotesize $p_0$}} \ar@/^1pc/[l]^{\gamma_1}="0"
\ar@/_1pc/[l]_{\gamma_0}="1"
\ar@{=>}"1"+<0ex,-2.ex>;"0"+<0ex,2.ex>_{\varSigma\,}
}
\label{}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_0$, $\gamma_1$ is understood as thin homotopy class of curves
and $\varSigma$ as a (thin) homotopy class of surfaces.
Now we are ready to formulate our parallel transport theory. \vskip1mm
\vfil\eject
\subsection{\normalsize \textcolor{blue}{$2$--parallel transport}}\label{sec:twoholo}
\hspace{.5cm} In this subsection, we shall define and study higher parallel transport.
Our approach is inspired by that of ref. \cite{Schrei:2011}, but relies systematically
on the cocycle set--up developed in sect. \ref{sec:highcocy}. We assume throughout
a trivial principal bundle background.
We begin by reviewing parallel transport in ordinary gauge theory. Let $M$ be a manifold
and $G$ be a Lie group. The basic datum required to define parallel transport is a
$G$--connection.
\begin{defi} \label{def:gconn}
A $G$--connection on $M$, or simply a $G$--connection, is a form $\theta\in\Omega^1(M,\mathfrak{g})$.
We denote the set of $G$--connections by $\Conn(M,G)$.
\end{defi}
\noindent
If $\gamma$ is a curve and $\theta$ is a $G$--connection on $M$,
$\gamma^*\theta$ is a $G$--connection in the sense of def. \ref{def:gconn}. By prop. \ref{theor:cycle1},
to $\gamma^*\theta$ there then corresponds a $G$--cocycle $f_{\gamma^*\theta}$.
\begin{defi}
Let $\theta$ be a $G$--connection. Let further
$p_0,p_1$ be points and $\gamma:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ be a curve.
The parallel transport along $\gamma$ induced by $\theta$ is
\begin{equation}
F_\theta(\gamma)=f_{\gamma^*\theta}(1,0).
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholo1}
\end{equation}
\end{defi}
Let us fix a $G$--connection $\theta$.
We have then a mapping $F_\theta:\Pi_1M\rightarrow G$.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:twoholo1}
For any point $p$, one has
\begin{equation}
F_\theta(\iota_p)=1_G.
\label{twoholo2}
\end{equation}
For any two points $p_0,p_1$ and curve $\gamma:p_0\rightarrow p_1$, one has
\begin{equation}
F_\theta(\gamma^{-1_\circ})=F_\theta(\gamma)^{-1}.
\label{twoholo3}
\end{equation}
For any three points $p_0,p_1,p_2$ and two curves $\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_1$, $\gamma_2:p_1\rightarrow p_2$,
\begin{equation}
F_\theta(\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1)=F_\theta(\gamma_2)F_\theta(\gamma_1).
\label{twoholo4}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. If $f$ is a $G$--cocycle and $\phi:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is a map, then
the mapping $\phi^*f:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow G$ defined by the expression
\begin{equation}
\phi^*f(x',x)=f(\phi(x'),\phi(x))
\label{twoholoa1}
\end{equation}
satisfies \eqref{cycle2,3} and, so,
is also a $G$--cocycle, the pull--back $\phi^*f$ of $f$ by $\phi$.
The one--to--one correspondence between $G$--connections
$a$ and $G$--cocycles $f\in\Cyc(G)$
established by prop. \ref{theor:cycle1}
is natural with respect to pull-back, as $f_{\phi^*a}=\phi^*f_a$ and
$a_{\phi^*f}=\phi^*a_f$.
For illustration, we show \eqref{twoholo4}.
Define $\phi_1,\phi_2:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
by $\phi_1(x)=x/2$ and $\phi_2(x)=x/2+1/2$. It follows from \eqref{path5,6} that
$(\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1)\circ\phi_1(x)=\gamma_1(x)$ for $x\leq 1$ and
$(\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1)\circ\phi_2(x)=\gamma_2(x)$ for $x\geq 0$. Then,
\begin{align}
F_\theta(&\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1)=f_{\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1{}^*\theta}(1,0)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholoa2}
\\
&=f_{\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1{}^*\theta}(1,1/2)f_{\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1{}^*\theta}(1/2,0)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&=f_{\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1{}^*\theta}(\phi_2(1),\phi_2(0))f_{\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1{}^*\theta}(\phi_1(1),\phi_1(0))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&=\phi_2{}^*f_{\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1{}^*\theta}(1,0)\phi_1{}^*f_{\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1{}^*\theta}(1,0)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&=f_{\phi_2{}^*\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1{}^*\theta}(1,0)f_{\phi_1{}^*\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1{}^*\theta}(1,0)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&=f_{(\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1)\circ\phi_2{}^*\theta}(1,0)f_{(\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1)\circ\phi_1{}^*\theta}(1,0)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&=f_{\gamma_2{}^*\theta}(1,0)f_{\gamma_1{}^*\theta}(1,0)=F_\theta(\gamma_2)F_\theta(\gamma_1).
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\end{align}
\eqref{twoholo2}, \eqref{twoholo3} are proven by similar techniques. \hfill $\Box$
$F_\theta$ has the fundamental property of homotopy invariance as stated by the following proposition.
\begin{prop} \label{theor:twoholo2}
Let $p_0,p_1$ be points and $\gamma_y:p_0\rightarrow p_1$, $y\in\mathbb{R}$, be a smooth $1$--parameter family of curves
such that the mapping $h:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow M$ defined by $h(x,y)=\gamma_y(x)$
is a thin homotopy of $\gamma_0$, $\gamma_1$. Then,
\begin{equation}
F_\theta(\gamma_1)=F_\theta(\gamma_0).
\label{twoholo6}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. The proof is based on the variational formula
\begin{align}
f_{\gamma_y{}^*\theta}(x,x_0)^{-1}&\partial_yf_{\gamma_y{}^*\theta}(x,x_0)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholo5}
\\
&=-\int_{x_0}^x d\xi\,f_{\gamma_y{}^*\theta}(\xi,x_0)^{-1}h^*(d\theta+[\theta,\theta]/2)_{yx}(\xi,y)f_{\gamma_y{}^*\theta}(\xi,x_0)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hphantom{=}\,-f_{\gamma_y{}^*\theta}(x,x_0)^{-1}h^*\theta_{y}(x,y)
f_{\gamma_y{}^*\theta}(x,x_0)+h^*\theta_{y}(x_0,y),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\end{align}
which is straightforward though lengthy to derive. Since $h$ is a thin homotopy,
$h^*(d\theta+[\theta,\theta]/2)_{xy}(x,y)=0$, by \eqref{path11}, and $h^*\theta_{y}(1,y)=h^*\theta_{y}(0,y)=0$,
by \eqref{path7}, \eqref{path8}. Hence, by\eqref{twoholo1}, in virtue of \eqref{twoholo5},
\begin{equation}
F_\theta(\gamma_y)^{-1}\partial_yF_\theta(\gamma_y)=f_{\gamma_y{}^*\theta}(1,0)^{-1}\partial_yf_{\gamma_y{}^*\theta}(1,0)
=0,
\label{twoholo5/1}
\end{equation}
from which \eqref{twoholo6} follows.
\hfill $\Box$
\noindent
The map $F_\theta:\Pi_1M\rightarrow G$ factors so through one $\bar F_\theta:P_1M\rightarrow G$
from the path groupoid $1$--cell set $P_1M$ into $G$, giving a categorical map
$\bar F_\theta:(M,P_1M)\rightarrow BG$
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix{{\text{\footnotesize $p_1$}}&{\text{\footnotesize $p_0$}}\ar[l]_\gamma}
\quad
\xymatrix{\ar@{|->}[r]&}
\quad
\xymatrix@C=3.5pc{{\text{\footnotesize $*$}}&{\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]_{\bar F_\theta(\gamma)}}\!,
\label{diagholo1}
\end{equation}
from the path groupoid $(M,P_1M)$ into the
delooping groupoid $BG$ of the group $G$
(cf. subsects. \ref{sec:cycle} and \ref{sec:path}).
\begin{prop} \label{prop:twoholo3}
$\bar F_\theta$ is a groupoid functor.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. The statement follows from combining props. \ref{prop:twoholo1}, \ref{theor:twoholo2}.
Functoriality results from relations \eqref{twoholo2}--\eqref{twoholo4}. \hfill $\Box$
\begin{defi} \label{def:flat}
The $G$--connection $\theta$ is said flat if
\begin{equation}
d\theta+\frac{1}{2}[\theta,\theta]=0.
\label{twoholo7}
\end{equation}
\end{defi}
\begin{prop} \label{theor:twoholo10} Let $\theta$ be flat.
Let $p_0,p_1$ be points and $\gamma_y:p_0\rightarrow p_1$, $y\in\mathbb{R}$, be a smooth $1$--parameter family of curves
such that \pagebreak the mapping $h:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow M$ defined by $h(x,y)=\gamma_y(x)$
is a homotopy of $\gamma_0$, $\gamma_1$. Then,
\begin{equation}
F_\theta(\gamma_1)=F_\theta(\gamma_0).
\label{twoholo6/1}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. The proof is based on relation
\eqref{twoholo5} and follows the same
lines as that of prop. \ref{theor:twoholo2} except for the vanishing of the integral term
in the right hand side of \eqref{twoholo5} which is now due to the flatness of $\theta$
instead of the thinness of $H$. \hfill $\Box$
\noindent
Hence, the map $F_\theta:\Pi_1M\rightarrow G$ factors through one $\bar F^0{}_\theta:P^0{}_1M\rightarrow G$ from the
fundamental groupoid $1$--cell set $P^0{}_1M$ into $G$ yielding a categorical map
$\bar F_\theta:(M,P^0{}_1M)\rightarrow BG$ of the fundamental groupoid $(M,P^0{}_1M)$
into the delooping groupoid $BG$
\begin{prop} \label{prop:twoholo5}
When the connection $\theta$ is flat,
$\bar F^0{}_\theta:(M,P^0{}_1M)\rightarrow BG$ is a groupoid functor.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. The statement follows from combining prop. \ref{prop:twoholo1} and prop. \ref{theor:twoholo10}
with functoriali\-ty resulting again from relations \eqref{twoholo2}--\eqref{twoholo4}. \hfill $\Box$
We consider now the higher case.
Let $M$ be a manifold and $(G,H)$ be a Lie crossed module.
The basic datum required to define parallel transport is a
$(G,H)$--connection doublet.
\begin{defi} \label{def:ghconn}
A $(G,H)$--connection doublet on $M$, or simply a $(G,H)$--con\-nection doublet,
is a pair of forms $(\theta,\varUpsilon)\in\Omega^1(M,\mathfrak{g})\times \Omega^2(M,\mathfrak{h})$
satisfying the zero fake curvature condition
\begin{equation}
d\theta+\frac{1}{2}[\theta,\theta]-\dot t(\varUpsilon)=0.
\label{twoholo8}
\end{equation}
We denote the set of $(G,H)$--connection doublets by $\Conn(M,G,H)$.
\end{defi}
\noindent
If $\varSigma$ is a surface and $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ is a $(G,H)$--connection doublet on $M$, then
$(\varSigma^*\theta$, $\varSigma^*\varUpsilon)$ is a $(G,H)$--connection in the sense
of def. \ref{def:ghconn}. By prop. \ref{theor:cycle2},
with $(\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon)$ there is then associated a $(G,H)$--cocycle
$(f_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|0},g_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|0},
W_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|0})$.
\begin{defi}
Let $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ be a $(G,H)$--connection. Let further
$p_0,p_1$ be points, $\gamma_0,\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ be curves and
$\varSigma:\gamma_0\Rightarrow \gamma_1$ be a surface.
The $1$--parallel transport along $\gamma_0,\gamma_1$ and $2$--parallel transport along
$\varSigma$ induced by $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ are
\begin{subequations}
\label{twoholo9,10,11}
\begin{align}
&F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_0)=f_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|0}(1,0),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholo9}
\\
&F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_1)=f_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|1}(1,0),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholo10}
\\
&F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma)=W_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}(0,1;1,0).
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholo11}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{defi}
From the target matching condition
$(f_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|0},g_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|0},
W_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|0})$ obeys (cf. eq. \eqref{cycle15}),
one has the following result.
\begin{prop} Let $p_0,p_1$ be points, $\gamma_0,\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ be curves and
$\varSigma:\gamma_0\Rightarrow \gamma_1$ be a surface. Then, one has
\begin{equation}
F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_1)
=t(F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma))F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_0).
\label{twoholo14}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. To begin with, we observe that there is $\epsilon>0$ with $\epsilon<1/2$ such that
\begin{equation}
g_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|x}(y',y)=1_G
\label{twoholob1}
\end{equation}
for $x<\epsilon$ or $x>1-\epsilon$ and arbitrary $y,y'$.
This follows from the fact that, by prop. \ref{theor:cycle2},
$g_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|x}(y',y)$ is the solution
of the differential problem \eqref{cycle37}, \eqref{cycle40} with $a_y(x,y)$ replaced by
$\varSigma^*\theta_y(x,y)$ and that $\varSigma^*\theta_y(x,y)=0$ identically for the values of $x$ indicated
on account of \eqref{path7}, \eqref{path8}.
By \eqref{twoholo9}--\eqref{twoholo11}, using the properties \eqref{cycle15},
\eqref{cycle17} and taking \eqref{twoholob1} into account, we find
\begin{align}
t(F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma))&=t(W_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}(0,1;1,0))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholob2}
\\
&=g_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|1}(1,0)^{-1}f_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|1}(0,1)^{-1}
g_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|0}(1,0)f_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|0}(0,1)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&=f_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|1}(1,0)f_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|0}(1,0)^{-1}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&=F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_1)F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_0)^{-1},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\end{align}
which leads immediately to \eqref{twoholo14}. \hfill $\Box$
\noindent
Physical intuition suggests that it should be possible to express the
$1$--parallel transport $F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma)$ along a curve $\gamma$
independently from any other curve $\gamma'$ with the same endpoints and surface
$\varSigma$ connecting $\gamma$ to $\gamma'$. This is indeed the case, as we shall show next.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:para}
Let $p_0,p_1$ be points and $\gamma:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ be a curve. Then,
$f_{I_\gamma{}^*\theta,I_\gamma{}^*\varUpsilon|y}$, where $I_\gamma:\gamma\Rightarrow\gamma$ is the unit surface of $\gamma$
(cf. eq. \eqref{path16}),
is independent from the value of $y$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\it Proof}. By prop. \ref{theor:cycle2},
$f_{I_\gamma{}^*\theta,I_\gamma{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,x_0)$ is the solution
of the differential problem \eqref{cycle36}, \eqref{cycle39} with
$a_x(x,y)=I_\gamma{}^*\theta_x(x,y)$. Since $I_\gamma{}^*\theta_x(x,y)=\gamma^*a_x(x)$ is independent from $y$, so is
$f_{I_\gamma{}^*\theta,I_\gamma{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,x_0)$. \hfill $\Box$
\begin{defi} \label{def:alt1tr} If $p_0,p_1$ are points and $\gamma:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ is a curve, one sets
\begin{equation}
F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma)=f_{I_\gamma{}^*\theta,I_\gamma{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(1,0).
\label{twoholo13}
\end{equation}
\end{defi}
\begin{prop} \label{prop:paraequiv}
If $p_0,p_1$ are points, $\gamma_0,\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ are curves and
$\varSigma:\gamma_0\Rightarrow \gamma_1$ is a surface, then the value of $F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_i)$
computed using \eqref{twoholo9}, \eqref{twoholo10} equals that obtained using \eqref{twoholo13}.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. By prop. \ref{theor:cycle2},
$f_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,x_0)$ is the solution
of the differential problem \eqref{cycle36}, \eqref{cycle39} with
$a_x(x,y)=\varSigma^*\theta_x(x,y)$.
Likewise, $f_{I_{\gamma_i}{}^*\theta,I_{\gamma_i}{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,x_0)$ solves
the differential problem \eqref{cycle36}, \eqref{cycle39}
with $a_x(x,y)=I_{\gamma_i}{}^*\theta_x(x,y)$. Since $I_{\gamma_i}{}^*\theta_x(x,y)=\varSigma^*\theta_x(x,i)$
for $i=1,2$ and any $y$, we have
$f_{I_{\gamma_i}{}^*\theta,I_{\gamma_i}{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,x_0)=f_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|i}(x,x_0)$.
Hence, \eqref{twoholo9}, \eqref{twoholo10} and \eqref{twoholo13} furnish the same value of $F_{\theta,\varUpsilon|y}(\gamma_i)$.
\hfill $\Box$
Let us fix a $(G,H)$--connection doublet $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$.
We have then two mappings $F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}:\Pi_1M\rightarrow G$
and $F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}:\Pi_2M\rightarrow H$.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:twoholo6} For any point $p$, one has
\begin{equation}
F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\iota_p)=1_G.
\label{twoholo15}
\end{equation}
For any two points $p_0,p_1$ and curve $\gamma:p_0\rightarrow p_1$, one has
\begin{equation}
F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma^{-1_\circ})=F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma)^{-1}.
\label{twoholo16}
\end{equation}
For any three $p_0,p_1,p_2$ and two curves $\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_1$, $\gamma_2:p_1\rightarrow p_2$,
\begin{equation}
F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1)=F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_2)F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_1).
\label{twoholo17}
\end{equation}
For any two points $p_0,p_1$ and curve $\gamma:p_0\rightarrow p_1$,
\begin{equation}
F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(I_\gamma)=1_H.
\label{twoholo18}
\end{equation}
If $p_0,p_1$ are points, $\gamma_0,\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ are curves and
$\varSigma:\gamma_0\Rightarrow\gamma_1$ is a surface, then
\begin{equation}
F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma^{-1\bullet})=F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma)^{-1}.
\label{twoholo19}
\end{equation}
If $p_0,p_1$ are points, $\gamma_0,\gamma_1,\gamma_2:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ are curves and
$\varSigma_1:\gamma_0\Rightarrow\gamma_1$, $\varSigma_2:\gamma_1\Rightarrow\gamma_2$ are surfaces, then
\hphantom{xxxxxxxxxxx}
\begin{equation}
F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma_2\bullet\varSigma_1)
=F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma_2)F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma_1).
\label{twoholo20}
\end{equation}
If $p_0,p_1$ are points, $\gamma_0,\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ are curves
and $\varSigma:\gamma_0\Rightarrow\gamma_1$ is a surface, then
\begin{equation}
F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma^{-1\circ})
=m(F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_0)^{-1})(F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma)^{-1}).
\label{twoholo21}
\end{equation}
If $p_0,p_1,p_2$ are points, $\gamma_0,\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_1$, $\gamma_2,\gamma_3:p_1\rightarrow p_2$
are curves and $\varSigma_1:\gamma_0\Rightarrow\gamma_1$, $\varSigma_2:\gamma_2\Rightarrow\gamma_3$
are surfaces, then
\begin{equation}
F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1)
=F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma_2)m(F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_2))(F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma_1)).
\label{twoholo22}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. \pagebreak
For any map $\phi:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, we define two maps
$l_\phi:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^2$,
$r_\phi:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^2$ by setting
$l_\phi(x,y)=(\phi(x),y)$, $r_\phi(x,y)=(x,\phi(y))$.
If $(f,g,W)$ is a $(G,H)$--cocycle, the maps
$l_\phi{}^*f:\mathbb{R}^2\times \mathbb{R}\rightarrow G$,
$l_\phi{}^*g:\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow G$,
$l_\phi{}^*W:\mathbb{R}^2\times \mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow H$ given by
\begin{subequations}
\label{twoholoc1,2,3}
\begin{align}
&l_\phi{}^*f(x',x;y)=f(\phi(x'),\phi(x);y),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholoc1}
\\
&l_\phi{}^*g(x;y',y)=g(\phi(x);y',y),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholoc2}
\\
&l_\phi{}^*W(x',x;y',y)=W(\phi(x'),\phi(x);y',y)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholoc3}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and those $r_\phi{}^*f:\mathbb{R}^2\times \mathbb{R}\rightarrow G$,
$r_\phi{}^*g:\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow G$,
$r_\phi{}^*W:\mathbb{R}^2\times \mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow H$ by
\begin{subequations}
\label{twoholoc4,5,6}
\begin{align}
&r_\phi{}^*f(x',x;y)=f(x',x;\phi(y)), \hspace{1.55cm}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholoc4}
\\
&r_\phi{}^*g(x;y',y)=g(x;\phi(y'),\phi(y)),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholoc5}
\\
&r_\phi{}^*W(x',x;y',y)=W(x',x;\phi(y'),\phi(y))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholoc6}
\end{align}
\end{subequations} %
satisfy \eqref{cycle15} and \eqref{cycle11,12,13,14}
and, consequently, constitute two $(G,H)$--cocycles, the left and right pull-back
$(l_\phi{}^*f,l_\phi{}^*g,l_\phi{}^*W)$, $(r_\phi{}^*f,r_\phi{}^*g,r_\phi{}^*W)$
of $(f,g,W)$ by $\phi$.
The one--to--one correspondence between $(G,H)$--connections
$(a,B)$ and $(G$, $H)$--cocycles $(f,g,W)$ stated by prop. \ref{theor:cycle2}
is natural with respect to left/right pull-back, as one has
$(f_{l_\phi{}^*a,l_\phi{}^*B},g_{l_\phi{}^*a,l_\phi{}^*B},W_{l_\phi{}^*a,l_\phi{}^*B})$ $=$
$(l_\phi{}^*f_{a,B},l_\phi{}^*g_{a,B},l_\phi{}^*W_{a,B})$ and
$(a_{l_\phi{}^*f,l_\phi{}^*g,l_\phi{}^*W},B_{l_\phi{}^*f,l_\phi{}^*g,l_\phi{}^*W})
=(l_\phi{}^*a_{f,g,W},\!l_\phi{}^*B_{f,g,W})$ for left pull-back and \linebreak
$(f_{r_\phi{}^*a,r_\phi{}^*B}$, $g_{r_\phi{}^*a,r_\phi{}^*B}$, $W_{r_\phi{}^*a,r_\phi{}^*B})
=(r_\phi{}^*f_{a,B},r_\phi{}^*g_{a,B}$,
$r_\phi{}^*W_{a,B})$ and
$(a_{r_\phi{}^*f,r_\phi{}^*g,r_\phi{}^*W}$, $B_{r_\phi{}^*f,r_\phi{}^*g,r_\phi{}^*W})
=(r_\phi{}^*a_{f,g,W},r_\phi{}^*B_{f,g,W})$ for right pull-back.
As an illustration, we prove \eqref{twoholo20}.
Define $\phi_1,\phi_2:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
by $\phi_1(x)=x/2$ and $\phi_2(x)=x/2+1/2$. It follows from \eqref{path21,22} that
$(I_{\gamma_2}\circ I_{\gamma_1})\circ l_{\phi_1}(x,y)=I_{\gamma_1}(x,y)$ for $x\leq 1$ and
$(I_{\gamma_2}\circ I_{\gamma_1})\circ l_{\phi_2}(x,y)=I_{\gamma_2}(x,y)$ for $x\geq 0$. Then,
by \eqref{cycle13} and \eqref{cycle17}, we have
\begin{align}
F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}&(\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1)
=W_{\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\theta,\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\varUpsilon|1,0}(0,1)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholoc7}
\\
&=W_{\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\theta,\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\varUpsilon|1,0}(1/2,1) \hspace{7.8cm}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{align}
&\hspace{2.15cm}\times
m(f_{\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\theta,\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\varUpsilon|0}(1/2,1)^{-1})
(W_{\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\theta,\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\varUpsilon|1,0}(0,1/2))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&=W_{\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\theta,\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\varUpsilon|1,0}(\phi_2(0),\phi_2(1))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{.05cm}\times
m(f_{\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\theta,\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\varUpsilon|0}(\phi_2(0),\phi_2(1))^{-1})
(W_{\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\theta,\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\varUpsilon|1,0}(\phi_1(0),\phi_1(1)))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&=l_{\phi_2}{}^*W_{\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\theta,\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\varUpsilon|1,0}(0,1)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{1.75cm}\times
m(l_{\phi_2}{}^*f_{\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\theta,\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\varUpsilon|0}(0,1)^{-1})
(l_{\phi_1}{}^*W_{\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\theta,\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\varUpsilon|1,0}(0,1))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&=W_{l_{\phi_2}{}^*\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\theta,l_{\phi_2}{}^*\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\varUpsilon|1,0}(0,1)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{.75cm}\times
m(f_{l_{\phi_2}{}^*\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\theta,l_{\phi_2}{}^*\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\varUpsilon|0}(0,1)^{-1})
(W_{l_{\phi_1}{}^*\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\theta,l_{\phi_1}{}^*\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1{}^*\varUpsilon|1,0}(0,1))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&=W_{(\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1)\circ l_{\phi_2}{}^*\theta,(\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1)\circ l_{\phi_2}{}^*\varUpsilon|1,0}(0,1)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
\hspace{-.15cm}\times
m(f_{(\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1)\circ l_{\phi_2}{}^*\theta,(\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1)\circ l_{\phi_2}{}^*\varUpsilon|0}(0,1)^{-1})
(W_{(\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1)\circ l_{\phi_1}{}^*\theta,(\varSigma_2\circ\varSigma_1)\circ l_{\phi_1}{}^*\varUpsilon|1,0}(0,1))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&=W_{\varSigma_2{}^*\theta,\varSigma_2{}^*\varUpsilon|1,0}(0,1)
m(f_{\varSigma_2{}^*\theta,\varSigma_2{}^*\varUpsilon|0}(0,1)^{-1})
(W_{\varSigma_1{}^*\theta,\varSigma_1{}^*\varUpsilon|1,0}(0,1))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{6cm}
=F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma_2)m(F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_2))(F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma_1))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\end{align}
\eqref{twoholo20} is proven by a similar procedure involving this time
right pull-back. The other relations are shown by using similar techniques. \hfill $\Box$
Analogously to the ordinary case, $F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}$ is thin homotopy invariant as established by the following theorem.
\begin{prop} \label{theor:twoholo3}
Let $p_0,p_1$ be points and $\gamma_{0z},\gamma_{1z}:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ and
$\varSigma_z:\gamma_{0z}\Rightarrow\gamma_{1z}$, $z\in\mathbb{R}$ be $1$--parameter families of curves
and surfaces such that the mapping $H:\mathbb{R}^3\rightarrow M$ defined by $H(x,y,z)=\varSigma_z(x,y)$
is a thin homotopy of $\varSigma_0$, $\varSigma_1$. Then, one has the identities
\begin{subequations}
\label{twoholo28,29,30}
\begin{align}
&F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_{01})=F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_{00}),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholo28}
\\
&F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_{11})=F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_{10}),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholo29}
\\
&F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma_1)=F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma_0).
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholo30}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. The proof is based on the variational formulae \pagebreak
\begin{align}
&f_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,x_0)^{-1}
\partial_zf_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,x_0
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholo23}
\\
&=-\int_{x_0}^x d\xi\,f_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(\xi,x_0)^{-1}
\dot t(H^*\varUpsilon_{zx}(\xi,y,z))
f_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(\xi,x_0)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hphantom{=}\,-f_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,x_0)^{-1}H^*\theta_{z}(x,y,z)
f_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,x_0)+H^*\theta_{z}(x_0,y,z),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&g_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon|x}(y,y_0)^{-1}
\partial_zg_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon|x}(y,y_0)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholo24}
\\
&=-\int_{y_0}^y d\eta\,g_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon|x}(\eta,y_0)^{-1}
\dot t(H^*\varUpsilon_{zy}(x,\eta,z))
g_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon|x}(\eta,y_0)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hphantom{=}\,-g_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon|x}(y,y_0)^{-1}H^*\theta_{z}(x,y,z)
g_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon|x}(y,y_0)+H^*\theta_{z}(x,y_0,z),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&W_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon}(x,x_0;y,y_0)^{-1}
\partial_zW_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon}(x,x_0;y,y_0)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholo25}
\\
&=-\int_{x_0}^xd\xi \int_{y_0}^yd\eta\, W_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon}(x,x_0;\eta,y_0)^{-1}
\dot m(g_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon|x_0}(\eta,y_0)^{-1}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{.5cm}\times f_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon|\eta}(\xi,x_0)^{-1})
(H^*(d\varUpsilon+[\theta,\varUpsilon])_{xyz}(\xi,\eta,z))W_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon}(x,x_0;\eta,y_0)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hphantom{=}\,-\int_{x_0}^xd\xi\Big[W_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon}(x,x_0;y,y_0)^{-1}
\dot m(g_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon|x_0}(y,y_0)^{-1}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{1cm}\times f_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(\xi,x_0)^{-1})
(H^*\varUpsilon_{xz}(\xi,y,z))W_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon}(x,x_0;y,y_0)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{1cm}-\dot m(f_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon|y_0}(\xi,x_0)^{-1})
(H^*\varUpsilon_{xz}(\xi,y_0,z))\Big]
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hphantom{=}\,+\int_{y_0}^yd\eta\Big[W_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon}(x,x_0;y,y_0)^{-1}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{1cm}
\times\dot m(g_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon|x_0}(\eta,y_0)^{-1})(H^*\varUpsilon_{zy}(x_0,\eta,z))
W_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon}(x,x_0;y,y_0)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{1cm}-\dot m(f_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon|y_0}(x,x_0)^{-1}
g_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon|x}(\eta,y_0)^{-1})
(H^*\varUpsilon_{zy}(x,\eta,z))\Big]
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{1cm}+Q(H^*\theta_z(x_0,y_0,z),W_{\varSigma_z{}^*\theta,\varSigma_z{}^*\varUpsilon}(x,x_0;y,y_0)^{-1}),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\end{align}
which are straightforward albeit very lengthy to obtain. Since $H$ is a thin homotopy,
$H^*\varUpsilon_{zx}(x,i,z)=0$ for $i=0,1$, by \eqref{path29},
$H^*(d\varUpsilon+[\theta,\varUpsilon])_{xyz}(x,y,z)=0$, by \eqref{path30},
and $H^*\theta_z(i,j,z)=0$ and $H^*\varUpsilon_{yx}(i,y,z)=0$ for $i,j=0,1$,
by \eqref{path23}, \eqref{path24}. Therefore, by \eqref{twoholo9}--\eqref{twoholo11},
in virtue of \eqref{twoholo23}, \eqref{twoholo25}, we have \hphantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_{0z})^{-1}\partial_zF_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_{0z})=0,
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
&F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_{1z})^{-1}\partial_zF_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_{1z})=0,
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{}
\\
&F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma_z)^{-1}\partial_zF_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma_z)=0,
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
from which \eqref{twoholo28}--\eqref{twoholo30} follow. \hfill $\Box$
\noindent
The thin homotopy invariance of $1$--parallel transport holds also
if the latter is defined autonomously according to def. \ref{def:alt1tr}.
\begin{prop} \label{theor:twoholo3/1}
Let $p_0,p_1$ be points and $\gamma_y:p_0\rightarrow p_1$, $y\in\mathbb{R}$, be a smooth $1$--parameter family of curves
such that the mapping $h:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow M$ defined by $h(x,y)=\gamma_y(x)$
is a thin homotopy of $\gamma_0$, $\gamma_1$. Then,
\begin{equation}
F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_1)=F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_0).
\label{twoholo6/2}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. Under the assumptions made, the $1$--parameter family of surfaces
$I_{\gamma_z}:\gamma_z\Rightarrow\gamma_z$ is such that $H(x,y,z)=I_{\gamma_z}(x,y)=\gamma_z(x)$
is a thin homotopy of $I_{\gamma_0}$, $I_{\gamma_1}$. The statement then follows from prop.
\ref{theor:twoholo3} with $\gamma_{0z}=\gamma_{1z}=\gamma_z$ and $\varSigma_z=I_{\gamma_z}$.
\hfill $\Box$
\noindent
The maps $\bar F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}:\Pi_1M\rightarrow G$, $\bar F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}:\Pi_2M\rightarrow H$ factor therefore through
others $\bar F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}:P_1M\rightarrow G$, $\bar F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}:P_2M\rightarrow H$ from the path groupoid $1$-- and $2$--cell
sets $P_1M$, $P_2M$ into $G$, $H$, respectively, and, so, it induces a categorical map
$\bar F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}:(M,P_1M,P_2M)\rightarrow B_0(G,H)$
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix@C=3pc@R=3.3pc{
{\text{\footnotesize $p_0$}}
& {\text{\footnotesize $p_1$}} \ar@/^1pc/[l]^{\gamma_1}="0"
\ar@/_1pc/[l]_{\gamma_0}="1"
\ar@{=>}"1"+<0ex,-2.ex>;"0"+<0ex,2.ex>_{\varSigma\,}
}
\quad
\xymatrix{\ar@{|->}[r]&}
\quad
\xymatrix@C=9pc@R=3.3pc{
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}}
& {\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar@/^1pc/[l]^{\bar F_{\theta,\Upsilon}(\gamma_1)}="0"
\ar@/_1pc/[l]_{\bar F_{\theta,\Upsilon}(\gamma_0)}="1"
\ar@{=>}"1"+<0ex,-2.ex>;"0"+<0ex,2.ex>_{\bar F_{\theta,\Upsilon}(\varSigma)\,}
}
\label{diagholo2}
\end{equation}
of the path $2$--groupoid $(M,P_1M,,P_2M)$ into the
delooping $2$--groupoid $B_0(G,H)$ of the Lie crossed module $(G,H)$.
(cf. subsects. \ref{sec:cycle} and \ref{sec:path}).
\begin{prop} \label{prop:twoholo7}
$\bar F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}$ is a $2$--groupoid $2$--functor.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. The statement follows from combining props. \ref{prop:twoholo6}, \ref{theor:twoholo3}.
Functoriality results from relations \eqref{twoholo15}--\eqref{twoholo22}. \hfill $\Box$
\begin{defi} \label{def:hflat}
The $(G,H)$--connection $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ is said flat if
\begin{equation}
d\varUpsilon+[\theta,\varUpsilon]=0
\label{twoholo27}
\end{equation}
\end{defi}
\begin{prop} \label{theor:twoholo11} Let $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ be flat.
Let $p_0,p_1$ be points and $\gamma_{0z},\gamma_{1z}:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ and
$\varSigma_z:\gamma_{0z}\Rightarrow\gamma_{1z}$, $z\in\mathbb{R}$ be $1$--parameter families of curves
and surfaces such that the mapping $H:\mathbb{R}^3\rightarrow M$ defined by $H(x,y,z)=\varSigma_z(x,y)$
is a homotopy of $\varSigma_0$, $\varSigma_1$. Then, one has the identities
\begin{subequations}
\label{twoholo28,29,30/1}
\begin{align}
&F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_{01})=F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_{00}),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholo28/1}
\\
&F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_{11})=F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_{10}),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholo29/1}
\\
&F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma_1)=F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma_0).
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twoholo30/1}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. The proof is based on the variational formulae \eqref{twoholo23}, \eqref{twoholo25} and follows the same
lines as that of prop. \ref{theor:twoholo3} except for the vanishing of the double integral term
in the right hand side of \eqref{twoholo25} which is now due to the flatness of $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$
instead of the thinness of $H$. \hfill $\Box$
\noindent
Prop. \ref{theor:twoholo3/1} of course keeps holding unchanged.
\noindent
In this way, the maps $\bar F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}:\Pi_1M\rightarrow G$, $\bar F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}:\Pi_2M\rightarrow H$
factor through others $\bar F^0{}_{\theta,\varUpsilon}:P_1M\rightarrow G$, $\bar F^0{}_{\theta,\varUpsilon}:P^0{}_2M\rightarrow H$
from the fundamental groupoid $1$-- and $2$--cell
sets $P_1M$, $P^0{}_2M$ into $G$, $H$, respectively, yielding so a a categorical map
$\bar F^0{}_{\theta,\varUpsilon}:(M,P_1M,P^0{}_2M)\rightarrow B_0(G,H)$
of the fundamental $2$--groupoid $(M,P_1M,,P^0{}_2M)$ into the
delooping $2$--groupoid $B_0(G,H)$.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:twoholo8}
When the connection doublet $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ is flat,
$\bar F^0{}_{\theta,\varUpsilon}:(M,P_1M$, $P^0{}_2M)\rightarrow B_0(G,H)$ is a
$2$--groupoid $2$--functor. \end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. The statement follows from combining prop. \ref{prop:twoholo6} and prop. \ref{theor:twoholo11}
with functoriali\-ty resulting again from relations \eqref{twoholo15}--\eqref{twoholo22}. \hfill $\Box$
We now turn to the analysis of $1$--gauge transformation of parallel
transport. \vskip1mm
\vfil\eject
\subsection{\normalsize \textcolor{blue}{$2$--parallel transport and $1$--gauge transformation}}
\label{sec:gauholo}
\hspace{.5cm}
In this subsection, we shall analyze $1$--gauge transformation of higher parallel
transport relying on the cocycle $1$--gauge transformation set--up
of sect. \ref{sec:hiholo}.
We begin by reviewing gauge transformation in ordinary gauge theory.
Let $M$ be a manifold and $G$ be a Lie group.
\begin{defi} A $G$--gauge transformation is a map $g\in\Map(M,G)$.
We denote by $\Gau(M,G)$ the set of all gauge transformations.
\end{defi}
$G$--gauge transformations act on $G$--connections (cf. def. \ref{def:gconn}).
\begin{defi}
Let $a$ be a $G$--connection and $g$ be a $G$--gauge transformation.
The gauge transformed $G$--connection ${}^g\theta$ is
\begin{equation}
{}^g\theta=\Ad g (a)-dgg^{-1}.
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholo1}
\end{equation}
\end{defi}
\begin{prop} If $\theta$ is a flat $G$--connection, then, for any $G$--gauge transformation $g$,
${}^g\theta$ is also a flat $G$--connection (cf. def. \ref{def:flat}).
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. Indeed, using \eqref{gauholo1}, one computes
\begin{equation}
d{}^g\theta+\frac{1}{2}[{}^g\theta,{}^g\theta]=\Ad g\Big(d\theta+\frac{1}{2}[\theta,\theta]\Big)=0,
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholo1/0}
\end{equation}
which shows the flatness of ${}^g\theta$. \hfill $\Box$
The following theorem is a classic result.
\begin{prop} \label{theor:pargau1} Let $\theta$ be a $G$--connection and
$g$ be a $G$--gauge transformation.
Let further $p_0$, $p_1$ be points and $\gamma:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ be a curve.
Then, the parallel transports $F_\theta(\gamma)$ and $F_{{}^g\theta}(\gamma)$ along $\gamma$
are related as
\begin{equation}
F_{{}^g\theta}(\gamma)=g(p_1)F_\theta(\gamma)g(p_0)^{-1}.
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholo2}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\noindent
{\it Proof}. According to prop. \ref{theor:cycle1}, there exists a \pagebreak
one--to--one correspondence between $\mathfrak{g}$--valued $1$--forms $a$ on $\mathbb{R}$ and
$G$--cocycles $f$. By \eqref{gauge30}, \eqref{gauge31}, the action of a gauge transformation
$\varkappa$ on a cocycle $f$ is such that $a_{{}^\varkappa f}={}^\varkappa a_f$. Then,
\begin{equation}
{}^\varkappa a=a_{{}^\varkappa f}\big|_{f=f_a}.
\label{gauholo0}
\end{equation}
From this relation, it follows so that
\begin{equation}
f_{{}^\varkappa a
={}^\varkappa f_a.
\label{gauholoa1}
\end{equation}
Setting $a=\gamma^*\theta$ and $\varkappa=\gamma^*g$ in the above relation, we obtain
\begin{equation}
f_{{}^{\gamma^*g} \gamma^*\theta}={}^{\gamma^*g} f_{\gamma^*\theta}.
\label{gauholoa2}
\end{equation}
From here, noting that $\gamma^*{}^g\theta={}^{\gamma^*g}\gamma^*\theta$, we find
\begin{align}
&F_{{}^g\theta}(\gamma)=f_{\gamma^*{}^g\theta}(1,0)=f_{{}^{\gamma^*g} \gamma^*\theta}(1,0)
={}^{\gamma^*g} f_{\gamma^*\theta}(1,0)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholoa3}
\\
&\hspace{2.5cm}=\gamma^*g(1)f_{\gamma^*\theta}(1,0)\gamma^*g(0)^{-1}
=g(p_1)F_\theta(\gamma)g(p_0)^{-1}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\end{align}
as was to be shown. \hfill $\Box$
Recall that, for a $G$--connection $\theta$, the mapping $F_\theta:\Pi_1M\rightarrow G$
induces a groupoid functor $\bar F_\theta:(M,P_1M)\rightarrow BG$ of the path groupoid $(M,P_1M)$ of $M$ in
the delooping $BG$ of $G$ in virtue of its thin homotopy invariance
(cf. prop. \ref{prop:twoholo3}). Likewise, when the $G$--connection $\theta$ is flat,
by its homotopy invariance, $F_\theta$ induces a groupoid functor $\bar F^0{}_\theta:(M,P^0{}_1M)\rightarrow BG$
of the fundamental groupoid $(M,P^0{}_1M)$ of $M$ into $BG$ (cf. prop. \ref{prop:twoholo5}).
\begin{prop}
For any $G$--connection $\theta$,
a $G$--gauge transformation $g$ encodes a natural transformation $\bar F_\theta\Rightarrow \bar F_{{}^g\theta}$
of functors.
If $\theta$ is flat, then $g$ yields a natural transformation $\bar F^0{}_\theta\Rightarrow \bar F^0{}_{{}^g\theta}$.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. By \eqref{gauholo2}, the diagram
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix@C=3pc{
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[d]_{g(p_1)}
& {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]_{F_\theta(\gamma)} \ar[d]^{g(p_0)}
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} & {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]^{F_{{}^g\theta}(\gamma)}
}
\label{gaunat1}
\end{equation}
commutes,
identifying $g$ as a natural transformation $\bar F_\theta\Rightarrow \bar F_{{}^g\theta}$
or $\bar F^0{}_\theta\Rightarrow \bar F^0{}_{{}^g\theta}$. \hfill $\Box$
We now shift to higher gauge theory, introduce the notion of $1$--gauge transformation
and study
its action on connection doublets and $2$--parallel transport.
Let $M$ be a manifold and $(G,H)$ be a Lie crossed module.
\begin{defi} A differential $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformation is a pair
of a map $g\in\Map(M,G)$ and a $1$--form $J\in\Omega^1(M,\mathfrak{h})$.
We denote by $\Gau_1(M,G,H)$ the set of all differential $1$--gauge transformations.
\end{defi}
Differential $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformations act on $(G,H)$--connections doublets
(cf. def. \ref{def:ghconn}).
\begin{defi}
Let $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ be a $(G,H)$--connection doublet and $(g,J)$ be a
$(G$, $H)$--$1$--gauge transformation.
The gauge transformed $(G,H)$--connection doublet $({}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon)$ is
\begin{subequations}
\label{gauholo3,4}
\begin{align}
&{}^{g,J}\theta=\Ad g(\theta)-dgg^{-1}-\dot t(J),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholo3}
\\
&{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon=\dot m(g)(\varUpsilon)-dJ
-\frac{1}{2}[J,J]-\widehat{m}(\Ad g(\theta) -dgg^{-1}-\dot t(J),J).
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholo4}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{defi}
It can be checked that this gauge transformation is compatible with the zero fake
curvature condition \eqref{twoholo8}.
\begin{prop} If $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ is a flat $(G,H)$--connection doublet, then, for any $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformation
$(g,J)$, $({}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon)$ is also a flat $(G,H)$--connection doublet
(cf. def. \ref{def:hflat}).
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. Indeed, using \eqref{gauholo3,4}, taking \eqref{twoholo8} into account, one finds
\begin{equation}
d{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon+[{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon]
=\dot m(g)(d\varUpsilon+[\theta,\varUpsilon])=0,
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholoh1/0}
\end{equation}
which shows the flatness of $({}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}J)$. \hfill $\Box$
Recall that, by prop. \ref{theor:cycle2}, \pagebreak with a $(G,H)$--connection doublet $(a,B)$ in the sense
of def. \ref{def:r2ghconn} there is associated a $(G,H)$--cocycle $(f_{a,B},g_{a,B},W_{a,B})$. Further,
by prop. \ref{theor:gauge1}, with a differential $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformation
$(\varkappa,\varGamma)$ in the sense of def. \ref{def:r2dghgau}, there is associated an
$(f_{a,B},g_{a,B},W_{a,B})$--$1$--gauge transformation $(\kappa_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B},\varPsi_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B},
\varPhi_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B})$. This depends not only on the differential transformation $(\varkappa,\varGamma)$ but also
on the connection doublet $(a,B)$, when this latter is allowed to vary.
The following basic result extends prop. \ref{theor:pargau1} to higher gauge theory in a non trivial manner.
\begin{prop} \label{theor:pargau2} Let $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ be a $(G,H)$--connection doublet and
$(g,J)$ be a $(G$, $H)$--$1$--gauge transformation.
Let further $p_0,p_1$ be points, $\gamma_0,\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ be curves and
$\varSigma:\gamma_0\Rightarrow \gamma_1$ be a surface. Then, we have
\begin{subequations}
\label{gauholo5,6,7}
\begin{align}
&F_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}(\gamma_0)=g(p_1)
t(G_{g,J;\theta,\Upsilon}(\gamma_0))F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_0)g(p_0)^{-1},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholo5}
\\
&F_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}(\gamma_1)=g(p_1)
t(G_{g,J;\theta,\Upsilon}(\gamma_1))F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_1)g(p_0)^{-1},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholo6}
\\
&F_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}(\varSigma)
=m(g(p_1))\big(G_{g,J;\theta,\Upsilon}(\gamma_1)
F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma)G_{g,J;\theta,\Upsilon}(\gamma_0)^{-1}\big),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholo7}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $G_{g,J;\theta,\Upsilon}(\gamma_0)$, $G_{g,J;\theta,\Upsilon}(\gamma_1)$ are given by
\begin{subequations}
\label{gauholo8,9}
\begin{align}
&G_{g,J;\theta,\Upsilon}(\gamma_0)=\varPsi_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|0}(0,1),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholo8}
\\
&G_{g,J;\theta,\Upsilon}(\gamma_1)=\varPsi_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|1}(0,1).
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholo9}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. By \eqref{gauge26,27}, \eqref{gauge28,29}, the one--to--one correspondence
between $(G,H)$--cocycles $(f,g,W)$ and $(G,H)$ connections $(a,B)$ (in the sense of def. \ref{def:ghconn})
on one hand and integral $(f,g,W)$--$1$--gauge transformations $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$ and differential
$(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformations (in the sense of def. \ref{def:r2dghgau}) on the other is such that
$a_{{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W}=
{}^{\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi},\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}}a_{f,g,W}$,
$B_{{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W}=
{}^{\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi},\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}}B_{f,g,W}$.
Using these results, it is readily checked that
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&{}^{\varkappa,\varGamma} a=a_{{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{}
\\
&\hspace{2.75cm}
\big|_{\kappa=\kappa_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B},\varPsi=\varPsi_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B},\varPhi=\varPhi_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B};f=f_{a,B},g=g_{a,B},W=W_{a,B}},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{align}
&{}^{\varkappa,\varGamma} B=B_{{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}f,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}g,{}^{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi}W}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{}
\\
&\hspace{2.75cm}
\big|_{\kappa=\kappa_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B},\varPsi=\varPsi_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B},\varPhi=\varPhi_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B};f=f_{a,B},g=g_{a,B},W=W_{a,B}}.
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
From these relation, it follows immediately that
\begin{subequations}
\label{gauholob1,2,3}
\begin{align}
&f_{{}^{\varkappa,\varGamma}a,{}^{\varkappa,\varGamma}B}
={}^{\kappa_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B},\varPsi_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B},\varPhi_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B}}f_{a,B},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholob1}
\\
&g_{{}^{\varkappa,\varGamma}a,{}^{\varkappa,\varGamma}B}
={}^{\kappa_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B},\varPsi_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B},\varPhi_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B}}g_{a,B},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholob2}
\\
&W_{{}^{\varkappa,\varGamma}a,{}^{\varkappa,\varGamma}B}
={}^{\kappa_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B},\varPsi_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B},\varPhi_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B}}W_{a,B}.
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholob3}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Setting $a=\varSigma^*\theta$, $B=\varSigma^*\varUpsilon$ and
$\varkappa=\varSigma^*g$, $\varGamma=\varSigma^*J$ in
the \eqref{gauholob1,2,3}, we obtain
\begin{subequations}
\label{gauholob5,6,7}
\begin{align}
&f_{{}^{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J}\varSigma^*\theta,{}^{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J}\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholob5}
\\
&\hspace{3cm}
={}^{\kappa_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon},
\varPsi_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon},
\varPhi_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}}f_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&g_{{}^{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J}\varSigma^*\theta,{}^{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J}\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholob6}
\\
&\hspace{3cm}
={}^{\kappa_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon},
\varPsi_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon},
\varPhi_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}}g_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&W_{{}^{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J}\varSigma^*\theta,{}^{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J}\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholob7}
\\
&\hspace{3cm}
={}^{\kappa_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon},
\varPsi_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon},
\varPhi_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}}W_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}.
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
We can now complete the proof of the theorem. We show relation \eqref{gauholo7} only,
the proof of \eqref{gauholo5}, \eqref{gauholo6} being analogous.
We showed earlier that $g_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|x}(y',y)=1_G$
for $x<\epsilon$ or $x>1-\epsilon$ and arbitrary $y,y'$ (cf. eq. \eqref{twoholob1}).
Similarly, we can show that $\varPhi_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|x}(y',y)=1_H$
for the same range of $x$ and $y,y'$ values, by considering
the differential problem \eqref{gauge23}, \eqref{gauge25} with $\varkappa$, $\varGamma$ replaced by
$\varSigma^*g$, $\varSigma^*J$ and observing
that $\varSigma^*\varGamma_y(x,y)=0$ identically for the values of $x$ indicated
on account of \eqref{path7}, \eqref{path8}. Then, from \eqref{gauholob7}, using \eqref{gauge13} and
noting that by \eqref{gauholo3,4}
$\varSigma^*{}^{g,J}\theta=
{}^{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J}\varSigma^*\theta$,
$\varSigma^*{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon={}^{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J}\varSigma^*\varUpsilon$,
we find
\begin{align}
F_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}(\varSigma)
&=W_{\varSigma^*{}^{g,J}\theta,\varSigma^*{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}(0,1;1,0)\hspace{5.3cm}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholob8}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
&=W_{{}^{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J}\varSigma^*\theta,{}^{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J}\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}(0,1;1,0)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
\hspace{1.7cm}
&={}^{\kappa_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon},
\varPsi_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon},
\varPhi_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}}W_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}(0,1;1,0)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&=m(\kappa_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}(1;0))\big(
\varPhi_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|1}(1,0)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{.75cm}\times m(g_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|1}(1,0)^{-1})
(\varPsi_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|1}(0,1))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{.75cm}\times W_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon}(0,1;1,0)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{.75cm}\times
m(f_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|0}(0,1)^{-1})
(\varPhi_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|0}(1,0)^{-1})
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{.75cm}\times
\varPsi_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|0}(0,1)^{-1}\big)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&=m(g(p_1))\big(G_{g,J;\theta,\Upsilon}(\gamma_1)
F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma)G_{g,J;\theta,\Upsilon}(\gamma_0)^{-1}\big),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\end{align}
showing \eqref{gauholo7}. \hfill $\Box$
In prop. \ref{theor:pargau2}, a new object appears,
$G_{g,J;\theta,\Upsilon}(\gamma)$. As it turns out,
it has a number of relevant properties which are the topic of the rest of
this subsection.
$G_{g,J;\theta,\Upsilon}(\gamma)$
can be defined for any curve $\gamma$
independently from any other curve $\gamma'$ with the same endpoints and surface
$\varSigma$ connecting $\gamma$ to $\gamma'$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:gau}
Suppose that $p_0,p_1$ are points and $\gamma:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ is a curve. Then,
$\varPsi_{I_\gamma{}^*g,I_\gamma{}^*J;I_\gamma{}^*\theta,I_\gamma{}^*\varUpsilon|y}$,
where $I_\gamma:\gamma\Rightarrow\gamma$ is the unit surface of $\gamma$
(cf. eq. \eqref{path16}), is independent from $y$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\it Proof}.
By prop. \ref{theor:gauge1}, $\varPsi_{I_\gamma{}^*g,I_\gamma{}^*J;I_\gamma{}^*\theta,I_\gamma{}^*\varUpsilon|y}$
is the solution of the differential problem \eqref{gauge22}, \eqref{gauge24} with
$f(x,x_0;y)=f_{I_\gamma{}^*\theta,I_\gamma{}^*\varUpsilon}(x,x_0;y)$, $\varkappa(x,y)=I_\gamma{}^*g(x,y)$ and
$\varGamma_x(x,y)=I_\gamma{}^*J_x(x,y)$.
Now, by lemma \ref{lemma:para}, $f_{I_\gamma{}^*\theta,I_\gamma{}^*\varUpsilon}(x,x_0;y)$ is independent from $y$.
Further, $I_\gamma{}^*g(x,y)=\gamma^*g(x)$, $I_\gamma{}^*J_x(x,y)=\gamma^*J_x(x)$ are also independent from $y$.
So, $\varPsi_{I_\gamma{}^*g,I_\gamma{}^*J;I_\gamma{}^*\theta,I_\gamma{}^*\varUpsilon|y}$ is $y$ independent. \hfill $\Box$
\begin{defi} If $p_0,p_1$ are points and $\gamma:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ is a curve, one sets
\begin{equation}
G_{g,J;\theta,\Upsilon}(\gamma)
=\varPsi_{I_\gamma{}^*g,I_\gamma{}^*J;I_\gamma{}^*\theta,I_\gamma{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(0,1).
\label{gauholo13}
\end{equation}
\end{defi}
\noindent
\eqref{gauholo13} gives the same result as \eqref{gauholo8}, \eqref{gauholo9}.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:altgaudef}
If $p_0,p_1$ are points, $\gamma_0,\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_1$ are curves and
$\varSigma:\gamma_0\Rightarrow \gamma_1$ is a surface, then
then the value of $G_{g,J;\theta,\Upsilon}(\gamma_i)$
computed using \eqref{gauholo8}, \eqref{gauholo9} equals that obtained using \eqref{gauholo13}.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. By prop. \ref{theor:cycle2},
$\varPsi_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|y}(x',x)$ is the solution
of the differential problem \eqref{gauge22}, \eqref{gauge24} with $f(x,x_0;y)
=f_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,x_0)$,
$\varkappa(x,y)=\varSigma^*g(x,y)$,
$\varGamma_x(x,y)=\varSigma^*J_x(x,y)$.
Likewise, $\varPsi_{I_{\gamma_i}{}^*g,I_{\gamma_i}{}^*J;I_{\gamma_i}{}^*\theta,I_{\gamma_i}{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(x',x)$ solves
the differential problem \eqref{gauge22}, \eqref{gauge24} with $f(x,x_0;y)
=f_{I_{\gamma_i}{}^*\theta,I_{\gamma_i}{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,x_0)$,
$\varkappa(x,y)=I_{\gamma_i}{}^*g(x,y)$,
$\varGamma_x(x,y)=I_{\gamma_i}{}^*J_x(x,y)$.
Now, we have $f_{I_{\gamma_i}{}^*\theta,I_{\gamma_i}{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,x_0)$
$=f_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|i}(x,x_0)$ (see the proof of prop. \ref{prop:paraequiv})
and also $I_{\gamma_i}{}^*g(x,y)=\varSigma^*g(x,i)$,
$I_{\gamma_i}{}^*J_x(x,y)=\varSigma^*J_x(x,i)$
for $i=1,2$ and any $y$. So,
$\varPsi_{I_{\gamma_i}{}^*g,I_{\gamma_i}{}^*J;I_{\gamma_i}{}^*\theta,I_{\gamma_i}{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,x_0)$
$=\varPsi_{\varSigma^*g,\varSigma^*J;\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|i}(x,x_0)$.
From this relation, recalling \eqref{gauholo8}, \eqref{gauholo9} and \eqref{gauholo13},
the statement follows. \hfill $\Box$
Let us fix a $(G,H)$--connection doublet $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$
and a $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformation $(g,J)$.
We have then a mapping $G_{g;J;\theta,\varUpsilon}:\Pi_1M\rightarrow H$.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:gauholo8/1}
For any two points $p_0,p_1$ and curve $\gamma:p_0\rightarrow p_1$, one has
\begin{equation}
F_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}(\gamma)=g(p_1)
t(G_{g,J;\theta,\Upsilon}(\gamma))F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma)g(p_0)^{-1},
\label{gauholo16/1}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. This follows from \eqref{gauholo5}, \eqref{gauholo5},
setting $\varSigma=I_\gamma$ and using \eqref{twoholo13} and
\eqref{gauholo13}. \hfill $\Box$
\begin{prop} \label{prop:gauholo8} For any point $p$, one has
\begin{equation}
G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\iota_p)=1_H.
\label{gauholo15}
\end{equation}
For any two points $p_0,p_1$ and curve $\gamma:p_0\rightarrow p_1$, one has
\begin{equation}
G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma^{-1_\circ})=m(F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma)^{-1})(G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma)^{-1}).
\vphantom{\ul{\ul{\ul{\ul{\ul{x}}}}}}
\label{gauholo16}
\end{equation}
For any three $p_0,p_1,p_2$ and two curves $\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_1$, $\gamma_2:p_1\rightarrow p_2$,
\begin{equation}
G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1)=G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_2)
m(F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_2))(G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_1)).
\label{gauholo17}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. The proof is analogous to that of prop. \ref{prop:twoholo6},
relying on the pull--back action of the map
$l_\phi:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^2$, $l_\phi(x,y)=(\phi(x),y)$,
induced by a function $\phi:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$.
The left pull--back $(l_\phi{}^*f,l_\phi{}^*g,l_\phi{}^*W)$
of a $(G,H)$--cocycle $(f,g,W)$ is the $(G,H)$--cocycle defined
by eqs. \eqref{twoholoc1,2,3}. The left pull--back
$(l_\phi{}^*\kappa,l_\phi{}^*\varPsi,l_\phi{}^*\varPhi)$
of an $(f,g,W)$--$1$--gauge transformation $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$
is the $(l_\phi{}^*f,l_\phi{}^*g,l_\phi{}^*W)$--gauge transformation given by
\hphantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxx}
\begin{subequations}
\label{gauholoc1,2,3}
\begin{align}
&l_\phi{}^*\kappa(x;y)=\kappa(\phi(x);y),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholoc1}
\\
&l_\phi{}^*\varPsi(x',x;y)=\varPsi(\phi(x'),\phi(x);y),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholoc2}
\\
&l_\phi{}^*\varPhi(x;y',y)=\varPhi(\phi(x);y',y).
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholoc3}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The verification of the validity of the cocycle relations
\eqref{gauge5,6} is straightforward.
The one--to--one correspondence between form pairs
$(a,B)\in\Omega^1(\mathbb{R}^2,\mathfrak{g})\times \Omega^2(\mathbb{R}^2,\mathfrak{h})$
and $(G,H)$--cocycles $(f,g,W)\in\Cyc(G,H)$ established by prop. \ref{theor:cycle2}
is natural with respect to left pull-back.
Likewise, the one--to--one correspondence between pairs
$(\varkappa,\varGamma)\in\Map(M,G)\times \Omega^1(\mathbb{R}^2,\mathfrak{h})$
and $(f_{a,B},g_{a,B},W_{a,B})$--gauge transformation is natural, meaning that the relations
$(\kappa_{l_\phi{}^*\varkappa,l_\phi{}^*\varGamma;l_\phi{}^*a,l_\phi{}^*B}$,
$\varPsi_{l_\phi{}^*\varkappa,l_\phi{}^*\varGamma;l_\phi{}^*a,l_\phi{}^*B},
\varPhi_{l_\phi{}^*\varkappa,l_\phi{}^*\varGamma;l_\phi{}^*a,l_\phi{}^*B})$ $=
(l_\phi{}^*\kappa_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B},l_\phi{}^*\varPsi_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B},
l_\phi{}^*\varPhi_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B})$ as well as
$(\varkappa_{l_\phi{}^*\kappa,l_\phi{}^*\varPsi,l_\phi{}^*\varPhi}$, $\varGamma_{l_\phi{}^*\kappa,l_\phi{}^*\varPsi,l_\phi{}^*\varPhi})
=$ $(l_\phi{}^*\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi},l_\phi{}^*\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi})$
hold.
Given these results, the proof of relations \eqref{gauholo15}, \eqref{gauholo16}, \eqref{gauholo17}
is totally analogous to that of \eqref{twoholo18}, \eqref{twoholo21}, \eqref{twoholo22}.
For instance, the verification of \eqref{gauholo17} proceeds along the same lines as that
of \eqref{twoholo22} as indicated in \eqref{twoholoc7}: replace
$\varSigma_i$ by $I_{\gamma_i}$ and $W_{\varSigma_i{}^*\theta,\varSigma_i{}^*\varUpsilon}$ by
$\varPsi_{I_{\gamma_i}{}^*g,I_{\gamma_i}{}^*J;I_{\gamma_i}{}^*\theta,I_{\gamma_i}{}^*\varUpsilon}$
and use \eqref{gauge5}.
\hfill $\Box$
Naturally, thin homotopy invariance holds for gauge transformation along a curve.
\begin{prop} \label{theor:gauholo3/1}
Let $p_0,p_1$ be points and $\gamma_y:p_0\rightarrow p_1$, $y\in\mathbb{R}$, be a smooth $1$--parameter family of curves
such that the mapping $h:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow M$ defined by $h(x,y)=\gamma_y(x)$
is a thin homotopy of $\gamma_0$, $\gamma_1$. Then,
\begin{equation}
G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_1)=G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_0).
\label{gauholo6/2}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}.
The proof is based on the variational formula
\begin{align}
&\partial_z\varPsi_{I_{\gamma_z}{}^*g,I_{\gamma_z}{}^*J;I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\theta,I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,x_0)
\varPsi_{I_{\gamma_z}{}^*g,I_{\gamma_z}{}^*J;I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\theta,I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,x_0)^{-1}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{gauholok1}
\\
&=-\int_{x_0}^xd\xi\,\varPsi_{I_{\gamma_z}{}^*g,I_{\gamma_z}{}^*J;I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\theta,I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(\xi,x_0)
\dot m(f_{I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\theta,I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(\xi,x_0)^{-1})
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hphantom{=\,}\bigg(H^*(\dot m(g^{-1})(dJ+[J,J]/2
+\widehat{m}(\Ad g(\theta)-dgg^{-1}-\dot t(J),J)))_{zx}(\xi,y,z)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hphantom{=\,\bigg(}+\widehat{m}\Big(\int_{x_0}^\xi d\xi_0\,f_{I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\theta,I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(\xi,\xi_0)
\dot t(H^*\varUpsilon_{zx}(\xi_0,y,z))f_{I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\theta,I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(\xi,\xi_0)^{-1}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hphantom{=\,\bigg(+\widehat{m}}-f_{I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\theta,I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(\xi,x_0)
H^*\theta_z(x_0,y,z))f_{I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\theta,I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(\xi,x_0)^{-1},
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hphantom{=\,\bigg(+\widehat{m}\Big(-f_y}H^*(\dot m(g^{-1})(J))_x(\xi,y,z)\Big)\bigg)
\varPsi_{I_{\gamma_z}{}^*g,I_{\gamma_z}{}^*J;I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\theta,I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(\xi,x_0)^{-1}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hphantom{=\,}-\varPsi_{I_{\gamma_z}{}^*g,I_{\gamma_z}{}^*J;I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\theta,I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,x_0)
\dot m(f_{I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\theta,I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,x_0)^{-1})
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{1.5cm}(H^*(\dot m(g^{-1})(J))_z(x,y,z))
\varPsi_{I_{\gamma_z}{}^*g,I_{\gamma_z}{}^*J;I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\theta,I_{\gamma_z}{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,x_0)^{-1}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hphantom{=\,}+H^*(\dot m(g^{-1})(J))_z(x_0,y,z),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\end{align}
where $H:\mathbb{R}^3\rightarrow M$ is the mapping defined by
$H(x,y,z)=I_{\gamma_z}(x,y)=\gamma_z(x)$.
Under the assumptions made, the $1$--parameter family of surfaces
$I_{\gamma_z}:\gamma_z\Rightarrow\gamma_z$ is such that $H$
is a thin homotopy of $I_{\gamma_0}$, $I_{\gamma_1}$ with the property that
$\rank(dH(x,y,z))\leq 1$. So,
$H^*(dJ+[J,J]/2
+\widehat{m}(\Ad g(\theta)-dgg^{-1}-\dot t(J),J))=0$ and
$H^*\varUpsilon_{zx}(x,y,z)=0$. Further, $H^*\theta_z(i,y,z)=0$
and $H^*J_z(i,y,z)=0$ for $i=0,1$,
by \eqref{path23}, \eqref{path24}.
So, by \eqref{gauholo13} and \eqref{gauholok1}, we have
\begin{equation}
\partial_zG_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_z)G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_z)^{-1}=0
\label{gauholok2}
\end{equation}
from which \eqref{gauholo6/2} follows immediately. \hfill $\Box$
Recall that, for a $(G,H)$--connection doublet $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$, the mappings
$\bar F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}:\Pi_1M\rightarrow G$,
$\bar F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}:\Pi_2M\rightarrow H$ induce a $2$--groupoid functor
$\bar F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}:(M,P_1M,P_2M)$ $\rightarrow B_0(G,H)$
of the path $2$--groupoid $(M,P_1M,P_2M)$ of $M$ into the
delooping $2$--groupoid $B_0(G,H)$ of the Lie crossed module $(G,H)$
by their thin homotopy invariance (cf. prop. \ref{prop:twoholo7}).
Furthermore, when the $(G,H)$--connection doublet $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ is flat, the
$\bar F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}$ induce a $2$--groupoid functor
$\bar F^0{}_{\theta,\varUpsilon}:(M,P_1M,P^0{}_2M)\rightarrow B_0(G,H)$
of the fundamental $2$--groupoid $(M,P_1M,P^0{}_2M)$ of $M$ into $B_0(G,H)$
by their homotopy invariance (cf. prop. \ref{prop:twoholo8}).
By what found above, the map $G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}:\Pi_1M\rightarrow H$ factors through one
$\bar G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}:P_1M\rightarrow H$ from the path groupoid $1$--cell
set $P_1M$ into $H$.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:pseudo}
For any $(G,H)$--connection doublet $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$,
a $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformation $(g,J)$ encodes a pseudonatural transformation
$\bar G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}:\bar F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}\Rightarrow \bar F_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}$
of $2$--functors.
If $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ is flat, then $(g,J)$ yields a pseudonatural transformation
$\bar G^0{}_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}:\bar F^0{}_{\theta,\varUpsilon}\Rightarrow \bar F^0{}_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}$.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. By \eqref{gauholo16/1}, for any curve $\gamma:p_0\rightarrow p_1$
we have a $2$--cell of $B_0(G,H)$
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix@C=5pc@R=2.pc{
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[d]_{g(p_1)}
\ar@{}[dr]^(.13){}="a"^(.88){}="b" \ar@{=>} "a";"b"|-{\tilde G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma)}
& {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]_{F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma)} \ar[d]^{g(p_0)}
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} & {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]^{F_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}(\gamma)}
}
\label{gauholol1}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\tilde G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}=m(g(p_1))(G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon})
\label{gauholol2}
\end{equation}
The $2$--cells \eqref{gauholol1} define a pseudonatural transformation
$\bar F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}\Rightarrow \bar F_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}$ if
\vspace{1truemm}
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix@C=5.5pc@R=2.pc{
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[d]_{g(p_2)} \ar@{}[dr]^(.13){}="a"^(.88){}="b" \ar@{=>} "a";"b"|-{\tilde G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_2)}
& {\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[d]|-{g(p_1)\vphantom{\ul{\dot f}}}
\ar[l]_{F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_2)} \ar@{}[dr]^(.13){}="a"^(.88){}="b" \ar@{=>} "a";"b"|-{\tilde G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_1)}
& {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]_{F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_1)} \ar[d]^{g(p_0)}
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} & {\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[l]^{F_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}(\gamma_2)}
& {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]^{F_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}(\gamma_1)}
}
\,
\xymatrix{~\ar@{}[d]|-{\text{\normalsize $=\vphantom{\dot h}$}}
\\
~}
\,
\xymatrix@C=6.pc@R=2.pc{
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[d]_{g(p_2)}
\ar@{}[dr]^(.13){}="a"^(.88){}="b" \ar@{=>} "a";"b"|-{\tilde G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1)}
& {\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[l]_{F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_2\circ \gamma_1)} \ar[d]^{g(p_0)}
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} & {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]^{F_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}(\gamma_2\circ\gamma_1)}
}
\label{gauholol3}
\end{equation}
\vskip 0truemm \eject\noindent
for any pair of curves $\gamma_1:p_0\rightarrow p_1$, $\gamma_2:p_1\rightarrow p_2$ and
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix@C=7.pc@R=2.pc{
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[d]_{g(p_1)} \ar@{}[dr]^(.13){}="a"^(.88){}="b" \ar@{=>} "a";"b"|-{\tilde G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_0)}
& {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]_{F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_0)} \ar[d]^{g(p_0)}
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} & {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]|-{\,\,F_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}(\gamma_0)\,\,}="0"
\ar@/^2.5pc/[l]^{F_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}(\gamma_1)}="1" \ar@{=>}"0"
+<0ex,-1.75ex>;"1"+<0ex,2.25ex>|-{F_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}(\varSigma)}
}
\hspace{1mm}
\xymatrix{~\ar@{}[d]|-{\text{\normalsize $=\vphantom{\dot h}$}}
\\
~}
\hspace{1mm}
\xymatrix@C=7.pc@R=2.pc{
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[d]_{g(p_1)} \ar@{}[dr]^(.13){}="a"^(.88){}="b" \ar@{=>} "a";"b"|-{\tilde G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_1)}
& {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]|-{\,\,F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_1)\,\,}="0"
\ar@/_2.5pc/[l]_{F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_0)}="1" \ar@{=>}"1"+<0ex,-2ex>;"0"+<0ex,1.75ex>|-{F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma)}
\ar[d]^{g(p_0)}
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} & {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]^{F_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}(\gamma_1)}
}
\label{gauholol4}
\end{equation}
for any surface $\varSigma:\gamma_0\rightarrow\gamma_1$ hold, where the diagrams are composed by the usual
pasting algorithm. These conditions are in fact satisfied. \eqref{gauholol3} holds as a consequence of
\eqref{gauholo17}. \eqref{gauholol4} follows from relation \eqref{gauholo7}. The first part of the
proposition follows. The proof of the second half is essentially identical.
\hfill $\Box$
\subsection{\normalsize \textcolor{blue}{$2$--parallel transport and $2$--gauge transformation}}
\label{sec:twogauholo}
\hspace{.5cm} In this subsection, we shall study $2$--gauge
transformation in higher parallel transport theory. This has no
analogue in ordinary gauge theory.
Let $M$ be a manifold and $(G,H)$ be a Lie crossed module.
\begin{defi}
A $(G,H)$--$2$--gauge transformation is a mapping $\tilde\varOmega\in \Map(M$, $H)$.
We denote by $\Gau_2(M,G,H)$ the set of all $2$--gauge transformations.
\end{defi}
$(G,H)$--$2$--gauge transformations act on $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformations, the action depending on
an assigned $(G,H)$--connection doublet.
\begin{defi} Let $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ be a $(G,H)$--connection doublet,
$(g,J)$ be a $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformation
and $\tilde\varOmega$ a $(G,H)$--$2$--gauge transformation. The $2$--gauge transformed
$1$--gauge transformation $({}^{\tilde \varOmega} g_{|\theta,\varUpsilon},{}^{\tilde \varOmega}J_{|\theta,\varUpsilon})$ is
\begin{subequations}
\label{twogauholo1,2}
\begin{align}
&{}^{\tilde \varOmega}g_{|\theta,\varUpsilon}=t(\tilde \varOmega )g,
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twogauholo1}
\\
&{}^{\tilde \varOmega}J_{|\theta,\varUpsilon}=\tilde \varOmega J \tilde \varOmega ^{-1}-d\tilde \varOmega \tilde \varOmega ^{-1}-
Q({}^{g,J}\theta,\tilde \varOmega ).
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twogauholo2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where ${}^{g,J}\theta$ is given by \eqref{gauholo3} and $\tilde \varOmega$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\tilde \varOmega =m(g)(\varOmega).
\label{twogauholo3}
\end{equation}
\end{defi}
$2$--gauge equivalent $1$--gauge transformations yield the the same gauge transformed
connection doublet.
\begin{prop}
Let $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ be a $(G,H)$--connection doublet, $(g,J)$ be a $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge
transformation and $\varOmega$ be a $(G,H)$--$2$--gauge transformation. Then,
\begin{subequations}
\label{twogauholo4,5}
\begin{align}
&{}^{{}^{\tilde \varOmega}g_{|\theta,\varUpsilon},{}^{\tilde \varOmega}J_{|\theta,\varUpsilon}}\theta={}^{g,J}\theta,
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twogauholo4}
\\
&{}^{{}^{\tilde \varOmega}g_{|\theta,\varUpsilon},{}^{\tilde \varOmega}J_{|\theta,\varUpsilon}}\varUpsilon={}^{g,J}\varUpsilon.
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twogauholo5}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. This is straightforwardly verified evaluating \eqref{gauholo3},
\eqref{gauholo4} for the $1$--gauge transformation $({}^{\tilde \varOmega}g_{|\theta,\varUpsilon},{}^{\tilde \varOmega}J_{|\theta,\varUpsilon})$
and using the zero fake curvature condition \eqref{twoholo8}.
\hfill $\Box$
The action of $2$--gauge transformations on $1$--gauge transformations
translates into one on the map
$G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}:\Pi_1M\rightarrow H$.
\begin{prop}
Let $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ be a $(G,H)$--connection doublet, $(g,J)$ be a $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge
transformation and $\varOmega$ be a $(G,H)$--$2$--gauge transformation. Then,
for any curve $\gamma:p_0\rightarrow p_1$, one has
\begin{equation}
G_{{}^{\tilde \varOmega} g_{|\theta,\varUpsilon},{}^{\tilde \varOmega}J_{|\theta,\varUpsilon};\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma)
=\varOmega(p_1)^{-1}G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma)m(F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma))(\varOmega(p_0))
\label{twogauholo6}
\end{equation}
where $\varOmega$ is related to $\tilde \varOmega$ by \hphantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx}
\begin{equation}
\varOmega=m(g^{-1})(\tilde\varOmega).
\label{twogauholo7}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. In the course of the proof of prop. \ref{prop:gaugau}, it was found that
$(\varkappa_{{}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi}$, $\varGamma_{{}^A\kappa,{}^A\varPsi,{}^A\varPhi})
=({}^{\tilde A}\varkappa_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi|a_{f,g,W}B_{f,g,W}},{}^{\tilde A}\varGamma_{\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi|a_{f,g,W}B_{f,g,W}})$
for any $(G,H)$--cocycle $(f$, $g,W)$, $(f,g,W)$--$1$--gauge transformation $(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)$
and $(G,H)$--$2$--gauge transformation $A$, where $A$ and $\tilde A$ are related by \eqref{twogau12}.
Setting $(f,g,W)=(f_{a,B},g_{a,B}$, $W_{a,B})$ and
$(\kappa,\varPsi,\varPhi)=(\kappa_{\varkappa,\varGamma,a,B},\varPsi_{\varkappa,\varGamma,a,B},\varPhi_{\varkappa,\varGamma,a,B})$
in this relation,
where $(a,B)$ and $(\varkappa,\varGamma)$ are a $(G,H)$--connection doublet and a differential $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge
transformation in the sense of defs. \ref{def:r2dghgau} and \ref{def:r2dghgau}, respectively, we find that
\begin{align}
&(\kappa_{{}^{\tilde A}\varkappa_{|a,B},{}^{\tilde A}\varGamma_{|a,B};a,B},\varPsi_{{}^{\tilde A}\varkappa_{|a,B},{}^{\tilde A}\varGamma_{|a,B};a,B},
\varPhi_{{}^{\tilde A}\varkappa_{|a,B},{}^{\tilde A}\varGamma_{|a,B};a,B})
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twogauholox1}
\\
&\hspace{5cm}=
({}^A\kappa_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B},{}^A\varPsi_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B},
{}^A\varPhi_{\varkappa,\varGamma;a,B})
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\end{align}
Using the mid component of \eqref{twogauholox1} and the cocycle relation \eqref{twogau2}
and the definitions \eqref{twoholo13} and \eqref{gauholo8,9}, we find
\begin{align}
G_{{}^{\tilde \varOmega} g_{|\theta,\varUpsilon},{}^{\tilde \varOmega}J_{|\theta,\varUpsilon};\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma)
&=\varPsi_{I_\gamma{}^*{}^{\tilde \varOmega} g_{|\theta,\varUpsilon},I_\gamma{}^*{}^{\tilde \varOmega}J_{|\theta,\varUpsilon};I_\gamma{}^*\theta,I_\gamma{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(0,1)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{twogauholox2}
\\
&=\varPsi_{{}^{I_\gamma{}^*\tilde \varOmega} I_\gamma{}^*g_{|I_\gamma{}^*\theta,I_\gamma{}^*\varUpsilon},
{}^{I_\gamma{}^*\tilde \varOmega}I_\gamma{}^*J_{|I_\gamma{}^*\theta,I_\gamma{}^*\varUpsilon};I_\gamma{}^*\theta,I_\gamma{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(0,1)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&={}^{I_\gamma{}^*\varOmega}\varPsi_{I_\gamma{}^*g,I_\gamma{}^*J;I_\gamma{}^*\theta,I_\gamma{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(0,1)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&=I_\gamma{}^*\varOmega_{|y}(1)^{-1}\varPsi_{I_\gamma{}^*g,I_\gamma{}^*J;I_\gamma{}^*\theta,I_\gamma{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(0,1)
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{1.5cm}\times m(f_{I_\gamma{}^*\theta,I_\gamma{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(0,1)^{-1})(I_\gamma{}^*\varOmega_{|y}(0))
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&=\varOmega(p_1)^{-1}G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma)m(F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma))(\varOmega(p_0)).
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\end{align}
\eqref{twogauholo6} is so proven \hfill $\Box$
Recall that, for a $(G,H)$--connection doublet $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$
and a $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge transformation $(g,J)$, the map
$G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}:\Pi_1M\rightarrow H$ furnishes the data of a pseudonatural transformation
$\bar G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}:\bar F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}\Rightarrow \bar F_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}$ of
the parallel transport $2$-functor $\bar F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}$ of $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$
to that $\bar F_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}$ of $({}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon)$
and likewise one $\bar G^0{}_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}$ $:\bar F^0{}_{\theta,\varUpsilon}\Rightarrow \bar F^0{}_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}$
when $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ is flat (cf. prop. \ref{prop:pseudo}).
\begin{prop} \label{prop:modi}
For every $(G,H)$--connection doublet $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$
and $(G,H)$--$1$-- gauge transformation $(g,J)$, a
$(G,H)$--$2$--gauge transformation $\tilde \varOmega$
encodes a modification $\bar H_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon;\tilde\varOmega}:\bar G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}\Rrightarrow
\bar G_{{}^{\tilde \varOmega} g_{|\theta,\varUpsilon},{}^{\tilde \varOmega}J_{|\theta,\varUpsilon};\theta,\varUpsilon}$ of pseudonatural transformations.
If $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ is flat, then $\tilde \varOmega$ yields a pseudonatural transformation modification
$\bar H^0{}_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon;\tilde\varOmega}:\bar G^0{}_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}\Rrightarrow
\bar G^0{}_{{}^{\tilde \varOmega} g_{|\theta,\varUpsilon},{}^{\tilde \varOmega}J_{|\theta,\varUpsilon};\theta,\varUpsilon}$.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. By \eqref{twogauholo1}, for any point $p$ we
have a $2$--cell of $B_0(G,H)$,
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix@C=3.5pc@R=2.pc{
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}}
& {\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar@/^1.2pc/[l]^{{}^{\tilde \varOmega} g_{|\theta,\varUpsilon}(p)}="0"
\ar@/_1.2pc/[l]_{g(p)}="1"
\ar@{=>}"1"+<0ex,-2.ex>;"0"+<0ex,2.ex>|-{\tilde\varOmega(p)}
}
\label{twogauholoz1}
\end{equation}
$\tilde\varOmega$ defines a modification
$\bar H_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon;\tilde\varOmega}:\bar G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}\Rrightarrow
G_{{}^{\tilde \varOmega} g_{|\theta,\varUpsilon},{}^{\tilde \varOmega}J_{|\theta,\varUpsilon};\theta,\varUpsilon}$ if
\begin{align}
&\xymatrix@R=2.5pc@C=8.5pc{
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[d]_{g(p_1)}
\ar@{}[dr]^(.13){}="a"^(.88){}="b" \ar@{=>} "a";"b"|-{\!\!\tilde G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma)}
& {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]_{F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma)} \ar[d]|-{g(p_0)\vphantom{fg}}="0" \ar@/^5.25pc/[d]^{{}^{\tilde \varOmega} g_{|\theta,\varUpsilon}(p_0)}="1"
\ar@{=>}"0"+<3ex,0ex>;"1"+<-5.3ex,0ex>|-{\tilde \varOmega(p_0)}
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} & {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]^{F_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}(\gamma)}
}
\label{twogauholoz2}
\\
\xymatrix{&
\\
~\ar@{}[r]|-{\text{\normalsize $=\vphantom{\ul{\ul{\ul{\ul{\ul{g}}}}}}$}}
&
~}
&\hspace{-4mm}
\xymatrix@R=2.5pc@C=8.5pc{
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} \ar[d]|-{{}^{\tilde \varOmega} g_{|\theta,\varUpsilon}(p_1)\vphantom{fg}}="0" \ar@/_5.25pc/[d]_{g(p_1)}="1"
\ar@{=>}"1"+<3.5ex,0ex>;"0"+<-4.5ex,0ex>|-{\tilde \varOmega(p_1)}
\ar@{}[dr]^(.13){}="a"^(.88){}="b" \ar@{=>} "a";"b"
|-{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\tilde G_{{}^{\tilde \varOmega} g_{|\theta,\varUpsilon},{}^{\tilde \varOmega}J_{|\theta,\varUpsilon};\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma)}
& {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]_{F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma)} \ar[d]^{{}^{\tilde \varOmega} g_{|\theta,\varUpsilon}(p_0)}
\\
{\text{\footnotesize $*$}} & {\text{\footnotesize $*$}}\ar[l]^{F_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}(\gamma)}
}
\nonumber
\end{align}
for every curve $\gamma:p_0\rightarrow p_1$, where $\tilde G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}$ is given in
\eqref{gauholol2} and similarly $\tilde G_{{}^{\tilde \varOmega} g_{|\theta,\varUpsilon},{}^{\tilde \varOmega}J_{|\theta,\varUpsilon};\theta,\varUpsilon}$
and the diagrams are composed by the usual pasting algorithm.
This conditions is indeed fulfilled as a consequence of \eqref{twogauholo6}. The first part of the proposition follows.
The proof of the second half is essentially identical. \hfill $\Box$
\subsection{\normalsize \textcolor{blue}{Smoothness properties of parallel transport}}\label{sec:smooth}
\hspace{.5cm} In this subsection, we shall examine the smoothness properties of the
parallel transport functors constructed in the preceding sections.
Let $M$ be a manifold and $G$ be a Lie group.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:gsmooth} Let $\theta$ be a $G$--connection. Then, the parallel transport functor
$\bar F_\theta:(M,P_1M)\rightarrow BG$ is smooth in the diffeological sense: if $\gamma_\alpha$
is a family of curves depending smoothly on a set of parameters $\alpha$ varying in a bounded closed domain
$A$ of $\mathbb{R}^d$ for some $d$, then the mapping $\alpha\in A\rightarrow F_\theta(\gamma_\alpha)\in G$
is smooth. When the connection $\theta$ is flat, the same property holds for the parallel transport functor
$\bar F^0{}_\theta:(M,P^0{}_1M)\rightarrow BG$.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. Let $a_\alpha$ be a $G$--connection in the sense of def.
\ref{def:r2gconn} depending smoothly on a set of parameters $\alpha$ varying in a bounded closed domain
$A$ of $\mathbb{R}^d$ for some $d$. Then the $G$--cocycle $f_{a_\alpha}$ given by \eqref{cycle8}
solving the differential problem \eqref{cycle9}, \eqref{cycle10} with $a$ replaced by $a_\alpha$
depends smoothly on $\alpha$ meaning that the mapping $\alpha\in A\rightarrow f_{a_\alpha}(x',x)\in G$
is smooth for any fixed $x,x'\in\mathbb{R}$.
Let now $\theta$ be a $G$--connection and $\gamma_\alpha$ be a family of curves depending smoothly on $\alpha\in A$.
Then, $\gamma_\alpha{}^*\theta$ is a $G$--connection in the sense of def. \ref{def:r2gconn} depending smoothly on
$\alpha$. By \eqref{twoholo1}, then, $\alpha\rightarrow F_\theta(\gamma_\alpha)=f_{\gamma_\alpha{}^*\theta}(1,0)$ is smooth.
The statement follows. The flat case is treated similarly.
\hfill $\Box$
The above results extend straightforwardly to higher parallel transport.
Let $M$ be a manifold and $(G,H)$ be a Lie crossed module.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:ghsmooth} Let $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ be a $(G,H)$--connection doublet. Then, the parallel transport $2$--functor
$\bar F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}:(M,P_1M,P_2M)\rightarrow B_0(G,H)$ is smooth in the diffeological sense: if
$\varSigma_\alpha:\gamma_{0\alpha}\Rightarrow \gamma_{1\alpha}$ is a family of surfaces depending smoothly
on a set of parameters $\alpha$ varying in a bounded closed domain $A$ of $\mathbb{R}^d$ for some $d$,
then the mappings $\alpha\in A\rightarrow F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_{0\alpha})\in G$,
$\alpha\in A\rightarrow F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_{1\alpha})\in G$,
$\alpha\in A\rightarrow F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma_\alpha)\in H$ are smooth.
When the connection doublet $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ is flat, the same property holds
for the parallel transport functor $\bar F^0{}_{\theta,\varUpsilon}:(M,P_1M,P^0{}_2M)\rightarrow B_0(G,H)$.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. Let $(a_\alpha,B_\alpha)$ be a $(G,H)$--connection doublet in the sense of def.
\ref{def:r2ghconn} depending smoothly on a set of parameters $\alpha$ varying in a bounded closed domain
$A$ of $\mathbb{R}^d$ for some $d$. Then, the $(G,H)$--cocycle $(f_{a_\alpha,B_\alpha},g_{a_\alpha,B_\alpha},W_{a_\alpha,B_\alpha})$
given by \eqref{cycle33,34,35}
solving the differential problem \eqref{cycle36,37,38}, \eqref{cycle39,40,41} with $a$, $B$ replaced by $a_\alpha$, $B_\alpha$
depends smoothly on $\alpha$ meaning that the mapping $\alpha\in A\rightarrow f_{a_\alpha,B_\alpha}(x',x;y)$ $\in G$,
$\alpha\in A\rightarrow g_{a_\alpha,B_\alpha}(x;y',y)\in G$, $\alpha\in A\rightarrow W_{a_\alpha,B_\alpha}(x',x;y',y)\in H$
are all smooth for any fixed $x,x',y,y'\in\mathbb{R}$.
Let now $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ be a $(G,H)$--connection doublet and $\varSigma_\alpha:\gamma_{0\alpha}\Rightarrow \gamma_{1\alpha}$
be a family of surfaces depending smoothly on $\alpha\in A$.
Then, $(\varSigma_\alpha{}^*\theta,\varSigma_\alpha{}^*\varUpsilon)$ is a $(G,H)$--connection doublet
in the sense of def. \ref{def:r2ghconn} depending smoothly on
$\alpha$. By \eqref{twoholo9,10,11}, then, $\alpha\rightarrow F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_{0\alpha})
=f_{\varSigma_\alpha{}^*\theta,\varSigma_\alpha{}^*\varUpsilon|0}(1,0)$, $\alpha\rightarrow F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_{1\alpha})
=f_{\varSigma_\alpha{}^*\theta,\varSigma_\alpha{}^*\varUpsilon|1}(1,0)$ and $\alpha\rightarrow F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma_\alpha)
=W_{\varSigma_\alpha{}^*\theta,\varSigma_\alpha{}^*\varUpsilon}(0,1;1,0)$ are smooth.
The statement follows. The flat case is treated similarly. \hfill $\Box$
The above proposition has a counterpart at the level of $1$--gauge transformations.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:gaughsmooth} Let $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ be a $(G,H)$--connection doublet and $(g,J)$ a $(G,H)$--$1$--gauge
transformation. Then, the gauge pseudonatural transformation $\bar G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}:\bar F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}
\Rightarrow \bar F_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}$ is smooth in the diffeological sense: if
$\gamma_\alpha$ is a family of curves depending smoothly
on a set of parameters $\alpha$ varying in a bounded closed domain $A$ of $\mathbb{R}^d$ for some $d$,
then the mapping $\alpha\in A\rightarrow G_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_{0\alpha})\in H$ is smooth.
When the connection doublet $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ is flat, the same property holds
for the gauge pseudonatural transformation $\bar G^0{}_{g,J;\theta,\varUpsilon}:\bar F^0{}_{\theta,\varUpsilon}
\Rightarrow \bar F^0{}_{{}^{g,J}\theta,{}^{g,J}\varUpsilon}$.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. The statement is proven by a reasoning analogous to that showing
prop. \ref{prop:ghsmooth} relying on the smoothness properties of the solution of
the differential problem \eqref{gauge22}, \eqref{gauge24} and using \eqref{gauholo13}.
\hfill $\Box$
\subsection{\normalsize \textcolor{blue}{Relation to other formulations}}\label{sec:other}
\hspace{.5cm} In this subsect, we shall analyze the relation between our formulation of higher
parallel transport and other formulations appeared in the
literature. This is an important point.
Let $M$ be a manifold and $(G,H)$ be a Lie crossed module.
According to Schreiber and Waldorf \cite{Schrei:2009,Schrei:2011,Schrei:2008}, higher parallel transport
is constructed as follows.
\begin{defi} Let $(\theta,\varUpsilon)$ be
a $(G,H)$--connection. For a curve $\gamma$, the $1$--pa\-rallel transport along $\gamma$ is given by \hphantom{xxxxxxxxxx}
\begin{equation}
F_{SW\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma)=f_{SW\theta,\varUpsilon;\gamma}(1),
\label{other1}
\end{equation}
where $f_{SW\theta,\varUpsilon;\gamma}(x)$ is the solution of the differential problem
\begin{align}
&d_xu(x)u(x)^{-1}=-\gamma^*\theta_x(x),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{other2}
\\
&u(0)=1_G
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{other3}
\end{align}
with $u:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow G$ a smooth mapping.
For a surface $\varSigma$, the $2$--parallel transport along $\varSigma$ is given by \hphantom{xxxxxxxxxxx}
\begin{equation}
F_{SW\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma)=W_{SW\theta,\varUpsilon;\varSigma}(1),
\label{other4}
\end{equation}
where $W_{SW\theta,\varUpsilon;\varSigma}(y)$ is the solution of the differential problem
\begin{align}
&\partial_yE(y)E(y){}^{-1}
=\int_0^1d\xi\,\dot m(F_{SW\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_{\varSigma \xi,y}))\varSigma^*\varUpsilon_{xy}(\xi,y),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{other5}
\\
&E(0)=1_H
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{other6}
\end{align}
with $E:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow H$ a smooth mapping.
Here, $\gamma_{\varSigma \xi,y}:\varSigma(\xi,y)\rightarrow
\varSigma(1,y)$ is the curve defined by the expression
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{\varSigma \xi,y}(x)=\varSigma(\xi+(1-\xi)\varphi(x),y),
\label{other7}
\end{equation}
where $\varphi:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is a smooth function such that $\varphi(x)=0$ for $x<\epsilon$ and
$\varphi(x)=1$ for $x>1-\epsilon$ for some small $\epsilon>0$.
\end{defi}
The function $\varphi$ is introduced to ensure that $\gamma_{\varSigma \xi,y}$
has sitting instants. Its choice is immaterial, as a change of
it amounts to a thin homotopy that leaves $F_{SW\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_{\varSigma \xi,y})$ invariant.
The following proposition holds.
\begin{prop} For any curve $\gamma$,
\begin{equation}
F_{SW\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma)=F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma).
\label{other8}
\end{equation}
Similarly, for any surface $\varSigma$,
\begin{equation}
F_{SW\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma)=F_{\theta,\varUpsilon}(\varSigma).
\label{other9}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof}. We show first \eqref{other8}. As $\gamma^*\theta_x(x)=I_\gamma{}^*\theta_x(x,y)$ for any $y$,
the differential problem \eqref{other2}, \eqref{other3} is identical to that \eqref{cycle36}, \eqref{cycle39} with
$a_x(x,y)=I_\gamma{}^*\theta_x(x,y)$
and $x_0=0$, which is solved precisely by $f_{I_\gamma{}^*\theta,I_\gamma{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,0)$. So,
\begin{equation}
f_{SW\theta,\varUpsilon;\gamma}(x)=f_{I_\gamma{}^*\theta,I_\gamma{}^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,0).
\label{othera1}
\end{equation}
\eqref{other8} then follows from \eqref{other1} and \eqref{twoholo13}.
The proof of \eqref{other9} requires more work but follows a similar route.
We begin with noticing that
$f_{SW\theta,\varUpsilon;\gamma_{\varSigma \xi,y}}(x)$ is the solution of the differential problem
\eqref{other2}, \eqref{other3} with $\gamma=\gamma_{\varSigma \xi,y}$. Since
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{\varSigma \xi,y}{}^*\theta_x(x)=(1-\xi)d_x\varphi(x)\varSigma^*\theta_x(\xi+(1-\xi)\varphi(x),y)
\label{othera2}
\end{equation}
by \eqref{other7}, the differential problem can thus more explicitly be stated as
\begin{align}
&d_xu(x)u(x)^{-1}=-(1-\xi)d_x\varphi(x)\varSigma^*\theta_x(\xi+(1-\xi)\varphi(x),y),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{othera3}
\\
&u(0)=1_G.
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{othera4}
\end{align}
Comparing this with the differential problem
\eqref{cycle36}, \eqref{cycle39} with
$a_x(x,y)=\varSigma^*\theta_x(x,y)$ and $x_0=\xi$, solved by
$f_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,\xi)$, we find that
\begin{equation}
f_{SW\theta,\varUpsilon;\gamma_{\varSigma \xi,y}}(x)=f_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|y}(\xi+(1-\xi)\varphi(x),\xi).
\vphantom{\ul{\ul{\ul{\ul{\ul{g}}}}}}
\label{othera5}
\end{equation}
From \eqref{other1} with $\gamma=\gamma_{\varSigma \xi,y}$, it follows that
\begin{equation}
F_{SW\theta,\varUpsilon}(\gamma_{\varSigma \xi,y}
=f_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|y}(\xi,1)^{-1}.
\label{othera6}
\end{equation}
Recalling \eqref{twoholob1}, we also have that
\begin{equation}
1_G=g_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|1}(y,0)^{-1}.
\label{othera7}
\end{equation}
Taking \eqref{othera6}, \eqref{othera7} into account, we can recast the differential problem
\eqref{other5}, \eqref{other6} in the form
\begin{align}
&\partial_yE(y)E(y){}^{-1}
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{othera8}
\\
&\hspace{2cm}
=\int_0^1d\xi\,\dot m(g_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|1}(y,0)^{-1}
f_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|y}(\xi,1)^{-1})\varSigma^*\varUpsilon_{xy}(\xi,y),
\vphantom{\Big]}
\nonumber
\\
&E(0)=1_H.
\vphantom{\Big]}
\label{othera9}
\end{align}
This is equivalent to the first form of the differential problem
\eqref{cycle38}, \eqref{cycle41} with
$v_{|x_0,y_0}(y)=g_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|x_0}(y,y_0)$,
$u_{|y,x_0}(x)=f_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|y}(x,x_0)$
and $B_{xy}(x,y)=\varSigma^*\varUpsilon_{xy}(x,y)$ after integrating with respect to $x$ and
setting $x=0$, $x_0=1$ and $y_0=0$. From here, it follows that
\begin{equation}
W_{SW\theta,\varUpsilon;\varSigma}(y)=W_{\varSigma^*\theta,\varSigma^*\varUpsilon|0,1}(y,0).
\label{othera10}
\end{equation}
\eqref{other9} then follows from \eqref{other4} and \eqref{twoholo11}.
\hfill $\Box$
The prescription given by Martins and Picken in
\cite{Martins:2007,Martins:2008}
for the computation of
higher parallel transport is essentially equivalent to that of
Schreiber and Waldorf and, consequently, to ours.
\vfil\eject
|
\section{Introduction, target and method}
The mass determination of central cluster galaxies based on kinematical data
normally uses simplified assumptions of virial equilibrium and spherical
symmetry. The round appearance of these galaxies and the smooth distribution
of hot X-ray emitting gas might suggest that these assumptions are justified.
On the other hand, it has been shown that the halos of massive ellipticals
grow by a factor of about 4 in mass since z$=$2 (van Dokkum et al. 2010).
The mass growth is dominated by the accretion of low mass systems (minor
mergers). Thus, one might expect that accretion events leave kinematical
signatures in the phase space of the outer stellar population especially of
central cluster galaxies.
Here we present the vivid case of the central giant elliptical of the Hydra\,I
cluster, NGC\,3311. This early-type galaxy dominated cluster is regarded as
dynamically evolved. Recent photometric and kinematical studies of the diffuse
stellar light, planetary nebulae and globular clusters in the core of Hydra\,I,
however, have shown that 1) NGC\,3311 exhibits a steeply rising velocity
dispersion profile (Ventimiglia et al. 2010, Richtler et al. 2011), 2) the velocity
dispersion profiles differ from each other in different azimuthal directions, as
judged from longslit analyses (Ventimiglia et al. 2011, Richtler et al. 2011),
and 3) the diffuse light is not centered around NGC\,3311's main spheroid,
but it is displaced towards the North-East by about 15 kpc (Arnaboldi et al. 2012).
In order to find kinematic signatures of these substructures and
to disentangle the past and present active assembly history of the Hydra\,I
cluster core, we used FORS2 in MXU mode (ESO programme 088.B-0448, PI:
T.\,Richtler) to mimic a coarse `IFU'. Our novel
approach is to place short slits in an onion shell-like pattern around
NGC\,3311 to measure its 3D large scale kinematics out to 3 effective radii.
Sky slits were positioned far outside of NGC\,3311's main body and bright halo.
The borders of the `IFU' spaxels were defined via Voronoi tesselation to create
kinematic maps (see Fig.\,1). The S/N of our final spectra ranges from $>$20 to 2 from
the inner to the outer radii.
\section{Results and conclusions}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{hilker_fig1.eps}
\caption{{\bf Upper left:} Radial velocity map. {\bf Upper right:} Velocity dispersion map.
{\bf Lower left:} Skewness (h3) map. {\bf Lower left:} Kurtosis (h4) map. All maps were
smoothed with a locally weighted scatterplot smoothing algorithm (Cleveland 1979).
The contours are surface brightness levels of NGC\,3311 (in the center) and
NGC\,3309 (on the right) $V$-band light between 19 and 23.5 mag/arcsec$^2$ in
steps of 0.5 mag.}
\end{figure}
The main results of our analysis, shown in Fig.\,1, are:
1) there are pronounced azimuthal variations both in radial velocity and velocity
dispersion as a function of galactocentric distance, explaining the above mentioned discrepancies from
previous longslit results; 2) in the North-East there are significant small scale
variations in both radial velocity and velocity dispersion data points; 3) the very large
velocity dispersion values in some parts of the cluster core ($\sigma>500$ km/s)
probably point to a superposition of kinematical substructures; and 4) the
displaced diffuse stellar halo around NGC\,3311 coincides with regions
of positive h3 and h4 values,
also evidence for more than one velocity component in the stellar halo.
We conclude that the stellar halo around NGC\,3311 in the core of Hydra\,I is
still forming and is not in dynamical equilibrium. Probably, a group of infalling
dwarf galaxies and their tails are responsible for the kinematical substructures.
The general lesson is that one has to take care when inferring the properties of
the central dark matter halo around NGC\,3311 from kinematical data.
|
\section*{Introduction}
In posing moduli problems for isomorphism classes of objects in a category, one usually aims at constructing a fine moduli space, that is, one which representents the given moduli functor, and in particular carries a universal, or at least tautological, family of objects. However, this is typically obstructed by numerical conditions on appropriate discrete invariants of the objects to be parametrized, a typical example being vector bundles on smooth projective curves, which only admit fine moduli spaces for coprimality of rank and degree of the bundles. In general, one thus only arrives at coarse moduli spaces, which, a priori, do not carry tautological families of objects.
To actually disprove existence of such tautological families on coarse moduli spaces constitutes a completely separate problem, whose solution is closely tied to computing non-trivial geometric invariants of the coarse moduli spaces. Again taking moduli of vector bundles on curves as an example, such nonexistence proofs were given in \cite{Ramanan 1973}, \cite{Drezet; Narasimhan 1989}, \cite{Balaji; Biswas; Gabber; Nagaraj 2007} using computations of the canonical class, the Picard group, and the Brauer group of the moduli spaces, respectively.
Quiver moduli, which are moduli spaces of stable representations of quivers provide another instance of such moduli problems (see \cite{King 1994} for the construction and \cite{moduli} for an overview over their known geometric and topological properties). In fact, their behaviour is often expected to be close to the case of vector bundles on curves since in both cases the underlying category is of homological dimension one. Quiver moduli attracted interest in recent years in particular due to their role in motivic Donaldson-Thomas theory (see, for example, \cite{Reineke 2010},\cite{Reineke 2011}, \cite{Reineke; Weist 2013}).
The topic of the present work is the computation of the Brauer group of quiver moduli, taking up the approach of \cite{Balaji; Biswas; Gabber; Nagaraj 2007}, and the study of the non-existence of tautological bundles on them. We conjecture that the Brauer group of the moduli space parametrizing stable representations of a given dimension type ${\bf d}$ is cyclic of order the greatest common divisor of the entries of ${\bf d}$ (Conjecture \ref{main conj}).
Our main result, Theorem \ref{main theorem}, proves this conjecture under a mild codimension assumption. We prove that this assumption is always fulfilled for two of the most promiment classes of quivers, namely multiple loop and generalized Kronecker quivers, except for two special cases which can be treated by explicit coordinatization.
As a consequence, we prove the desired non-existence of tautological representations in the case of non-primitive dimension vectors, under the mentioned codimension assumption, and unconditionally for multiple loop and generalized Kronecker quivers.
We also compute the Brauer group for moduli of quadrics, which is a closely related moduli problem of linear algebra data. Here we obtain results over arbitrary ground rings including the case of characteristic $p=2$.
The paper is organized as follows:
We first collect all necessary facts on Brauer groups in Section \ref{brauer}. Since results seem to be scattered in the literature, we state and prove them systematically for the reader's convenience. Then we collect all facts related to quiver representations and their moduli spaces, unframed as well as framed, in Section \ref{quiver}; for a more thorough treatment, the reader is referred to \cite{moduli}.
After these preparations, we can prove our main theorem in Section \ref{main}, adapting the strategy of \cite{Balaji; Biswas; Gabber; Nagaraj 2007} to the quiver setup. Here we also state the application to the non-existence of universal and tautological representations.
Concerning the crucial codimension assumption of the main theorem, we derive a sufficient, purely numerical, criterion for this to be fulfilled in Section \ref{combinatorics}. This derivation uses standard stratification techniques of the theory of quiver moduli, for example the Harder--Narasimhan stratification of \cite{Reineke 2003}.
In Section \ref{lkq}, we show that this numerical criterion is (almost) always fulfilled for multiple loop and generalized Kronecker quivers. The general case is elementary in nature, but requires a rather technical case-by-case analysis. The two remaining special cases are treated by explicit geometric considerations in Section \ref{special cases}.
Finally, in Section \ref{quadric moduli}, we generalize the techniques used in Section \ref{lkq} to compute the Brauer groups of moduli of quadrics.
\section{Recollections on Brauer groups}\label{brauer}
In this section, we collect some well-known results on Brauer groups,
without any claim to originality.
Throughout, we shall
work with sheaves and cohomology for the \'etale site.
Suppose $X$ is a scheme, and $n\geq 1$ be an integer.
Denote by $\PGL_{n,X}$ the sheaf of groups obtained
by sheafifying the presheaf $U\mapsto \PGL_n(\Gamma(U,\O_X))$.
The short exact sequence of group-valued sheaves
$$
0\lra \GG_{m,X}\lra \GL_{n,X} \lra \PGL_{n,X} \lra 1
$$
yields a coboundary map
$$
H^1(X,\PGL_{n,X})\lra H^2(X,\GG_{m,X}),
$$
whose image consists of $n$-torsion elements.
The union of these images for all integers $n\geq 1$ is called the \emph{Brauer group} $\Br(X)\subset H^2(X,\GG_m)$.
This subset is actually a subgroup, and it is contained in the torsion part.
The latter is usually called the \emph{cohomological Brauer group} and denoted by $\Br'(X)\subset H^2(X,\GG_m)$.
By Gabber's result (see \cite{de Jong 2006}), the inclusion $\Br(X)\subset \Br'(X)$ is an equality
if $X$ is quasicompact, separated, and admits an ample invertible sheaf.
If $X$ is proper over the field of complex numbers, then $\Br'(X)$ is a group of the
form $(\QQ/\ZZ)^{\oplus n}\oplus T$, where $n=b_2-\rho$ is the difference of the second Betti number of
the associated complex-analytic space $X^\an$ and the Picard number, and $T$ is the torsion part of $H^3(X^\an,\ZZ)$, see
for example \cite{Schroeer 2005}, Section 1.
One may regard the set $H^1(X,\PGL_{n,X})$ as the set of isomorphisms classes of
$\PGL_{n,X}$-torsors. Since the homomorphism of presheaves $\PGL_{n}(\Gamma(U,\O_X))\ra\Aut(\PP^{n-1}_U)$
becomes bijective upon sheafification, the isomorphism classes of $\PGL_{n,X}$-torsors
are in bijective correspondence to the isomorphism classes of twisted forms
of $\PP^{n-1}_X$.
Let us call a morphism $P\ra X$ a \emph{Brauer--Severi scheme} of relative dimension $n-1$
if there is some \'etale surjection $U\ra X$ with $P_U\simeq\PP^{n-1}_U$.
If $X=\Spec(k)$ is the spectrum of a field, one refers to $P$ also as a \emph{Brauer--Severi variety}.
In the general case, one also says that $P\ra X$ is a \emph{family of Brauer--Severi varieties},
or a \emph{projective bundle}.
Given a Brauer--Severi scheme $f:P\ra X$ of relative dimension $n-1$,
the coboundary of its isomorphism class is written as $[P]\in\Br(X)\subset H^2(X,\GG_m)$ and
called the \emph{Brauer class}.
This is an element whose order is a divisor of $n$. One also has the following geometric interpretation:
Clearly, the map $\O_X\ra f_*(\O_P)$ is bijective,
such that we have an identification $\GG_{m,X}=f_*(\GG_{m,P})$. Moreover,
the degree map gives an identification $R^1f_*(\GG_m)=\ZZ_X$. With these identifications,
the Leray--Serre spectral sequence
$E_2^{pq}=H^p(X,R^qf_*(\GG_m))\Rightarrow H^{p+q}(P,\GG_m)$ yields an exact sequence
\begin{equation}
\label{exact sequence}
0\lra\Pic(X)\lra\Pic(P)\lra H^0(X,\ZZ_X)\lra H^2(X,\GG_m)\lra H^2(P,\GG_m).
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}
\mylabel{image differential}
The image of the constant section $1_X$ under the differential $H^0(X,\ZZ)\ra H^2(X,\GG_m)$
coincides with the Brauer class $[P]\in\Br(X)$. Moreover,
the induced map $\Br(X)\ra \Br(P)$ is surjective.
\end{proposition}
\proof
The first statement is due to Giraud \cite{Giraud 1971}, Chapter V, Theorem 4.8.3.
According to Gabber \cite{Gabber 1981}, Theorem 2 on p.\ 193, the induced map on cohomological Brauer groups
$\Br'(X)\ra\Br'(P)$ is surjective. To see that the map on Brauer groups is surjective as well,
let $Q\ra P$ be a projective bundle. Choose some cohomology class $\alpha\in\Br'(X)$ with $f^*(\alpha)=[Q]$.
The structure morphism $f:P\ra X$ is flat and projective, the latter because the determinant of the dual of $\Omega_{P/X}^1$
is relatively ample.
According to a result of Edidin et al.\ \cite{Edidin; Hassett; Kresch; Vistoli 1999}, Theorem 3.6, the class $\alpha$ comes from some projective bundle over $X$.
\qed
\medskip
Let $P\ra X$ be a Brauer--Severi scheme of relative dimension $n-1\geq 0$. A closed subscheme
$L\subset P$ is called \emph{linear subscheme} of relative dimension $r-1\geq 0$, if there is an \'etale surjection $U\ra X$,
a locally free $\O_U$-module $\shE$ of rank $n$, a locally free quotient $\shE\ra \shF$ of rank $r$,
and an isomorphism $\varphi:P_U\ra\PP(\shE)$ inducing an isomorphism $L_U\ra\PP(\shF)$.
Here $\PP(\shF)\subset\PP(\shE)$ is the closed embedding obtained by forming the relative projective
spectrum for the surjection of graded rings $\Sym^\bullet(\shE)\ra\Sym^\bullet(\shF)$.
Over fields, the following fact is due to Artin \cite{Artin 1982}, Proposition 3.6, with some different argument:
\begin{proposition}
\mylabel{linear subscheme}
Let $P\ra X$ be a Brauer--Severi scheme, and $L\subset P$
a linear subscheme. Then $[L]=[P]$ as elements of $\Br(X)$.
\end{proposition}
\proof
Let $f:P\ra X$ be the structure morphism, and $g=f|L$ its restriction to the linear subscheme.
Since the degree of an invertible sheaf on $\PP^n_R$ over some ring $R$ is the same as the degree of
its restriction to some linear subscheme, we have a commutative diagram
$$
\begin{CD}
R^1f_*\GG_{m,P} @>\deg>> \ZZ_X\\
@V\res VV @VV\id V\\
R^1g_*\GG_{m,L} @>\deg>> \ZZ_X,
\end{CD}
$$
of abelian sheaves on $X$. It follows that the vertical map on the left is bijective.
Using the Leray--Serre spectral sequences (\ref{exact sequence}) for both $f$ and $g$, we obtain a commutative diagram
$$
\begin{CD}
\Pic(P) @>>> H^0(X,\ZZ_X) @>>> H^2(X,\GG_m) @>>> H^2(P,\GG_m)\\
@VVV @VV\id V @VV\id V @VVV\\
\Pic(L) @>>> H^0(X,\ZZ_X) @>>> H^2(X,\GG_m) @>>> H^2(L,\GG_m)
\end{CD}
$$
and the result follows from Proposition \ref{image differential}.
\qed
\begin{proposition}
\mylabel{restriction function field}
Suppose $X$ is a integral normal noetherian scheme, with function field $F=\kappa(X)$.
If the strictly local rings $\O_{X,\bar{a}}^s$
are factorial for all closed geometric points $\bar{a}:\Spec(\Omega)\ra X$,
then the restriction map $\Br(X)\ra\Br(F)$ is injective.
\end{proposition}
\proof
Let $P\ra X$ be a Brauer--Severi scheme of relative dimension $n-1$ whose Brauer class $[P]$ maps to zero in $\Br(F)$.
Then the generic fiber $P_F$ is isomorphic to $\PP^{n-1}_F$, and in particular there
is an effective Cartier divisor $D_F\subset P_F$ of degree one. Consider its schematic closure $D\subset F$.
We claim that the ideal $\shI\subset\O_P$ is invertible. This question is local with
respect to the \'etale topology, thus we may assume that $X=\Spec(R)$ is strictly local and $P=\PP^{n-1}_X$.
By assumption, the ring $R$, which is normal and integral, is factorial.
By the Gau\ss\ Lemma, polynomial rings over $R$ remain factorial, such that $P$ is locally factorial.
In turn, the Weil divisor $D\subset X$ is Cartier, such that $\shI\subset \O_X$ is invertible.
Let $\shL=\O_P(D)$ be the dual invertible sheaf. Since $X$ is connected, we have $\deg(\shL)=1_X$ as
global section of $\ZZ_X$. In light of the exact sequence (\ref{exact sequence}), the image of $1_X$ in $H^2(X,\GG_m)$
vanishes. According to Proposition \ref{image differential}, the Brauer class $[P]$ vanishes.
\qed
\medskip
We now recall a purity result of Grothendieck \cite{GB} in the following form.
For more general versions, see Gabber \cite{Gabber 1998}.
\begin{proposition}
\mylabel{restriction bijective}
Let $k$ be a field and $X$ a smooth quasiprojective $k$-scheme. Let $Z\subset X$ be a closed
subset of codimension $\geq 2$, and $U=X\smallsetminus Z$ the corresponding open
subscheme. Then the restriction map $\Br(X)\ra\Br(U)$ yields a bijection between $l$-torsion parts,
for every integer $l\geq 1$ that is invertible in $k$.
\end{proposition}
\proof
Injectivity follows from Proposition \ref{restriction function field}. Surjectivity on $l$-torsion parts of $\Br'(X)\ra\Br'(U)$
is ensured by \cite{GB}, Theorem 6.1. These cohomological Brauer groups are in fact
Brauer groups, because $X$ is quasiprojective \cite{de Jong 2006}.
\qed
\begin{proposition}
\mylabel{pullback bijective}
Let $R$ be a ring, and $m\geq 0$ an integer. Then the pullback map
$\Br(R)\ra\Br(\PP^m_R)$ is bijective. If $R$ is normal, integral, noetherian, and
the strictly local rings $\O_{\AA^m_R,\bar{a}}^s$
are factorial for all closed geometric points $\bar{a}:\Spec(\Omega)\ra \AA^m_R$,
then $\Br(R)\ra\Br(\AA^m_R)$ induces a bijection between $l$-torsion parts, for all integers $l\geq 1$
that are invertible in $R$.
\end{proposition}
\proof
Both pullback maps are injective, because the projections $\PP^m_R\ra\Spec(R)$
and $\AA^m_R\ra\Spec(R)$ admit sections. By Proposition \ref{image differential},
the map $\Br(R)\ra\Br(\PP^m_R)$ is also surjective.
Now suppose that $R$ is normal, integral, noetherian, and all strictly
local rings of the polynomial ring $A=R[T_1,\ldots,T_m]$ at maximal ideals are factorial.
Let $\alpha\in\Br(A)$ be a cohomology class.
Denote by $R\subset F$ the field of fractions, and $\hat{A}=R[[T_1,\ldots,T_m]]$ the completion.
Applying \cite{DeMeyer 1975}, Corollary 4 inductively, we see that the inclusion $R\subset \hat{A}$ induces a bijection
on Brauer groups.
Thus there is a projective bundle $P\ra\Spec(R)$
so that the Brauer class of $P\otimes_R \hat{A}$ in $\Br(\hat{A})$ is the pullback of $\alpha$.
In light of Proposition \ref{restriction function field}, we are done if
the Brauer class $[P]$ and the cohomology class $\alpha$ become equal in $\Br(A\otimes_RF)$. In particular, we may assume that $R=F$ is
a field. Now we can argue as follows: According to \cite{Auslander; Goldman 1960}, Proposition 7.6
the cokernel of the injection $\Br(K)\ra\Br(K[T])$ is $p$-torsion, where $K$ is any field and $p$ is its characteristic exponent.
Using induction on $m\geq1$, together with Proposition \ref{restriction function field}, we deduce that
the cokernel of the injection $\Br(F)\subset\Br(A)$ is $p$-torsion.
In turn, the $l$-torsion class $\alpha$ lies in the image of $\Br(F)$, and whence coincides with
the preimage of $[P]$.
\qed
\section{Recollections on quiver representations and their moduli}\label{quiver}
We recall all necessary facts on quiver representations, their moduli spaces and in particular smooth modes; for further details, the reader is referred to \cite{moduli}. For simplicity, we work over a ground field $k$ which is assumed to be algebraically closed of characteristic $0$.
Let $Q$ be a quiver with finite set of vertices $Q_0$ and finite set of arrows $Q_1$. An arrow $\alpha\in Q_1$ from a vertex $i\in Q_0$ to a vertex $j\in Q_0$ will be denoted by $\alpha:i\rightarrow j$. Denote by $\Lambda={\bf Z}Q_0$ the standard lattice in the real vector space $\mathbb{R}Q_0$, and by $\Lambda^+=\mathbb{N}Q_0$ the standard cone in $\Lambda$. The elements of $\Lambda^+$ will be called {\it dimension vectors} and are denoted by ${\bf d}=(d_i)_{i\in Q_0}$. Define the {\it Euler form} of $Q$, a bilinear form $\langle\_,\_\rangle$ on $\Lambda$, by
$$\langle {\bf d},{\bf e}\rangle=\sum_{i\in Q_0}d_ie_i-\sum_{\alpha:i\rightarrow j}d_ie_j.$$
A functional $\Theta\in(\mathbb{R}Q_0)^*$ is called a {\it stability}; it induces a {\it slope function} $\mu:\Lambda^+\smallsetminus\{0\}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ given by $\mu({\bf d})=\Theta({\bf d})/\dim {\bf d}$, where $\dim {\bf d}=\sum_id_i$.
A representation $V$ of $Q$ over an algebraically closed base field $k$ is given by (finite dimensional) $k$-vector spaces $V_i$ for $i\in Q_0$ and $k$-linear maps $V_\alpha:V_i\rightarrow V_j$ for $(\alpha:i\rightarrow j)\in Q_1$. The $k$-linear abelian category of all $k$-representations of $Q$ is denoted by ${\rm rep}_kQ$. It is of homological dimension at most one, that is, all ${\rm Ext}^i(\_,\_)$ for $i\geq 2$ vanish identically. There is a well-defined map ${\bf \dim}$ from the Grothendieck group $K_0({\rm rep}_kQ)$ to $\Lambda$ given by ${\rm\bf dim} V=(\dim V_i)_{i\in Q_0}$. Then, for all representations $V$ and $W$, we have $$\dim{\rm Hom}(V,W)-\dim{\rm Ext}^1(V,W)=\langle{\rm\bf dim}V,{\rm\bf dim} W\rangle.$$
The {\it slope} of a non-zero representation $V$ is defined as $\mu(V)=\mu({\rm\bf dim} V)$. The representation $V$ is called {\it semistable
(resp.~stable)} if $\mu(U)\leq\mu(V)$ (resp.~$\mu(U)<\mu(V)$) for all non-zero proper subrepresentations $U\subset V$. It is called {\it polystable} if it is isomorphic to a direct sum of stables of the same slope. The semistable representations of a fixed slope $\mu$ form an abelian subcategory ${\rm rep}^\mu_kQ\subset {\rm rep}_kQ$, whose simple (resp.~semisimple) objects are precisely the stables (resp.~polystables) of slope $\mu$. In particular, all stables have trivial endomorphism ring $k$. We have ${\rm Hom}({\rm rep}^\mu_kQ,{\rm rep}^\nu_kQ)=0$ if $\mu>\nu$. Moreover, every representation $V$ admits a unique filtration (the
Harder--Narasimhan filtration)
$$0=V_0\subset V_1\subset\ldots\subset V_s=V$$
such that each subquotient $V_k/V_{k-1}$ is semistable, and
$$\mu(V_1/V_0)>\mu(V_2/V_1)>\ldots>\mu(V_s/V_{s-1}).$$
Given a dimension vector ${\bf d}=\sum_id_ii$ and $k$-vector spaces $V_i$ of dimension $d_i$ for $i\in Q_0$, we define the {\it variety of representations} $R_{\bf d}(Q)$ to be the affine scheme whose $k$-valued points are $\bigoplus_{\alpha:i\rightarrow j}{\rm Hom}_k(V_i,V_j)$. The $k$-points of $R_{\bf d}(Q)$ thus parametrize representations of $Q$ on the vector spaces $V_i$. The reductive algebraic group $G_{\bf d}=\prod_{i\in Q_0}{\rm GL}(V_i)$ acts on $R_{\bf d}(Q)$ via the base change action
$$(g_i)_i\cdot(V_\alpha)_\alpha=(g_jV_\alpha g_i^{-1})_{\alpha:i\rightarrow j}).$$
By definition, the orbits of $G_{\bf d}$ in $R_{\bf d}(Q)$ correspond to the isomorphism classes of $k$-representations of $Q$ of dimension vector ${\bf d}$. We denote by $R_{\bf d}^{\rm sst}(Q)$ (resp.~by $R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$) the locus of semistable (resp.~stable) representations in $R_{\bf d}(Q)$. Then we have a chain of open and $G_{\bf d}$-stable embeddings
$$R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)\subset R_{\bf d}^{\rm sst}(Q)\subset R_{\bf d}(Q).$$
The quotient $M_{\bf d}^{\rm pst}(Q)$ of $R_{\bf d}^{\rm sst}(Q)$ by $G_{\bf d}$ exists. Its $k$-points parametrize isomorphism classes of polystable $k$-representations of $Q$ of dimension vector ${\bf d}$. Moreover, the geometric quotient of $R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$ by $G_{\bf d}$ exists and is denoted by $M_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$; we denote by $q:R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)\rightarrow M_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$ the quotient map. The scheme $M_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$ admits an open embedding into $M_{\bf d}^{\rm pst}(Q)$, and its $k$-points parametrize the isomorphism classes of stable $k$-representations of $Q$ of dimension vector ${\bf d}$. If non-empty, the variety $M_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$ is smooth and irreducible of dimension $1-\langle{\bf d},{\bf d}\rangle$. In contrast, the variety $M_{\bf d}^{\rm pst}(Q)$ is typically singular (but still irreducible). Since the stabilizer of a point in $R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$ reduces to the scalars, we have $M_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)\simeq R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)/PG_{\bf d}$, where $PG_{\bf d}$ denotes the quotient of $G_{\bf d}$ by the subgroup $\Delta\simeq\mathbb{G}_m$, which is the image of the multiplicative group $\mathbb{G}_m$ embedded diagonally via $t\mapsto(t\cdot{\rm id}_{V_i})_i§$.\\[1ex]
We denote $g({\bf d}):=\gcd(d_i\, |\, i\in Q_0)$. If $g({\bf d})=1$, we can construct universal bundles $\mathcal{E}_i$ for $i\in Q_0$ on $M_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$ as follows: we consider the trivial bundle $V_i$ on $R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$, and twist its natural $G_{\bf d}$-action by $(g_i)_i*v:=\chi((g_i)_i)^{-1}g_iv$, where $\chi\in X(G_{\bf d})$ denotes the character $\chi((g_i)_i)=\prod_{i\in Q_0}\det(g_i)^{a_i}$ for a choice of integers $a_i$ such that $\sum_ia_id_i=1$. Then the stabilizer of a point in $R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$, which is the subgroup $\Delta$ defined above, acts trivially on $V_i$, and thus $V_i$ descends to a vector bundle $\mathcal{E}_i$ on $M_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$.
Given another dimension vector ${\bf n}=(n_i)_i\in\Lambda^+$ and $k$-vector spaces $W_i$ of dimension $n_i$ for $i\in Q_0$, there exists a scheme $M_{{\bf d},{\bf n}}^\Theta(Q)$ parametrizing pairs $(V,f)$ consisting of a semistable representation $V$ of $Q$ of dimension vector ${\bf d}$ and a tuple of maps $f=(f_i:W_i\rightarrow V_i)_{i\in Q_0}$ such that the following holds: if $U\subset V$ is a proper subrepresentation of $V$ such that $f_i(W_i)\subset U_i$ for all $i\in Q_0$, then $\mu(U)<\mu(V)$. Such pairs are parametrized up to the following equivalence relation: two such pairs $(V,f)$ and $(V',f')$ are equivalent if there exists an isomorphism $\varphi:V\rightarrow V'$ (given by linear maps $\varphi_i:V_i\rightarrow V_i'$ for all $i\in Q_0$) such that $f_i'=\varphi_if_i$ for all $i\in Q_0$.\\[1ex]
There exists a projective map $\pi_{\bf d}:M_{{\bf d},{\bf n}}^\Theta(Q)\rightarrow M_{\bf d}^{\rm pst}(Q)$, whose fiber over the stable locus is isomorphic to the projective space of dimension ${\bf n}\cdot{\bf d}-1=\sum_{i\in Q_0}n_id_i-1$. In fact, the restriction of $\pi_{\bf d}$ to $M_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$ defines a projective bundle $P_{\bf n}\rightarrow M_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$ of relative dimension ${\bf n}\cdot{\bf d}-1$, whose pullback to $R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$ equals $\PP(\bigoplus_{i\in Q_0}V_i^{n_i})$. Therefore, if ${\bf n}'\leq{\bf n}$ componentwise, there exists a linear embedding $P_{{\bf n}'}\subset P_{\bf n}$.
In the special case where ${\bf n}$ has a single non-zero entry $n_i=1$, we also write $P_i=P_{\bf n}$.
\section{The main result}\label{main}
The aim of this section is to derive an explicit description of the Brauer group of a moduli space of stable quiver representations following closely the strategy of \cite{Balaji; Biswas; Gabber; Nagaraj 2007}.
Recall that a dimension vector ${\bf d}$ for a quiver $Q$ with stability $\Theta$ is called stable if $R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)\not=\emptyset$. For our purposes, the following notion will be useful.
\begin{definition} Let us a call a dimension vector ${\bf d}$ {\it amply stable} if
$${\rm codim}_{R_{\bf d}(Q)}(R_{\bf d}(Q)\smallsetminus R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q))\geq 2.$$
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{main theorem} Suppose ${\bf d}$ is an amply stable dimension vector.
Then the Brauer group ${\rm Br}(M_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q))$ is cyclic of order $g({\bf d})=\gcd(d_i\, |\, i\in Q_0)$, and the class of every $P_{\bf n}$ for ${\bf n}\not=0$ is a generator.
\end{theorem}
\proof Inside the projective bundle $P_{\bf d}\subset M_{{\bf d},{\bf d}}^\Theta(Q)$, we consider the open subset $U$ of equivalence classes of pairs $(V,f)$ such that every $f_i$ is an isomorphism and $V$ is stable. By definition of the smooth models, $U$ is isomorphic to $R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$. We consider the following maps of Brauer groups:
$${\rm Br}(P_{\bf d})\longrightarrow{\rm Br}(U)\simeq{\rm Br}(R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q))\longleftarrow{\rm Br}(R_{\bf d}(Q)).$$
The first map is injective by Proposition \ref{restriction function field}, and the third map is an isomorphism by ample stabilty of ${\bf d}$ and Proposition \ref{restriction bijective}. But $R_{\bf d}(Q)$ is just an affine space, thus its Brauer group is trivial by Proposition \ref{pullback bijective}, and we conclude that ${\rm Br}(P_{\bf d})$ is trivial, too. Now the exact sequence
$$\mathbb{Z}[P_{\bf d}]\longrightarrow{\rm Br}(M_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q))\longrightarrow{\rm Br}(P_{\bf d})$$
resulting from Proposition \ref{image differential} shows that ${\rm Br}(M_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$ is cyclic with generator $[P_{\bf d}]$.
Since there exist linear embeddings $P_{{\bf n}'}\rightarrow P_{\bf n}$ whenever ${\bf n}'\leq{\bf n}$ componentwise, we see that $\gamma=[P_{\bf n}]=[P_{\bf d}]$ for every ${\bf n}\not=0$ by Proposition \ref{linear subscheme}. Since $P_{\bf n}$ is of relative dimension ${\bf n}\cdot{\bf d}-1$, we infer from the discussion preceding Proposition \ref{image differential} that the order of $\gamma$ is necessarily a divisor ${\bf n}\cdot{\bf d}$ for all ${\bf n}\not=0$, and thus of $g({\bf d})$.
Suppose that the order of $\gamma$ equals some $0<h<g({\bf d})$. Then, for every $i\in Q_0$, the class of $\bigwedge^hP_{i}$ is trivial in ${\rm Br}(M_{\bf d}^{\rm st})$, thus $\bigwedge^hP_{i}$ is the projectivization of a vector bundle $W$ on $M_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$. The pullback $\hat{W}$ of $W$ to $R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$ is therefore a $G_{\bf d}$-equivariant bundle (with the subgroup $\Delta\subset G_{\bf d}$ acting trivially), such that $\PP(\hat{W})\simeq \PP(\bigwedge^hV_i)$ $PG_{\bf d}$-equivariantly on $R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$; here we regard $V_i$ as a trivial bundle on $R_{\bf d}(Q)$ and on the open subset $R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$. Isomorphism of these projective bundles implies that there exists a $G_{\bf d}$-linearized line bundle $L$ on $R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$ such that $\hat{W}\simeq\bigwedge^hV_i\otimes L$ $G_{\bf d}$-equivariantly, thus $\Delta$ acts trivially on $\bigwedge^h V_i\otimes L$. Since $R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$ is open in the affine space $R_{\bf d}(Q)$, the line bundle $L$ is trivial, with
$G_{\bf d}$-linearization given by a character $(g_i)_i\mapsto \prod_i\det(g_i)^{c_i}$ of $G_{\bf d}$. The action of $\lambda\in\Delta$ on $\bigwedge^hP_i\otimes L$ is multiplication by the $(h+\sum_ic_id_i)$-th power of $\lambda$. By triviality of the action of $\Delta$ on $\bigwedge^hV_i\otimes L$, we conclude that $h=-\sum_ic_id_i$. Therefore $g({\bf d})$ divides $-\sum_ic_id_i=h$. This contradicts $0<h<g({\bf d})$.\qed
\medskip In the next section, we will derive a sufficient criterion for ample stability of a dimension vector, which is strong enough to allow computation of all Brauer groups in the case of multiple loop and generalized Kronecker quivers in Section \ref{lkq}. However, experiments suggest that the condition of ${\bf d}$ being amply stable is not essential. Therefore, we formulate:
\begin{conjecture}\label{main conj} If ${\bf d}$ is a stable dimension vector, the Brauer group ${\rm Br}(M_{\bf d}^{\rm sst}(Q))$ is cyclic of order $g({\bf d})$, and the class of every $P_{\bf n}$ for ${\bf n}\not=0$ is a generator.
\end{conjecture}
We consider the {\it tautological quiver representation} $\mathcal{V}$ on $R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$, which is a representation of $Q$ in the category of locally free sheaves on $R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$, such that $\mathcal{V}_i$ equals the constant sheaf corresponding to $V_i$ on $R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$, see \cite{King 1994}.
\begin{theorem} Let $Q$ be a quiver, $\Theta$ a stability and ${\bf d}$ a dimension vector such that the previous conjecture holds. Suppose that $g({\bf d})\geq 2$. Then there is no representation $\mathcal{E}$ of $Q$ into locally free sheaves on $M_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$ such that the pullback $q^*\mathcal{E}$ along the quotient map is $G_{\bf d}$-equivariantly isomorphic to $\mathcal{V}\otimes\mathcal{L}$ for some $G_{\bf d}$-linearized invertible sheaf $\mathcal{L}$ on $R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$.
\end{theorem}
\proof Suppose, to the contrary, that such a quiver representation $\mathcal{E}$ exists. Then there exists a $G_{\bf d}$-equivariant isomorphism $$q^*\PP(\mathcal{E}_i)\longrightarrow \PP(\mathcal{V}_i)=q^*P_i.$$
This isomorphism descends to an isomorphism $\PP(\mathcal{E}_i)\rightarrow P_i$, contradicting non-vanishing of the Brauer class of $P_i$.\qed
\medskip In particular, in this case there is no {\it universal} quiver representation on $M_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$, in other words, $M_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$ is not a fine moduli space. Moreover, there is no {\it tautological} quiver representation $\mathcal{E}$ on $M_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$, in the sense that $q^*\mathcal{E}$ is isomorphic to the tautological quiver representation $\mathcal{V}$ on $R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$.
In light of Proposition \ref{restriction function field}, the same applies to any non-empty open subset $U\subset M_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$.
\section{Reduction to combinatorics}\label{combinatorics}
In this section we use stratifications of varieties of representations to give a sufficient, purely combinatorial criterion for the codimension condition of Theorem \ref{main theorem}.
\begin{proposition}\label{suff} Let ${\bf d}$ be a stable dimension vector and suppose that, for each proper decomposition ${\bf d}={\bf e}+{\bf f}$ with $\mu({\bf e})\geq\mu({\bf f})$, we have $\langle{\bf e},{\bf f}\rangle\leq -2$. Then ${\bf d}$ is amply stable.
\end{proposition}
\proof We write $R_{\bf d}(Q)\smallsetminus R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$ as the union of $R_{\bf d}(Q)\smallsetminus R_{\bf d}^{\rm sst}(Q)$ and $
R_{\bf d}^{\rm sst}(Q)\smallsetminus R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$ and prove the desired codimension estimate separately for both subsets.
We first study $R_{\bf d}(Q)\smallsetminus R_{\bf d}^{\rm sst}(Q)$ and recall the Harder--Narasimhan stratification of $R_{\bf d}(Q)$: for every decomposition ${\bf d}={\bf d}^1+\ldots+{\bf d}^s$ into nonzero dimension vectors ${\bf d}^k$ such that $\mu({\bf d}^1)>\ldots>\mu({\bf d}^s)$ and such that $R_{{\bf d}^k}^{\rm sst}(Q)\not=\emptyset$ for all $k$, denote by $R_{\bf d}^{{\bf d}^*}(Q)$ the locus of all representations whose
Harder--Narasimhan filtration $V_*$ has subquotients $V_k/V_{k-1}$ of dimension vector ${\bf d}^k$ for $k=1,\ldots,s$. Then every $R_{\bf d}^{{\bf d}^*}(Q)$ is locally closed, we have $R_{\bf d}^{({\bf d})}(Q)=R_{\bf d}^{\rm sst}(Q)$, and $R_{\bf d}(Q)$ is the disjoint union of all the Harder--Narasimhan strata. Moreover, it is known by \cite[Proposition 3.4]{Reineke 2003} that
$${\rm codim}_{R_{\bf d}(Q)}(R_{\bf d}^{{\bf d}^*}(Q))=-\sum_{k<l}\langle {\bf d}^k,{\bf d}^l\rangle.$$
We will use this formula to prove that, under the hypothesis of the proposition, we have ${\rm codim}_{R_{\bf d}(Q)}(R_{\bf d}(Q)\smallsetminus R_{\bf d}^{\rm sst}(Q))\geq 2$. Namely, suppose that there exists a proper Harder--Narasimhan stratum of codimension $1$, thus a decomposition ${\bf d}^*$ such that $\sum_{k<l}\langle{\bf d}^k,{\bf d}^l\rangle=-1$. For every pair of indices $k<l$, we have $\langle{\bf d}^l,{\bf d}^l\rangle\leq 0$; namely, since $R_{{\bf d}^k}^{\rm sst}(Q),R_{{\bf d}^l}^{\rm sst}(Q)\not=\emptyset$, we can choose semistable representations $V$ and $W$ of dimension vector ${\bf d}^k$ and ${\bf d}^l$, respectively. Since $\mu(V)>\mu(W)$ by assumption, we have ${\rm Hom}(V,W)=0$. Thus, there exists precisely one pair $k_0<l_0$ such that $\langle{\bf d}^{k_0},{\bf d}^{l_0}\rangle=-1$, and $\langle {\bf d}^k,{\bf d}^l\rangle=0$ for all other pairs $k<l$. Defining ${\bf e}={\bf d}^1+\ldots+{\bf d}^{k_0}$ and ${\bf f}={\bf d}^{k_0+1}+\ldots+{\bf d}^s$, we thus have $\langle {\bf e},{\bf f}\rangle=-1$ and $\mu({\bf e})>\mu({\bf f})$. This contradicts our assumption.
Now we turn to $R_{\bf d}^{\rm sst}(Q)\smallsetminus R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)$.
Fix a decomposition ${\bf d}={\bf e}+{\bf f}$ into non-zero ${\bf e},{\bf f}$ such that $\mu({\bf e})=\mu({\bf d})=\mu({\bf f})$. We define ${\rm Grass}_{\bf e}({\bf d})$ as the product of Grassmannians $\prod_{i\in Q_0}{\rm Grass}_{e_i}(V_i)$. Inside the scheme $R_{\bf d}^{\rm sst}(Q)\times{\rm Grass}_{\bf e}({\bf d})$, we consider the closed subscheme $X_{{\bf e},{\bf f}}$ of pairs $((V_\alpha)_\alpha,(U_i)_i)$ such that $V_\alpha(U_i)\subset U_j$ for all arrows $\alpha:i\rightarrow j$ of $Q$. In other words, $X_{{\bf e},{\bf f}}$ parametrizes semistable representations together with a subrepresentation of dimension vector ${\bf e}$. The projection $p_1:X_{{\bf e},{\bf f}}\rightarrow R_{\bf d}^{\rm sst}(Q)$ is projective, with image consisting of all semistable representations admitting a subrepresentation of dimension vector ${\bf e}$. By definition, we thus have
$$R_{\bf d}^{\rm sst}(Q)\smallsetminus R_{\bf d}^{\rm st}(Q)=\bigcup_{{\bf e},{\bf f}}p_1(X_{{\bf e},{\bf f}}),$$
where the sum ranges over all proper decompositions ${\bf d}={\bf e}+{\bf f}$ into dimension vectors of the same slope.
The projection $p_2:X_{{\bf e},{\bf f}}\rightarrow{\rm Grass}_{\bf e}({\bf d})$ is a homogeneous $G_{\bf d}$-bundle, whose relative dimension $r$ is easily computed (see e.g. \cite{CFR1}) as
$$r=\sum_{\alpha:i\rightarrow j}(e_ie_j+f_ie_j+f_if_j).$$
A standard Euler form calculation then allows us to estimate
$${\rm codim}_{R_{\bf d}^{\rm sst}(Q)}(p_1(X_{{\bf e},{\bf f}}))\geq \dim R_{\bf d}(Q)-\dim {\rm Grass}_{\bf e}({\bf d})-r=-\langle{\bf e},{\bf f}\rangle\geq 2$$
This gives the desired codimension estimate.\qed
\section{Loop and Kronecker quivers}\label{lkq}
We now show that Theorem \ref{main theorem} and the combinatorial criterion Proposition \ref{suff}, combined with two explicit calculations, suffice to compute the Brauer groups of all non-trivial moduli spaces for multiple loop and generalized Kronecker quivers.
Let $L_m$ be the {\it $m$-loop quiver} with a single vertex and $m\geq 0$ loops; let $K_m$ be the {\it $m$-arrow Kronecker quiver} with two vertices $1$ and $2$ and $m$ arrows from $1$ to $2$.
\begin{theorem}\label{lk} Conjecture \ref{main conj} holds for multiple loop quivers $L_m$ and generalized Kronecker quivers $K_m$.
\end{theorem}
The proof will occupy this and the following section.
We start with the quiver $L_m$. For $m=0,1$, the only non-trivial moduli spaces of stable representations occur in dimension one, and are isomorphic to a point, resp.~an affine line. By abuse of notation, we identify a dimension vector ${\bf d}=(d)$ with the integer $d$. The moduli space $M_{d}^{\rm st}(L_m)$ parametrizes $m$-tuples of $d\times d$-matrices without nontrivial common invariant subspaces up to simultaneous conjugation. We shall use Theorem \ref{main theorem} and Proposition \ref{suff}. Assume that the criterion of Proposition \ref{suff} is not fulfilled. Then $d=e+f$ with $e,f\geq 1$ and $(m-1)ef\leq1$, which holds if and only if $m=2$, $e=f=1$, and thus $d=2$.
In this case, the relevant moduli space $X=M_2^{\rm st}(L_2)$ is well known to be isomorphic to the open subset of $\mathbb{A}^5$ (with coordinates $a,b,c,d,e$) given by $b^2\not=ac$. Namely, the coordinates $a,\ldots,e$ correspond, respectively, to the invariants
$${\rm tr}(A'^2), {\rm tr}(A'B'), {\rm tr}(B'^2), {\rm tr}(A), {\rm tr}(B)$$
of two $2\times 2$-matrices $A$ and $B$, where $A'=A-\frac{1}{2}{\rm tr}(A)E$, $B'=B-\frac{1}{2}{\rm tr}(B)E$. As will be proved in the next section, this description allows to identify the Brauer group of $X$ as $\ZZ/2\ZZ$. Moreover, the bundle $P_1\rightarrow X$ is given by the equation
$$cx^2+az^2=2(y^2+bxz)$$
in $X\times\mathbb{P}^2$, with homogeneous coordinates $(x:y:z)$ for $\mathbb{P}^2$. Namely, the coordinates $x,y,z$ correspond, respectively, to the semiinvariants
$$\det(v|Av), \det(v|Bv), \det(Av|Bv)$$
for the natural ${\rm GL}_2(k)$-action on triples $(A,B,v)$ of two $2\times 2$-matrices and a vector in $k^2$. As will be proved in the next section, the class of this bundle in the Brauer group is non-vanishing. We have thus proved that ${\rm Br}(M_d^{\rm st}(L_m))\simeq\mathbb{Z}/d\mathbb{Z}$, and the class of any $P_n$ for $n\geq 1$ is a generator.
\bigskip Next we consider the generalized Kronecker quiver $K_m$. We choose the stability $\Theta(d_1,d_2)=d_1$, which is the only relevant one, see \cite{moduli}. We then have:
\begin{proposition} Let $(d_1,d_2)$ be a stable dimension vector for $K_m$. Then $(d_1,d_2)$ is amply stable, except for the case $m=3$, $d_1=d_2=2$.
\end{proposition}
\proof First, we can assume that $m\geq 3$. Namely, in case $m=0$, the stable dimension vectors are $(1,0)$, $(0,1)$, in case $m=1$, they are $(1,0)$, $(0,1)$ and $(1,1)$, in case $m=2$ they are $(n,n+1)$,$(n+1,n)$, $(1,1)$ for $n\geq 0$. In all these cases, the moduli spaces are single points or (in the last case) a projective line.
Next, using reflection functors and duality (see \cite[Proposition 4.3]{Weist}), we can assume without loss of generality that
\begin{equation}\label{f0}d_1\leq d_2\leq \frac{m}{2}d_1.\end{equation} We write $(d_1,d_2)=(np,nq)$ for $n\geq 1$ and coprime $p$ and $q$. We can assume $mpq-p^2-q^2\geq 0$ (otherwise the moduli space of stables is empty or reduces to a single point).
Let us assume that we have a decomposition $(d_1,d_2)=(a,b)+(c,d)$ contradicting the hypothesis of Proposition \ref{suff}. Obviously $b=nq-d$ and $c=np-a$, and in particular
\begin{equation}\label{f1} a\leq np\mbox{ and }d\leq nq.\end{equation}
In light of the stability $\Theta(d_1,d_2)=d_1$, the slope condition $\mu(a,b)\geq\mu(c,d)$ is equivalent to $a/b\geq c/d$, which in turn means
\begin{equation}\label{f2}k:=pd+qa-npq\geq 0.\end{equation}
The Euler form condition $\langle(a,b),(c,d)\rangle\geq-1$, after some rewriting, reads
\begin{equation}\label{f3}pq\geq(mpq-p^2-q^2)ad+(pa+qd)k.\end{equation}
Our assumption (\ref{f0}) on the dimension vector implies
\begin{equation}\label{f4}p\leq q\leq\frac{m}{2}p.\end{equation}
If $a=0$, then $c=0$ by the slope condition, thus $p=0$, thus $q=0$, yielding the dimension vector ${\bf d}=0$ a contradiction, and similarly for the assumption $d=0$. Thus we can assume
$ad\geq 1$, and (\ref{f3}) yields the estimate $pq\geq mpq-p^2-q^2$,
which, after dividing by $pq$, reads
$$m\leq\frac{p}{q}+\frac{q}{p}+1.$$
Let us first treat the case $p=1=q$. Inserting in (\ref{f3}), we get $1\geq(m-2)ad+(a+d)k$, which by $a,d\geq 1$ implies $m=3$, $k=0$, $a=1=d$, and thus ${\bf d}=(2,2)$, as claimed in the proposition.
So let us now assume $(p,q)\not=(1,1)$, thus $p<q$ by coprimality.
We use (\ref{f4}) to estimate $\frac{p}{q}<1$ and $\frac{q}{p}\leq\frac{m}{2}$, thus
$$m<\frac{m}{2}+2,$$
which implies $m<4$ and thus $m=3$.
Then (\ref{f4}) yields the estimate
$$3pq-p^2-q^2=(3p-q)q-p^2\geq\frac{3}{2}pq-p^2>\frac{1}{2}p^2,$$
and thus by (\ref{f4}) and (\ref{f3}):
$$\frac{3}{2}p^2\geq pq\geq(3pq-p^2-q^2)ad>\frac{1}{2}p^2ad.$$
This yields $ad<3$, and thus $ad\in\{1,2\}$. This leaves us with the three cases $a=d=1$ or $a=1$, $d=2$ or $a=2$, $d=1$.
To estimate $n$, we use equation (\ref{f2}), which gives us
$$n=\frac{1}{q}d+\frac{1}{p}a-\frac{k}{pq}\leq\frac{1}{q}d+\frac{1}{p}a\leq d+a\leq 3,$$
and thus $n\leq 3$. In case $n=3$, the previous inequality yields $p=q=1$, a contradiction.
Thus we are in the special situation $m=3$ and $n,ad\in\{1,2\}$. Rewriting again the Euler form condition, we have
\begin{equation}\label{finfty}nap+ndq=a^2+d^2+3ad-1.\end{equation}
In each of the six cases $n=1,2$ and $(a,d)=(1,1),(1,2),(2,1)$, one sees directly that no pair $(p,q)$ satisfies (\ref{f2}), (\ref{f4}) and (\ref{finfty}) simultaneously.\qed
\medskip In light of Proposition \ref{suff}, the preceding result finishes the proof of Theorem \ref{lk} for generalized Kronecker quivers $K_m$, except for the remaining special case ${\bf d}=(2,2)$ for the quiver $K_3$. In this case, the moduli space $X=M_{(2,2)}^{\rm st}(K_3)$ is isomorphic to the open subset $X\subset \mathbb{P}^5$, with homogeneous coordinates $(a:b:c:d:e:f)$, such that
$$4adf+bce-c^2d-ae^2-b^2f\not=0.$$
These six coordinates essentially result from polarization of the determinant, that is, expressing $\det(\alpha A+\beta B+\gamma C)$ for a triple $(A,B,C)$ of $2\times 2$-matrices as a quadratic form in $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$. The bundle $P_1$ is the $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over this space given by the equation
$$fx^2-exy+dxz+cy^2-byz+az^2=0$$
in $X\times\mathbb{P}^2$ (with coordinates $(x:y:z)$ for $\mathbb{P}^2$). Similar to the case above, the coordinates $x,y,z$ correspond, respectively, to the determinants
$$\det(Av|Bv),\det(Av|Cv),\det(Bv|Cv)$$
for a quadruple $(A,B,C,v)$ with $A,B,C$ as above and $v\in k^2$. We will prove in the next section that the Brauer group of $X$ has two elements, and that the class of $P_i$ is non-vanishing.
\section{The two special cases}
\label{special cases}
The task now is to compute the Brauer group in the two special cases $M_2^{\rm st}(L_2)$ and $M_{(2,2)}^{\rm st}(K_3)$.
We start with the Kronecker quiver $K_3$ with dimension vector $\mathbf{d}=(2,2)$.
This moduli space can be identified with the homogeneous space $\GL_3/\GO_3$, by regarding the latter as an open subset of $\PP^5$ as follows:
Choose six indeterminates $a,b,\ldots,f$ and let
$$
h=\det
\begin{pmatrix}
2a & b & c\\
b & 2d & e\\
c & b & 2f
\end{pmatrix}
=2(4adf+bce-c^2d-ae^2-b^2f)
$$
be the determinant of the generic symmetric $3\times 3$-matrix, which is a homogeneous
polynomial of degree three. Then the homogeneous space $\GL_3/\GO_3$
becomes isomorphic to the open set $U=D_+(h)\subset\PP^5$.
\begin{proposition}
The group $\Br(U)$ is cyclic of order two.
\end{proposition}
\proof
Consider the complementary closed subscheme $Y=V_+(h)\subset\PP^5$, which is a cubic fourfold.
Let $Z=\Sing(Y)$ be its singular subscheme, which is defined by
the jacobian ideal $J=(h,\partial h/\partial a,\ldots,\partial h/\partial f)$.
A computation with Magma \cite{Magma} reveals that $Z$ is integral and 2-dimensional.
Hence $Y$ is normal, by Serre's Criterion.
Now fix an integer $n\geq 1$, and consider the regular locus $Y_0=Y\smallsetminus Z$.
Combining \cite{Ford 1992}, Lemma 0.1 and Theorem 1.1, we obtain an identification of $n$-torsion groups
$$
\Br(U)_n= H^3_{Y_0}(\PP^5\smallsetminus Z,\mu_n) = H^1(Y_0,\ZZ/n\ZZ).
$$
The latter is the set of isomorphism classes of $\ZZ/n\ZZ$-torsors over the smooth scheme $Y_0$.
This group becomes isomorphic to $\Pic(Y_0)_n$, after choosing an isomorphism $\mu_n\simeq\ZZ/n\ZZ$,
in light of \cite{Raynaud 1970}, Proposition 6.2.1.
Since $Y$ is normal, we have an identification $\Pic(Y_0)=\Cl(Y)$ with the class group
of Weil divisors modulo linear equivalence.
Our task now is to show that the class group $\Cl(Y)$ is cyclic of order two.
To achieve this, we pass from cubic fourfolds to cubic surfaces.
Let $H,H'\subset \PP^5$ be two hyperplanes so that the iterated hyperplane section
$S=Y\cap H\cap H'$ becomes 2-dimensional, such that $S\subset H\cap H'\simeq\PP^3$ is a cubic surface.
According to the Lefschetz-Theorems of Ravindra and Srinivas for class groups (\cite{Ravindra; Srinivas 2006}, Theorem 1),
the restriction map $\Cl(Y)\ra\Cl(S)$ is bijective,
provided that the hyperplanes are general.
Consider first the special hyperplanes $H=V_+(b-c)$ and $H'=V_+(b-e)$.
Then the cubic surface $S\subset\PP^3$ is given by the homogeneous polynomial $h'=4adf+b^3-c^2d-ac^2-b^2f$.
A computation with Magma reveals that the singular locus $Z'=\Sing(S)$
consists of four closed points, which are contained in $Z$.
It follows that the singular subscheme $Z=\Sing(Y)$ has degree $\deg(Z)\geq 4$ as closed subscheme
$Z\subset\PP^5$.
Now let $H,H'\subset\PP^5$ be two general hyperplanes. Then the finite scheme $Z\cap H\cap H'$ consists of
at least four points, and Bertini tells us that the cubic surface $S$ has singular locus $\Sing(S)=Z\cap H\cap H'$.
Now recall that normal cubic surfaces are classified: The result goes back to Schl\"afli \cite{Schlaefli 1864},
where treated in a modern way by Bruce and Wall \cite{Bruce; Wall 1979}, and further refined by Sakamaki \cite{Sakamaki 2010}.
It follows from this classification that the normal cubic surface with at least four singularities is unique
up to coordinate change, that there are precisely four singularities, each a rational double points of type $A_1$,
and that this cubic surface may by described by the homogeneous equation
$$
x_3(x_0x_2-x_1^2) - (x_0-x_1)(x_1-x_2)=0
$$
in the variables $x_0,x_1, x_2$, compare \cite{Sakamaki 2010}, Theorem 2.
Finally, consider the minimal resolution of singularities $\tilde{S}\ra S$. Then $\tilde{S}$ is
a {\it weak del Pezzo surface} of degree $K_{\tilde{S}}^2=K_S^2=3$. By the structure theory
of weak del Pezzo surfaces, $\tilde{S}$ is obtained from $\PP^2$
by blowing-up six points, some of which may be infinitesimal near.
Using \cite{Sakamaki 2010}, Section 2, in particular paragraph 2.2.7, we can make this completely explicit:
Let $C\subset \PP^2=\Proj(\CC[x_0,x_1,x_2])$ be the quadric curve given by $x_0x_2-x_1^2=0$.
Then $\tilde{S}\ra \PP^2$ is obtained by first blowing-up the the three points
$$
(0:0:1),(1:0:0),(1:1:1)\in\PP^2,
$$
which lie on the quadric curve $C$, followed by
a blowing-up of the three intersection points of the resulting exceptional divisors $E_1,E_2,E_3$ with the strict transform of $C$.
The four $(-2)$-curves $\tilde{C}_i\subset\tilde{S}$, $1\leq i\leq 4$ arise as the strict transforms of $C$ and $E_1,E_2,E_3$.
A simple computation reveals that their sum $\sum\tilde{C}_i$ is not primitive in $\Pic(\tilde{S})$,
in fact, it is exactly divisible by 2.
More precisely, the quotient $\Pic(\tilde{S})/H$
by the subgroup $H\subset\Pic(\tilde{S})$ generated by the $(-2)$-curves $\tilde{C}_i$ has torsion part of order two.
This can be also seen by considering the discriminants for the bilinear forms on $H\subset H^{\perp\perp}$.
Using the identification $\Cl(S)=\Pic(\tilde{S})/H$, we conclude that the class group $\Cl(S)$ has order two.
\qed
\medskip
Now let $x,y,z$ be three further indeterminates, and
consider the relative quadric $P\subset\PP^2\times \PP^5$ defined by the bi-homogeneous equation
$$
fx^2-exy + dxz +cy^2-byz + az^2=0.
$$
We are mainly interested in the restriction $P_U\ra U$ to the open subset
$U=\PP^5\smallsetminus Y=\GL_3/\GO_3$ considered above. As explained in the previous section, this actually is
the smooth model for the quiver moduli space.
\begin{proposition}
The projection $P_U\ra U$ is a Brauer--Severi scheme whose Brauer class generates $\Br(U)$.
\end{proposition}
\proof
The fibers of the projection are smooth, because the symmetric matrix corresponding
to the equation is invertible over $U\subset\PP^5$. In turn, $P_U\ra U$ is a Brauer--Severi scheme.
Since $U$ is smooth, and $\Br(U)$ has order two, it suffices to check that the generic fiber $P_\eta$
contains no rational point. This easily follows, because in the function field $F=\kappa(\eta)$,
the five elements $a/f,\ldots,e/f\in K$ form a transcendence base.
\qed
\medskip
Finally, we consider the quiver moduli space for the loop quiver $L_2$ with
dimension vector $\mathbf{d}=(2)$. This quiver moduli space may be regarded as
an open open subscheme of $\AA^5$ as follows: Choose five indeterminates $a,\ldots,e$
and consider the polynomial $h=b^2-ac$.
Then the quiver moduli space may be regarded as the affine open subscheme $U=D(h)\subset\AA^5$.
Let $x,y,z$ be three further indeterminates, and consider the closed subscheme $P\subset\PP^2\times\AA^5$
defined by the homogeneous equation
$$
cx^2+az^2=2(y^2+bxz).
$$
The restriction $P_U\ra U$ is actually the smooth model for the quiver moduli.
\begin{proposition}
The Brauer group $\Br(U)$ is cyclic of order two, and the projection $P_U\ra U$
is a Brauer--Severi variety whose Brauer class generates $\Br(U)$.
\end{proposition}
\proof
According to \cite{Ford 1989}, Example 2 for Theorem 1, the Brauer group of the localization $R=\CC[a,b,c][1/(b^2-ac)]$
has order two. In light of Proposition \ref{pullback bijective}, the same holds for the affine scheme $U$.
The second assertion follows as in the preceding proof.
\qed
\section{Brauer groups for moduli of quadrics}
\label{quadric moduli}
In this section, we compute the Brauer group for the Hilbert moduli space
of smooth odd-dimensional quadrics. In the special case of 1-dimensional quadrics, this moduli
space coincides with the quiver moduli space for the generalized Kronecker quiver $K_3$. It turns out that the computation works over arbitrary ground rings.
We start by recalling some facts on quadrics.
Let $S$ be a scheme, and $n\geq 0$ be an integer.
A closed subscheme $X\subset \PP^{n+1}_S$ is called a \emph{relative quadric}
if the structure morphism $X\ra S$ is flat, and for each point $s\in S$ the fiber
$X_s\subset\PP^{n+1}_s$ is an effective Cartier divisor of degree two.
The corresponding invertible sheaf is of the form $\O_{\PP^{n+1}_S}(X)\simeq \O_{\PP^{n+1}_S}(2)\otimes\pr^*(\shN)$ for some
invertible $\O_S$-module $\shN$, in light of the decomposition
$$
\Pic(\PP^{n+1}_S) = \ZZ\O(1) \oplus \Pic(S).
$$
Suppose for the moment that $S=\Spec(R)$ is affine and that $\shN$ is trivial.
Then $X=V_+(b)$ for some section
$$
b\in H^0(\PP^{n+1}_S,\O_{\PP^{n+1}_S}(2))=\Sym^2(E_R),
$$
where $E=\ZZ^{\oplus(n+2)}$.
With respect to the standard basis $T_0,\ldots,T_{n+1}\in E$, we may regard $b=(b_{ij})_{0\leq i,j\leq n+1}$
as a symmetric matrix with entries in $R$. This correspond to the quadratic form
$$
Q:E^\vee_R\lra R,\quad Q(\sum\lambda_ie_i)=\sum b_{ij}\lambda_i\lambda_j,
$$
where $e_i\in E^\vee$ is the basis dual to the standard basis $T_i\in E$, and
the sum runs over all subsets $\left\{i,j\right\}\subset \left\{0,\ldots,n+1\right\}$
of cardinality one or two, as explained in \cite{A 9}, \S3, No.\ 4, Proposition 2.
Note that the associated
bilinear form satisfies $\Phi(e_i,e_j)=b_{ij}$ for $i\neq j$, and $\Phi(e_i,e_i)=2b_{ii}$.
Moreover, $b$ and whence $Q$
are unique up to unique unit $u\in R$.
Now let $S$ be again arbitrary.
As outlined in \cite{SGA 7b}, Expose XII, we can construct a sheaf of associative
$\O_S$-algebras $\shA$
that locally comes from the even parts $A=\Cl_+(Q_R)$ of the \emph{Clifford algebras} attached
to the quadratic forms $Q_R:E^\vee_R\ra R$.
To this end, let $U_\alpha\subset S$ be the collection of all affine open subsets $U_\alpha=\Spec(R_\alpha)$
so that the invertible sheaves
$\O_{\PP^{n+1}_S}(X)$ and $\O_{\PP^{n+1}_S}(2)$ become isomorphic over the preimage of $U_\alpha$.
As above, choose $b_\alpha\in \Sym^2(E_{R_\alpha})$, which gives the quadratic form $Q_\alpha$,
and let $A_\alpha=\Cl_+(Q_\alpha)$ the resulting even part of the Clifford algebra $\Cl(Q_\alpha)$.
We refer to \cite{A 9}, \S9 for details on Clifford algebras.
On the overlaps $U_{\alpha\beta}=U_\alpha\cap U_\beta$, one has $Q_\beta=u_{\alpha\beta}Q_\alpha$
for some unique section $u_{\alpha\beta}\in\Gamma(U_{\alpha\beta},\O_S^\times)$.
By this uniqueness, the resulting cochain $(u_{\alpha\beta})$ satisfies the cocycle condition.
Since the \emph{even part} of Clifford algebras is functorial with respect to similitudes, it follows that
there are unique isomorphisms
$$
[u_{\alpha\beta}]: \widetilde{\Cl}_+(Q_\alpha)|U_{\alpha\beta}\lra \widetilde{\Cl}_+(Q_\beta)|U_{\alpha\beta},
$$
of quasicoherent sheaves (confer \cite{Wonnenburger 1962} and \cite{SGA 7b}, Expose XII, Lemma 1.3.1), which also satisfy the cocycle condition.
In turn, we have a descend datum for the the sheaves $\shA_\alpha=\widetilde{\Cl}_+(Q_\alpha)$, which
yields the desired sheaf of associative $\O_S$-algebras $\shA$. By construction,
the $\O_X$-module $\shA$ is locally free of rank $2^{n+1}$. Up to unique isomorphism,
it does not depend on the choice
of the local sections $b_\alpha$.
\begin{proposition}
\mylabel{smooth Azumaya}
If $n$ is odd, and the structure morphism $X\ra S$ of the relative quadric $X\subset\PP^{n+1}_S$ is smooth,
then the $\O_S$-algebra $\shA$ is an Azymaya algebra.
\end{proposition}
\proof
According to \cite{GB}, Theorem 5.1, it suffices to treat the case that $X=\Spec(k)$ is the
spectrum of an algebraically closed field. Set $V=E_k^\vee$, and let $Q:V\ra k$ be a quadratic form defining
the quadric $X\subset\PP^{n+1}_k$.
Write $n+1=2r$. Suppose first that this quadratic form $Q$ equals the \emph{standard quadratic form}
\begin{equation}
\label{standard quadric}
Q_\text{std}(\sum_{i=0}^{n+1}\lambda_iT_i)=\sum_{i=0}^{r-1}\lambda_i\lambda_{i+r} + \lambda_{n+1}^2.
\end{equation}
For each $0\leq i\leq r-1$, let $V_i\subset V$ be the linear subspace generated by $e_i,e_{i+r}\in V$.
Furthermore, let $V''\subset V$ be the linear subspace
generated bei $e_{n+1}\in V$. Write $V'=V_0\oplus\ldots\oplus V_{r-1}$, such that $V=V'\oplus V''$. Now consider
the restriction $q',q_i$ of the quadratic form $Q$ to the subspaces
$V',V_i$, respectively. Then we have a decomposition of algebras
$$
\Cl_+(Q) = \Cl(q') = \Cl(q_0)\otimes\ldots\otimes\Cl(q_{r-1}),
$$
by \cite{Lam 2005}, Chapter V, Corollary 2.10..
Since the quadratic forms $q_i$ are nondegenerate, the Clifford algebras $\Cl(q_i)$ are Azumaya algebras,
by \cite{A 9}, \S9, No.\ 4, Theorem 2. In turn, the same holds for $\Cl_+(Q)$.
It remains to check that $Q$ is similiar to the standard quadratic form. Let $p\geq 0$ be the
characteristic of the field $k$. Consider first the case $p\neq 2$.
Since $X$ is smooth, the associcated symmetric bilinear form $\Phi$ is nondegenerate.
According to \cite{A 9}, \S4, No.\ 3, the quadratic form $Q$ is indeed similar to the standard form.
Finally, suppose that $p=2$. Then $\Phi$ is alternating, thus necessarily degenerate, because $\dim(V)=n+2$ is odd.
Let $V^\perp\subset V$ be the orthogonal complement of the whole vector space. Since $X$ is smooth,
we may apply \cite{Buchweitz; Eisenbud; Herzog 1987}, Theorem 1.1
and deduce that $V^\perp$ is one-dimensonal and not \emph{singular} (in the sense of \cite{A 9}, \S4, No.\ 2).
Choose a linear complement $V=V^\perp\oplus V'$. Obviously, this is an orthogonal
complement, of even dimension, and the restriction $Q|V'$ is nondegenerate. Applying \cite{A 9}, \S4, No.\ 3 to the quadratic form
$Q|V'$, we infer that $Q$ is similar to the standard form.
\qed
\medskip
We say that the relative quadric $X\subset \PP^{n+1}_S$ is \emph{smooth} if
the structure morphism $X\ra S$ is smooth.
Suppose this is the case and that $n+2=2r+1\geq 3$ is odd.
The ensuing Azumaya algebra $\shA$ corresponds to a Brauer--Severi scheme $B\ra S$
of relative dimension $2^r-1$. The corresponding Brauer class $[B]\in\Br(S)$
is called the \emph{Clifford invariant} of the smooth quadric $X\subset\PP^{n+1}_S$.
Let us now turn to the universal situation. Denote by $U'\subset\Hilb_{\PP^{n+1}}$ be
the open subscheme of the Hilbert scheme over the base scheme $S=\Spec(\ZZ)$
parameterizing closed subschemes $X\subset\PP^{n+1}_k$
with Hilbert polynomial
$$
\chi\O_X(t)=\chi\O_{\PP_k^{n+1}}(t) - \chi\O_{\PP_k^{n+1}}(t-2)= \binom{t+n+1}{n+1} - \binom{t+n-1}{n+1},
$$
and whose ideal sheaf is invertible. Clearly, $U'$ can be identified with projective
space attached to the graded ring $\Sym^\bullet(\Sym^2(E^\vee))$.
Then the universal closed subscheme restricted to $U'$
is a relative quadric. Let $U\subset U'$ be the subset where the relative quadric
is smooth, which is open by \cite{EGA IVb}, Corollary 6.8.7. The restriction
$X\subset \PP^{n+1}_U$ of the universal closed subscheme is called the \emph{universal smooth quadric}.
Note that the structure morphism $U\ra\Spec(\ZZ)$ is smooth and with geometrically integral fibers.
All fibers are nonempty, because
the standard quadratic form (\ref{standard quadric}) defines a section for the structure morphism.
The group scheme $\GL_{n+2}$ acts in the canonical way from the right on $\PP^{n+1}$, and
induces an action on the Hilbert scheme from the right.
We thus obtain a morphism
$$
\GL_{n+2}\lra \Hilb_{\PP^{n+1}}, \quad A\longmapsto X_{\text{std}}\cdot A,
$$
where $X_{\text{std}}\subset\PP^{n+1}$ is the relative quadric defined by the standard quadratic form (\ref{standard quadric}).
Its stabilizer is the group scheme of \emph{orthogonal similitudes} $\GO_{n+2}$, and we thus get a morphism
$\GO_{n+2}\backslash\GL_{n+2}\ra \Hilb_{\PP^{n+1}}$, which factors
over the scheme of smooth quadrics $U\subset\Hilb_{\PP^{n+1}}$.
Note that the quotient actually exists as a scheme, according to \cite{Anantharaman 1973}.
\begin{proposition}
\mylabel{identification moduli}
The induced morphism $\GO_{n+2}\backslash\GL_{n+2}\ra U$ is an isomorphism.
\end{proposition}
\proof
Set $V=\GO_{n+2}\backslash\GL_{n+2}$ and write $f:V\ra U$ for the morphism in question.
First, we verify that $f$ a universal homeomorphism.
Since $f$ is of finite presentation, it is enough to show that it is universally bijective, according to \cite{EGA IVa}, Corollary 1.10.4.
For this, it suffices to check
that for each algebraically closed field $k$, the induced morphism
$f_k:V_k\otimes k\ra U_k$ is bijective. The latter is injective, because
the group of orthogonal similitudes is the stabilizer of the standard quadric.
It is surjective as well, because any smooth quadric comes from
a quadratic form that is similiar to the standard quadratic form, as we saw
in the proof for Proposition \ref{smooth Azumaya}.
It remains to prove that the maps on local rings $\O_{U,f(v)}\ra\O_{V,v}$ are bijective.
The schemes $U$ and $\GL_{n+2}$ are smooth over $\ZZ$, and the same holds for the quotient
$V$. In particular, $U$ is regular and $V$ is Cohen--Macaulay, such that
the finite morphism $f:V\ra U$ is flat, and we have to verify that it has degree one.
Since $U$ is connected, it suffices to show that the finite field extension $\kappa(f(v))\subset\kappa(v)$ has degree one for a single point $v\in V$.
This is indeed the case, because the morphism $f_\QQ$ is universally injective.
\qed
\begin{theorem}
\mylabel{clifford invariant generates}
Suppose that $n$ is odd. Let $S$ be a integral noetherian scheme whose strictly local rings
are factorial. Then
the group $\Br(U_S)/\Br(S)$ is cyclic of order two, and the Clifford invariant of the universal smooth quadric
yields the generator.
\end{theorem}
\proof
Let $F=\kappa(S)$ be the function field, and consider the commutative diagram
$$
\begin{CD}
0 @>>> \Br(S) @>>> \Br(U_S) @>>> \Br(U_S)/\Br(S) @>>> 0\\
@. @VVV @VVV @VVV\\
0 @>>> \Br(F) @>>> \Br(U_F) @>>> \Br(U_F)/\Br(F) @>>> 0
\end{CD}
$$
whose rows are exact. The vertical maps on the left and middle are injective
by Proposition \ref{restriction function field}. Using the Snake Lemma and a diagram chase involving the compatiblesplitting of the
short exact sequences, we infer that the vertical map on the right is injective.
In turn, it suffices to treat the case $S=\Spec(k)$ the spectrum of a field. A similar
argument reduces to the case that $k$ is algebraically closed.
Now our task is to show that $\Br(U_k)$ is cyclic of order two, generated by the Clifford invariant
of the universal smooth quadric.
Set $G=\GL_{n+2,k}$ and $H=\GO_{n+2,k}$, which are smooth connected algebraic groups over $k$.
Throughout, we use the term \emph{algebraic group} for affine group scheme of finite type.
The projection $G\ra G/H$ can be regarded as $H$-torsor.
We now use the identification of schemes $U_k=H\backslash G\simeq G/H$ from Proposition \ref{identification moduli}.
According to \cite{Sansuc 1981}, Proposition 6.10, there is an exact sequence
$$
\Pic(G)\stackrel{\varphi}{\lra}\Pic(H)\lra \Br(G/H)\lra\Br(G),
$$
where $\varphi$ is some homomorphism defined in \cite{Sansuc 1981}, Lemma 6.4.
Using Proposition \ref{brauer gl} below, we conclude that $\Br(G/H)$ is cyclic of order two.
It remains to show that the Clifford invariant of the universal smooth quadric is nonzero.
To this end, it suffices to exhibit a single field extension $k\subset F$ together with
a quadratic form $Q:F^{n+2}\ra F$ so that the resulting Azumaya algebra $A=\Cl_+(Q)$
has nontrivial Brauer class.
This can be easily done with quaternion algebras.
Let $s,t$ be indeterminates, and consider the transcendental extension $F=k(s,t)$.
We denote by $q_0$ and $q_1$ the diagonal quadratic form
given by $\langle s,t\rangle$ and $\langle1,1\rangle$, respectively. Furthermore, let $q_2=\langle 1\rangle$.
Let $Q'$ be the direct sum
of $q_0$ and $r-1$ additional copies of $q_1$, where we write $n+2=2r+1$. Set $Q=Q'\oplus q_2$.
Then
$$
\Cl_+(Q)=\Cl(Q') = \Cl(q_0)\otimes\Cl(q_1)\otimes\ldots\otimes\Cl(q_1).
$$
Each factor on the right can be viewed as a \emph{quaternion algebra}
$$
\left(\frac{a,b}{F}\right)=F\oplus Fi\oplus Fj\oplus Fk,\quad i^2=a,\; j^2=b,\; ij=k,
$$
namely $\Cl(q_0)=\left(\frac{s,t}{F}\right)$
and $\Cl(q_1)=\left(\frac{1,1}{F}\right)$. The former has nontrivial Brauer class, because
the \emph{Hilbert equation} $sx^2+ty^2=1$ has no solution in $F$,
whereas the latter have trivial Brauer class (for example \cite{Lam 2005}, Chapter III, Theorem 2.7).
\qed
\medskip
The result holds, in particular, if $S$ is the spectrum of a field $k$ or the ring of integers $\ZZ$.
From $\Br(\ZZ)=0$, it follows that the Brauer group $\Br(U)$ of the moduli space
of smooth quadrics over $\ZZ$ is cyclic of order two, generated by the Clifford invariant
of the universal smooth quadric.
In the preceding proof, we have used the following facts:
\begin{proposition}
\mylabel{brauer gl}
Suppose $k$ is a an algebraically closed field. Let $n\geq 1$ an integer, $G=\GL_{n,k}$ the general linear group,
and $H=\GO_{n,k}$ the group of orthogonal similitudes.
Then $\Pic(G)=\Br(G)=0$. Moreover, $\Pic(H)$ is cyclic of order two, provided
that $n$ is odd.
\end{proposition}
\proof
We may regard $G$ as an open subset inside $\AA^{d}_k$, $d=n^2$. The latter has
trivial Picard group and is locally factorial, whence $G$ has trivial Picard group.
We next verify the statement on the Brauer group.
Consider the special linear group $G'=\SL_{n,k}$, which sits in a short exact sequence
$
0\ra G'\ra G\stackrel{\det}{\ra}\GG_{m,k}\ra 0
$
of connected algebraic groups. This induces, by \cite{Sansuc 1981}, Corollary 6.11, an exact sequence
$$
\Br(G')\lra\Br(G)\lra\Br(\GG_{m,k}).
$$
The term on the right vanishes by Tsen's Theorem.
The term on the left vanishes as well, which can be seen as follows: There are no nontrivial characters
$G'\ra\GG_{m,k}$. Moreover, the algebraic fundamental group $\pi_1(G')$
vanishes as well.
It thus follows from \cite{Iversen 1976}, Corollary 4.3 that $\Br(G')=0$.
Summing up, $\Br(G)=0$.
Note that the \emph{algebraic fundamental group} of an algebraic group, which classifies central isogenies, usually differs
from the fundamental group of the underlying scheme, which classfies finite \'etale covering.
It remains to compute $\Pic(H)$ for $n$ odd. Let $H'=\SO_{n,k}$ be the special orthogonal group,
and consider the canonical morphism $H'\times\GG_{m,k}\ra H$.
This is an isomorphism, because $n$ is odd. Let $\tilde{H}'=\Spin_{n,k}$ be the spin group,
and let $\tilde{H}'\ra H'$ be the canonical central isogeny of degree two,
whose kernel is isomorphic to the finite diagonalizable group scheme $D=\mu_{2,k}$.
According to \cite{Fossum; Iversen 1973}, Proposition 4.2, we have a short exact sequence
$$
\Hom(\tilde{H}',\GG_{m,k})\lra\Hom(D,\GG_{m,k}) \lra\Pic(H')\lra\Pic(\tilde{H}').
$$
The spin group $\tilde{H}'$ admits no nontrivial characters, whence the term on the left vanishes.
Obviously, $\Hom(D,\GG_{m,k})$ is cyclic of order two. Moreover, the
algebraic fundamental group $\pi_1(H')$ vanishes.
If follows that $\Pic(\tilde{H}')=0$, according to \cite{Fossum; Iversen 1973}, Corollary 4.5.
Summing up, $\Pic(H')$ is cyclic of order two.
Using the decomposition
$\Pic(H'\times\PP^1)=\Pic(H')\oplus\ZZ\O(1)$,
one easily infers that the Picard group of $H=H'\times\GG_{m,k}\subset H'\times\PP^1$ is cyclic of order two.
\qed
|
\section{Introduction \label{intro}}
Luminous infrared galaxies (LIRGs) and ultraluminous infrared galaxies
(ULIRGs) represent the most active members of the star-forming galaxy
population in the nearby universe. Often morphologically disturbed,
with vast reservoirs of atomic and molecular gas
\citep[e.g.,][]{SSEMMNS88,SSS91,SDRB97}, their high IR luminosities
are driven by prodigious amounts of efficient star formation
\citep[e.g.,][]{SM96}. LIRGs are important laboratories for the
interplay of molecular gas and starbursts and their evolution over
time. But locally LIRGs are rare \citep[e.g.,][]{SMNDELR87,SMKSS03},
so there are few examples that are near enough that we can detect and
resolve their chemical properties.
Despite being one of the nearest (29 Mpc; 140 pc =1\arcsec) LIRGs,
IRAS 04296+2923 [hereafter IRAS 04296]--- located behind the dark cloud
L1500 in Taurus --- has remained poorly studied until recently
\citep[][]{MTBGTV10}. It was not so long ago that it was even
identified as a galaxy \citep[][]{SHDYFT92,CKSYT95}. Within 35 Mpc
only the galaxies NGC 1068, NGC 1365, NGC 2146, NGC 4418 and NGC 7552
are as IR luminous as IRAS 04296, at $\sim 10^{11}~L_{\odot}$
\citep[Table \ref{GalT};][]{SMKSS03}. IRAS 04296 is remarkable for
the compactness of its starburst, with an estimated star formation
rate of $\sim$10~$\rm M_\odot \, yr^{-1}$ originating within the
central $2^{''}$ ($<280$ pc), and $\sim$25~$\rm M_\odot \, yr^{-1}$
for the entire galaxy \citep[][]{MTBGTV10}. CO mapping with the Owens
Valley Millimeter Array (OVRO) revealed an extremely massive molecular
gas disk of M(H$_{2}) \simeq 6\times 10^{9}~ \rm M_{\odot}$ within the
central 45$^{''}$ \citep[][]{MTBGTV10}. No galaxy within 30 Mpc,
observed in the Five Colleges Radio Astronomy Observatory (FCRAO) CO
survey \citep[][]{FCRAO95}, has as high a CO luminosity over that
aperture. Toward the central region $\rm H_2$ column densities are
$1\times 10^{23}~\rm cm^{-3}$ averaged over 500 pc scales. IRAS 04296\ is
one of the most gas-rich systems in the nearby universe.
\begin{deluxetable}{lcl}
\tablenum{1}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablecaption{IRAS 04296+2923 Basic Data}
\tablehead{\colhead{Characteristic} & \colhead{Value} &
\colhead{Ref.}}
\startdata
Dynamical Center\tablenotemark{a} & $04^{h} 32^{m} 48^{s}.65\pm 1^{''}$ &1 \\
(kinematic) [$J2000$] & $+29^{o} 29' 57.^{''}45\pm 1^{''}$ & \\
2$\mu$m peak (2MASS) & $04^{h} 32^{m} 48^{s}.60\pm 0.^{''}3$ &1 \\
~[$J2000$] &$+29^{o} 29' 57.''49\pm 0.^{''}3$ & \\
V$_{lsr}$\tablenotemark{a} &2086 kms$^{-1}$ &1 \\
Adopted Distance & 29 Mpc &1 \\
Position Angle\tablenotemark{a} & 252$^{o}$ & 1\\
Inclination & 50$^{o}$ & 1 \\
M$_{H_{2}}$($<3.5\arcsec$)\tablenotemark{b} & $4.3 \times 10^{8}~M_{\odot}$& 1 \\
$\Sigma_{H_{2}}$($<3.5\arcsec$)\tablenotemark{b} & 550 M$_{\odot}$ pc$^{-2}$ &1 \\
M$_{dyn}$ ($<3.5\arcsec$)\tablenotemark{a} & $1.6\times 10^{9}~M_{\odot}$ & 1 \\
M$_{H_{2}}$($<30\arcsec$)\tablenotemark{c} & $5.9 \times 10^{9}~M_{\odot}$ & 1 \\
M$_{dyn}$ ($<30\arcsec$)\tablenotemark{a} & $3.0\times 10^{10}~M_{\odot}$ & 1 \\
$\rm M_{HI}^{tot}$ & $1.38 \times 10^{9}~M_{\odot}$& 3 \\
IRAS 12, 25, 60, 100$\mu$m& 1.39, 5.90, 42.1, 48.3 Jy &2\\
L$_{IR}$ & $9.8 \times 10^{10}~L_{\odot} $& 2 \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Based on the best fitting rotation curve}
\tablenotetext{b}{From $^{13}$CO(1--0).}
\tablenotetext{c}{Assuming the standard CO conversion factor.}
\tablerefs{(1) Meier et al. (2010); (2) Sanders et al. (2003); (3) Chamaraux
et al. (1995)}
\label{GalT}
\end{deluxetable}
In many respects, IRAS 04296\ appears to be ``normal'' bar-induced star
formation taken to an extreme \citep[Figure \ref{Igal};][]{MTBGTV10}.
Unlike many [U]/LIRGs, there are no obvious signs, morphological or
kinematic, of a recent major merger. It is a symmetric, barred spiral
galaxy with a pronounced outer ``theta" ring. However, judging from
the estimated gas inflow rates along the bar, IRAS 04296\ is not in a stable
configuration. The nuclear star formation rate is so large that the
nuclear component is being consumed more rapidly than it can be
replenished by the bar-driven inflow of $\sim5~\rm M_\odot \,
yr^{-1}$. This argues that IRAS 04296\ is early in its LIRG state; the
observed starburst can be maintained for the next 100 Myr
\citep[][]{MTBGTV10}.
IRAS 04296 's unusual CO brightness raises questions about the dense gas in
this LIRG. How much dense gas is there in IRAS 04296, and where is it found?
What are the densities and temperatures of the gas clouds? What are
the effects of the nuclear starburst on the dense gas? What are the
effects of bar inflow on the dense gas? What does the dense gas and
its chemistry reveal about the nuclear starburst in this LIRG? Here
we use 3 mm aperture synthesis observations to address these questions
in IRAS 04296. The target molecules are tracers of dense gas and probe a
range of chemical conditions.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.0}
\plotone{figure1.ps}
\caption{The J band near infrared image of IRAS 04296\ from the Palomar 5m with CO(1--0) integrated
intensity in the bottom right corner \citep[][]{MTBGTV10}. The black box marks the field of
view covered in CO(1--0). Contours are 1, 2, 3, ... 10, 15, 20, ... 60 $\times$13.8 K km s$^{-1}$ for a
beam size of $4.6\arcsec \times 3.6\arcsec ;-14^{o}$ \citep[][]{MTBGTV10}. The scale bar in the upper left is 2.8 kpc (20$\arcsec$) long.
\label{Igal}}
\end{figure*}
\section{Observations \label{obs}}
Aperture synthesis observations were obtained for IRAS 04296\ in dense gas
tracers at $\lambda$ = 3 mm with the Combined Array for Research in
Millimeter Astronomy (CARMA) \citep[][]{CARMA04}. Table \ref{ObsT}
lists the molecular transitions surveyed along with their
observational parameters. Observing parameters for data from the
Owens Valley Millimeter Array \citep[OVRO:][]{OVRO94} consisting of
transitions between 109-113 GHz are as reported in
\citet[][]{MTBGTV10}. The CO(1--0) and $^{13}$CO(1--0) observations
have a velocity resolution of 10.5 km s$^{-1}$. The lines presented
here were observed simultaneously in wideband mode (128$\times$31.25
MHz) giving a velocity resolution of $\sim$ 90 km s$^{-1}$. The 88 -
97 GHz tuning was observed separately with the CARMA interferometer
but had the same wideband 31.25 MHz channels ($v_{chan}~\sim 100$ km
s$^{-1}$). All detected lines are resolved spectrally (emission in at
least 3 adjacent channels) toward the nucleus, but the low spectral
resolution may imply some spectral `beam dilution' toward the narrower
line width disk.
The OVRO and CARMA data sets were calibrated using the MMA and MIRIAD
software packages, respectively. Phase calibration was done by
observing the quasar J0336+323 every 25 minutes (OVRO) and 0237+288 or
0530+135 every 20 minutes (CARMA). Absolute flux calibration was done
using Uranus as primary flux calibrator and 3C273, 3C84 and 3C454.3
for secondary flux calibration (both OVRO and CARMA). Uncertainties
in absolute flux calibration are $\sim$10\% for both data sets.
Mapmaking was done in MIRIAD and subsequent data analysis and
manipulation was done with the NRAO AIPS package. All data were
naturally weighted. Spatial resolutions are $\lesssim 4.5^{''}$ for
the high frequency (OVRO) tuning and $\lesssim 3.3^{''}$ for the low
frequency (CARMA) tuning. Integrated intensity images are moment 0
maps with all emission brighter than 1.3$\sigma$ per channel included.
Since the emission observed from these higher density tracers remain
confined well inside the half power point of the array(s), corrections
for the primary beam attenuation have not been applied. No
single-dish observations of this galaxy exists for these transitions,
so no estimate of the amount of resolved-out flux is possible;
however, it is not expected that there is missing flux as it would
require the existence of a uniform dense component extended on
$\gtrsim$6 kpc scales.
\begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccc}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablenum{2}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablecaption{Observational Data\label{ObsT}}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Transition}
&\colhead{Dates}
&\colhead{Frequency}
&\colhead{T$_{sys}$}
&\colhead{$\Delta V_{chan}$}
&\colhead{Beam}
&\colhead{K/Jy}
&\colhead{Noise} \\
\colhead{}
&\colhead{\it (MMYY)}
&\colhead{\it (GHz)}
&\colhead{\it (K)}
&\colhead{($km~s^{-1}$)}
&\colhead{\it ($^{''}\times^{''}$;$^{o}$)}
&\colhead{}
&\colhead{\it (mJy bm$^{-1}$)}}
\startdata
CARMA\tablenotemark{a}: & & & & & & & \\
HCN(1--0) & 0808-1008& 88.632 & 130-230& 105.7 &$3.3\times 2.7$;-90 & 17.5 & 2.9 \\
HCO$^{+}$(1--0)& & 89.189 && 105.0&& 17.3& 2.9\\
HNC(1--0) & & 90.664 & & 103.3 & & 16.7 & 2.9 \\
C$^{34}$S(2--1)& & 96.413 & & 97.17 && 14.8 & 3.0 \\
CH$_{3}$OH($2_{k}$--$1_{k}$)& & 96.741 & & 96.84 & & 14.7 & 3.0 \\
OVRO\tablenotemark{b}: & & & & & & & \\
HC$_{3}$N(12--11) & 1103-0504& 109.174 &220-450 & 85.8 &$4.7\times 3.8$;-15 & 5.91 & 4.0 \\
C$^{18}$O(1--0)\tablenotemark{c} & & 109.782 && 85.3 & & 5.86 & 4.0 \\
HNCO($5_{05}$--$4_{04}$)\tablenotemark{c}& &109.905 & & & & & \\
CN(1--0;$\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2}$)& & 113.491 & & 82.5 &$4.6\times 3.6$;-14& 5.71 & 4.5 \\
CN(1--0;$\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2}$)\tablenotemark{d}& & 113.191& & & & & \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Phase Center: $\alpha = 04^{h} 32^{m} 48^{s}.6~~
\delta = +29^{o} 29' 57.^{''}5$ (J2000)}
\tablenotetext{b}{Phase Center: $\alpha = 04^{h} 32^{m} 48^{s}.6~~
\delta = +29^{o} 29' 58.^{''}0$ (J2000)}
\tablenotetext{c}{Partially blended}
\tablenotetext{d}{Observed simultaneously with CN(1--0;$\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2}$)}
\end{deluxetable*}
\section{Results: Integrated Intensity Maps and Abundances} \label{res}
Figure \ref{IntI} displays the integrated intensity maps of the
detected transitions along with $^{12}$CO(1--0) and $^{13}$CO(1--0)
from \citet[][]{MTBGTV10}. The CO(1--0) intensity map displays the
overall structure of IRAS 04296. Two barred arms extend from the outer, low
pitch angle spiral arms into the central region where the gas collects
into a very bright nuclear feature, referred to as the `circum-nuclear
zone' (CNZ). The CNZ has a radius, corrected for inclination,
$\simeq0.9\rm ~ kpc$ \citep[][]{MTBGTV10}. The CNZ region is also the
site of an intense starburst which dominates the radio continuum and
mid-infrared emission \citep[][]{MTBGTV10}. The compact core of the
starburst traced with 6 cm radio continuum (marked in Figure
\ref{IntI} by a cross) is confined to the inner 3\arcsec\ or $\sim$200
pc radius. The centroid of this compact starburst is close to the
center of the CNZ dense gas distribution, but appears shifted slightly
($\sim1$\arcsec) southwest of the centroid of the CO. Somewhat weaker
star formation traced by 20 cm radio continuum matches the extent of
the CNZ (see section \ref{densesfr}). Beyond the CNZ, CO emission
extends out to a galactocentric radius of $\sim 25\arcsec$ or
$\sim$3.5 kpc. CO(1--0) from the outermost portion of the field,
including the separate northernmost clump, originates in the outer
spiral arms.
Below we discuss the morphology of each dense gas transition. In the
following sections we adopt an excitation temperature, T$_{ex}$=30 K
for the nucleus and T$_{ex}$=10 K for the bar and arms. These are
probably reasonable estimates given that the starburst is strongly
localized to the nucleus. However, until multi-line studies can be
executed, these should be considered `reference values' only.
{\bf C$^{18}$O(1--0) and HNCO(5$_{05}$--4$_{04}$) ---} The
C$^{18}$O(1--0) and HNCO($5_{05}-4_{04}$) transitions appear together
in the same spectral window. The transitions are separated by about
330 km s$^{-1}$, so may potentially be blended, but the velocity field
of the galaxy and the faintness of HNCO allows C$^{18}$O(1--0) to be
unambiguously separated. C$^{18}$O(1--0) is surprisingly extended.
Like the (continuum subtracted) $^{13}$CO(1--0), C$^{18}$O(1--0) peaks
just southeast of the starburst. The CNZ is not significantly brighter
than the arms in C$^{18}$O(1--0), remarkably different from CO(1--0),
where it is more than an order of magnitude stronger. This would be
consistent with higher cloud temperatures in the CNZ, which would
increase the intensity of optically thick CO. Along the arms,
C$^{18}$O(1--0) brightnesses are comparable to $^{13}$CO(1--0). At
the northern bar end $^{13}$CO(1--0) intensities increase slightly
compared to C$^{18}$O. Peak brightnesses reach 0.10 K averaged over
$\sim$0.5 kpc scales near the starburst and close to this along the
northern arm. C$^{18}$O column densities are discussed in detail
below (section \ref{isotope}).
HNCO($5_{05}-4_{04}$) is tentatively detected ($\sim 3\sigma$) only in
the western CNZ. For T$_{ex}$ = 30 K, the HNCO column densities peak
at N(HNCO) $\lesssim 2.3 \times 10^{14}$ cm$^{-2}$. Increasing
T$_{ex}$ to 50 K would raise the N(HNCO) limit to $4.1 \times 10^{14}$
cm$^{-2}$ (Table \ref{MolT}).
{\bf HCN(1--0), HCO$^{+}$(1--0) and HNC(1--0) ---} All three of these
dense gas tracers are bright and compact. HCN(1--0) is the brightest
with antenna temperatures peaking at 0.94 K, while HCO$^{+}$(1--0) and
HNC(1--0) are $\sim$ 15 \% and $\sim$ 50 \% fainter, respectively.
HCN(1--0) and HCO$^{+}$(1--0) peak toward the starburst but extend
beyond it to cover the entirety of the CNZ (Figure \ref{hcn20cm}).
The dense gas tracers have abundances ranging from $3.3 - 5.4\times
10^{-9}$ here, assuming optically thin emission with HNC and HCO$^{+}$
at the low end and HCN at the high end. For HNC and HCO$^{+}$,
abundances are higher than usual for single-dish measurements toward
nearby star forming galaxies \citep[][]{HHMBWM95,NJHTM92}, but typical
of higher resolution interferometer values
\citep[][]{SFB98,KMVOSOIK01,MT05,KWWBRM07,MT12}. Very weak emission
is detected in HCN at two locations along the arms but clear emission
is not detected in HCO$^{+}$ and HNC. The CO/HCN contrast ratio
between nucleus (7-9) and arms (6-9) is similar (section
\ref{densefrac}).
{\bf CN(1--0; 3/2--1/2) and CN(1--0; 1/2--1/2) ---} CN(1--0; 3/2--1/2)
is dominated by the CNZ. Faint emission is tentatively detected along
the southeast arm and the northernmost clump, but not in the
northwestern arm. Both fine structure components of CN(1--0) are
clearly detected toward the CNZ. Hyperfine structure is not resolved
due to the low spectral resolution of the data. The
CN(3/2--1/2)/CN(1/2--1/2) intensity ratio is 1.8$\pm$0.5 matching the
optically thin theoretical value of 2, within uncertainties. For a
T$_{ex}$ = 30 K, peak CN column densities are N(CN) $= 9.0 \times
10^{14}$ cm$^{-2}$.
{\bf CH$_{3}$OH(2$_{k}$--1$_{k}$) ---} This line is composed of four
transitions, ($2_{-12}-1_{-11}$) E, ($2_{02}-1_{01}$) A++,
($2_{02}-1_{01}$) E, and ($2_{11}-1_{10}$) E, which are blended in
these spectra. We refer to the combined spectral feature as the
$2_{k}-1_{k}$ transition of methanol. Unlike the dense gas tracers,
CH$_{3}$OH($2_{k}-1_{k}$) does not peak exactly at the starburst, but
slightly to the north. Emission is tentatively detected from the bar
ends. CH$_{3}$OH abundances are $X(CH_{3}OH) \simeq 2.3\times
10^{-8}$ toward the CNZ and within 50 \% of this value at the ends of
the bar. These abundances are quite large, reaching values comparable
to the highest values seen on $\sim$50 pc scales toward strong bar
shocks in nearby spirals \citep[e.g.,][]{MT05,MT12}.
{\bf Non-detections ---} HC$_{3}$N(12--11) and C$^{34}$S(2--1) were
searched for but not clearly detected anywhere across the field.
There is tentative evidence for HC$_{3}$N(12--11) from the western CNZ
but we do not consider it a detection. Upper limits for
HC$_{3}$N(12--11)/HCN(1--0) and C$^{34}$S(2--1)/HCN(1--0) are
$\lesssim$0.086 and $<$0.064 (2$\sigma$), respectively. Abundance
limits (for T$_{ex}$=30 K) are $\lesssim5.6\times 10^{-10}$ and
$<7.7\times 10^{-10}$ for HC$_{3}$N and C$^{34}$S, respectively. For
C$^{34}$S(2--1) this abundance is only weakly constraining, implying
$X(CS) < 2\times 10^{-8}$ for a $^{32}$S/$^{34}$S isotopic ratio of
$\sim$24 \citep[e.g.,][]{CHWLC96}. Implied HC$_{3}$N abundance limits
are $\sim$ 3 -- 5 times lower than toward IC 342 \citep[][]{MTS11},
but similar to abundances observed for M 82 and Maffei 2
\citep[][]{AMMMB11,MT12}.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.0}
\plotone{figure2.ps}
\caption{Integrated intensity maps of the seven detected transitions, plus CO(1--0) in greyscale and
$^{13}$CO(1--0). The latter two are from \citet[][]{MTBGTV10}. The beam of all transitions is displayed in the lower left of each panel, and
the cross marks the location of the starburst \cite[radio continuum peak;][]{MTBGTV10}.
{\it Top Left)} CO(1--0). Contours are 1, 2, 3, ... 10, 15, 20, ... 60 $\times$13.8 K km s$^{-1}$ for a beam size of $4.6\arcsec \times 3.6\arcsec ;-14^{o}$.
{\it Top Center)} $^{13}$CO(1--0); contour levels are 7.3 K km s$^{-1}$ for the same beam size as CO(1--0). Beam sizes for the remaining transitions are as
listed in Table \ref{ObsT}.
{\it Top Right)} C$^{18}$O(1--0). Contours as for $^{13}$CO(1--0).
{\it Middle Left)} HCN(1--0). Contour levels are 13.1K km s$^{-1}$.
{\it Middle Center)} HCO$^{+}$(1--0). Contour levels are 17.3 K km s$^{-1}$.
{\it Middle Right)} HNC(1--0). Contours levels 16.7 K km s$^{-1}$.
{\it Bottom Left)} CN(1--0;$\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2}$). Contours levels are 12.8 K km s$^{-1}$
{\it Bottom Center)} CN(1--0;$\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2}$). Contours as
for CN(1--0;$\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2}$).
{\it Bottom Right)} Combined intensity for the
CH$_{3}$OH($2_{k}-1_{k}$) quadruplet of lines. Contours levels are 16.2 K km s$^{-1}$. The above contours
correspond approximately to 2$\sigma$ increments for each transition except CO(1--0) (see Table \ref{GalT}).
\label{IntI}}
\end{figure*}
\section{Discussion \label{disc}}
\begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
\tablenum{3}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablecaption{Molecular Abundances\tablenotemark{a} \label{MolT}}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Species}
&\colhead{CNZ/Starburst\tablenotemark{b}}
&\colhead{Northern Arm\tablenotemark{c}}
}
\startdata
N(H$_{2}$) & $1.0\times 10^{23}$\tablenotemark{d} & $3.8\times 10^{22}$\tablenotemark{e} \\
HCN & $5.6\times 10^{-9}$ & $5.3\times 10^{-10}$ \\
HNC & $3.3\times 10^{-9}$ & $<6.3\times 10^{-10}$ \\
CN & $9.0\times 10^{-9}$ & $<2.2\times 10^{-9}$ \\
HCO$^{+}$ & $3.4\times 10^{-9}$ & $<3.4\times 10^{-10}$ \\
C$^{34}$S & $<7.7\times 10^{-10}$ & $<1.1\times 10^{-9}$ \\
HC$_{3}$N & $\lesssim 5.6\times 10^{-10}$ & $<3.4\times 10^{-10}$\\
CH$_{3}$OH & $2.3\times 10^{-8}$ & $\sim 1.4\times 10^{-8}$ \\
HNCO & $\lesssim 2.3\times 10^{-9}$ & $<1.7\times 10^{-9}$ \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{All upper limits are $2\sigma$.}
\tablenotetext{b}{Assumes an excitation temperature of 30 K for all transitions and optically thin emission.}
\tablenotetext{c}{Measured at $\alpha = 04^{h} 32^{m} 47^{s}.9$;
$\delta = +29^{o} 30' 07^{''}$ (J2000) and assumes an excitation temperature of 10 K for all transitions.}
\tablenotetext{d}{Based on the N(C$^{18}$O) value, a favored nuclear [CO/C$^{18}$O]
isotopologue ratio of 200 (section \ref{isosb}) and CO/H$_{2}$ = $8.5\times 10^{-5}$
\citep[][]{FLW82}.}
\tablenotetext{e}{As in $d$, except for the favored northern bar value of [CO/C$^{18}$O]
isotopologue ratio of 225 (section \ref{isobar})}
\end{deluxetable}
\subsection{$^{13}$CO and C$^{18}$O as Probes of CO Gas Opacity and Column \label{isotope}}
The CO isotopologues $^{13}$C$^{16}$O (``$^{13}$CO") and
$^{12}$C$^{18}$O (``C$^{18}$O") are valuable probes of opacity and
isotopic abundance when compared to the most abundant isotopologue,
$^{12}$C$^{16}$O (``CO"). Under the LTE approximation, the isotopic
ratios provide a direct constraint on gas opacity:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb R_{i} \simeq \frac{(1 - e^{-^{12}\tau})}{(1 - e^{-^{i}\tau})}
\end{equation}
where $^{12}\tau$ is the CO(1--0) optical depth and $^{i}\tau$ is the
CO(1--0) isotopologue optical depth ($^{13}\tau$ and $^{18}\tau$)
\citep[e.g.,][]{ABBJ95}. The lower opacity of the isotopologues also
allow us to study the bulk of the molecular gas that is not sampled by
optically thick CO. Furthermore, comparisons of the isotopologues
with CO constrain gas opacity and isotopic abundance ratios and can
reveal non-LTE gas excitation \citep[e.g.,][]{MTH00,MT04}. Typical
values for the \rth $\equiv$ CO(1--0)/$^{13}$CO(1--0) line intensity
ratio range from \rth\ $\sim$ 4--7 for Galactic disk clouds; this
range reflects both opacity effects and isotopic abundance ratios
varying from [CO/$^{13}$CO] $\sim$ 25--90 within the Galaxy. The
inferred isotopic abundance ratio, [CO/$^{13}$CO], has its lowest
values in the Galactic center and increases with galacto-centric
radius, reaching $\sim$70 at the solar circle and $\gtrsim$120 in the
outer Galaxy \citep[e.g.,][]{WR94,MSBZW05, WB96}. A similar gradient
is observed in the Galaxy for [CO/C$^{18}$O], with [CO/C$^{18}$O]
$\sim$ 250 at the Galactic Center and $\sim$500 at the solar radius.
This implies [$^{13}$CO/C$^{18}$O] between 6 -- 10 across the Galaxy.
In external galaxies a wider range is seen, \rth\ $\sim$ 3 -- $>$30,
with the higher values tending to originate from LIRGs and ULIRGs
\citep[][]{AJBB91,CDC92,ABBJ95}. Typical values for the \ret $\equiv$
CO(1--0)/C$^{18}$O(1--0) line intensity ratio are \ret\ $\sim$ 15-100.
$^{13}$CO(1--0)/C$^{18}$O(1--0) intensity ratios, denoted \rthet, tend
to be lower than the Galactic [$^{13}$CO/C$^{18}$O], having values of
3 -- 6 \citep[e.g.,][]{ABBJ95}.
Figure \ref{Isorat} presents the three isotopic line ratios, \rth,
\ret, and \rthet. All three exhibit the same trend that they are high
toward the CNZ and lower along the arms. \rth\ is $16\pm 4$ toward
the CNZ but only $1.9\pm0.4$ at the north end of the northern arm (see
Table \ref{MolT} for position). Along the inner part of the bar arms
\rth\ $\simeq$ 3-4. Likewise \ret = $45\pm10$ toward the CNZ and
drops to $3.3\pm0.7$ by the end of the northern arm. The double rare
isotopic ratio \rthet, is fairly low everywhere across the mapped
region, being $3.2\pm0.7$ toward the CNZ and falling to
\rthet\ $\simeq 1.7\pm0.5$ by the end of the northern bar. toward the
starburst site, \rth\ (\ret) is 21$\pm$4 (94$\pm$30), even larger than
seen elsewhere in the CNZ. However, \rthet\ is not significantly
altered at the starburst (\rthet = 3.7$\pm$1.3).
The elevated \rth\ and \ret\ ratios in the CNZ are not unexpected,
since this has long been seen in starburst regions
\citep[e.g.,][]{AJBB91,CDC92}. Common explanations for the elevated
\rth\ and \ret\ include, 1) lowered gas opacity due to broader line
widths that result in lower CO column densities per unit velocity, 2)
non-LTE effects that raise CO brightness relative to the
isotopologues, such as sub-thermal gas densities or PDR/externally
heated clouds, or 3) anomalous isotopic abundances.
In contrast, the low isotopic line ratios seen toward the bar arm
imply (for LTE) high opacities. The isotopic ratios approach unity in
the limit of infinite opacity. For Galactic local ISM abundance
ratios \citep[e.g.,][]{WR94}, $^{18}\tau \gtrsim 1$ would be required
to explain the very low \rthet\ values seen along the bar arms.
However, such an interpretation conflicts with the other two ratios.
If gas opacity is high enough to explain \rthet\ then both \rth\ and
\ret\ should exhibit ratios much closer to unity. The observed
\rth\ and \ret\ along the northwestern arm, while lower than toward
the nucleus, are still significantly above unity.
Possible explanations for these unusual ratios for the nucleus and the
bar arms are discussed below.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.0}
\plotone{figure3c.ps}
\caption{{\it Left)} The HCN(1--0) integrated intensity maps overlaid on high resolution 20 cm radio
continuum \citep[][]{MTBGTV10}. Contours for HCN(1--0) are blue lines and are as in Fig. \ref{IntI}.
Contours of 20 cm radio continuum are red lines in steps of 2$^{n/2}$, n=0,1,2 ... $\times$ 0.25 mJy
beam$^{-1}$ for a resolution of $1.^{''}6 \times1.^{''}3$. {\it Right)} The pixel by pixel correlation
between HCN(1--0) and the 20 cm continuum. The 20 cm image has been convolved to the same
beamsize as the HCN(1--0) data and then sample in 1.5$^{''}$ ($\sim$ half beam) intervals. Note that
this sampling interval is smaller than the beam and so different plotted points are correlated. Points with
upper limits for both 20 cm and HCN(1--0) have been suppressed.
\label{hcn20cm} }
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Low Opacity and Columns Toward the Circum-Nuclear Zone \label{isosb}}
The high ratios toward the CNZ are not extreme compared to other LIRGs
and imply low opacity CO gas. A range of LTE solutions for gas
opacity and isotopic abundance are possible. The optical depth of
CO(1--0), $^{12}\tau$, can range from $\simeq 4.0$, (corresponding to
[CO/$^{13}$CO] $\simeq 60$, and [CO/C$^{18}$O] $\simeq$200) to $\simeq
8.0$, (for [CO/$^{13}$CO] $\simeq 120$ and [CO/C$^{18}$O]
$\simeq$375). Pushing $^{12}\tau$ larger than 8.0 requires very large
[CO/$^{13}$CO] abundance ratios, greater than 120. These values would
be consistent with the low nuclear processing levels observed for gas
in the outermost parts of the Galaxy, based on the \citet[][]{WR94}
extrapolated gradient \citep[there are indications that this gradient
may be too shallow in the far-outer Galaxy;][]{WB96}, and with
values of [$^{12}$C/$^{13}$C] $\sim 100$ recently suggested for the
centers of local starburst galaxies
\citep{MAMM10,2014A&A...565A...3H}. On the other hand, pushing
$^{12}\tau$ lower than 4.0 requires [CO/C$^{18}$O] abundance ratios
lower than seen anywhere in the Galaxy and lower than the fully
massive star enriched values predicted from chemical evolution models
\citep[][]{HM93}. Toward the starburst site, these constraints are
even more dramatic if LTE applies (see below). Overall, low values of
$^{12}\tau$ are favored for the CNZ based on a comparison with the
northern arm (section \ref{isobar}).
Low CO opacities in CO-bright nuclear starburst may seem surprising.
Even $^{13}$CO has moderate, not low opacity in the more normal
spirals, IC 342 and Maffei 2 \citep[][]{WJ90,MTH00,MT01,MTH08}. The
presence of the starburst and its location at the center of a barred
potential alters the situation somewhat: the CO line width of the
nuclear emission is about twice the line widths of the bar ends. The
broader line accounts for some of the increased CO intensity toward
the nucleus, but not all. The C$^{18}$O peak brightness temperatures
toward the CNZ and the northern arm differ by less than a factor of
two.
Non-LTE effects can also be responsible for the high \rth\ and
\ret\ values, especially toward the starburst. The CO(1--0)/HCN(1--0)
and HCN(1--0)/HCO$^{+}$(1--0) line ratios over the CNZ argue that the
gas is dense enough that sub-thermal CO emission can be neglected
across the nucleus (section \ref{dense}). However, the chemical data
indicate that the nuclear molecular emission is may be partially
influenced by photon-dominated regions (PDRs) (section \ref{chem}).
The radiation field from the starburst can heat the surfaces of the
nearby clouds, preferentially exciting the optically thick ($^{12}$CO)
transitions relative to the optically thin $^{13}$CO and C$^{18}$O.
The high radiation fields can also preferentially photo-dissociate the
optically thinner species. Both mechanisms raise \rth\ and
\ret\ relative to their values in quiescent conditions
\citep[e.g.,][]{MTH00}. Since $^{13}$CO is not highly opaque, there
should be a much weaker influence on \rthet. Non-LTE effects are able
to explain the elevated ratios toward the starburst relative to the
CNZ, but must be extreme to change the conclusion that the CNZ has
modest $^{12}\tau$.
So even accounting for non-LTE effects associated with the starburst,
it appears that the observed nuclear CO isotopic line ratios imply
quite low $^{13}$CO opacities $^{13}\tau ~ \ll 1$, [CO/$^{13}$CO]
$\geq$60 and [CO/C$^{18}$O] $\gtrsim$ 200. The isotopic abundances
ratios are consistent with an ISM enriched in $^{18}$O from recent
massive star ejecta. Moreover, a relatively lower abundance of
$^{13}$C suggests less long term nuclear processing, since C is a
primary and $^{13}$C is a (mostly) secondary nucleus \citep[][]{HM93}.
Adopting [CO/C$^{18}$O] $\simeq$ 200 and an excitation temperature of
30 K along with a CO/H$_{2}$ abundance ratio of $8.5\times 10^{-5}$
\citep[][]{FLW82}, we derive an H$_2$ column density of N(H$_{2}$)
$\simeq 1.0\times 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ toward the CNZ. This is about a
factor of two lower than predicted based on a Galactic conversion
factor of 2.0$\times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ (K km s$^{-1}$)$^{-1}$
\citep[][]{Het97,Set88}. The Galactic conversion factor can be
accommodated either by adopting a nuclear excitation temperature of
$\sim$50 K over $\sim$200 pc scales, or raising [CO/C$^{18}$O] to
$\sim$340.
\subsubsection{Anomalous $^{13}$CO and C$^{18}$O Ratios Across the Bar Arms \label{isobar}}
toward the bar arms the isotopic line ratios are very low compared to
what is typically observed for disks in other extragalactic systems
\citep[e.g.,][]{Pet01}. Under LTE, low \rth\ and \ret\ imply large
$^{12}\tau$ ($\sim$65 -- 110). It is counter-intuitive that the
northern arm would have gas opacity at least an order of magnitude
larger than the CNZ, while its CO intensity is more than an order of
magnitude fainter. For these high opacities, the observed
\rthet\ imply [$^{13}$CO/C$^{18}$O] $\sim$2.1, lower than favored for
the CNZ and more than three times lower than found in either the local
Galactic ISM or the Galactic center region.
Assuming LTE it is difficult to obtain a consistent solution for these
line ratios. To simultaneously match the three ratios at the end of
the northern arm we require [CO/$^{13}$CO] $\simeq$90 -- 140
(unusually high) and [CO/C$^{18}$O] $\simeq$ 185 -- 300, as
$^{12}\tau$ ranges from 65 -- 110. Given the strong bar here it is
possible that radial inflow of relatively unprocessed outer disk gas
could explain the high [CO/$^{13}$CO] ratio observed for the bar arms,
however this explanation would imply that the [CO/C$^{18}$O] abundance
ratio should also be raised, which is not observed. These
[CO/$^{13}$CO] ratios suggest that stellar processing on the longer
timescales typical of intermediate mass star lifetimes is rather low.
If we accept the high end of the opacity range for the CNZ and the low
end of the range for the end of the northern arm (to minimize dramatic
opacity differences) then the implied abundance ratios [CO/$^{13}$CO]
and [CO/C$^{18}$O] would both decline with galacto-centric radius.
This is at odds with the measured gradients in the Galaxy and chemical
evolution models. To have [CO/$^{13}$CO] and [CO/C$^{18}$O] gradients
in the right sense we are forced to favor low opacity for the CNZ and
high opacity for the outer arms. But even this is not particularly
satisfying because with high $^{12}\tau$ in the arms, [CO/C$^{18}$O]
$\simeq$ 300. Moreover, if we adopt T$_{ex} \simeq$ 10 K and this
abundance the implied N(H$_{2}$) column is almost five times that
obtained using the Galactic conversion factor. Such high conversion
factors may be seen in low metallicity systems, but not in solar
metallicity gas \citep[e.g.,][]{BWL13}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.0}
\plotone{figure4.ps}
\caption{The CO isotopologue ratios for IRAS 04296. {\it Left)} The CO(1--0)/$^{13}$CO(1--0)
line ratio \citep[][]{MTBGTV10}. Contours are 4, 8, 12, 16 (bold contour), 20 and 24.
The grayscale ranges from 0 to 30 with dark being high ratios. {\it Center)} The
CO(1--0)/C$^{18}$O(1--0) intensity ratio with the CO(1--0) data from
\citep[][]{MTBGTV10}. Contours are 6, 40 (bold contour), 50.
The grayscale ranges from 0 to 50 with dark being high ratios. {\it Right)} The
$^{13}$CO(1--0)/C$^{18}$O(1--0) intensity ratio with the $^{13}$CO(1--0) data from
\citep[][]{MTBGTV10}. Contours are 1, 2 (bold contour), 3, 4. The
grayscale ranges from 0 to 4 with dark being high ratios. The beam size of all plots are
the same and given in the lower left of the figure.
\label{Isorat} }
\end{figure*}
The anomalies in the ratios demand that we consider non-LTE effects.
The PDRs that were discussed in the nuclear region are not relevant in
the bar arms because strong star formation is absent. Two other
non-LTE effects worth considering are, 1) sub-thermal excitation of
the isotopologues and 2) $^{13}$CO chemical fractionation in the arm
medium versus the CNZ. The second we dismiss because we observe
[$^{13}$CO/C$^{18}$O] to be smaller than toward the CNZ. Since
$^{18}$O is not expected to fractionate efficiently in the cold ISM,
fractionation would act to raise the [$^{13}$CO/C$^{18}$O] abundance
ratio relative to the nucleus, not lower it. Moreover, detailed
studies find little evidence for $^{13}$CO fractionation actually
being observed in the ISM \citep[e.g.,][]{MSBZW05}.
Sub-thermal excitation is a viable explanation, especially since the
clouds in the arms likely have lower densities than the nuclear disk.
The large opacity of CO lowers its effective critical density relative
to the CO isotopologues by the escape probability factor ($\beta ~
\sim ~1/^{12}\tau$). Therefore when gas densities drop below $\sim$
n$_{H_{2}} \leq ~10^{3.5}$ cm$^{-3}$, the brightness temperatures of
the CO isotopologues can drop relative to CO, inflating \rth\ and
\ret\ \citep[][]{MT01}. This agrees with the observed behavior only
if the true \rth\ and \ret\ are unity ($^{12}\tau \rightarrow
\infty$).
If we adopt the $^{12}\tau \simeq$ 80 solution for the end of the
northern arm, the lowest that keeps the correct sense of the abundance
gradient, then [CO/$^{13}$CO] $\simeq$ 110 and [CO/C$^{18}$O] $\simeq$
225. For an excitation temperature of 10 K, the observed $^{13}$CO
and C$^{18}$O intensities imply areal filling factors of $f_{a} \sim
0.03$. This is reasonable for the bright, extended molecular gas disk
characteristic of IRAS 04296. Adopting the above abundances and temperature
for the arm, N(H$_{2}) \simeq 3.8\times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ at the
outer end of the northern arm. This column is larger than that from a
Galactic conversion factor but is not extreme; we will use it to
estimate abundances toward the northern arm. Until J = 2 -- 1
transitions are observed so the gas excitation can be directly
measured, implied conversion factors must be regarded as suspect, but
it is clear that the conversion factor for the CNZ is lower than in
the arms \citep[][]{MTBGTV10}, as it is in many galactic centers.
\subsubsection{CO Isotopologues and Stellar Processing in IRAS 04296}
We have seen that CO isotopic abundance ratios in IRAS 04296\ are anomalous
compared to the Galaxy and other local galaxies. The observations
further show that the physical conditions of the molecular gas in the
arms are very different from that observed in the CNZ. Taking into
account gas columns, absolute abundance ratios and their variation
with galacto-centric radius, we conclude that $^{12}\tau~\sim$ 4 -- 6,
[CO/$^{13}$CO] $\simeq$ 60 and [CO/C$^{18}$O] $\simeq$ 200 toward the
CNZ. At the outer end of the bar arm these values have changed to
$\sim$80, 110, and 225, respectively. The [CO/C$^{18}$O] ratios are
fairly low, consistent with the inner Galaxy value and with enrichment
from massive star ejecta over much of the inner $r ~\sim$3.5 kpc.
However, the inner disk [CO/$^{13}$CO] values are like those
$\gtrsim$10 kpc out in the Galactic disk. Recent observations suggest
high $^{12}$C to $^{13}$C isotopic abundance ratios of $\rm
[^{12}C/^{13}C]\sim 100$ may be common in other starburst nuclei
\citep[][]{MAMM10,2014A&A...565A...3H}. Hence if [CO/C$^{13}$O] can
be a proxy of longer term nucleosynthetic processing, the underlying
disk of IRAS 04296\ and possibly other starbursts are less processed than
most of the Galaxy.
\citet[][]{MTBGTV10} concluded from the molecular gas and dynamical
masses that IRAS 04296\ must be experiencing one of its first major
starburst episodes. The isotopic abundances agree with this initial
burst scenario, but also show that the current burst is mature enough
to have enriched the nuclear disk and potentially the inner bar with
massive star ejecta. In this picture IRAS 04296's evolutionary state
parallels the Large Magellanic Cloud: a relatively unprocessed galaxy
with a current burst of massive star formation. But the LMC appears
to have a completely different abundance pattern, being somewhat
enriched in $^{13}$CO, extremely depressed in C$^{18}$O
\citep[e.g.,][]{WCHWC09}, and with no sign of local isotopologue
variation across the galaxy (Hughes et al. 2014, in prep.). Finding
the metallicity of IRAS 04296\ could help determine the stage of enrichment.
\subsection{The Dense Molecular Gas Component in IRAS 04296}
CO(1--0) is a good tracer for overall molecular gas morphology, but it
is the dense gas from which stars form. We need to observe molecular
species with higher critical densities than CO(1--0) to find the state
and characteristics of the star forming component of molecular gas.
HCN(1--0) is an example of a dense gas probe that linearly correlates
with star formation rate (SFR) \citep[][]{GS04}. Other dense gas
probes include HCO$^{+}$, HNC, CS, HC$_{3}$N and CN. Here we
investigate the nature of the dense gas as traced by these species and
their connection with the SFR.
\subsubsection{CO(1--0)/HCN(1--0) and the Dense Gas Fraction \label{densefrac}}
Since CO(1--0) traces low density molecular gas and HCN(1--0) high
density, the CO(1--0)/HCN(1--0) line ratio is a measure of the
fraction of gas that is dense. The tight correlation observed between
HCN(1--0) and the SFR (section \ref{densesfr}), together with the
compactness of nuclear star formation in IRAS 04296\ \citep[][]{MTBGTV10},
suggests that the dense gas fraction ought to increase toward the
starburst.
This is indeed seen across the CNZ, with CO(1-0)/HCN(1--0) decreasing
from $\ge$12 at the outer edge of the nuclear disk to $\sim$7 at the
starburst. Just southwest of the starburst the ratio even drops below
six, at the low end of that found by (single-dish) surveys of nearby
[U]/LIRGs \citep[e.g.,][]{SDR92,ABBJ95,GS04,BHLBW08}. Even averaged
over the inner $20^{''}$ diameter, (close to single-dish sampling
scales), the CO(1--0)/HCN(1--0) line ratio is $<8$. We see that the
fraction of dense molecular gas, $n_{H_2}\gtrsim 10^{4.5}$ cm$^{-3}$,
in the CNZ is high near the nuclear starburst, and falls away from the
starburst.
Along the arms HCN(1--0) is only tentatively detected in a few
locations (see Fig. \ref{denserat}), so there are just a few isolated
regions with elevated dense gas fractions. Given the much fainter
CO(1--0) at these arm locations, they have CO(1--0)/HCN(1--0) limits
that are comparable to or slightly higher than the starburst values.
But the CO isotopologues are likely better tracers of gas column
(section \ref{isotope}). If $^{13}$CO/HCN or C$^{18}$O/HCN is used to
constrain the dense gas fraction then there is a pronounced decrease
in the dense gas fraction between the CNZ and the bar arms, as
expected given the lower star formation rate there.
\subsubsection{Dense Gas Properties of the Circum-Nuclear Zone \label{dense}}
Line ratios between HCN(1--0), HCO$^{+}$(1--0), HNC(1--0) and CN(1--0;
3/2--1/2) depend on gas physical conditions as well as chemistry. The
dominant physical and chemical processes controlling the line
intensities of these transitions have been extensively discussed in
Paper II \citep[][]{MT12} and the literature \citep[e.g.,][]{APHC02,
GGPC06, MSI07, P07, BHLBW08, KNGMCGE08, LSBM08, KMPIS12}, so here we
only briefly summarize.
The first-order physical parameter controlling these ratios is gas
density. The critical density of HCO$^{+}$(1--0) is nearly and order
of magnitude lower than HCN(1--0), while HNC(1--0) has a critical
density slightly lower than HCN(1--0). Therefore in the density range
from $10^{4-6}$ cm$^{-3}$, the HCN/HCO$^{+}$ depend on gas density,
with HCO$^{+}$ favored at lower densities relative to HCN.
Furthermore, HCO$^{+}$, being a molecular ion, has its abundance
decreased in high density gas due to faster recombination with
electrons \citep[e.g.,][]{P07}. Together these two effects suggest
that HCN should be significantly brighter than HCO$^{+}$ in high
density gas. In normal gas phase chemistry the HCN/HNC intensity
ratio is driven to unity through the mutual formation reaction
HCNH$^{+}$ + e$^{-}$ $\rightarrow$ HNC/HCN + H \citep[e.g.,][]{TH98,SHNI98}.
In environments that are hot or have experienced strong shocks or PDR
irradiation, HNC can be rapidly converted to HCN so this ratio can
deviate significantly from unity \citep[e.g.,][]{SWPRFG92,TPM97}. Thus we
expect HCN/HNC intensity ratios to be near unity over a wide range of
high density gas conditions. Where deviating from unity we expect HCN
to be strongly favored in hot, disturbed gas. This is generally
consistent with what we observe toward the more moderate starbursts,
IC 342 and Maffei 2 in Papers I and II \citep[][]{MT05,MT12}. CN is
expected to trace PDR gas and its chemistry is discussed in more
detail in section \ref{pdr}. Finally it should be noted that high
optical depth in these lines will act to hide any differences in the
physical and chemical behavior, driving all the ratios to unity.
Ratios of these three transitions are displayed in
Fig. \ref{denserat}. Both the HCN(1--0)/HCO$^{+}$(1--0) and the
HCN(1--0)/HNC(1--0) line ratios exhibit the same east - west gradient
across the CNZ, with high values at the western side.
HCN(1--0)/HCO$^{+}$(1--0) ranges from 0.7 -- 1.5 and
HCN(1--0)/HNC(1--0) from 1.3 -- 2.5. The nuclear starburst resides
approximately in the middle of the observed ratio gradient in both
cases, so no clear evidence is seen for a distinct component directly
associated with the compact starburst. The fact that the
HCN/HCO$^{+}$ intensity ratio is 1.0 toward the starburst suggests
that densities are high enough to thermalize both transitions and that
the opacities of both lines could be high. Large velocity gradient
modeling of HCN \citep[see][for model]{MTH08} and HCO$^{+}$ toward the
starburst (not shown) imply that for a kinetic temperature of 40 K
(the dust temperature, Table \ref{GalT}) densities are $\sim 2 \times
10^{5}$ cm$^{-3}$. The inferred HCN abundance (Table \ref{MolT}) is
near that typically observed on large scales toward star forming
clouds \citep[e.g.,][]{BSMP87}, so HCN opacities, while probably $>$1,
are unlikely to be extreme.
Both HCN/HCO$^{+}$ and HCN/HNC have the same sense of trend, rising
toward the west across the CNZ. One possible model for these ratios
is that the gas density is lower in the east away from the starburst,
resulting in lower HCN/HCO$^{+}$ there, and warm PDR or shocked gas is
more prevalent in the west near the starburst, favoring HCN emission
and producing the high HCN/HNC line ratio there. The starburst and CO
column density peak, is located at the inner terminus of the
northwestern bar arm, suggesting the western side of the nucleus to be
hotter / more energetic \citep[][]{MTBGTV10}. In this model the
elevated HCN/HCO$^{+}$ is a better indicator of high gas density and
HCN/HNC more reflective of high radiation fields. However opacity
must also be considered. A second possible model is that line ratios
near the starburst could instead be dominated by high HCN line
opacity; if HCN is opaque but the two lower abundance species,
HCO$^{+}$ and HNC, transition from optically thick to thin from west
to east, following the decline in CO column, then the decline in
HCO$^{+}$ and HNC brightness relative to HCN toward the east could be
explained by their decline in opacity in this region. However this
second model is less favored since HCN/HCO$^{+}$ (and HCN/HNC) on the
western side are significantly above one, ratios naively inconsistent
with high opacities.
\subsubsection{HCN(1--0) and the Nuclear Star Formation Rate \label{densesfr}}
Here we consider IRAS 04296, a spatially resolved LIRG, in the context of
the global $\rm L_{IR}$ versus HCN(1--0) relations
\citep[e.g.,][]{GS04,GUAGPCPA12}. The total HCN(1--0) luminosity over
the CNZ is L$_{HCN}$ = 7.4$\times10^{7}$ K km s$^{-1}$ pc$^{2}$. This
equates to L$_{IR}$/L$_{HCN}$ = 1300 L$_{\odot}$ (K km s$^{-1}$
pc$^{2}$). This value is 1.5 times the global values of [U]LIRGs
\citep[][with L$_{IR}\simeq 10^{11}$ L$_{\odot}$]{GS04, GUAGPCPA12}.
However the IR fluxes from IRAS cover a much larger area than the HCN
emission. If we adopt L$_{IR}$(CNZ) $\simeq$ 0.5 L$_{IR}$(tot)
\citep[][]{MTBGTV10}, then the observed nuclear value for IRAS 04296\ is
L$_{IR}$/L$_{HCN}$=660, which is 40\% smaller than the global values.
That the CNZ in IRAS 04296\ is slightly IR under-luminous normalized by the
HCN compared to global averages is consistent with the determination
focused tightly on the dense gas of the CNZ region.
Since HCN(1--0) is imaged at high resolution, a rough estimate is
attempted to see if the correlation also persists within the galaxy.
\citet[][]{MTBGTV10} provide a detailed discussion of the rate,
efficiency and distribution of star formation over the nucleus of
IRAS 04296. However, the high frequency radio data does not sample the SFR
on spatial scales comparable to HCN(1--0) and so we use a cruder SFR
proxy, the 20 cm radio continuum map. Figure~\ref{hcn20cm} displays
the 20 cm radio continuum \citep[][]{MTBGTV10} compared with HCN(1--0)
at matched spatial resolution. There is a clear linear correlation
between the two. Adopting a $q$ parameter value of 2.3 ($q$ = log$[\rm
L_{FIR}/3.75 \times 10^{12} W/m^{2}] - \rm log[S_{20cm}/10^{26}
Jy]$), typical of what is commonly observed for star forming
galaxies \citep[][]{C92}, the observed L$_{IR}$/L$_{FIR}$ ratio
\citep[with L$_{IR}$ being the total luminosity from 8 - 1000$\mu m$
and L$_{FIR}$ being the luminosity from 40 - 400$\mu
m$;][]{SMKSS03}, and \citet[][]{GS04}'s conversion between L$_{IR}$
and SFR allows the 20 cm map to be roughly converted to a resolved SFR
map. The observed correlation between HCN(1-0) and 20 cm radio
continuum intensity is:
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm I_{20}(mJy ~bm^{-1}) &= [0.38\pm0.08] I_{HCN}(K ~km ~s^{-1}) \nonumber \\
&~~~~~~~~- [0.42\pm0.35]
\end{eqnarray}
For the above normalization, after converting intensities to fluxes and luminosities, we find:
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm SFR(M_{\odot} ~yr^{-1}) &= [1.4\pm0.3 \times 10^{-7}]~L_{HCN}(\rm K ~km s^{-1}~ pc^{2}) \nonumber \\
&~~~~~~- [0.02\pm0.02].
\end{eqnarray}
The quoted errors are statistical only and do not include (potentially
large) systematic errors associated with uncertainties in adopted q
and the conversion between L$_{IR}$ and SFR. Discounting the very
small zero-point offset, we find a slightly lower normalization than
the SFR(M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$) = ($1.8\times 10^{-7}$) L$_{HCN}$(K km
s$^{-1}$ pc$^{2}$) value of \citet[][]{GS04}. Given the assumptions
this is considered good agreement between the local and global values.
HCO$^{+}$, which has a critical density lower than HCN's, shows a
statistically identical relationship. \citet[][]{KT07} suggest that
the slope and normalization of the SFR vs. molecular gas tracer
relationship should differ between species that are fully thermalized
and those that are not. The fact that we do not see a difference is
further evidence that the molecular gas localized to the starburst in
IRAS 04296\ has a density high enough to excite both HCN(1--0) and
HCO$^{+}$(1--0) equally well over much of the CNZ and that both may
have moderate opacity. This finding is consistent with other
observations of dense gas tracers in nearby, resolved star-forming
galaxies \citep{2014ApJ...784L..31Z}.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.0}
\plotone{figure5.ps}
\caption{The intensity ratios for dense gas tracers. {\it Top Left)} CO(1--0)/HCN(1--0) line ratio.
Contours are 5, 7.5 (bold contour), 10, 13.3, and 20. The grayscale ranges from 0 to 15.
In all planes darker grayscales correspond to higher ratios. {\it Top Right)} The
HCN(1--0)/CN(1--0;3/2-1/2) line ratio. Contours are 1.25, 1.5, 2.0 (bold contour), and 3.0, with
grayscale ranging from 0 to 3. {\it Bottom Left)} HCN(1--0)/HCO$^{+}$(1--0) line ratio.
Contours are 0.563, 0.75, 1.0 (bold contour), 1.5 and 3.0. The grayscale ranges from
0 to 1.5. {\it Bottom Right)} HCN(1--0)/HNC(1--0) line ratio.
Contours are 0.75, 1.0, 1.33 (bold contour), 2.0 and 4.0. The grayscale ranges from 0 to 2.5.
In all planes the cross marks the location of the starburst (peak of the cm radio continuum
\cite[][]{MTBGTV10}. The beam for the ratios is displayed in the bottom left. \label{denserat}}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{PDRs and the Nuclear Starburst in IRAS 04296\ \label{pdr}}
The interaction of UV photons from the starburst's massive stars with
the molecular gas is expected to result in PDRs with distinctive
chemical properties \citep[e.g.,][]{TH85, SD95}. Given the strong
nuclear star formation in IRAS 04296, does it show signs of radiative
feedback from the starburst in the gas chemistry?
CN is expected to be abundant in PDRs. It forms from reactions
between CH and N, with CH forming directly from H$_{2}$ and
PDR-abundant C$^{+}$\citep[]{SD95}. CN(1--0; 3/2--1/2) and HCN(1--0)
have similar critical densities, so the HCN(1--0)/CN(1--0;3/2-1/2)
(hereafter HCN(1--0)/CN(1--0)) line ratio is considered to be an
excellent tracer of dense PDRs \citep[e.g.,][]{SD95,BS05}.
Toward the starburst in IRAS 04296\ the HCN(1--0)/CN(1--0) line ratio
reaches 2.4, which for LTE corresponds to an [HCN/CN] abundance ratio
of $\ge 0.6$ and a CN abundance of 9.0$\times10^{-9}$. (The abundance
ratio is a lower limit because of the potentially large HCN opacity,
whereas it is shown in section \ref{res} that CN is optically thin.)
According to the models of \citet[][]{BS05}, the above conditions are
consistent with molecular gas at A$_{V} \simeq$ 4 -- 5 mag and a range
of densities and radiation fields, $\chi$. In the range A$_{V} \sim 4
- 6$ the predicted column ratio changes dramatically \citep[][]{BS05},
so the implied A$_{V}$ is not strongly sensitive to the optical depth
of HCN as long as it is $<$10. Moderate densities ($\le 10^{4}$
cm$^{-3}$) and radiation fields ($\chi < 10^{3}$), where $\chi$ is the
normalized Draine solar neighborhood radiation field at 1000 \AA\ are
slightly favored since as density and $\chi$ increase, peak CN
abundances drop below $10^{-8}$ as ionization is pushed deeper into
the cloud. Molecular gas at A$_{V} \simeq$ 4 -- 5 corresponds roughly
to the transition between PDR and dark cloud conditions. So the
starburst ISM traced by CN and HCN in IRAS 04296\ appears to be influenced
by PDRs, but not strongly. Furthermore, the fact that the
HCN(1--0)/HNC(1--0) ratio $>1$ over the CNZ favors PDR conditions.
Localized chemical effects associated with X-ray dominated regions
such as from a buried AGN are not pronounced \citep[e.g.,][]{MSI07}.
To explain the total observed CN column density when $\rm n_{H_{2}}\le
10^{4}$ cm$^{-3}$ and $\chi \lesssim 10^{3}$ with A$_{V} \sim$ 4 -- 5
gas requires $\sim$45 PDR clouds along the line-of-sight. Using the
same observed ratio \citet[][]{BS05} and \citet[][]{Fuente+05}
estimate somewhat higher $\chi$'s for the giant PDR in M 82, but fewer
(10 - 20) numbers of PDR clumps. The number of clumps estimated here
is 2 - 4 times larger than for M 82, the same factor by which the SFR
is larger.
However it is hard to explain why HCN(1--0)/CN(1--0) decreases toward
the outer CNZ in the context of PDR gas. This implies that the
abundance of the PDR tracer CN relative to HCN increases with distance
from the starburst, contrary to expectation. One possible explanation
is that the ionization remains high over the entire CNZ, via the
weaker extended star formation component or elevated cosmic ray
ionization rate and the gas away from the starburst being on average
somewhat more diffuse. This model of more diffuse gas in the outer
CNZ, away from the starburst, is also consistent with the lower
HCN(1--0)/CO(1--0) ratio there, since diffuse clouds have lower total
dense gas fractions.
\subsection{Gas-Grain Chemistry Across IRAS 04296 \label{chem}}
CH$_{3}$OH and HNCO have no efficient gas-phase pathway but are easily
formed on grain mantles. Large gas-phase abundances of these species
require mantle disruption, either by evaporation or shocks.
CH$_{3}$OH is observed to peak just north of the starburst. Here
CH$_{3}$OH abundances reach $1.8\times 10^{-8}$ (Table
\ref{MolT}). HNCO is tentatively detected toward the CNZ, with an
abundance of $\sim2.3\times 10^{-9}$. Both are highly elevated
relative to abundances in quiescent molecular clouds in the Galaxy
\citep[][]{KDBWA97,MB02} and comparable to the abundances observed on
GMC scales toward the strongest shock regions in nearby galaxies
\citep[e.g.,][]{MT05,MT12}.
Since the SFR is large toward the starburst, we investigate whether
the nuclear CH$_{3}$OH intensity can be explained by large collections
of compact sources such as proto-stellar outflows or hot cores
\citep[e.g.,][]{UGMFN06}. We estimate the CH$_{3}$OH intensity
produced from molecular outflows by taking the size and CH$_{3}$OH
brightness of the proto-typical molecular outflow, L1157
\citep[][]{BP97}. At the distance of IRAS 04296, we estimate a single such
outflow will contribute an intensity, $I(CH_{3}OH)_{out} \sim
1.3\times 10^{-6}$ K km s$^{-1}$. To reproduce the observed intensity
(Figure \ref{IntI}), we require $3.2\times 10^{7}$ such outflows, or
290 outflows pc$^{-2}$. The surface density of outflows predicted
from a Salpeter IMF (M$_{u}=100$ M$_{\odot}$; M$_{l}=0.1$
M$_{\odot}$), a lifetime of 10$^{-4}$ yr and a SFR of 12 M$_{\odot}$
yr$^{-1}$ \citep[][]{MTBGTV10}, is 3.1 outflows pc$^{-2}$, two orders
of magnitude too low to explain the observed methanol emission. The
situation is even more untenable for HNCO \citep[][]{RTGB10}. Nor can
hot molecular cores, which are roughly as common as outflows but an
order of magnitude smaller in angular size, match the observed
abundances.
Therefore we conclude that only (large-scale) shocks are capable of
explaining the observed abundances and that CH$_{3}$OH provides a
mapping of those shocks across the galaxy. This agrees with what is
seen in local starburst galaxies \citep[][]{MT05,MT12}. Clearly the
CNZ is a site of strong dynamical shocks. That the CH$_{3}$OH peaks
off of the starburst could reflect shocks associated with the
intersection of the inner molecular arms with the CNZ, as is observed
in nearby bars \citep[][]{MT05,MT12}. It is also possible that the
weakness of CH$_{3}$OH at the starburst is due to depopulation of the
low lying energy states or to direct photo-dissociation.
Toward the end of both bar arms we tentatively ($\sim 4 \sigma$ in the
north and $\sim 3 \sigma$ in the south) detect CH$_{3}$OH emission.
CH$_{3}$OH abundances toward these locations are comparable to those
seen toward the CNZ. CH$_{3}$OH is similarly enhanced at the end of
nuclear bar of the nearby starburst Maffei 2, suggesting that the
structure of the (large-scale) bar here resembles the {\it nuclear}
bar in Maffei 2 \citep[][]{MT12}. Shocks have been proposed as a
deterrent to star formation along the arms, allowing gas to drift into
the nuclear starburst region \citep[][]{MTBGTV10}. CH$_{3}$OH
emission is not detected elsewhere in the inner bar arms, but limits
on its abundance ($< 1.8\times 10^{-8}$) are inconclusive. So the
observations do not rule out the existence of such strong shocks along
the inner arms.
The tentative detection of HNCO toward the nuclear disk permits a
limit to be placed on the
HNCO($5_{05}-4_{04}$)/CH$_{3}$OH($2_{k}-1_{k}$) line ratio. As
discussed in \citet[][]{MT12}, the HNCO/CH$_{3}$OH line ratio is
sensitive to the physical conditions present in the shocked gas. This
ratio is sensitive both to photodissociation and gas density. HNCO is
both more rapidly photodissociated \citep[e.g.,][]{MMV09} and the
observed transition has a slightly higher critical density than
CH$_{3}$OH. toward the nuclear disk HNCO/CH$_{3}$OH $\sim$ 0.25,
while toward the northern bar arm, HNCO/CH$_{3}$OH $<$ 0.20. These
ratios are small compared to those observed on small scales in the
moderate star formation rate nuclear bars, IC 342 and Maffei 2
\citep[0.9 - 1.1;][]{MT05,MT12}, but comparable to the limits in M 82
\citep[][]{MMM06,AMMMHOA11}. Hence the low HNCO/CH$_{3}$OH ratio
suggests that either densities are on average lower or shocked gas is
more strongly penetrated by UV radiation in the IRAS 04296\ CNZ than in the
nuclear bars of normal spiral galaxies. The brightness of the dense
gas tracers toward the CNZ argues against the former explanation and
the strong starburst favors the latter. However the latter is in some
tension with the modest implied PDR penetration ($\S$ \ref{pdr}).
Away from the starburst, at the end of the bar, lower gas density may
be the reason for the low HNCO/CH$_{3}$OH intensity ratio.
\subsection{IRAS 04296\ Nuclear Physical Conditions Compared to Nearby Starbursts \label{compare}}
Extensive recent work has focused on the dense gas properties of
nearby, strong starbursts \cite[e.g.,][]{HBM91, NJHTM92, SDR92,
KMVOSOIK01, APHC02, GS04, GGPC06, PAG07, INTOK07, KNGMCGE08,
BNSJWSVMW08, BHLBW08, GGPFU08, JNMSBKV09, BAMVM09,
JWG11,GUAGPCPA12}. Here we place the dense gas properties of
IRAS 04296\ in the context of these studies.
The CNZ intensity ratios, CO/HCN $\sim$ 7, HCN/HCO$^{+}$ $\sim$ 1.0,
HCN/HNC $\sim$ 1.3, and HCN/CN $\sim$ 2.0 fall well within the range
found for other luminous starburst galaxies. The CO/HCN ratio lies at
the low end of the range, and the HCN/CN ratio lies at the high end of
the range, while HCN/HCO$^{+}$ and HCN/HNC are more typical
\citep[e.g.,][]{BHLBW08}. The limit on the HC$_{3}$N/HCN line ratio
of 0.086 is very similar to the ratio found for NGC 253
\citep[e.g.,][]{LACPMM11,BHLBW08}. So either IRAS 04296\ does not have a
strongly enhanced very high density gas component or elevated
excitation moving population up out of these intermediate J level
HC$_{3}$N transitions plausibly explains the observed faintness of
this 3mm line \citep[][]{MHS90,MTS11,MT12}.
The dense gas line ratios observed toward IRAS 04296's starburst are similar
to those observed with single-dish telescopes toward the starburst in
NGC 253, except that the CO/HCN line ratio in IRAS 04296\ is $\sim$3 times
lower than NGC 253's single-dish value and the HCN/CN is a factor of
four larger \citep[e.g.,][]{BHLBW08}. However the CO/HCN line ratio
toward NGC 253 measured at the $\sim$3\arcsec\ approaches that of
IRAS 04296\ \citep[][]{KWWBRM07}. Therefore the higher single-dish CO/HCN
ratio in NGC 253 is likely an artifact of more diffuse gas being
included in the single-dish beam compared to IRAS 04296. The comparatively
faint CN indicates that the starburst ISM in IRAS 04296\ has not been
penetrated by PDRs to quite the degree of NGC 253.
The higher HCN/CN intensity and the higher dense gas fraction suggests
that the starburst in IRAS 04296\ is at an early stage of evolution.
\citet[][]{BLS10} generate simple decaying starburst models to track
the evolution of the dense component in a starburst. They use the
model to simultaneously predict the CO/HCN intensity ratio and
L$_{IR}$. IRAS 04296's CO/HCN and L$_{IR}$ place its burst at the earliest
phases ($\tau_{age} \le 5\times 10^{6}$ years.) This interpretation is
also consistent with the CO isotopologue data. \citet[][]{MTBGTV10}
have concluded that the starburst is not sustainable, a true burst,
based on the fact that the nuclear gas consumption time is much
shorter than the gas inflow rate along the bar, and that it must be a
young starburst since molecular mass constitutes $\sim 25-30\%$ of the
dynamical mass in the CNZ (Table \ref{GalT}) .
The morphological similarity between NGC 253 and IRAS 04296\ is strong.
Both are strongly barred spirals with starbursts triggered by
bar-driven inflow. The nuclear starbursts in both IRAS 04296\ and NGC~253
are close cousins, with IRAS 04296's burst being somewhat more intense, at
an earlier phase and residing in a possibly less processed disk.
\section{Conclusions \label{conc}}
We have imaged emission from lines of dense gas tracers at 3mm with
OVRO and CARMA toward the nearby LIRG, IRAS 0496+2923. The images have
3\arcsec\ to 4.5\arcsec\ spatial resolution, and cover the central
arcminute region ($\sim$ 8.4 kpc in diameter). We have combined these
data with archival OVRO CO data to study chemical effects of an
intense nuclear starburst, SFR $\sim 10~\rm M_\odot\, yr^{-1}$, on its
gas.
\begin{enumerate}
\item We confirm that IRAS 04296\ is one of the brightest molecular
line-emitting galaxies in the sky. We detect significant emission
in CO(1--0), $^{13}$CO(1--0), C$^{18}$O(1--0) HCN(1--0), HNC(1--0),
HCO$^+$(1--0), CN(1--0; 3/2--1/2), CN(1--0; 1/2--1/2), and
CH$_{3}$OH. Gas properties in IRAS 04296\ are similar to those in the
starburst galaxy NGC~253, although IRAS 04296\ is more gas-rich.
\item Emission from the dense gas tracers, HCO$^{+}$, HNC, and CN, is
primarily confined to the inner $R\sim$ 500 pc (5\arcsec)
circum-nuclear zone (CNZ), and requires densities of $n\gtrsim 2-10
\times 10^4~\rm cm^{-3}$ here. It is within this component that the
starburst is located. The CO/HCN ratio in IRAS 04296\ is $\sim 6-8$ for
the inner $R<500$~pc region, and $\ge 12$ in most locations within
the arms. This ratio traces the fraction of molecular gas that is
dense, indicating nearly a factor of two higher dense-gas fraction
in the nucleus as compared to the arms (though two locations in the
arms have CO/HCN ratios comparable to the nucleus).
\item The three CO isotopic lines, which trace less dense gas, are
detected across the central $R\sim 5-6$~kpc ($\sim 40$\arcsec)
diameter. \rth, the CO(1--0)/$^{13}$CO(1--0) line ratio, $= 16\pm
4$ in the CNZ ($R< 500$~pc) of IRAS 04296\ and falls to the very low value
of $1.9\pm0.4$ by the outer end of the bar. The higher-than-Galactic
\rth\ in the CNZ is consistent with observations of other actively
star-forming galaxies. $^{12}$CO(1--0)/C$^{18}$O(1--0), \ret\,,
follows the same pattern with \ret~$=45\pm10$ in the nuclear
starburst--CNZ and falling to $3.3\pm0.7$ toward the outer
disk. This trend is likely due to either lower opacities in CO due
to kinematics or to higher excitation temperature in the CNZ, which
removes molecules from the lowest CO rotational levels.
\item The intensity ratio $^{13}$CO(1--0)/C$^{18}$O(1--0) or \rthet
~is low, \rthet~$=3.2\pm0.8$, in the CNZ, and even lower in the
outer bar, with \rthet $\lesssim 2$. Interpretation of this
unprecedentedly low ratio in terms of very high CO opacities
conflicts with the high observed CO(1--0)/$^{13}$CO(1--0). We can
obtain barely consistent solutions for the CO isotopic ratios if we
adopt [CO]/[$^{13}$CO] $\sim$ 60 toward the nucleus of IRAS 04296,
increasing to 110 at the bar ends, and [CO]/[C$^{18}$O]$\sim$200 --
225. These values may indicate a relative lack of long term stellar
processing in IRAS 04296\ as compared to the Galaxy. For the implied
isotopic abundance ratios, optically thin C$^{18}$O(1--0) emission
predicts a nuclear conversion factor $\sim$0.5 times that of the
Galactic disk. The implied conversion factor in the bar arms are
approximately equal (or slightly larger) than in the Galactic disk,
consistent with that found in \citet[][]{MTBGTV10}.
\item The observed global value of $L_{IR}/L_{HCN}\simeq1300$
L$_{\odot}$ (K km s$^{-1}$ pc$^{2}$) obtained for IRAS 04296\ is nearly a
factor of 1.5 times the standard global value for the IR to HCN
luminosity ratio obtained by \citet{GS04}. Excluding the non-CNZ IR
luminosity, we obtain a value for the CNZ alone of $L_{IR}/L_{HCN}
\simeq 660$ L$_{\odot}$ (K km s$^{-1}$ pc$^{2}$) for IRAS 04296. From
this we estimate a star formation rate relation $\rm
SFR(M_\odot\,yr^{-1})=1.4\pm0.3 \times 10^{-7}~L_{HCN}$, similar
given the large systematic uncertainties, to that obtained by Gao \&
Solomon.
From LTE analysis we find that the CN abundance is $\sim$1.6 times the
abundance of HCN, if HCN is optically thin. If HCN is optically thick
then HCN can still be more abundant than CN. Based on the models of
\citet[][]{BS05} the HCN/CN column density ratio indicates that the
emission is coming from clouds at moderate depths of $A_v\sim 4$.
This corresponds to the transition between PDRs and dark clouds. So
the CNZ is moderately influenced by PDRs. The HCN/CN ratio decreases
radially from the starburst in the CNZ. This may suggest that
PDR-influenced gas extends well beyond the compact starburst coupled
with a drop in characteristic A$_{v}$.
\item Bright emission from the CH$_3$OH molecule indicates that grain
chemistry is important on large scales in IRAS 04296. We are unable to
reproduce the emission from models of collections of compact
sources, and conclude that only a widespread mechanism such as
shocks along spiral arms can explain the observed brightnesses of
these species. A tentative detection of CH$_3$OH at a
galactocentric radius of $>$2 kpc is presented. The CH$_{3}$OH
abundance in this region are comparable to those found in the CNZ.
\item All lines of evidence, including the unusual CO isotopologue
ratios and CO/HCN vs. $L_{IR}$, indicate that the starburst in
IRAS 04296\ is very young, which is consistent with previous suggestions
based on bar-fueling of the starburst \citep{MTBGTV10}.
\end{enumerate}
\acknowledgements
DSM acknowledges support from the NSF under grant AST-1009620. We
thank the anonymous referee for a thorough and helpful review. Support
for CARMA construction was derived from the states of California,
Illinois, and Maryland, the James S. McDonnell Foundation, the Gordon
and Betty Moore Foundation, the Kenneth T. and Eileen L. Norris
Foundation, the University of Chicago, the Associates of the
California Institute of Technology, and the National Science
Foundation. Ongoing CARMA development and operations are supported by
the National Science Foundation under a cooperative agreement, and by
the CARMA partner universities.
{\it Facilities:} \facility{CMA}, \facility{OVRO}
|
\chapter*{\centering Abstract}
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{Abstract}\mtcaddchapter
\fancyhead[RE]{\bfseries\nouppercase{Abstract}}
\fancyhead[LO]{\bfseries\nouppercase{Abstract}}
Since the end of the 1980’s, the development of self-driven autonomous vehicles is an intensive research area in most major industrial countries. Positive socio-economic potential impacts include a decrease of crashes, a reduction of travel times, energy efficiency improvements, and a reduced need of costly physical infrastructure. Some form of vehicle-to-vehicle and/or vehicle-to-infrastructure cooperation is required to ensure a safe and efficient global transportation system. This thesis deals with a particular form of cooperation by studying the problem of coordinating multiple mobile robots at an intersection area. Most of coordination systems proposed in previous work consist in planning a trajectory and to control the robots along the planned trajectory: that is the plan-as-program paradigm where planning is considered as a generative mechanism of action. The approach of the thesis is to plan priorities -- the relative order of robots to go through the intersection -- which is much weaker as many trajectories respect the same priorities. More precisely, priorities encode the homotopy classes of solutions to the coordination problem. Priority assignment is equivalent to the choice of some homotopy class to solve the coordination problem instead of a particular trajectory. Once priorities are assigned, robots are controlled through a control law preserving the assigned priorities, i.e., ensuring the described trajectory belongs to the chosen homotopy class. It results in a more robust coordination system – able to handle a large class of unexpected events in a reactive manner – particularly well adapted for an application to the coordination of autonomous vehicles at intersections where cars, public transport and pedestrians share the road.
\vspace{0.5cm}
\noindent\textbf{Keywords:} mobile robots, multi robot systems, motion planning, coordination space, priority graph, homotopy class, safety, robustness, hybrid architecture
\cleardoublepage
\fancyhead[RE]{\bfseries\nouppercase{\leftmark}}
\fancyhead[LO]{\bfseries\nouppercase{\rightmark}}
\chapter*{\centering Acknowledgment}
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{Acknowledgment}\mtcaddchapter
Special thanks to my thesis directors Arnaud de La Fortelle -- who hired me even though I criticized the city he lives in with his wife during the job interview -- and Silvère Bonnabel -- who supposedly accepted to work with me because we are both from Marseille. Discussions with you around drawings and equations have been dreamy.\\\\
Dreamy has also been the celebratory cocktail after my defense organized by the woman of my life, Mélodie, so many thanks for this, so many thanks as well for our intense and illuminating debates around perfomativity and for all your support and the fairy you have brought me all along the thesis.\\\\
Fairy has not necessarily been the exact thing that I have brought my officemates the past three years. You -- literally -- gave me reasons to think however that you have appreciated my coordinated smarties at their fair value. Vincent, Raoul, Amaury, Eva, Edgar, Tao Jin, Philippe, Fernando, Jean-François, Fabien, Sébastien, thanks a lot for your happiness, your savoir vivre, and our -- more or less -- deep discussions.\\\\
All my thanks also for the two incredible ski trips that I had with the lab. Thanks in particular to Vincent and Sylvain, ski and after-ski will be remembered. Thanks also to Arnaud, director of the lab as well as of my thesis, for accepting to come with us despite our insane cruelty and his defeat during snow battles.\\\\
I complained a few times for not having the right to go to the canteen of the Ministry of Research for administrative reasons. It allowed me however -- in addition to slightly enlarge by eating sandwiches instead of healthy meals -- to spend a very nice lunch time in the garden of the school all along the thesis. Thanks in particular to Raoul, Axel, Martin, Xiangjun, Victorin, Tony, Zhuowei, Jorge, Laure, Olivier, Victor, Martyna, Bruno.\\\\
I must also thank Christine and Christophe, who learned me how to deal with administrative stuff like a superhero.\\\\
Having a coffee break has been so nice, always different, and let's say surprising, thanks to the art of Thérèse in managing the cafeteria and connecting people.\\\\
So many thanks to my family for their support in my choice of doing research, and in particular to my mother~\cite{Gregoire1978} who inspired me doing research when I was just a kid, and to my father who constantly recalls me to work on what I love to do.\\\\
I also want to thank all the members of my thesis jury. It has been a pleasure that you have felt and shared my enthusiasm around my research work.\\\\
Many thanks also to newly arrived PhD students Xiangjun and Sébastien, for sharing this enthusiasm, discussing, continuing and going much ahead my research work.\\\\
So many thanks to my friends who took half a day off to listen to what I have loved to do the three past years and who transformed Mines ParisTech into the best cocktail bar in Paris ever just for the celebratory cocktail of my defense.\\\\
Finally, thanks to Mines ParisTech. After three years as an engineer student and three years as a PhD student, I need to cut the cord for some time. I believe you brought me as much knowledge, people, happiness, friendship and love as you could have.
\cleardoublepage
\thispagestyle{plain}
\par\vspace*{.35\textheight}{\centering \textit{To Mélodie and in honor of Fairy}\par}
\tableofcontents
\mainmatter
\chapter{Introduction}
\label{chap:intro}
\vspace{-1.2cm}
\includegraphics[height=1.0\linewidth,angle=-90,trim=160 60 160 60, clip]{wordle-chap-intro}\hfill
\minitoc
\section{Industrial motivation}
The last decades have seen a number of projects addressing the automation of vehicles. The California PATH AHS project (1988-2003) was interested in making progress in automated highway systems~\cite{Alvarez1997,Horowitz2000} with about 600 person-years of effort invested~\cite{Shladover2008}. The European CityMobil project, finalized in 2011, addressed the integration of automated transport systems in the urban environment~\cite{CityMobil2011,Dijke2011} and the cooperation is continuing through CityMobil2 started in September 2012 for 4 years and involving 45 partners from system suppliers, city authorities, the research community and networking organizations~\cite{CityMobil2-2012}. The European interactIVe project, finalized in 2012, focused more on advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) for collision avoidance by active intervention in intelligent vehicles~\cite{Etemad2013}. The DARPA challenge, a prize competition for American autonomous vehicles, funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, has also stimulated innovation and research in vehicles automation (see, e.g.,~\cite{Thrun2006}).
All these research projects are funded thanks to high expectations in terms of economic and social impacts. A recent report~\cite{Wallace2012}, jointly written by a consulting company together with an automotive research center, presents self-driving car as the next revolution in the automotive industry. Car automation is expected to decrease crashes, to reduce the need for physical costly infrastructures, to create new models of shared mobility, to reduce and anticipate travel times, to improve productivity, to improve energy efficiency: a combination of social and economic positive impacts. To the authors of the report, it is clear that such disruptive change in the automotive industry opens opportunities for new players and requires all companies of the sector to embrace innovation or to be left behind.
As autonomous vehicles are now starting to be deployed, cooperation among autonomous vehicles and also between autonomous and human-driven vehicles is necessary. This is the topic of the European project Autonet2030 \cite{Autonet2030}, just started in 2014. Many use cases require cooperation: lane change negotiation, overtaking, cooperative routing, or cooperative speed control. This thesis focuses on the coordination of autonomous vehicles at intersections. Two main goals motivate the research in this topic. The first one is to avoid crashes due to collisions that occur particularly at intersections and because of human error (the leading factor in most of road accidents~\cite{Treat1977,NCSA2004}). The second one is to enhance road traffic efficiency, given that intersections represent bottlenecks in the traffic network resulting in congestion, one of the major problems in today's metropolitan transportation networks. As the results provided in this thesis can be applied to multiple domains including self-driving cars, we will use the more generic term robot instead of vehicle. We consider the problem of coordinating a collection of cooperative mobile robots at an intersection area, that is a region of space with a high concentration of potential collisions. According to the taxonomy proposed in~\cite{Farinelli2004}, we propose to build a strongly coordinated multi robot control system aiming at ensuring safety and efficiency at intersection areas.
\section{Plan or react ?}
Since the 1980's, there is strong debate in the research community on the place of planning and reactive control in the design of autonomous robots~\cite{Elsaesser1994}. For a while, the dominant view in the Artificial Intelligence community was that all the intelligence of an autonomous robot lies in its planning capabilities. On the other hand, Brooks, with the introduction of Subsumption architecture~\cite{Brooks1986}, gave birth to a departure from the traditional planning approach, repudiating plans, convinced that intelligent autonomous robots can be designed through simple interconnected primitive reactive behaviors. Research work involving researchers from Robotics, Artificial Intelligence and Sociology, attempts to conciliate both camps by providing a new view on what planning is. Planning is proposedly considered as the generation of resources to guide action~\cite{Agre1990}, not as a generative mechanism of action. In the sequel, the three approaches introduced above are presented in more details and a literature review of the coordination of multiple robots is provided through the prism of the long-standing debate around the relative place of planning and reactive control.
\subsection{Planning as a generative mechanism of action}
\paragraph{The Sense-Model-Plan-Act paradigm} is the traditional approach of robot control in Artificial Intelligence with four components executed in a serial fashion~\cite{Medeiros1998}. The sensing system receives raw sensor input. The sensing data is turned into a world model by the modeling system. Provided a world model, the planner is in charge of computing a sequence of actions in order to achieve some goal: this step is time consuming and requires reasoning about the future. Finally, a low-level controller executes the plan. This traditional approach to planning, referred as plan-as-program~\cite{Agre1990}, considers planning as "a generative mechanism of action"~\cite{Suchman1986} as the planner dictates the actions to take in the future.
\paragraph{Reservation-based autonomous intersection management} One of the most known autonomous intersection management system, proposed by Dresner and Stone~\cite{Dresner2008-multiagent-approach,Dresner2004} (see a screen-shot of the simulator in Figure~\ref{fig:dresner-stone-aim}), espouses the plan-as-program paradigm.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{dresner-stone-aim}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{A screen-shot of the "Autonomous Intersection Management" simulator developed by the team of the Department of Computer Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin, USA.}
\label{fig:dresner-stone-aim}
\end{figure}
The system is based on requests sent by vehicles to a central agent in order to reserve space-time regions. Basically, a region of the space where lies the intersection is reserved for a given vehicle during a certain time interval. The central agent ensures that accepted reservations are compatible with each other. Safety is ensured as long as all vehicles respect the specification of their accepted requests, i.e., the specified starting time and velocity profile through the intersection. Hence, requests are the representation of the plan-as-program that robots must execute. The approach has been widely studied with several incremental improvements (see, e.g.,~\cite{Dresner2008-mitigating,Hausknecht2011,Au2011}). Variants of the approach have been developed by several authors. In particular,~\cite{AsisGarciaCollado2010,Mehani2007} introduce critical points in order to improve the precision of the reservation system without increasing its complexity. In~\cite{I.Zohdy2012}, environment variables are taken into account at the planning phase. Reference~\cite{JingmanFan2011} proves that a reservation request can be processed in constant time provided the velocity profiles of vehicles is fixed. Experiments with real vehicles (Cybercars~\cite{Cybercars2006}) using a very simple reservation system are presented in~\cite{Kolodko2003}.
\paragraph{Motion planning in the configuration space} In Robotics, motion planning using the configuration space approach also espouses the plan-as-program paradigm. Reference~\cite{Lozano-Perez1980} introduced the notion of configuration space in order to formalize the traditional motion planning problem. Basically, each dimension of the configuration space represents a degree of freedom, and there is an obstacle region in the configuration space which is the set of forbidden configurations for the robot, to model the presence of a static obstacle or some constraints due to the geometry of the robot (think of a robot with multiple arms). The traditional motion planning problem consists in finding a collision-free path in the configuration space from specified initial/goal configurations. A multi robot system can be considered as a generic robot whose configuration space is the Cartesian product of the configuration space of each robot~\cite{Barraquand1991,Schwartz1983}. The obstacle region then contains forbidden configurations of each robot, plus forbidden composite configurations to account for possible inter-robot collisions. In this framework, the multi robot motion planning problem consists in finding a collision-free path from a composite start configuration (the start configuration of all robots) to a composite goal configuration (the goal configuration of all robots). Many methods have been devised in order to find a path in a constrained configuration space. For a system of two robots, a shortest path algorithm using the concept of visibility graph is proposed in~\cite{Sheng2006}. In~\cite{Suh1988,Sutton1991}, the authors show how to use dynamic programming to solve motion planning problems. Sampling based methods have also demonstrated their efficiency when the number of degrees of freedom is reasonable. Partial motion planning (see, e.g.,~\cite{Petti2005-partial-motion-planning,Benenson2008}) samples the action space and chooses the control to apply considering only a finite horizon, guaranteeing a bounded computation time. Other sampling methods include probabilistic roadmaps~\cite{Kavraki1996,Kim2003}, which have been applied to multiple robot motion planning in, e.g.,~\cite{Svestka1995}. An improvement of the probabilistic roadmaps, particularly useful for nonholonomic robots is the Rapidly-Exploring Random Trees~\cite{LaValle1998-RRT} (an enhanced provably "optimal" version is proposed in~\cite{Karaman2010}). All the above methods do not scale with the number of robots. Finding a path in the composite configuration space is of high computational complexity and becomes unfeasible in practice for a large number of robots~\cite{Hopcroft1984}.
In~\cite{Kant1986}, a path-velocity decomposition allowing to reduce the problem's complexity is proposed. In this setting, each robot is assumed to move along a predefined path in its own configuration space and then the velocity profiles of the robots along their assigned paths are optimized. The configuration of each robot boils down to its curvilinear position on its path and the configuration space of the whole system is called the coordination space. It is a $n$-dimensional space where $n$ denotes the number of robots going through the intersection. To prevent collisions between robots, some configurations of the coordination space must be excluded: they constitute the so-called obstacle region. Such approaches based on the coordination space turn the coordination problem into the geometric problem of searching a collision-free path for a composite robot in a $n$-dimensional space where the obstacle region has a cylindrical shape~\cite{LaValle2006,Leroy1999} (see Figure~\ref{fig:guo-cylindrical-structure}).
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{guo-cylindrical-structure}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{The cylindrical obstacle region in the coordination space for the coordination of three robots and a collision-free path (courtesy of~\cite{Guo2002}).}
\label{fig:guo-cylindrical-structure}
\end{figure}
Even though some authors highlight some cases where the approach fails~\cite{Saha2006}, the approach has become standard in motion planning~\cite{Latombe1991,LaValle1996-optimal,Leroy1999,Lozano-Perez1980, Fraichard1989, Guo2002}. For two-robot systems, optimal solutions have been proposed~\cite{Shin1992,Bien1992,Chang1994}. Reference~\cite{Sharma2005} studies the time complexity of the coordination problem, defined as the completion time, i.e., the time for the last robot to reach its destination: lower and upper bounds are provided. The papers~\cite{Ghrist2005,Ghrist2006} study the problem of finding Pareto-optimal trajectories, i.e., each robot tries to optimize its own particular objective function. They propose to first discretize the coordination space, and then to take advantage of the cylindrical structure to turn the coordination space into a negatively curved discrete space. Uniqueness of locally Pareto-optimal trajectories in each homotopy class of trajectories appears then as a mere consequence of the uniqueness of geodesics linking two points in a hyperbolic space. However, enumerating all locally optima in each homotopy class to find a globally optimal trajectory is a problem of high combinatorial complexity, and the authors point out the solution proposed is of interest only with a few robots and a low degree of intersection. The complexity of searching a trajectory in the configuration space led researchers to develop the so-called prioritized motion planning method.
First introduced in~\cite{Erdmann1987}, prioritized motion planning avoids the complexity of searching a trajectory in the $n$-dimensional coordination space. Instead of directly searching a trajectory for the composite robot in the coordination space, it consists in planning the trajectory of each robot sequentially. Each robot is mapped to a real number called the priority of the robot, and the trajectory of each robot is planned, in order of decreasing priorities: robots for which motion has already been planned are considered as dynamic obstacles~\cite{VanDenBerg2005}. The approach has been widely and successfully utilized. The assignment of the priorities is key to the quality of the planned trajectory, e.g., with regards to the delay due to coordination. For $n$ robots, since priorities are sequential, there are $n!$ possible priority schedules. In~\cite{Bennewitz2001, Bennewitz2002}, a (randomized) search is proposed to optimize the prioritization scheme,~\cite{Regele2006} and~\cite{VanDenBerg2005} define simple heuristics for priority adjustment, and the heuristics of~\cite{Clark2002} dynamically updates the priorities of robots. Even if prioritized motion planning is not explicitly mentioned, the approach of~\cite{Dresner2008-multiagent-approach, Mehani2007} for autonomous intersection management also belongs to the family of prioritized motion planning, because the trajectory of robots are planned sequentially. In~\cite{Bekris2009}, a prioritized planning is implemented using a multiagent system approach and taking into account communication aspects.
In~\cite{Akella2002,Peng2003,Peng2005}, a collision-time formulation is proposed, it formulates the motion planning problem as a mixed linear programming (MILP) problem. Every robot is assumed to follow a path with a fixed velocity profile. Hence, the motion planning problem boils down to decide the starting time of each robot along the assigned trajectory (fixed path and velocity profile). The MILP formulation enables to solve the motion planning problem with efficient standard tools for MILP problems, so that as many as 20 robots can be coordinated, according to the authors.
\paragraph{On the difficulty of following instructions} As noticed in~\cite{Suchman1986}, the main weakness of the plan-as-program approach resides in the inherent "difficulty of following instructions" in the face of environmental uncertainty and unpredictability. It has rapidly become admitted in the Artificial Intelligence community that unpredictability makes open-loop plan execution inefficient and leads to undesired behaviors. Replanning through time to account for new information is an attempt to treat this issue (see, e.g.,~\cite{Bekris2007,Bekris2009} for dynamic replanning of a multi robot system). However, planning is a time consuming task and constantly replanning makes difficult to respect real time execution constraints. These difficulties are at the origin of a completely opposite approach. Instead of considering that intelligence lies in the planning phase, a community of researchers initiated by the seminal work of Brooks~\cite{Brooks1986} tried to design intelligent robots that do not rely on planning at all.
\subsection{Intelligence without planning}
\label{subsec:intelligence-without-planning}
\paragraph{Reactive and behavior-based robotics} In~\cite{Brooks1986}, Brooks proposed the foundation of what became behavior-based robotics. The main source of novelty is to abandon a centralized and centrally manipulated representation of the world~\cite{Mataric1999}. Instead, the robot control system is layered with several behaviors, each one achieving and/or maintaining a specified goal, e.g., "avoid-obstacles", "go-home". A behavior has either absolutely no world model and no internal state in which case the behavior is purely reactive mapping sensor data to actions, or it has its own minimal internal state maintained only in order to achieve its own goal. Behaviors are simple enough to run in real-time, they run in parallel and are layered so that the capability of the system increases as new behaviors are introduced. The intelligence of the autonomous system is not necessarily obvious when looking at every individual behavior. However, so-called emergent behaviors -- intelligence "in the eye of the beholder"~\cite{Werger1999} -- originate from the large amount of interactions between behaviors in the environment. The belief of the research community advocating for behavior-based design is that their approach can scale to higher level of complexity than many researchers of the plan-as-program school assume and result in more efficient and robust systems than through traditional planning~\cite{Werger1999}.
\paragraph{The "cocktail party" model} is a simple example of such a reactive approach to the coordination of multiple robots. In this setting proposed in~\cite{Lumelsky1997}, a robot can only sense the surrounding objects, it knows its current and its target position, it can distinguish between static obstacle and robots and can sense the instantaneous motion of other robots. A reactive coordination of robots is proposed with only these capabilities and without mutual communication. The authors claim the obtained system demonstrates good performance and a remarkable robustness. The idea of the proposed algorithm is based on maze-searching techniques. Robots follow the boundary of static obstacles. For moving obstacles (including other robots), a collision front is build considering the maximal motion of the moving obstacles. Then, as for static obstacles, the boundary of the collision front is followed, ensuring collision avoidance. The term "cocktail party" is justified by the analogy with the behavior of a guest willing to talk to someone in a crowded place, such as a cocktail party. The guest travels between tables, chairs and other guests, planning his/her motion "on the fly". In~\cite{Lumelsky1997}, only the translation of robots in the plane is considered and robots are assumed to be able to stop instantly. These assumptions are relaxed in~\cite{Pallottino2007} where nonholonomic constraints are considered.
\paragraph{On the difficulty of deadlock avoidance under reactive schemes}
As noticed in~\cite{Lumelsky1997,Pallottino2007}, deadlock avoidance is difficult to ensure in such a reactive control scheme. Reference~\cite{Lumelsky1997} provides an example itself drawn from a previous work~\cite{Schwartz1983} and depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:deadlock-example-schwartz}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{deadlock-example-schwartz}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{An example where planning is necessary to achieve a task. "In order for the circular robots $R_1$ and $R_2$ to reach their respective targets, their relative position need to be switched. The only way to do so is to move $R_2$ into one of the 'wedges' and then move $R_1$ through the other wedge. The task is clearly impossible unless the motion of both robots is closely coordinated in a centralized manner." (courtesy of~\cite{Schwartz1983})}
\label{fig:deadlock-example-schwartz}
\end{figure}
As noticed by Lumelsky, the task seems to be "impossible" unless some planning is carried out to coordinate the motion of robots (see comments in Figure~\ref{fig:deadlock-example-schwartz}). Reference~\cite{Coffman1971} proposes a general characterization of system deadlocks as a situation where the following conditions hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item tasks claim exclusive control of the resources they require ("mutual exclusion" condition);
\item tasks hold resources already allocated to them while waiting for additional resources ("wait for" condition);
\item resources cannot be forcibly removed from the tasks holding them until the resources are used to completion ("no preemption" condition);
\item a circular chain of tasks exists, such that each task holds one or more resources that are being requested by the next task in the chain ("circular wait" condition).
\end{itemize}
To illustrate the notion, the authors give an example of traffic deadlock (see Figure~\ref{fig:traffic-deadlock}). As noticed by the authors, in this example, resources are the space occupied by cars. The "mutual exclusion" condition holds as two cars cannot occupy the same region without colliding. The "wait for" condition also holds as cars need to move forward (to get the next the space region) before releasing the current space region. The "no preemption" condition holds as cars cannot disappear from the real space, and finally the "circular wait" condition is clearly visible in Figure~\ref{fig:traffic-deadlock}.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{traffic-deadlock}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{An example of traffic deadlock with a circular chain of vehicles blocking each other (courtesy of~\cite{Coffman1971})}
\label{fig:traffic-deadlock}
\end{figure}
Later work refined the notion of deadlock in resource allocation systems and studied the complexity of deadlock avoidance/resolution (see, e.g.,~\cite{Araki1977,Lawley2001} and~\cite{Reveliotis2010,Reveliotis2011,Roszkowska2008} for a specific study focused on multiple robot systems).
The deadlock avoidance problem mirrors the inability (by design) of reactive systems to carry out look-ahead to make better choices to accomplish actions. In the late 1980's, a research movement initiated by Agre and Chapman attempted to reconcile the camp of plan-as-program with the school of reactive control by asking the question: "what are plans for ?"~\cite{Agre1990}.
\subsection{Plan as a resource to guide action}
\paragraph{Plans should be used to guide, not control, action}
First of all, inspired by previous work of social scientists (see references therein~\cite{Agre1990}), Agre and Chapman proposed to retire the term "plan execution" advocated by the plan-as-program camp, considered as "prejudicial", and to use a more neutral term: "using a plan". They noticed that this terminology consideration raises new questions. First, "what can one do with a plan besides executing it ?". Second, if plan users are able to use plans sensibly rather than simply executing them, what are the implications on the representation of plans (how a plan looks like) and on the generation of plans (how to devise a plan easy to use in a sensible way by plan users ?). Conceptually, they propose to consider planning as the devising of resources to guide action. Plans are not executed but they are interpreted. Plans are a resource among others to decide the action to execute. Planning tasks are executed in parallel and asynchronously in order to retain a reactive quality. Plans are here to let the system be more goal-directed, to enhance performance, not to dictate action.
\paragraph{Gradient fields as a guide to action}
As first noticed in~\cite{Payton1990}, gradient fields are an example of the new kind of plan -- a resource to guide action -- proposed in~\cite{Agre1990}.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{gradient-field-payton}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{A gradient field to guide a mobile robot. The mission of the robot is to get from its current location to the "final goal" location, bypassing a gully and avoiding a large rock. Moreover, along the maneuver, the robot needs to maintain communication with a remote radio tower. To this purpose, the "shadow" of the rock should also be avoided (courtesy of~\cite{Payton1990}).}
\label{fig:gradient-field-payton}
\end{figure}
As depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:gradient-field-payton}, there is no explicit "traditional" plan. This plan can, instead, be interpreted as: "follow the arrows to reach the goal". Such plan is much more flexible than a traditional plan-as-program: at any point of time, a robot may decide not to follow the arrows for some reason (the sensors of the robot suddenly detect an obstacle that seems have not been detected at the moment of the gradient field computation). Nevertheless, the robot can still use the gradient field in the future no matter where it is currently located. In many scenarios, the robot will reach the goal without replanning, i.e., without a new time consuming computation of the vector field. Vector fields approaches for single robot (see, e.g.,~\cite{Rimon1992}) have been adapted for the coordination of holonomic robots in~\cite{Loizou2002}. In~\cite{Dimarogonas2006} a totally distributed version is proposed, the approach of~\cite{Dimarogonas2004} also applies to nonholonomic robots, and in~\cite{Pereira2003} sensing and communication constraints are taken into account.
\paragraph{Traffic signals as a guide to action}
Traffic signals are an effective way to coordinate competing traffic flows at intersections. To this purpose, they alternate the right of way of users (cars, buses, pedestrians).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{phases}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{A typical set of feasible phases at a junction.}
\label{fig:phases}
\end{figure}
A particular set of feasible simultaneous rights of way, called a phase, is decided for a certain period of time~\cite{Papageorgiou2003} (see Figure~\ref{fig:phases}). In an intersection ruled by a traffic signal, the traffic signal does not dictate actions to users. A pedestrian is not obliged to cross the road even if he/she is given the right of way. Vehicles are invited to cross the intersection when they have the right of way. However, they do not have to follow a precise assigned velocity profile, and if some unexpected event occurs like a pedestrian crossing the road without the right of way, the vehicle should stop as it is much more important to avoid pedestrians than to cross the intersection rapidly. Hence, traffic signals are a good example of a planning process that consists in providing resources to guide actions. Without such a resource, it would be difficult for vehicles to coordinate. Rules can also be decided in advance or be displayed using traffic signs, and again, they constitute the resources to guide action just like the traffic signal, and the design of rules can be considered as a planning process.
A valuable property of traffic signals compared to static rules is that the traffic signal can be controlled in order to enhance efficiency. Controlling a traffic light consists in designing rules to decide which phase to apply over time. It is interesting to see that just like any planning process, traffic signal optimization is a complex time consuming task. Pre-timed policies activate phases according to a time-periodic pre-defined schedule. There is much previous work on designing optimal pre-timed policies, e.g.,~\cite{Miller1963}. However, such policies are not efficient under changing arrival rates which require adaptive control. Most used adaptive traffic signal control systems include SCOOT~\cite{Hunt1982}, SCATS~\cite{Lowrie1990}, PRODYN~\cite{Henry1984}, RHODES~\cite{Mirchandani2001}, OPAC~\cite{Gartner1983} or TUC~\cite{Diakaki2002}. These systems update some control variables of a configurable pre-timed policy on middle term, based on traffic measures, and apply it on short term. Control variables may include phases, splits, cycle times and offsets~\cite{Papageorgiou2003}. Such algorithms may differ in the way optimization is carried out (e.g., mixed-integer linear programming~\cite{Gartner1975}, dynamic programming, exhaustive enumeration) and in the modeling approach (e.g., queuing network model~\cite{Osorio2009-analytic-finite-capacity,Osorio2009-surrogate-model}, cell transmission model~\cite{Lo2001}, store-and-forward~\cite{Aboudolas2009}, petri nets~\cite{DiFebbraro2002}). Many major cities currently employ these systems which proved to be able to yield various benefits, including travel time and fuel consumption reduction, as well as safety improvements~\cite{Shepherd1992}. More recently, based on the seminal paper~\cite{Tassiulas1992}, feedback controls have been proposed both in the case of deterministic arrivals~\cite{Varaiya2013}, or stochastic arrivals~\cite{Varaiya2009, Wongpiromsarn2012,Le2013}. Time is slotted and at every time slot, a feedback controller decides the phase to apply based on current queue lengths estimation. This requires real-time queue length measures, but it enables to be much more reactive than other traffic controllers and to have stability guarantees. Reference~\cite{Tassiulas1992} introduced the so-called back-pressure control which computes the control to apply based on queue lengths, and can achieve provably maximum stability. This algorithm was originally applied to wireless communication networks~\cite{Neely2005}, and some effort has been required to apply the approach in the context of a network of intersections~\cite{Varaiya2009, Wongpiromsarn2012,Gregoire2013-capacity,Gregoire2014-unknown-routing}. A key feature of this algorithm is that it can be completely distributed over intersections, in the sense that it can be implemented by running an algorithm of complexity $\mathcal{O}(1)$, requiring only local information, at each intersection.
\section{Contributions}
In this thesis, we advocate for the use of planning as the devising of resources to guide action. Such approach is more than designing a system with both planning and reactive abilities. It requires rethinking what a plan for our system is. In~\cite{Dresner2004}, a plan is a set of granted reservation requests (composed of the starting time and the velocity profile), that vehicles must execute. In~\cite{VanDenBerg2005}, the plan is simply the trajectory for each robot in the configuration space. A recent work~\cite{Kowshik2011} attempted to devise a coordination system for vehicles at intersections allowing some "freedom of action to cars" yet ensuring safety. Hence, the motivation is clearly to have a coordination with both planning and reactive abilities. However, the plan has quite the same representation as in traditional reservation-based systems. We believe that thinking plans as a resource to guide action should lead to a new representation of plans that should differ from traditional systems espousing the plan-as-program paradigm. What kind of plan to guide action can be designed for a multi robot system ?
The main contribution of this thesis is to propose a novel tool in multi robot motion planning: the priority graph. Roughly speaking, priorities describe a high-level coordination strategy: the relative order of robots. More precisely, they uniquely encode the homotopy classes of solutions to the multi robot coordination problem. This powerful theoretical tool is actionable to design a low complexity and robust priority-based coordination system. The planning process consists in assigning priorities. Under assigned priorities, robots can safely travel through the intersection in a reactive way provided all robots respect the assigned priorities. As planning priorities does not dictate a precise trajectory for robots through the intersection, but only provides useful concise resources for safe and efficient coordination, the system demonstrates valuable robustness properties in the face of environmental uncertainty and unpredictability. The thesis is organized as follows.
The first part presents the geometrical foundation of the priority-based approach using the standard coordination space framework. Priorities are formally defined and assigning priorities is provably equivalent to constrain the trajectory of robots to remain in a homotopy class of collision-free trajectories continuously deformable into each other. Assigning priorities does not plan a particular trajectory that robots must execute, yet it plans a higher-level coordination strategy describing the relative order of robots through the intersection: the priority graph. The priority graph can be considered as a unique meaningful representative of a homotopy class of trajectories. Planning priorities is a task of high combinatorial complexity as the set of possible priorities grows exponentially with the number of robots. The most important feature that the priority assignment policy must demonstrate is that the assigned priorities are feasible, i.e., that robots respecting the assigned priorities will eventually go through the intersection. Roughly speaking, the assigned priorities should encode a "non empty homotopy class" of solutions to the coordination problem. Interestingly, given assigned priorities, there are two exclusive options: either the assigned priorities will inevitably lead robots to a deadlock configuration where a circular chain of robots block each other; or the assigned priorities are feasible and robots will provably never reach a deadlock configuration provided priorities are respected. As a consequence, deadlock avoidance can be completely solved at the priority assignment level. It is a valuable property motivating the use of priorities as a coordination resource to guide robots through the intersection as deadlock avoidance is difficult to guarantee in a reactive manner.
In contrast with the first part which has a quite mathematical -- more precisely, geometrical -- flavor with little care about control issues, the second part shows how to use priorities to guide robots through the intersection with control laws configured by the priority graph and ensuring priority preservation. Most importantly, under assigned priorities, for each pair of robots, there is not two but only one strategy to avoid collisions: the robot with lower priority must decelerate in favor of the robot with higher priority. As a consequence, the combinatorial complexity of multi robot control~\cite{Colombo2012} is avoided, and priority preserving control is of polynomial complexity, thus allowing real-time implementation. Moreover, the proposed control law demonstrates a quite novel robustness property in the presence of inertia. Robots may indeed safely brake at any point of time without violating priorities, in particular without colliding, which is referred as brake safety. This can be useful to handle unexpected events requiring braking like a pedestrian crossing the road. It is a quite novel property with regards to previous work as the standard plan-as-program approach constrains robots to track precisely a planned reference trajectory and thus does not allow a robot to brake if necessary to handle some unexpected event. Finally, the control scheme proposed in Chapter~\ref{chap:control-acceleration} and~\ref{chap:control-uncertainty} is decentralized. Each robot can compute the output of the control law independently without agreement with other robots through communication links. This benefit results from the prior agreement on the priority graph carried out at the planning level and requiring of course some form of communication.
The final part of the thesis proposes a priority-based coordination system adopting a three-layer control architecture. It has a more engineering flavor, specifying how priorities can be assigned dynamically as new robots arrive at the intersection and how to integrate priority preserving control proposed in the second part. A central agent, the intersection controller, constitutes the deliberative layer and assigns priorities. Robots implement several behaviors executed in parallel each one achieving/maintaining a specified goal, they constitute the reactive behavior-based layer. Behaviors include path following, moving forward, not entering the intersection before being accepted by the intersection controller, avoiding pedestrians, and of course respecting priorities which implements the priority preserving control law proposed in the second part of the thesis. Robots communicate asynchronously with the intersection controller through the sequencing layer to request the right of way and be assigned assigned priorities. The sequencing layer interfaces with the behavior-based layer by activating/deactivating/configuring behaviors. The behavior-based layer takes full benefit of the brake safety property. Some behavior, e.g., the behavior ensuring pedestrian avoidance, may indeed require a robot to brake at any point of time with the guarantee that it will not result in a priority violation. Therefore, the coordination system demonstrates significant robustness as it can handle a large class of unexpected events -- all events requiring braking -- without changing priorities, i.e., without replanning. Priority-based coordination combines the efficiency of traditional planning approaches as complex scheduling can be encoded by the priority graph -- much more complex scheduling than using traffic signals -- as well as the ability to handle a large class of unexpected events in a reactive manner.
\part{Priorities: definition and properties}
\label{part:priority-framework}
\chapter*{Introduction}
The present part constitutes the geometrical foundation of the priority-based approach proposed in this thesis. Priorities at road intersections are a well known concept aiming at organizing traffic. Signs, signals, markings are used to inform the users about who has the right to go first, or equivalently who has "priority"~\cite{wiki:traffic}. Convinced that the coordination space approach~\cite{ODonnell1989} is a convenient mathematical formulation of the coordination problem, we propose here a formal definition of priorities as a new concept in the coordination space. In the coordination space approach, a multi robot system composed of $n$ robots traveling along fixed paths is considered as a composite robot evolving in a $n$-dimensional space called the coordination space~\cite{ODonnell1989,LaValle2006}. Potential inter-robot collisions requires the composite robot to avoid an obstacle region in the coordination space. The obstacle region has a cylindrical structure (see Figure~\ref{fig:guo-cylindrical-structure}). In traditional motion planning, the coordination problem is reduced to finding a feasible path in the coordination space (see the collision-free path in Figure~\ref{fig:guo-cylindrical-structure}). It looks like the notion of priorities is completely lost. In this part, we provide theoretical tools in the coordination space in order to endow the coordination space approach with a concept of priority. The idea is that a collision-free path in the coordination space necessarily lies on one side or on the other side with respect to each collision cylinder. Deciding on which side to pass with respect to each collision cylinder is equivalent to deciding the relative order of robots to go through the intersection and constitutes the discrete part of the coordination problem that we refer as priority assignment. Respecting assigned priorities does not require robots to follow a precise path in the coordination space as many collision-free paths respect the same priorities, or equivalently, lie on the same side with respect to collision cylinders. Hence, it is possible to assign priorities, yet retaining some individual freedom of action to robots. More precisely, the result of this part enable to go one step ahead in the understanding of the structure of the solutions to the coordination problem. Previous work noticed the existence of homotopy classes of feasible paths in the coordination space~\cite{Ghrist2005}, and this part demonstrates that priorities are a unique meaningful representative of homotopy classes -- they uniquely encode homotopy classes.
\paragraph{Sketch of the part} Chapter~\ref{chap:priority-graph} starts by exposing the coordination space approach, introducing assumptions and notations. Priorities are defined as a binary relation between robots induced by a collision-free path in the coordination space. As the coordination space is thus endowed with a priority concept, Chapter~\ref{chap:priorities-homotopy} studies the structure of the coordination space under assigned priorities. It is proved that all paths respecting the same priorities are continuously deformable into each other, forming a homotopy class. Finally, the deadlock avoidance problem is shown to be solved by assigning so-called feasible priorities which are characterized. This part motivates the use of priorities as a plan to guide robots through the intersection.
{\pagestyle{plain}
\clearpage
\topskip0pt
\vspace*{\fill}
\includegraphics[height=1.0\linewidth,angle=-90,trim=160 60 160 60, clip]{wordle-chap-priority}
\vspace*{\fill}
\parttoc}
\chapter[Priorities: a geometric concept in the coordination space]{Priorities: a geometric concept\\ in the coordination space}
\label{chap:priority-graph}
\minitoc
\paragraph{Sketch of the chapter} Section~\ref{sec:coordination-space} is quite expository, it recalls the basics of the coordination space approach providing the main assumptions and notations. Section~\ref{sec:priority-relation} endows the coordination space approach with a priority concept, defining the priority relation as well as the priority graph induced by a feasible path in the coordination space.
\section{The coordination space approach}
\label{sec:coordination-space}
Consider the problem of coordinating the motion of a collection of robots $\mathcal{R}$ in a two-dimensional space. Every robot $i\in\mathcal{R}$ follows a particular path $\gamma_i \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ and we let $x_i \in \mathbb{R}$ denote its curvilinear coordinate along the path (see Figure~\ref{fig-paths}).
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{paths}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{The fixed paths assumption. Every robot travels along an assigned path.}
\label{fig-paths}
\end{figure}
$x:=(x_i)_{i\in\mathcal{R}}$ indicates the configuration of all robots; $x\in \chi:=\mathbb{R}^n$ where $n$ denotes the number of robots going through the intersection. The configuration space $\chi$ is known as the coordination space, first introduced in~\cite{ODonnell1989} and which has become a standard tool~\cite{LaValle2006}. This approach is often referred as path-velocity decomposition. It reduces the problem's complexity as each robot has now only one degree of freedom. For an application to autonomous vehicles at road intersections, this additional constraint seems particularly well adapted as the road network is strongly spatially organized (roads and lanes with markings). In the rest of the manuscript, $\{\mathbf{e}_i\}_{1\le i\le n}$ denotes the canonical basis of $\chi$. Given a subset $A$ of the topological space $\chi$, $\partial A$ refers to the boundary of $A$. We define the Minkowski sum as follows:
\begin{equation}
\forall x^0\in\chi, \forall A\subset\chi,~x^0+A=\left\{x^0+x:x\in A\right\}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\forall A,B\subset\chi,~A+B=\{x+y:x\in A,y\in B\}
\end{equation}
We will use the topology of infinity norm on $\chi \equiv \mathbb{R}^n$, so the parallelepiped $x^0+(-r,r)^n$ is the open ball of radius $r>0$ centered in $x^0\in\chi$.
Some configurations must be excluded to avoid collisions between robots (see Figure~\ref{fig-collision-region}). The obstacle region $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}\subset\chi$ is the open set of all collision configurations. Let $\kappa_{ij}\subset \mathbb{R}^2$ denote the set of configurations $x$ where $i$ and $j$ collide. Let $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij} \subset\chi$ denote the set of (global) configurations $x$ where $i$ and $j$ collide, we have:
\begin{equation}
\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}:=\left\{x\in\chi: (x_i,x_j)\in\kappa_{ij}\right\}
\end{equation}
We obviously take $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ii}:=\emptyset$.
\begin{definition}[Obstacle region, Obstacle-free region]
The obstacle region is the set $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}\subset\chi$ of configurations where a collision occurs for some $i,j\in\mathcal{R}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\chi^{\mathrm{obs}} := \cup_{\{i,j\}} \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}
\end{equation}
$\chi^{\mathrm{free}}:=\chi\setminus \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}$ denotes the obstacle-free space.
\end{definition}
By construction, $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}$ is a cylinder (based on the plane generated by $\mathbf{e}_i$ and $\mathbf{e}_j$), and the obstacle region merely appears as the union of $n(n-1)/2$ cylinders~\cite{LaValle2006} corresponding to as many collision pairs. Every cylinder $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}$ is assumed to have an open bounded convex cross-section, i.e., $\kappa_{ij}$ is open and bounded. The boundedness condition on $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}$ is rather technical but ensures the whole intersection lies in a bounded region. In particular, it implies that there exists a lower bound $\underline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}$ and an upper bound $\overline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}$ satisfying:
\begin{equation}
\forall i,j\in\mathcal{R},\forall x\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij},~\underline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}_i < x_i < \overline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}_i\text{ and } \underline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}_j < x_j < \overline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}_j
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{collision}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{The left drawing depicts two paths with two robots in collision in the current configuration. The right drawing shows the obstacle region $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}$ associated to the two paths (more precisely its cross-section along the plane generated by $\mathbf{e}_i$ and $\mathbf{e}_j$) and the collision configuration ${x\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}}$ corresponding to the collision of the left drawing.}
\label{fig-collision-region}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=0.35\linewidth]{3-paths-no-deadlock}}\hfill
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{collision-region-3D}}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{The right drawing shows the cylindrical structure of the obstacle region for the three-robot system of the left drawing. Each cylinder accounts for the possible collisions between each couple of robots. The right drawing of Figure~\ref{fig-collision-region} depicts the base of such cylinders.}
\label{fig:collision-region-3D}
\end{figure}
A continuous application $\path:[0,1]\to\chi$ will be called a path and we let $\im{\path}$ denote the set of values taken by $\path$:
\begin{equation}
\im{\path}:=\left\{\path(t):t\in[0,1]\right\}
\end{equation}
A partial order $\leq$ for configurations is defined as the product order of $\mathbb{R}^n$:
\begin{equation}
\forall x,y\in\chi, x\leq y\text{ if } \forall i\in\mathcal{R}, x_i \leq y_i\\
\end{equation}
\begin{definition}[Feasible path]
A feasible path is a non-decreasing collision-free path $\path:[0,1]\to\chi^{\mathrm{free}}$ requiring no coordination beyond its endpoints, i.e., a path satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $\path$ is non-decreasing:
\begin{equation}
\forall t^1,t^2\in[0,1],~ t^1\leq t^2 \Rightarrow \path(t^1)\leq \path(t^2)
\end{equation}
\item $\path$ is collision-free:
\begin{equation}
\im{\path} \subset \chi^{\mathrm{free}}
\end{equation}
\item No coordination is required beyond its start point:
\begin{equation}
\left(\path(0)-\mathbb{R}_+^n\right) \subset \chi^{\mathrm{free}}
\end{equation}
\item No coordination is required beyond its endpoint:
\begin{equation}
\left(\path(1)+\mathbb{R}_+^n\right) \subset \chi^{\mathrm{free}}
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
We let $\Phi(\chi^{\mathrm{free}})$ denote the set of feasible paths. Note that the two last conditions hold in particular for $\path(0)\equiv\underline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}$ and $\path(1)\equiv\overline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}$. The conditions of the above definition are more flexible and do not fix the endpoints. More importantly, we will only consider as feasible motions where robots never move backwards in the intersection area. It is a standard assumption as neither efficiency nor safety can be expected from robots moving backwards at an intersection area.
More generally, given a subset $C\subset\chi$, we let $\Phi(C)$ denote the set of non-decreasing paths satisfying $\im{\path}\subset C$, $(\path(0)-\mathbb{R}_+^n)\subset C$ and $(\path(1)+\mathbb{R}_+^n)\subset C$. This notation is coherent with the definition of $\Phi(\chi^{\mathrm{free}})$ as the set of feasible paths. Using this notation, $\Phi(\chi)$ merely refers to the set of non-decreasing paths as the additional conditions obviously hold for $C\equiv \chi$. In the following, we provide three examples where the obstacle region can be computed analytically.
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{example-collision-circle-shaped}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{The obstacle region for two circle-shaped robots along straight perpendicular paths.}
\label{fig-example-collision-circle-shaped}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{example-collision-rectangular-shaped}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{The obstacle region for two rectangular robots along straight perpendicular paths.}
\label{fig-example-collision-rectangular-shaped}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{example-car-following}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{The obstacle region for two robots that follow each other.}
\label{fig-example-car-following}
\end{figure}
\begin{example}[Two straight paths with circle-shaped robots]
Consider two circle-shaped robots of diameter $D$ moving along straight and perpendicular paths. Assume that the curvilinear coordinate of each robot is $0$ when the center of the robot is exactly at the paths intersection point. Then, the distance between the centers of robots is $d=x_i^2+x_j^2$. As the diameter of robots is $D$, the configuration $(x_i,x_j)$ is collision-free if and only if $d \geq D$, i.e., $x_i^2+x_j^2 \geq D$. As a result, the obstacle region is $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}} = \left\{x\in\chi: x_i^2+x_j^2 < D\right\}$ as depicted in Figure~\ref{fig-example-collision-circle-shaped}.
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Two perpendicular paths with rectangular robots]
Consider two rectangular robots $i,j$ of lengths $L_i,L_j$ and widths $l_i,l_j$ along straight perpendicular paths. In the real space, there is a rectangular region of area $l_i \times l_j$ that can be occupied by only one robot, exclusively (see the red box in the left drawing of Figure~\ref{fig-example-collision-rectangular-shaped}). When a robot is at the the entry of this region (robot $i$ in the left drawing of Figure~\ref{fig-example-collision-rectangular-shaped}), it needs to travel the length of the region plus its own length in order to exit this region (robot $i$ needs to travel distance $l_j+L_i$ in order to exit this region). It follows that in the coordination space, the obstacle region is a rectangular region of length $l_j+L_i$ along axis $i$ and $l_i+L_j$ along axis $j$ (see the right drawing of Figure~\ref{fig-example-collision-rectangular-shaped}).
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Two robots along the same straight path]
Finally, consider two robots of length $L$ traveling along the same straight paths as depicted in Figure~\ref{fig-example-car-following} and assume that the same origin is used for the curvilinear coordinate of both robots. There are two options: either robot $i$ follows robot $j$ and collision avoidance requires $x_j\geq x_i+L$, or robot $j$ follows robot $i$ and collision avoidance requires $x_i \geq x_j+L$. Hence, the collision avoidance requirement including both cases is: $\vert x_i-x_j\vert \geq L$, and the obstacle region should be the band $\left\{ x\in\chi: \vert x_i-x_j\vert < L\right\}$. However, we do not aim to model the collisions in an infinite spatial region. Hence, the band is truncated as depicted in Figure~\ref{fig-example-car-following}.
\end{example}
\section{The priority relation}
\label{sec:priority-relation}
\subsection{The completed obstacle region}
This subsection shows that the intuitive notion of "assigning priorities" is equivalent to a completion of the obstacle region. It is indeed equivalent to consider as forbidden configurations both collision configurations and configurations that do not respect the assigned priorities, resulting in a completed obstacle region.
Let $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j} $ and $\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i \succ j}$ denote the subsets of $\chi$ defined below:
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j} &:= &\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij} - \mathbb{R}_+ \mathbf{e}_i + \mathbb{R}_+ \mathbf{e}_j
\label{eq-fixed-priority-collision-cylinder}\\
\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i \succ j}&:=&\chi \setminus \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{fixed-priority-obstacle-region}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{Projection of the completed collision cylinders $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$ and $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}$.}
\label{fig-fixed-priority-obstacle-region}
\end{figure}
We also define $\kappa_{i\succ j}\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
\kappa_{i\succ j}:=\kappa_{ij} + \mathbb{R}_-\times\mathbb{R}_+
\end{equation}
which is the cross-section of $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}=\left\{ x\in\chi: (x_i,x_j)\in\kappa_{i\succ j} \right\}
\end{equation}
Figure~\ref{fig-fixed-priority-obstacle-region} displays the sets $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$ and $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j \succ i}$. The rationale behind the definition of these sets is that as a feasible path is non-decreasing, it necessarily lies below or above each collision cylinder as depicted in Figure~\ref{fig-fixed-priority-obstacle-region}. This reflects the intuitive notion of priority at intersections. Deciding on which side to pass with respect to each collision cylinder is equivalent to deciding the relative order of robots to go through the intersection. In the sequel, we are going to prove that the definition of the sets $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$ enables to define rigorously the so-called priority relation induced by a feasible path. We start with some geometric properties that will be used in the proofs of the presented results.
\begin{property}[Geometric invariances of $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$ and $\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}$ illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:fixed-priority-obstacle-region-geometric-invariance}] For all $i,j\in\mathcal{R}$, the following identities hold:
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}-\mathbb{R}_+\mathbf{e}_i+\mathbb{R}_+\mathbf{e}_j &=& \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i \succ j}\label{eq:geometric-invariance-obstacle}\\
\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}+\mathbb{R}_+\mathbf{e}_i-\mathbb{R}_+\mathbf{e}_j &=& \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i \succ j}\label{eq:geometric-invariance-collision-free}
\end{eqnarray}
\label{property:geometric-invariance}
\end{property}
\begin{property}[Invariance through $\min$ and $\max$ operators illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:fixed-priority-obstacle-region-geometric-invariance}]
\label{property:min-max}
Given $x,y\in\chi$, for all $i,j\in\mathcal{R}$, the following implications hold:
\begin{eqnarray}
x,y\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j} &\Rightarrow& \max\{x,y\} \in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j} \label{eq:property-max}\\
x,y\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j} &\Rightarrow& \min\{x,y\} \in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}\label{eq:property-min}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{property}
\begin{property}[Illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:property-union-fixed-priority-cylinder}]
For all $i,j\in\mathcal{R}$ and $y\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}$, we have:
\begin{equation}
\left\{x\in\chi: x_i=y_i\right\} \subset \left( \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j} \cup \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i} \right)
\end{equation}
\label{property-union-fixed-priority-cylinder-1}
\end{property}
\begin{property}[Illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:property-union-fixed-priority-cylinder}]
For all $i,j\in\mathcal{R}$, given $x^1\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}$ and $x^2\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$, we have:
\begin{equation}
\left\{x\in\chi: x^1_i\leq x_i\leq x^2_i \right\} \subset \left(\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}\cup \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}\right)
\end{equation}
\label{property-union-fixed-priority-cylinder-2}
\end{property}
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fixed-priority-obstacle-region-geometric-invariance}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration of Properties~\ref{property:geometric-invariance} and~\ref{property:min-max}.}
\label{fig:fixed-priority-obstacle-region-geometric-invariance}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{property-union-fixed-priority-cylinder}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration of Properties~\ref{property-union-fixed-priority-cylinder-1} and~\ref{property-union-fixed-priority-cylinder-2}.}
\label{fig:property-union-fixed-priority-cylinder}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Property~\ref{property:geometric-invariance}]
Take $i,j\in\mathcal{R}$. By simple manipulations,
\begin{multline}
\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}-\mathbb{R}_+\mathbf{e}_i+\mathbb{R}_+\mathbf{e}_j =
(\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}-\mathbb{R}_+\mathbf{e}_i+\mathbb{R}_+\mathbf{e}_j)-\mathbb{R}_+\mathbf{e}_i+\mathbb{R}_+\mathbf{e}_j=\\
\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}-(\mathbb{R}_+ +\mathbb{R}_+)\mathbf{e}_i+(\mathbb{R}_+ +\mathbb{R}_+)\mathbf{e}_j=
\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}-\mathbb{R}_+\mathbf{e}_i+\mathbb{R}_+\mathbf{e}_j = \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}
\end{multline}
We have obtained~\eqref{eq:geometric-invariance-obstacle}. Moreover, using the latter result, we have:
\begin{equation}
x\in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j} \Leftrightarrow x\notin \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j} \Leftrightarrow
x\notin \left( \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}-\mathbb{R}_+\mathbf{e}_i+\mathbb{R}_+\mathbf{e}_j \right)
\end{equation}
Hence, we have:
\begin{multline}
x\in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j} \Leftrightarrow \forall \alpha,\beta \geq 0, x\notin \left(\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j} -\alpha\mathbf{e}_i+\beta \mathbf{e}_j\right) \Leftrightarrow\\
\forall \alpha,\beta \geq 0, \left(x+\alpha\mathbf{e}_i-\beta \mathbf{e}_j\right)\notin \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}
\Leftrightarrow
\forall \alpha,\beta \geq 0, \left(x+\alpha\mathbf{e}_i-\beta \mathbf{e}_j\right) \in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}
\end{multline}
We have obtained~\eqref{eq:geometric-invariance-collision-free}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\eqref{eq:property-max} in Property~\ref{property:min-max}]
Take $i,j\in\mathcal{R}$, $x,y\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}$ and let $z:=\max\{x,y\}$. By definition of $\max$, there are four options:
\begin{itemize}
\item $z_i=x_i$ and $z_j=x_j$: in this case, $(z_i,z_j)=(x_i,x_j)\notin \kappa_{i\succ j}$, so that $z\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i \succ j}$.
\item $z_i=y_i$ and $z_j=y_j$: this is the symmetric case and $y\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}$ implies that $z\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i \succ j}$.
\item $z_i=x_i \geq y_i$ and $z_j = y_j$: in this case, we have $z_i \geq y_i$ and $z_j=y_j$. By Property~\ref{property:geometric-invariance}, $y\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}$ implies that $z \in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}$
\item $z_i=y_i \geq x_i$ and $z_j = x_j$: this is the symmetric case and $x\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}$ implies that $z \in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}$
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\eqref{eq:property-min} in Property~\ref{property:min-max}]
Take $i,j\in\mathcal{R}$, $x,y\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}$ and let $z:=\min\{x,y\}$. By definition of $\min$, there are four options:
\begin{itemize}
\item $z_i=x_i$ and $z_j=x_j$: in this case, $(z_i,z_j)=(x_i,x_j)\notin \kappa_{i\succ j}$, so that $z\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i \succ j}$.
\item $z_i=y_i$ and $z_j=y_j$: this is the symmetric case and $y\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}$ implies that $z\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i \succ j}$.
\item $z_i=x_i$ and $z_j = y_j \leq x_j$: in this case, we have $z_i = x_i$ and $z_j \leq x_j$. By Property~\ref{property:geometric-invariance}, $x\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}$ implies that $z \in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}$
\item $z_i=y_i$ and $z_j = x_j \leq y_j$: this is the symmetric case and $y\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}$ implies that $z \in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}$
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Property~\ref{property-union-fixed-priority-cylinder-1}]
Take $i,j\in\mathcal{R}$, $y\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}$ and $x\in\left\{x\in\chi: x_i=y_i\right\}$. Either $x_j\geq y_j$ and by Property~\ref{property:geometric-invariance} $y\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}\subset\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$ implies that $x\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$; or, $x_j\leq y_j$ and by Property~\ref{property:geometric-invariance} $y\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}\subset\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}$ implies that $x\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}$. In both cases, we have $x\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j} \cup \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Property~\ref{property-union-fixed-priority-cylinder-2}]
Take $x^1\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}$, $x^2\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$, and $x\in\chi$ satisfying $x^1_i\leq x_i\leq x^2_i$. As $x^1\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}$ (which is non-empty open and lower-bounded along axis $i$ with the same bound as $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}$), $x^1_i > \inf\{y_i:y\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ji}\}$ and as $x^2\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$ (which is non-empty open and upper-bounded along axis $i$ with the same bound as $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}$), $x^2_i < \sup\{y_i:y\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}\}$. Hence, we obtain:
\begin{equation}
\inf\{y_i:y\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}\}<x_i<\sup\{y_i:y\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}\}
\end{equation}
As a consequence, there exists $x^0\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}$ such that $x^0_i=x_i$. By Property~\ref{property-union-fixed-priority-cylinder-1}, we obtain $x\in\left(\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}\cup \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}\right)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The priority relation}
The definition of the completed obstacle region enables to easily define a priority relation for feasible paths. The fact that a feasible path necessarily and exclusively lies on one side or on the other side of each collision cylinder $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}$ is indeed equivalent to intersect, necessarily and exclusively, one of the completed cylinders $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$, or $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}$.
\begin{definition}[Priority relation]
The priority relation $\succ$ is a binary relation on the set of robots $\mathcal{R}$. For all $i,j\in\mathcal{R}$, $i\succ j$ if $\im{\path} \cap \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i} \neq \emptyset$.
\end{definition}
We say $\succ$ is the priority relation induced by $\path$. The theorem below shows that the relation $\succ$ satisfies basic properties that one can expect from a "priority relation". More precisely, $\succ$ does not define a priority relation between two robots that cannot collide ($\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}=\emptyset$) and if two robots can potentially collide, a priority relation exists and we have $i\succ j$ or $j\succ i$ exclusively, i.e., if robot $i$ has priority over robot $j$ then robot $j$ does not have priority over robot $i$.
\begin{theorem}[Priority relation properties]
Let $\path\in\Phi(\chifree)$ denote a feasible path and $\succ$ the priority relation induced by $\path$. For all $i,j\in\mathcal{R}$ such that $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}\neq\emptyset$, we have necessarily and exclusively $i \succ j$ or $j \succ i$. For all $i,j\in\mathcal{R}$ such that $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}=\emptyset$, we have $i \not\succ j$.
\label{thm:priority-relation}
\end{theorem}
Note that the first statement of the above theorem can be formulated synthetically as: the binary relation $\succ$ is asymmetric. To prove Theorem~\ref{thm:priority-relation}, we start with the following lemma illustrated in Figures~\ref{fig:SW-NE-completion} and~\ref{fig:south-west-real-space} and proved in Appendix~\ref{app:south-west-completion}:
\begin{lemma}[South-West and North-East completion~\cite{ODonnell1989}]
For all feasible paths $\path\in\Phi(\chifree)$,
\begin{equation}
\forall i,j\in\mathcal{R}, \im{\path}\cap\left(\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}\cap\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}\right) = \emptyset
\end{equation}
\label{lemma:south-west-north-east-completion}
\end{lemma}
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{SW-NE-completion}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration of Lemma~\ref{lemma:south-west-north-east-completion}. Both $\path_{i\succ j}$ and $\path_{j\succ i}$ are collision-free with regards to $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}\cap\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}$. Compared to $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}$, $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}\cap\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}$ additionally contains the south-west (SW) region of the obstacle region and the north-east (NE) region of the obstacle region. Feasible paths do not go through the south-west region, as it necessarily leads to a "deadlock" between robots $i$ and $j$. The north-east region cannot be reached by a feasible (non-decreasing) path.}
\label{fig:SW-NE-completion}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{south-west-real-space}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{Two robots at a deadlock configuration in the south-west region.}
\label{fig:south-west-real-space}
\end{figure}
Note that it was already noticed in~\cite{ODonnell1989} that south-west completion enables to avoid deadlocks in two-robot systems.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:priority-relation}]
Take a feasible path $\path\in\Phi(\chifree)$ and let $\succ$ denote the priority relation induced by $\path$. Take $i,j\in\mathcal{R}$ such that $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}=\emptyset$. Then, we have $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}=\emptyset$, so that $\im{\path}\cap\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}=\emptyset$, that is $i \not\succ j$. Take $i,j\in\mathcal{R}$ such that $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}\neq\emptyset$ and take $y\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}$. Remember that we have $(\path(0)-\mathbb{R}_+^n) \subset \chi^{\mathrm{free}}$ and $(\path(1)+\mathbb{R}_+^n) \subset \chi^{\mathrm{free}}$. As a consequence, there are two options as depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:priority-relation-property}:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item either $y\in\im{\path}-\mathbb{R}_+\mathbf{e}_i+\mathbb{R}_+\mathbf{e}_j$: it implies that $\im{\path} \cap \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j \succ i} \neq \emptyset$;
\item or $y\in\im{\path}-\mathbb{R}_+\mathbf{e}_j+\mathbb{R}_+\mathbf{e}_i$: it implies that $\im{\path} \cap \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i \succ j} \neq \emptyset$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{priority-relation-property}\hfill
\end{center}
\captionof{figure}{The two cases that appear to prove that any path $\path\in\Phi(\chifree)$ necessarily intersects $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$ or $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}$ provided $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}\neq\emptyset$.}
\label{fig:priority-relation-property}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{0.2cm}
Hence, a feasible path necessarily intersects $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$ or $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j \succ i}$, so we have necessarily $i \succ j$ or $j \succ i$.
Now, we will prove that it is exclusive by contradiction. Take a feasible path $\path$ and assume that for some $t^1\in[0,1]$, $\path(t^1)\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i \succ j}$ and for some $t^2\in[0,1]$, $\path(t^2)\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j \succ i}$. Assume arbitrarily that $t^1\leq t^2$ (otherwise, exchange the roles of $i$ and $j$), which implies that $\path(t^1)\leq\path(t^2)$. Consider the subset of $\chi$ defined below:
\begin{equation}
K:=\left\{x\in\chi: x^1_i\leq x_i \leq x^2_i \text{ and } x^1_j\leq x_j \leq x^2_j\right\}
\end{equation}
By Property~\ref{property-union-fixed-priority-cylinder-2}, we have:
\begin{equation}
K \subset \left( \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j} \cup \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i} \right)
\label{eq:inclusion-K}
\end{equation}
As $\path$ is non-decreasing, for all $t\in[t^1,t^2]$, $\path(t)\in K$. If $\path(t)\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}\cap\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j \succ i}$ for some $t\in[t^1,t^2]$, $\path$ would not be feasible by Lemma~\ref{lemma:south-west-north-east-completion}. Hence, we have:
\begin{eqnarray}
\path(t^1)&\in&\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}\setminus\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j \succ i} \label{eq:phi-t1}\\
\path(t^2)&\in&\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}\setminus\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i \succ j}\label{eq:phi-t2}
\end{eqnarray}
and for all $t\in[t^1,t^2]$,
\begin{equation}
\path(t)\in \left(\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}\setminus\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j \succ i}\right) \cup \left(\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}\setminus\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i \succ j}\right)
\label{eq:phi-in-union-two-cylinders}
\end{equation}
As $\left(\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}\setminus\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j \succ i}\right)\cap\left(\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}\setminus\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i \succ j}\right)=\emptyset$, by continuity of $\path$ (see Lemma~\ref{lemma:two-subsets-frontier} in Appendix~\ref{app:topology-properties}), there exists some $t^0\in[t^1,t^2]$ such that:
\begin{equation}
\path(t^0)\in \partial \left(\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}\setminus\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j \succ i}\right) \cap \partial \left(\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}\setminus\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i \succ j}\right)
\label{eq:phi-at-frontier-two-cylinders}
\end{equation}
As $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$ and $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}$ are open, by Lemma~\ref{lemma:frontier-A-minus-B-cap-B} (see Appendix~\ref{app:topology-properties}), we have $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}\cap \partial (\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}\setminus\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j \succ i})=\emptyset$ and $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i \succ j} \cap \partial (\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}\setminus\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i \succ j})= \emptyset$. Hence, we obtain:
\begin{equation}
\partial \left(\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}\setminus\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j \succ i}\right) \cap \partial \left(\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}\setminus\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i \succ j}\right) \cap \left( \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i \succ j} \cup \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j \succ i} \right) = \emptyset
\end{equation}
Equations~\eqref{eq:phi-in-union-two-cylinders} and~\eqref{eq:phi-at-frontier-two-cylinders} are therefore absurd as disjoint sets have no element in common.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The priority graph}
As any binary relation, the priority relation admits a graph representation.
\begin{definition}[Priority graph]
The priority graph induced by a feasible path $\path$ is the oriented graph $G$ whose vertices are $V(G):=\mathcal{R}$ and such that there is an edge from $i$ to $j$ if $i \succ j$ where $\succ$ denotes the priority relation induced by $\path$. We write $(i,j)\in E(G)$ where $E(G)$ denotes the edge set of the priority graph.
\end{definition}
Two representations of the priority graph are depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:priority-graph}. We let $\Gamma$ denote the application that returns the priority graph $\Gamma(\path)$ induced by a feasible path $\path\in\Phi(\chifree)$. $\Gamma(\path)$ is the graph of the priority relation $\succ$ induced by $\path$. Theorem~\ref{thm:priority-relation} can be rewritten as follows:
\begin{equation}
\forall \path\in\Phi(\chifree), \Gamma(\path)\in\mathcal{G}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{G}$ is the set of oriented graphs $G$ with vertices $V(G):=\mathcal{R}$, whose edge set $E(G)$ satisfies:
\begin{equation}
\forall i,j\in\mathcal{R},\quad (i,j)\in E(G) \Leftrightarrow
\left\{\begin{matrix}
\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij} &\neq& \emptyset\\
(j,i)&\notin& E(G)
\end{matrix}\right.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\linewidth]{priorite-1} \hspace{2em}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\linewidth]{priorite-2}
\end{center}
\caption{Two representations of priority relations. In each drawing relation is represented in two ways: as a complete oriented graph, where orientation yields the priority; and as trajectories over time, foreground being first, background later. The left drawing represents a relation that is an order (even a total order). The right drawing shows a relation that is not an order.}
\label{fig:priority-graph}
\end{figure}
We say a graph $G$ is a priority graph if $G\in\mathcal{G}$. It is natural as a graph $G\in\mathcal{G}$ defines a binary relation between robots whose paths intersect, i.e., it defines a priority between all and only robots that need to coordinate. Then, a natural question is: given a priority graph $G$, does a feasible path exist whose induced priority graph is $G$ ? Let $\Gamma^{-1}(G)$ denote the set of feasible paths whose induced priority graph is $G$. The question can then be rephrased as: given a priority graph $G$, do we have $\Gamma^{-1}(G)\neq\emptyset$ ? If there exists some path $\path\in\Gamma^{-1}(G)$, $\path$ should be collision-free with regards to each completed cylinder $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$ for all $(i,j)\in E(G)$. Hence, it is natural to define the completed obstacle region and the collision-free region with regards to a given priority graph $G\in\mathcal{G}$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{G} &:=& \bigcup_{(i,j)\in E(G)} \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i \succ j}\\
\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G &:=& \chi \setminus \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G
\end{eqnarray}
$\{\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G,\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G\}$ form a partition of $\chi$. By construction, we have $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}\subset\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G$: respecting the assigned priorities requires remaining in a more constrained space. For all feasible paths $\path\in\Phi(\chifree)$, we have the equivalences:
\begin{equation}
\path\in\Gamma^{-1}(G) \Leftrightarrow \im{\path} \subset \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G \Leftrightarrow \im{\path} \cap \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G = \emptyset \Leftrightarrow \path\in\Phi(\chifree_G)
\end{equation}
It results that the set of feasible paths is the union of the sets of feasible paths respecting a certain priority graph over all possible priority graphs:
\begin{equation}
\Phi(\chifree)=\bigcup_{G\in \mathcal{G}}\Phi(\chifree_G)
\end{equation}
However, $\left\{\Phi(\chifree_G): G\in\mathcal{G}\right\}$ do not form a partition of $\Phi(\chifree)$ as some $\Phi(\chifree_G)$ may be empty.
The next chapter studies the coordination under assigned priorities, i.e., when the obstacle region is completed with configurations not respecting the assigned priorities, forming the completed obstacle region $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G$. In Section~\ref{sec:homotopy}, we will see that each non-empty set of feasible paths respecting a certain priority graph $G$, i.e., each non-empty $\Phi(\chifree_G)$, is a homotopy class of feasible paths continuously deformable into each other. Section~\ref{sec:feasibility} provides a necessary and sufficient condition on $G$ for $\Phi(\chifree_G)$ not to be empty, that is a necessary and sufficient condition on priorities to guarantee that respecting these priorities, all robots can eventually go through the intersection (no deadlock).
\chapter[The coordination space under assigned priorities]{The coordination space\\ under assigned priorities}
\label{chap:priorities-homotopy}
\minitoc
Preliminaries of this work can be found in our conference paper~\cite{Gregoire2012-optimal}.
\paragraph{Sketch of the chapter} The first section of the present chapter demonstrates that respecting assigned priorities does not require robots to follow a particular feasible path in the coordination space. However, the path described by robots in the coordination space needs to remain in a quite large homotopy class of feasible paths continuously deformable into each other. This homotopy class is uniquely encoded by the priority graph. The second section proves that deadlock avoidance can be guaranteed at the priority assignment phase. Either priorities are "feasible" and ensure all robots will eventually go through the intersection provided they respect the assigned priorities; or, the multi robot system will inevitably reach a deadlock configuration.
\section{Priorities: a homotopy invariant}
\label{sec:homotopy}
\subsection{Homotopy classes}
$\Phi(\chi)$ is equipped with the topology of pointwise convergence and the notion of homotopic feasible paths is defined as follows.
\begin{definition}[Homotopic paths]
Given two feasible paths $\path^1$ and $\path^2$, $\path^1$ is homotopic to $\path^2$ if there exists a continuous application $H$ defined on $[0,1]$ such that $H(0)=\path^1$, $H(1)=\path^2$ and for all $\alpha\in[0,1]$, the path $H(\alpha)$ is a feasible path.
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{homotopy}
\end{center}
\caption{Two homotopic paths. As both paths lie below the obstacle region, they can be continuously transformed into each other remaining collision-free along the transformation.}
\label{fig:homotopy}
\end{figure}
We write $\path^1 \sim \path^2$. Said differently, two feasible paths are homotopic if they can be continuously transformed into each other remaining feasible (in particular collision-free and non-decreasing) along the transformation as depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:homotopy}. Homotopy defines an equivalence relation on feasible paths:
\begin{property}[Homotopy: an equivalence relation]
\label{property:homotopy-equivalence-relation}
The homotopy relation~$\sim$ is an equivalence relation on $\Phi(\chifree)$.
\end{property}
\begin{proof}
We have to prove that $\sim$ is an equivalence relation, i.e., that it is (\ref{item:sim-reflexive}) reflexive, (\ref{item:sim-symmetric}) symmetric and (\ref{item:sim-transitive}) transitive.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item Take a feasible path $\path\in\Phi(\chifree)$ and consider the constant application $H:\alpha\in[0,1] \mapsto \path$. $H(0)=\path$, $H(1)=\path$ and for all $\alpha\in[0,1]$, the path $H(\alpha)\equiv \path$ is a feasible path. Hence, $\path \sim \path$ and $\sim$ is reflexive. \label{item:sim-reflexive}
\item Take feasible paths $\path,\psi\in\Phi(\chifree)$ and assume that $\path \sim \psi$. Then, there exists $H$ defined on $[0,1]$ such that $H(0)=\path$, $H(1)=\psi$ and for all $\alpha\in[0,1]$, the path $H(\alpha)$ is a feasible path. Consider $G:\alpha\in[0,1]\mapsto H(1-\alpha)$. We have $G(0)=\psi$, $G(1)=\path$ and for all $\alpha\in[0,1]$, the path $G(\alpha)\equiv H(1-\alpha)$ is a feasible path. Hence, $\psi \sim \path$ and $\sim$ is symmetric.
\label{item:sim-symmetric}
\item Take feasible paths $\path^1,\path^2,\path^3\in\Phi(\chifree)$ and assume that $\path^1 \sim \path^2$ and $\path^2 \sim \path^3$. Then, there exists $H^{12}$ defined on $[0,1]$ such that $H^{12}(0)=\path^1$, $H^{12}(1)=\path^2$ and for all $\alpha\in[0,1]$, the path $H^{12}(\alpha)$ is a feasible path and there exists $H^{23}$ defined on $[0,1]$ such that $H^{23}(0)=\path^2$, $H^{23}(1)=\path^3$ and for all $\alpha\in[0,1]$, the path $H^{23}(\alpha)$ is a feasible path. Consider $H$ defined on $[0,1]$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\forall \alpha \in[0,1/2], H(\alpha)&:=&H^{12}(2\alpha)\\
\forall \alpha \in(1/2,1], H(\alpha)&:=&H^{23}(2(\alpha-1/2))
\end{eqnarray}
$H$ is continuous as $\lim_{\alpha \underset{<}{\to} 1/2}H(\alpha)=H^{12}(1)=\path^2$ and $\lim_{\alpha \underset{>}{\to} 1/2} H(\alpha) = H^{23}(0)=\path^2$. Moreover, $H(0)=\path^1$, $H(1)=\path^3$ and for all $\alpha\in[0,1]$, the path $H(\alpha)$ is a feasible path as it satisfies $H(\alpha)\equiv H^{12}(2\alpha)$ or $H(\alpha)\equiv H^{23}(2(\alpha-1/2))$ which are both feasible paths. Hence, $\path^1 \sim \path^3$ and $\sim$ is transitive. \label{item:sim-transitive}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
As a direct consequence of Property~\ref{property:homotopy-equivalence-relation}, we can define homotopy classes as the equivalence classes induced by this equivalence relation. Let $\mathcal{H}^\mathrm{free}:=\Phi(\chifree)/\sim$ denote the homotopy classes of feasible paths, that is the quotient set of $\Phi(\chifree)$ by the equivalence relation $\sim$. Homotopy classes form a partition of $\Phi(\chifree)$~\cite{Hu1959}.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{homotopy-3D-1}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{homotopy-3D-2}
\end{center}
\caption{Two homotopy classes of feasible paths (and two elements of each class) in a three-dimensional coordination space.}
\label{fig:homotopy-classes-3D}
\end{figure}
The existence of homotopy classes of solutions to the coordination problem was already noticed, e.g., in~\cite{Ghrist2005} (see Figure~\ref{fig:homotopy-classes-3D}). In~\cite{Hu2003}, it is also noticed that there exist a finite number of homotopy classes of solutions to the coordination of multiple agents moving on a plane between fixed points using the concept of braids~\cite{Birman1974}. However, in that work, the geometric paths of agents is not fixed, and optimization is precisely carried out in order to find an optimal trajectory, both spatially and timely. This is not adapted for an application to the coordination of robots on roadways as the two-dimensional space is very constrained and robots have a quite low degree of freedom to choose a geometric path to go through the intersection. It thus appears much more suitable to study the homotopy classes of feasible paths in the coordination space instead of studying the homotopy classes of braids.
\subsection{Invariance of the priority graph}
If previous work already noticed the existence of homotopy classes in multi robot coordination, to our knowledge, no meaningful representative is proposed to encode homotopy classes. In the following, we present the main result of this part: priorities uniquely encode homotopy classes of feasible paths in the coordination space. The existence of a finite number of homotopy classes thus merely appears as the consequence of the finite number of possible priority graphs.
We let $\Gamma(\Phi(\chifree)):=\{\Gamma(\path):\path\in\Phi(\chifree)\}$ denote the set of values taken by the priority graph over all feasible paths. $\Gamma(\Phi(\chifree))$ is a subset of $\mathcal{G}$ containing graphs $G$ such that there exists a feasible path $\path\in\Phi(\chifree)$ satisfying $\Gamma(\path)=G$. The following theorem (illustrated in Figures~\ref{fig:homotopy-priority-graph-unique-representative} and~\ref{fig:homotopy-classes}) shows that priorities and homotopy classes are strongly linked: more precisely, there is a bijective relationship between homotopy classes and "feasible priority graphs" (this term will be precisely defined in Section~\ref{sec:feasibility}). We say the priority graph encodes the homotopy class.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{homotopy-priority-graph-unique-representative}
\end{center}
\caption{A homotopy class of feasible paths in a three-dimensional coordination space and its corresponding unique representative as a priority graph.}
\label{fig:homotopy-priority-graph-unique-representative}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{homotopy-classes}
\end{center}
\caption{In a two-dimensional scenario ($\chi=\mathbb{R}^2$), provided $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}\neq\emptyset$, there are exactly two homotopy classes: all feasible paths lying above the obstacle region form the first homotopy class and all feasible paths lying below the obstacle region form the second homotopy class.}
\label{fig:homotopy-classes}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem}[Invariance of the priority graph]
The priority graph is an invariant of the homotopy classes of feasible paths that it is distinct for each class: $\mathcal{H}^\mathrm{free}$ is in bijection with $\Gamma(\Phi(\chifree))$.
\label{thm:invariance-priority-graph}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of invariance]
First we will prove that the priority graph is an invariant of the homotopy classes of feasible paths. Consider a feasible path $\path\in\Phi(\chifree)$. For all $i,j\in\mathcal{R}$, $(i,j)\in E(\Gamma(\path))$ if $\path$ intersects $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j \succ i}$ and the set $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j \succ i}$ is open. If a feasible path $\path$ intersects an open set, any feasible path $\psi\in\Phi(\chifree)$ close enough to $\path$ (in the topology of pointwise convergence) also intersects this open set. Hence, we have:
\begin{equation}
\forall i,j\in\mathcal{R},~ (i,j)\in E(\Gamma(\path)) \Leftrightarrow (i,j)\in E(\Gamma(\psi))
\end{equation}
provided $\psi$ is close enough to $\path$. Therefore, $\Gamma$ is continuous and since it takes discrete values, it is thus constant in homotopy classes of feasible paths. (We identify $\Gamma$ with the set of applications $g_{ij}:\Phi(\chi^{\mathrm{free}})\to\{-1,0,1\}$ satisfying $g_{ij}(\path)=1$ if $i\succ j$, $-1$ if $j\succ i$, and $0$ otherwise.) In conclusion, the priority graph is an invariant of the homotopy classes of feasible paths.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of uniqueness]
To prove uniqueness, consider two feasible paths $\path^1$ and $\path^2$ with the same induced priority graph $G$: $\path^1,\path^2\in\Phi(\chifree_G)$. We have to prove that $\path^1$ and $\path^2$ are homotopic. Consider the following continuous transformation:
\begin{equation}
H: \alpha\in[0,1] \mapsto \min\left\{ \alpha \path^2(1)+(1-\alpha) \path^1(1), \path^1(\bullet+\alpha), \max\left\{ \path^1, \path^2 \right\} \right\}
\end{equation}
where by convention $\path^1(t+\alpha)\equiv \path^1(1)$ if $t+\alpha\geq 1$. Figure~\ref{fig:homotopy-example} illustrates the proposed transformation in the particular case where the two paths have the same endpoints.
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{phi1-into-max}
\end{center}
\captionof{figure}{Illustration of the transformation of $\path^1$ into $\max(\path^1,\path^2)$. At any point of time $t_0$, $\max(\path^1(t_0),\path^2(t_0))$ necessarily lies on the north-east with respect to $\path^1(t_0)$. As a consequence, the two above cases may appear, and in each case, $\path^1(t_0)$ can be continuously transformed into $\max(\path^1(t_0),\path^2(t_0))$ without collision by following the red arrows.}
\label{fig:homotopy-example}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{0.2cm}
$H$ is continuous,
\begin{eqnarray}
H(0) &=& \min\left\{ \path^1(1), \path^1, \max\left\{ \path^1, \path^2 \right\} \right\} = \path^1\\
H(1) &=& \min\left\{ \path^2(1), \path^1(1), \max\left\{ \path^1, \path^2 \right\} \right\}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, $H$ continuously transforms $\path^1$ into $\min\{ \path^2(1), \path^1(1), \max\{ \path^1, \path^2 \} \}$. Now, we prove that for all $\alpha\in[0,1]$, $H(\alpha)$ is a feasible path. We need to prove that for all $\alpha\in[0,1]$, (\ref{item:continuous}) $H(\alpha)$ is continuous, (\ref{item:start-configuration}) satisfies $(H(\alpha)(0)-\mathbb{R}_+^n)\subset\chi^{\mathrm{free}}$ and (\ref{item:end-configuration}) $(H(\alpha)(1)+\mathbb{R}_+^n)\subset\chi^{\mathrm{free}}$, (\ref{item:non-decreasing}) is non-decreasing, and (\ref{item:collision-free}) is collision-free.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $H(\alpha)$ is continuous as the result of the application of continuous operators $\min$, $\max$ and delay on continuous paths. \label{item:continuous}
\item $\path^1$ and $\path^2$ being feasible, we have $(\path^1(0)-\mathbb{R}_+^n)\subset\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ and $(\path^2(0)-\mathbb{R}_+^n)\subset\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$. Hence, we also have $(\max(\path^1(0),\path^2(0))-\mathbb{R}_+^n)\subset\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ by Property~\ref{property:min-max}, which implies that $(H(\alpha)(0)-\mathbb{R}_+^n)\subset\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G\subset\chi^{\mathrm{free}}$. \label{item:start-configuration}
\item $\path^1$ and $\path^2$ being feasible, we have $(\path^1(1)+\mathbb{R}_+^n)\subset\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ and $(\path^2(1)+\mathbb{R}_+^n)\subset\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$. Hence, we also have $(\max(\path^1(1),\path^2(1))+\mathbb{R}_+^n)\subset\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ by Property~\ref{property:min-max}, which implies that $(H(\alpha)(1)+\mathbb{R}_+^n)\subset\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G \subset \chi^{\mathrm{free}}$. \label{item:end-configuration}
\item $H(\alpha)$ is non-decreasing as the result of the application of non-decreasing operators $\min$ and $\max$ on non-decreasing paths.
\label{item:non-decreasing}
\item Take $(i,j)\in E(G)$ and $\alpha,t\in[0,1]$. We have $\path^1(t+\alpha)\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}$ as $\path^1\in\Phi(\chifree_G)$ and we have also $\max\{\path^1(t),\path^2(t)\}\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}$ as $\path^1,\path^2\in\Phi(\chifree_G)$ and using Property~\ref{property:min-max}. Moreover, $(\path^1(1)+\mathbb{R}_+^n)\subset\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}$ and $(\path^2(1)+\mathbb{R}_+^n)\subset\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}$ imply that $\alpha \path^2(1)+(1-\alpha) \path^1(1) \in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}$ (using Property~\ref{property:geometric-invariance}). By Property~\ref{property:min-max}, applying the $\min$ operator on three configurations in $\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}$ returns a configuration in $\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{i \succ j}$. In conclusion, we have $H(\alpha)(t)\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G\subset\chi^{\mathrm{free}}$
\label{item:collision-free}
\end{enumerate}
As a result, $\path^1$ is homotopic to $\min\{ \path^2(1), \path^1(1), \max\{ \path^1, \path^2 \} \}$. As $\path^1$ and $\path^2$ have symmetric roles, $\path^2$ is homotopic to $\min\{ \path^1(1), \path^2(1), \max\{ \path^2, \path^1 \} \}$, that is $\min\{ \path^2(1), \path^1(1), \max\{ \path^1, \path^2 \} \}$. Homotopy defining an equivalence relation, $\path^1$ and $\path^2$ are homotopic.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of bijective correspondence]
For each $h\in\mathcal{H}^\mathrm{free}$, take an arbitrary $\path^h\in h$. As the priority graph is invariant in homotopy classes, we have:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(\Phi(\chifree))=\left\{ \Gamma(\path^h): h\in\mathcal{H}^\mathrm{free} \right\}
\end{equation}
As the priority graph $\Gamma(\path^h)$ is distinct for each class $h\in\mathcal{H}^\mathrm{free}$, the application $\Psi:h\in\mathcal{H}^\mathrm{free} \mapsto \Gamma(\path^h)$ is a bijection from $\mathcal{H}^\mathrm{free}$ to $\Gamma(\Phi(\chifree))$. In conclusion, $\mathcal{H}^\mathrm{free}$ is in bijection with $\Gamma(\Phi(\chifree))$.
\end{proof}
We have proved that all feasible paths sharing the same priorities are continuously deformable into each other. A direct consequence of the above theorem is that there exists a finite number of homotopy classes of feasible paths. When assigning the priority between each pair of robots, there is indeed two possibilities. As there is at most $n(n-1)/2$ collision pairs $i,j$ satisfying $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}\neq\emptyset$, there is at most $2^{n(n-1)/2}$ priority graphs. There is thus a finite number of homotopy classes -- at most $2^{n(n-1)/2}$ -- and each homotopy class of feasible paths is uniquely encoded by a priority graph $G\in\mathcal{G}$. A natural question is: does any priority graph $G\in\mathcal{G}$ encode a (non-empty) homotopy class of feasible paths ? This mathematical question is equivalent to: given assigned priorities, is it possible for robots to go through the intersection, respecting the assigned priorities ?
\section{Feasible priority graphs}
\label{sec:feasibility}
Here, we propose to give a characterization of the set of feasible priority graphs, that we define as graphs $G\in\mathcal{G}$ such that there exists a feasible path whose induced priority graph is $G$:
\begin{definition}[Feasible priority graph]
A priority graph $G\in\mathcal{G}$ is feasible if and only if $\Phi(\chifree_G)\neq\emptyset$.
\end{definition}
Using the application $\Gamma$, the set of feasible priority graphs can be denoted as $\Gamma(\Phi(\chifree))$. We start with some examples that show that the existence of a feasible path respecting given priorities is strongly related to the notion of deadlock, and we highlight the role of priority cycles in the formation of deadlocks.
\paragraph{Deadlock examples}
First of all, consider the example on the left drawing of Figure~\ref{fig-deadlock-configurations}. The assigned priorities are $1\succ 2$, $2 \succ 3$ and $3\succ 1$. Hence, the priority graph is cyclic. It is clear that respecting the assigned priorities leads to the deadlock configuration represented in Figure~\ref{fig-deadlock-configurations}. None of the robots can move without colliding. The right drawing of Figure~\ref{fig-deadlock-configurations} gives a similar example with a larger number of robots involved in the priority cycle.
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{deadlock-configurations}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{Two examples of deadlock configurations. On the left side, 3 robots are involved in the deadlock. On the right side, the deadlock is caused by a priority cycle involving much more robots. In both examples, none of the robots can move without colliding. It is a deadlock configuration.}
\label{fig-deadlock-configurations}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{cyclic-deadlock-free-example}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{Cyclic deadlock-free examples}
\label{fig-cyclic-deadlock-free-example}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Cyclic deadlock-free examples}
According to the above example, it is clear that cycles in the priority graph have a strong role in the formation of deadlocks. Now, consider the example in the left drawing of Figure~\ref{fig-cyclic-deadlock-free-example}. Again, the assigned priorities, $1\succ 3$, $2 \succ 1$ and $3\succ 1$, are cyclic. However, it is clear that there exists a feasible path respecting the priorities and all robots will eventually go through the intersection. The right drawing of Figure~\ref{fig-cyclic-deadlock-free-example} provides a similar cyclic deadlock-free example involving four robots.
The above examples justify the motivation to obtain a characterization of priority graphs such that there exists a feasible path respecting the given priorities. This characterization refines the role of cycles in the formation of deadlocks.
\paragraph{A singular deadlock-free priority graph}
Before providing such a characterization, we expose a last example where the priority graph $G$ is feasible in that there exists a feasible path whose priority graph is $G$; however, all feasible paths respecting these priorities are in contact with the boundary of $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G$. Figure~\ref{fig:singular-example} depicts such an example. It is very likely that such priorities should not be considered as feasible in practice as they require a very precise control. Note also that it is a singularity caused by the (arbitrary) openness of the obstacle region.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{singular-example-1}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{singular-example-2}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{singular-example-3}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{singular-example-4}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{singular-example-5}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{singular-example-6}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{In this (quite imaginative) scenario, robots maintaining constant velocity do not collide and slide on each other to go through the intersection. It is a very singular scenario. There exists a feasible path satisfying the cyclic priorities $2\succ 1$, $3 \succ 2$, $4 \succ 3$ and $1\succ 4$, but with absolutely no "safety margin" as robots need to slide on each other.}
\label{fig:singular-example}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Sufficient condition for priorities feasibility}
The above examples tend to indicate that no deadlock can occur under acyclic priorities. It is not surprising as deadlocks usually involve a "circular wait"~\cite{Coffman1971}. In many circumstances, imposing acylic priorities is not a problematic constraint and demonstrates some benefits including deadlock avoidance (see Part~\ref{part:priority-based-coordination}). That is why we start by providing a sufficient condition for priorities feasibility stating that acyclic priorities ensure deadlock avoidance.
\begin{theorem}[Sufficient condition for priorities feasibility]
All acyclic priority graphs are feasible.
\end{theorem}
The proof of the above theorem relies on the fact that under acyclic priorities, a simple feasible path respecting the acyclic priorities can be constructed by letting robots go through the intersection one by one.
\begin{proof}
Take an acyclic priority graph $G\in\mathcal{G}$. To prove that $G$ is feasible, we are going to exhibit a particular feasible path whose induced priority graph is $G$. As $G$ is acylic, it admits a topological ordering of its nodes $\mathcal{R}$. Consider a relabeling of robots along this topological ordering, i.e., robot $1$ is the maximal element of this topological ordering, ... robot $i$ is the $i$th element of the topological ordering, ... and robot $n$ is the minimal element of the topological ordering. Consider the path $\path$ constructed as follows. $\path(0):=\underline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}$ and for all $i\in\{1\cdots n\}$, within time interval $[(i-1)/n, i/n]$, robot $i$ moves forward from $\underline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}_i$ to $\overline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}_i$ (for example $\path_i$ is linear in that time interval and takes values $[\underline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}_i,\overline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}_i]$) while other robots $j\neq i$ do not move ($\path_j$ constant in that time interval). This path is feasible and takes values in $\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$.
\end{proof}
\paragraph{Note to the reader} The two following subsections intend to treat the case of cyclic yet feasible priorities. They are quite technical and the reader having no particular interest in this case can go directly to Subsection~\ref{subsec:absence-deadlocks}. It will not affect the understanding of the rest of the thesis.
\subsection{Safety margin}
As shown in the examples presented previously, only considering feasibility as a binary question is quite insufficient in practice as some priority graphs are feasible but require robots to slide on each other, i.e., to travel through very risky configurations. That is why we propose a notion of feasibility endowed with the notion of safety margin.
We say that the priority graph is feasible with a (safety) margin $r\geq 0$ if there exists a feasible path $\path\in\Phi(\chifree_G)$ keeping a distance $r$ from the obstacle region $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G$ (in infinity norm). Given a path $\path\in\Phi(\chi)$, $d(\path,\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G)$ is defined as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
d(\path,\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G)&:=&\sup\left\{ r\geq 0: \forall t\in[0,1], \forall x\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G, \Vert \path(t)-x\Vert_\infty \geq r \right\}
\end{eqnarray}
When $d(\path,\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G)\geq 0$, we say that $\path$ is safe with regards to $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G$ with a margin $d(\path,\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G)$. The use of the distance of infinity norm makes sense since it means that a path is safe with regards to $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G$ with a margin $r\geq 0$ if robots traveling along this path with an individual precision of $r$ will not collide (with regards to $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G$). We have indeed the following equivalence:
\begin{equation}
\left[\forall x\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G,~\Vert\path(t)-x\Vert_\infty \geq r \right] \Leftrightarrow \left[\left(\path(t)+[-r,r]^n\right) \subset \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G\right]
\end{equation}
It is direct that the set of paths $\path\in\Phi(\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G)$ satisfying $d(\path,\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G)\geq r$ is precisely $\Phi(\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G \ominus [-r,r]^n)$ where $\ominus$ denotes the erosion operator, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G \ominus [-r,r]^n := \left\{ x\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G : x+[-r,r]^n \subset \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G \right\}
\end{equation}
$\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G\ominus[-r,r]^n$ is the erosion of $\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ with the structuring element $[-r,r]^n$~\cite{Serra1983} (see Figure~\ref{fig:obstacle-region-dilatation-erosion}).
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{obstacle-region-dilatation-erosion}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{The left drawing represents the dilatation of $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$ with the structuring element $[-r,r]^n$. The right drawing show the erosion of $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$ with the structuring element $[-r,r]^n$.}
\label{fig:obstacle-region-dilatation-erosion}
\end{figure}
The form of the structuring element is due to the use of the infinity norm (it is the closed ball of radius $r$ with regards to the infinity norm). $\Phi(\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G\ominus[-r,r]^n)$ denotes the set of feasible paths whose priority graph is $G$ and keeping a distance $r$ from $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G$. It is natural to define a safety margin associated to the priority graph $G$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
\rho_G:=\begin{cases}
~~\max\left\{r\geq 0:\Phi(\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G\ominus[-r,r]^n)\neq\emptyset\right\}&\text{ if } \Phi(\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G)\neq\emptyset\\
-\min\left\{r> 0:\Phi(\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G+[-r,r]^n)\neq\emptyset\right\} & \text{ else.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\begin{itemize}
\item When $\Phi(\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G)\neq\emptyset$, $\rho_G\in\mathbb{R}_+\cup\{+\infty\}$ denotes the maximal distance between $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G$ and feasible paths whose priority graph is $G$.
\item When $\Phi(\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G)=\emptyset$, $\rho_G<0$. The value taken by $\rho_G<0$ can be interpreted as an indicator of how far the priority graph $G$ is from being feasible.
\end{itemize}
The use of the maximal (resp. minimal) element is justified by Lemma~\ref{lemma:existence-paths-with-maximal-margin} proved in Appendix~\ref{app:existence-paths-with-maximal-margin} that stipulates that the upper (resp. lower) bound is attained, i.e., there exists a path with maximal margin. We refer to $\rho_G$ as the safety margin of $G$. This definition is coherent as a feasible priority graph has necessarily a non-negative safety margin since $\Phi(\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G) \neq \emptyset$.
\subsection{Characterization of feasible priorities}
Before providing a formal characterization of feasible priority graphs, a geometric interpretation is provided about why in certain circumstance cyclic priorities are not feasible.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{collision-region-3D}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{collision-region-3D-deadlock}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{The left drawing depicts the obstacle cylinders in the coordination space for the three-robot system of Figure~\ref{fig-cyclic-deadlock-free-example} in a deadlock-free configuration. The right drawing depicts the obstacle cylinders in the coordination space for the three-robot system of Figure~\ref{fig-deadlock-configurations} stuck in a deadlock. }
\label{fig:interpretation-priorities-feasibility}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{fig:interpretation-priorities-feasibility}, the obstacle cylinders in the coordination space are depicted for both the cyclic deadlock-free example of Figure~\ref{fig-cyclic-deadlock-free-example} and the deadlock example of Figure~\ref{fig-deadlock-configurations}. The main difference is that in the deadlock case, cylinders intersect with each other. In contrast, in the deadlock-free case, cylinders do not intersect each other, there is a certain distance between each cylinder. Thanks to this distance between cylinders, the multi robot system can decide, independently for each collision cylinder, on which side to travel. On the contrary, if there is not a sufficient distance between cylinders, theses decisions are not independent. It is very clear on the right drawing of Figure~\ref{fig:interpretation-priorities-feasibility} that if a feasible path lies above the obstacle cylinder $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{23}$ (the blue one) and below $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{13}$ (the red one), then it also must lie on the right relative to the obstacle cylinder $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{12}$ (the cyan one). In terms of priorities, it means that if $3\succ 2$ and $1 \succ 3$, then we must have $1 \succ 2$, i.e., the cycle $2 \succ 1 \succ 3 \succ 2$ is forbidden.
The definition of the completed obstacle regions $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$ enables to provide a very synthetic characterization of feasible priority graphs. It confirms and refines the role of priority cycles in the formation of deadlocks. In particular, Condition~\eqref{eq:condition-thm-feasibility} gives a necessary and sufficient condition for a priority cycle to be feasible. We let $\mathrm{cycles}(G)$ denote the elementary cycles of a priority graph $G\in\mathcal{G}$.
\begin{theorem}[Characterization of feasible priority graphs]
\label{thm:feasible}
A priority graph $G\in\mathcal{G}$ is feasible if and only if for all elementary cycles $\mathcal{C}$ in $G$, we have:
\begin{equation}
\bigcap_{(i,j)\in E(\mathcal{C})}\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}=\emptyset
\label{eq:condition-thm-feasibility}
\end{equation}
If Condition~\eqref{eq:condition-thm-feasibility} holds, the safety margin is given by:
\begin{equation}
\rho_G=\max\left\{ r\geq 0: \forall \mathcal{C}\in\mathrm{cycles}(G), \bigcap_{(i,j)\in E(\mathcal{C})} \left( \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j} + [-r,r]^n\right)=\emptyset \right\}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
A complete proof of the above theorem is provided in Appendix~\ref{app:thm-feasible}. In the following, we prove that~\eqref{eq:condition-thm-feasibility} is a necessary condition for priority graph feasibility, and we also provide a slightly stronger sufficient condition for priority graph feasibility.
\renewcommand{C^{\mathrm{free}}}{\chi^{\mathrm{free}}}
\renewcommand{C^{\mathrm{obs}}}{\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}}
\begin{proof}[Proof of the necessary condition]
We will prove the necessary condition by contraposition. Take $G\in\mathcal{G}$ and assume that there is an elementary cycle $\mathcal{C}$ of $G$ such that the subset $\bigcap_{(i,j)\in E(\mathcal{C})} C^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$ is not empty, and let $x^1$ be an element of this set. We have to prove that $\Phi(C^{\mathrm{free}}_G)=\emptyset$. To this end, we are going to build a hyper-orthant in the coordination space capturing any path of $\Phi(C^{\mathrm{free}}_G)$. For each $j\in V(\mathcal{C})$, consider $K_j := \{x\in\chi: x_j=x_j^1\text{ and } x_i \leq x_i^1\text{ for } i \neq j\}$. By Property~\ref{property:geometric-invariance} we have:
\begin{equation}
x^1\in C^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}
\Longrightarrow
K_j \subset C^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}
\end{equation}
As $\forall (i,j)\in E(\mathcal{C}), x^1\inC^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$, applying the latter result yields:
\begin{equation}
\forall (i,j)\in E(\mathcal{C}), K_j \subset C^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}
\end{equation}
As a consequence, $\bigcup_{(i,j)\in E(\mathcal{C})} K_j \subset C^{\mathrm{obs}}_G$, and as $\mathcal{C}$ is a cycle, every vertex $j\in V(\mathcal{C})$ is involved in some edge $(i,j)\in E(\mathcal{C})$, so that we have:
\begin{equation}
\bigcup_{j \in V(\mathcal{C})} K_j \subset C^{\mathrm{obs}}_G \label{eq:faces-parallelepiped-included-in-chiobs-corpus}
\end{equation}
In the coordination space restricted to the coordinates which appear in $\mathcal{C}$, $\bigcup_{j \in V(\mathcal{C})} K_j$ is the set of upper faces (that is the boundary) of the orthant (depicted in Figure~\ref{fig-closed-hyper-orthant}):
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{O}:=\{x\in\chi: \forall j\in V(\mathcal{C}), x_j\leq x_j^1\}
\end{equation}
And we have by Equation~\eqref{eq:faces-parallelepiped-included-in-chiobs-corpus}:
\begin{equation}
\partial \mathcal{O} = \bigcup_{j \in V(\mathcal{C})} K_j \subset C^{\mathrm{obs}}_G
\end{equation}
Now, we will prove that $\Phi(C^{\mathrm{free}}_G)$ is empty by contradiction. Assume it is not empty and take an element $\path$ of it. We must have $\left(\path(0)-\mathbb{R}_+^n\right) \subset C^{\mathrm{free}}_G $, which implies that:
\begin{equation}
\path(0) \in \mathcal{O}
\end{equation}
and $\left(\path(1)+\mathbb{R}_+^n\right) \subset C^{\mathrm{free}}_G$, which implies:
\begin{equation}
\path(1) \notin \mathcal{O}
\end{equation}
Since $\path$ is continuous, by Lemma~\ref{lemma:two-subsets-frontier} (see Appendix~\ref{app:topology-properties}), there exists $t\in[0,1]$ such that $\path(t)\in\partial \mathcal{O}= \bigcup_{j \in V(\mathcal{C})} K_j \subsetC^{\mathrm{obs}}_G$ and $\path$ intersects $C^{\mathrm{obs}}_G$. It is is contradiction with $\path\in\Phi(C^{\mathrm{free}}_G)$.
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{closed-hyper-orthant}\hfill
\end{center}
\captionof{figure}{The hyper-orthant used in the proof of the necessary condition of Theorem~\ref{thm:feasible} (in a three-dimensional scenario). }
\label{fig-closed-hyper-orthant}
\end{minipage}
\end{proof}
In order to provide a constructive proof of the existence of feasible paths taking values in $C^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ under certain conditions, we first introduce the concept of local priority graph. Given a radius $r \geq 0$ and a configuration $x\in\chi$, the local priority graph at configuration $x$ with radius $r \geq 0$ is the sub-graph $G_{|x,r}$ of $G$ with the same vertices and whose edge set is defined below:
\begin{equation}
E(G_{|x,r}):=\left\{(i,j)\in E(G): x \in \left(C^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i \succ j} + [-r,r]^n \right) \right\}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{local-priority-graph}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{Computation of the local priority graph for a three-robot system. Note that due to the geometry of paths (in particular their relative position), for small enough radius $\epsilon>0$, the local priority graph is acycle at all configurations.}
\label{fig:local-priority-graph}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{local-priority-graph-deadlock}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{Computation of the local priority graph for a three-robot system in a deadlock configuration. Note that the local priority graph is cyclic at the deadlock configuration, even for very small radius.}
\label{fig:local-priority-graph-deadlock}
\end{figure}
As depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:local-priority-graph}, computing the local priority graph at a given configuration $x$ with a given radius $r\geq 0$ consists in copying $G$ and keeping only edges $(i,j)\in E(G)$ such that $x$ belongs to the dilatation of $C^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$ by the structuring element $[-r,r]^n$, i.e., we keep only edges $(i,j)$ such that the distance (with the infinity norm) from $x$ to $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$ is strictly lower than $r$.
It is interesting to notice that in the deadlock-free example of Figure~\ref{fig:local-priority-graph}, the depicted local priority graph is acyclic. By contrast, at the deadlock configuration of Figure~\ref{fig:local-priority-graph-deadlock}, even for very small radius, the local priority graph is cyclic.
\begin{lemma}[Sufficient condition for locally acyclic priority graph] Consider a priority graph $G\in\mathcal{G}$ satisfying for all elementary cycles $\mathcal{C}$ in $G$:
\begin{equation}
\bigcap_{(i,j)\in E(\mathcal{C})}\left(C^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}+[-\epsilon,\epsilon]^n\right)=\emptyset
\label{eq:condition-acyclic-local-priority-graph-corpus}
\end{equation}
for some $\epsilon>0$, then $G_{|x,\epsilon}$ is acyclic at all configurations $x\in\chi$.
\label{lemma:sufficient-condition-locally-acyclic-priority-graph-corpus}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Take $G\in\mathcal{G}$ and assume Equation~\eqref{eq:condition-acyclic-local-priority-graph-corpus} is satisfied for all elementary cycles $\mathcal{C}$ in $G$. By construction, we have:
\begin{equation}
E(G_{|x,\epsilon})=\left\{(i,j)\in E(G): x \in \left(C^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i \succ j}+[-\epsilon,\epsilon]^n\right) \right\}
\end{equation}
The existence of a cycle $\mathcal{C}$ in $G_{|x,\epsilon}$ would imply that $x\in\cap_{(i,j)\in E(\mathcal{C})}\left(C^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}+[-\epsilon,\epsilon]^n\right)$, and would therefore contradict Equation~\eqref{eq:condition-acyclic-local-priority-graph-corpus} for this cycle.
\end{proof}
It is of high interest to know that the local priority graph with radius $\epsilon>0$ is acyclic at all configurations $x\in\chi$. Indeed, when this condition is satisfied, whatever the current configuration $x\inC^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ of the system, it is always possible to find a robot $i\in\mathcal{R}$ which can move forward the distance $\epsilon>0$ without colliding, which enables to construct a feasible path in $C^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ by iterations. Based on this idea, we propose now to give a slightly stronger sufficient condition for the existence of feasible paths satisfying a given priority graph $G\in\mathcal{G}$. We prove in the sequel that a sufficient condition for $\Phi(\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G)\neq\emptyset$ is that for all elementary cycles $\mathcal{C}$ in $G$:
\begin{equation}
\bigcap_{(i,j)\in E(\mathcal{C})}\left(C^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}+[-\epsilon,\epsilon]^n\right)=\emptyset
\label{eq:condition-acyclic-local-priority-graph-corpus2}
\end{equation}
for some $\epsilon>0$. It is a slightly stronger condition than in Theorem~\ref{thm:feasible} as $\epsilon>0$ (instead of $\epsilon \equiv 0$).
\begin{proof}[Proof of the sufficient condition under a slightly stronger assumption]
Take $G\in\mathcal{G}$ and assume that we have $\epsilon>0$ such that for all elementary cycles $\mathcal{C}$ in $G$, Equation~\eqref{eq:condition-acyclic-local-priority-graph-corpus2} holds. We will provide a constructive proof of the existence of a path $\path\in\Phi(C^{\mathrm{free}}_G)$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:sufficient-condition-locally-acyclic-priority-graph-corpus}, the local priority graph $G_{|x,\epsilon}$ is acyclic at all configurations $x\in\chi$. Let $x^\mathrm{goal}\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}$ denote the desired final configuration defined componentwise as: $x^\mathrm{goal}_i=\overline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}_i+\epsilon$ (satisfying $\left(x^\mathrm{goal}+\mathbb{R}_+^n\right) \subset C^{\mathrm{free}}_G$). We define the finite time flow $\phi(x,t)$ starting at initial condition $x$ component-wise as follows for $t\in[0,1]$ and $j\in\mathcal{R}$:
\begin{equation}
\phi_j(t,x):=
\begin{cases}
x_j & \text{if } \exists (i,j)\in
E(G_{|x,\epsilon})
\\
\min(x^\mathrm{goal}_j, x_j+ t \epsilon) & \text{else.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
First we prove that the flow starting from an initial configuration in $C^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ remains in $C^{\mathrm{free}}_G$. Consider $x\in C^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ and $(i,j)\in E(G)$. By construction of $\phi$, we have for all $t\in[0,1]$:
\begin{equation}
\phi_i(t,x) \geq x_i
\label{eq:flow-collision-free-eq1-corpus}
\end{equation}
For $j$, consider the two following options:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$(i,j)\in E(G_{|x,\epsilon})$. Then, we have for all $t\in[0,1]$:
\begin{equation}
\phi_j(t,x) = x_j
\label{eq:flow-collision-free-eq2-corpus}
\end{equation}
By Property~\ref{property:geometric-invariance}, since Equations~\eqref{eq:flow-collision-free-eq1-corpus} and~\eqref{eq:flow-collision-free-eq2-corpus} hold, $x\inC^{\mathrm{free}}_{i \succ j}$ implies that $\phi(t,x)\inC^{\mathrm{free}}_{i \succ j}$.
\item
$(i,j)\notin E(G_{|x,\epsilon})$. Then, we have for all $t\in[0,1]$:
\begin{equation}
\phi_j(t,x) = \min(x^\mathrm{goal}_j, x_j+ t \epsilon) \leq x_j+ \epsilon
\label{eq:flow-collision-free-eq3-corpus}
\end{equation}
Moreover, by construction of the local priority graph,
$(i,j)\notin E(G_{|x,\epsilon})$
is equivalent to:
\begin{equation}
x \notin C^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}+[-\epsilon,\epsilon]^n
\end{equation}
which implies that:
\begin{equation}
x+\epsilon\mathbf{e}_j \in C^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}
\label{eq:x-plus-epsilon-in-chi-free-corpus}
\end{equation}
By Property~\ref{property:geometric-invariance}, since Equations~\eqref{eq:flow-collision-free-eq1-corpus} and~\eqref{eq:flow-collision-free-eq3-corpus} hold, Equation~\eqref{eq:x-plus-epsilon-in-chi-free-corpus} implies that $\phi(t,x)\in C^{\mathrm{free}}_{i\succ j}$.
\end{itemize}
In conclusion, for all $x\inC^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ and $t\in[0,1]$, $\phi(t,x)\inC^{\mathrm{free}}_G$. Now, consider the path $\path(t)$ defined iteratively as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\path(0)&:=&\underline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}\\
\forall p\in\mathbb{N}, \forall t\in[0,1], \path(p+t)&:=&\phi(t,\path(p))
\end{eqnarray}
$\path(0)\in C^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ and by induction, $\path$ takes values in $C^{\mathrm{free}}_G$. It is non-decreasing as $\phi_j(t,x)\geq x_j$, and we are going to prove that it reaches $x^\mathrm{goal}$ in finite time. The local priority graph at configuration $x$ only contains edges $(i,j)$ such that $x_j < x_j^\mathrm{goal}$ ($x_j=x_j^\mathrm{goal}=\overline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}_j+\epsilon$ implies that $x\notin(\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}+[-\epsilon,\epsilon]^n)$). Since the local priority graph is acyclic, for all $x\in\chi$ with $x < x^\mathrm{goal}$, there exists a maximal element $j\in\mathcal{R}$ satisfying $x_j<x^\mathrm{goal}_j$ and $\forall i\in\mathcal{R}$, $(i,j)\notin E(G_{|x,\epsilon})$.
By construction of $\phi$, it results that for all $p\in\mathbb{N}$, if $\path(p)\neq x^\mathrm{goal}$, then there exists at least one robot $j$ such that $\path_j(p+1)=\min(x_j^\mathrm{goal}, x_j+\epsilon)$, i.e., robot $j$ travels a distance $\epsilon$ or reaches its goal configuration in time interval $[p,p+1]$. The distance to travel considering all robots is finite: $\sum_{i\in\mathcal{R}}x_i^\mathrm{goal}-x_i^0$. As a result, $x^\mathrm{goal}$ is reached in finite time $T$, $\path(T)=x^\mathrm{goal}$ and $T$ satisfies:
\begin{equation}
T \leq \left\lceil \frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{R}}x_i^\mathrm{goal}-\underline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}_i}{\epsilon} \right\rceil
\end{equation}
where $\lceil . \rceil$ denotes the ceiling function. Rescaling time by a factor $1/T$ yields a path $\tilde\path\in\Phi(C^{\mathrm{free}}_G)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Absence of deadlocks}
\label{subsec:absence-deadlocks}
To this point, we have proved a necessary and sufficient condition for $\Phi(C^{\mathrm{free}}_G)\neq\emptyset$, i.e., for the existence of feasible paths whose priority is graph $G$. In the following, we prove that provided $\Phi(C^{\mathrm{free}}_G)\neq\emptyset$, there is no deadlock configuration in $C^{\mathrm{free}}_G$. This means that for all configurations $x\inC^{\mathrm{free}}_G$, there exists a path $\path\in\Phi(C^{\mathrm{free}}_G)$ going through configuration $x$. It is a very valuable result as a direct consequence is that provided the assigned priorities are feasible, there will be no deadlock, as long as priorities are "respected", i.e., as long the configuration of the system remains in $C^{\mathrm{free}}_G$.
\begin{theorem}[Absence of deadlocks]
\label{thm:no-deadlock}
Given $G\in\mathcal{G}$ satisfying $\Phi(C^{\mathrm{free}}_G)\neq\emptyset$, for all $x\inC^{\mathrm{free}}_G$, there exists $\path\in\Phi(C^{\mathrm{free}}_G)$ going through $x$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Take a priority graph $G\in\mathcal{G}$, $x\inC^{\mathrm{free}}_G$, assume $\Phi(C^{\mathrm{free}}_G)\neq\emptyset$ and take $\path\in\Phi(C^{\mathrm{free}}_G)$. First of all, note that concatenating $\path$ with the segment joining $\path(0)$ and $\min(x,\path(0))$ and with the segment joining $\path(1)$ with $\max(x,\path(1))$ gives a path in $\Phi(C^{\mathrm{free}}_G)$ starting from a configuration lower than or equal to $x$ and ending at a configuration greater than or equal to $x$. Hence, assume without loss of generality that $\path(0)\leq x$ and $\path(1)\geq x$. Define $\tilde{\path}^1:=\max(x,\path)$ and $\tilde{\path}^2:=\min(x,\path)$. These paths take values in $\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ by Property~\ref{property:min-max}. The concatenation of $\tilde{\path}^1$ and $\tilde{\path}^2$ gives a path $\tilde{\path}\in\Phi(C^{\mathrm{free}}_G)$ going through $x$.
\end{proof}
\renewcommand{C^{\mathrm{free}}}{C^{\mathrm{free}}}
\renewcommand{C^{\mathrm{obs}}}{C^{\mathrm{obs}}}
\chapter*{Conclusions}
The present part proposed a novel tool in multi robot coordination: the priority graph. It enables to go one step ahead in the understanding of the structure of the solutions to the coordination problem. Previous work noticed the existence of homotopy classes of feasible paths in the coordination space~\cite{Ghrist2005}. Our results demonstrate that priorities uniquely encode these homotopy classes. The existence of a finite number of homotopy classes of feasible paths then merely appears as the consequence of the finiteness of possible priority graphs. Assigning priorities plans a high-level coordination strategy represented by the priority graph describing the relative order of robots through the intersection. Under assigned priorities, the path of robots in the coordination space is just required to remain in a homotopy class of feasible paths continuously deformable into each other. Respecting assigned priorities is weaker than following a particular feasible path as a large (homotopy) class of feasible paths induce the same priorities. The size of the homotopy class provides some freedom of action. Therefore, priorities appear a relevant resource to guide robots through an intersection area. A key asset of planning priorities is that well-chosen feasible priorities -- in particular, acyclic priorities -- completely solves the deadlock avoidance problem (see Threorem~\ref{thm:feasible}). Theorem~\ref{thm:no-deadlock} proves that provided feasible priorities are respected, robots will never be stuck in a deadlock configuration. It is key to solve the deadlock avoidance problem at the planning level as deadlocks are difficult to avoid in a reactive manner.
The results of the present part are quite conceptual with little care about the dynamics model and control issues. It does not specify how to use priorities to control robots. In traditional planning, the control part consists of executing the plan by tracking the planned reference trajectory. This is known as the trajectory tracking problem~\cite{Jiang1997,Lee2001,Micaelli1993,Soetanto2003,Yang1999}. The reference trajectory configures the control law which tries to minimize the tracking error (e.g., using a linear-quadratic regulator~\cite{Todorov2006}). In priority-based coordination, there is no reference trajectory to track, the plan is merely the priority graph. The next part of the thesis assumes that priorities are assigned and it aims at building control laws configured by the priority graph ensuring that priorities are respected and that all robots eventually go through the intersection. From the point of view of the present part, control laws proposed in the next part ensure that the resulting path described by robots in the coordination space belongs to the homotopy class encoded by the assigned priorities.
\part{Priority preserving control}
\label{part:priorities-to-guide-robots}
\chapter*{Introduction}
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
Previous work noticed the combinatorial complexity of multi robot control (see, e.g.,~\cite{Colombo2012}). In~\cite{Colombo2012}, the expected application is a driver assistance system to avoid crashes between human driven vehicles just in time. It is thus completely right to try to find a particular schedule to avoid the crash. In this thesis, we are in a much different context and we assume that robots are in a safe state when approaching the intersection, and a lot of different schedules -- more precisely, a lot of different priority graphs -- are possible to safely coordinate robots. The present part assumes that feasible priorities are assigned, that the assigned priorities are compatible with the initial state of the robots, and focuses on how to use the assigned priorities to guide robots through the intersection. As priorities are assigned, there is no combinatorial problem, and so-called priority preserving control can be carried out in polynomial time. In traditional planning, the plan is a reference trajectory which configures a control law in charge of tracking the reference trajectory. In priority-based coordination, the plan is the priority graph, so the control law is configured by the priority graph and is in charge of ensuring priority preservation (no collision occurs and priorities are respected). Ensuring priority preservation is much weaker than tracking a reference trajectory, so robots retain some freedom of action. The proposed control law guarantees liveness, i.e., following the control law, all robots eventually go through the intersection. The freedom of action enabled by planning only priorities is highlighted, as under the presented control law, robots may brake at any point of time without violating priorities, in particular without colliding. This robustness property is quite novel among existing coordination systems and is highly valuable as it is very likely to happen that robots need to brake to handle some unexpected event (e.g., a pedestrian crossing the road, a loss of communication abilities, a congestion at the exit of the intersection). Finally, the proposed control scheme in Chapters~\ref{chap:control-acceleration} and~\ref{chap:control-uncertainty} is decentralized as the output of the control law can be computed on each robot independently without an agreement through communication links.
\paragraph{Sketch of the part} The assigned priorities are assumed to be acyclic. Under this assumption, Chapter~\ref{chap:optimal-control-velocity} provides a priority preserving control law for robots controlled in velocity; Chapter~\ref{chap:control-acceleration} examines the case of robots controlled in acceleration; and in Chapter~\ref{chap:control-uncertainty}, robustness of priority preserving control with respect to bounded noise is illustrated. The reader is referred to Appendix~\ref{app:control-extension-all-feasible-priorities} for an extension of the results of this part to feasible cyclic priority graphs under mild assumptions.
\paragraph{Note to the reader} The two first chapters of the present part are independent. However, it is advised to start with the first chapter for a gradual understanding of the proposed method. The last chapter is not necessary to the understanding of the rest of the thesis. The reader without special interest in considering uncertainty concerns can skip Chapter~\ref{chap:control-uncertainty} and go directly to Part~\ref{part:priority-based-coordination}.
\end{minipage}
{\pagestyle{plain}
\clearpage
\topskip0pt
\vspace*{\fill}
\includegraphics[height=1.0\linewidth,angle=-90,trim=160 60 160 60, clip]{wordle-chap-control}
\vspace*{\fill}
\parttoc}
\chapter[Priority preserving control in the absence of inertia]{Priority preserving control \\in the absence of inertia}
\label{chap:optimal-control-velocity}
\minitoc
In the present chapter, the velocity of the robots is assumed to be controlled, and a control law aimed at coordinating multiple robots with assigned priorities is proposed.
\paragraph{Sketch of the chapter} Section~\ref{sec:control-velocity-model} exposes the dynamics model and shows that the resulting system is a monotone control system~\cite{Angeli2003}. Section~\ref{sec:control-velocity-control-law} constructs a priority preserving control law. Optimality and liveness properties are provided.
\section{A monotone control system}
\label{sec:control-velocity-model}
Each robot $i$ is modeled as a first-order control system with state $x_i\in\mathbb{R}$, whose evolution is described by the differential equation:
\begin{equation}
\dot{x_i}(t) = \mathbf{v}_i(t) \label{eq-diff-control-velocity}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{v}_i:\mathbb{R}_+ \to V_i$ is the control of robot $i$. We let $V_i:=\{0,{\overline{v}}_i\}$ be the set of feasible control values. The control is assumed to be updated in discrete time every $\Delta t>0$:
\begin{equation}
\forall k\in\mathbb{N}, \forall t\in[k\Delta t, (k+1)\Delta t), \mathbf{v}_i(t) \equiv \mathbf{v}_i(k\Delta t)
\end{equation}
The time interval $[k\Delta t, (k+1)\Delta t)$ will be referred to as (time) slot $k$. For the sake of simplicity we let $\Delta t := 1$ in the sequel. We let $\mathbf{V}_i$ denote the set of controls $\mathbf{v}_i:\mathbb{R}_+ \to V_i$ piecewise constant on intervals $[k,k+1)$, $k\in\mathbb{N}$. We let $t \mapsto \phi_i(t,x_i,\mathbf{v}_i)$ denote the flow of the system starting at initial configuration $x_i\in \mathbb{R}$ with control $\mathbf{v}_i \in \mathbf{V}_i$ as depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:velocity-control}.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{velocity-control}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{An example of piecewise constant velocity control $\mathbf{v}_i$ (left) and the corresponding flow $t \mapsto \phi_i(t,x_i,\mathbf{v}_i)$ starting from the initial configuration $x_i$ (right).}
\label{fig:velocity-control}
\end{figure}
We also define the vectorial control $\mathbf{v}:=(\mathbf{v}_i)_{i\in\mathcal{R}}\in \mathbf{V}:=\prod_{i\in\mathcal{R}}\mathbf{V}_i$, and the vectorial flow: $\phi(t,x,\mathbf{v}):=(\phi_i(t,x_i,\mathbf{v}_i))_{i\in\mathcal{R}}$. We let ${\overline{v}}:=({\overline{v}}_i)_{i\in\mathcal{R}}$ and we define the constant control $\mathbf{\vmax}(t):={\overline{v}}$. We introduce partial orders as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\forall \mathbf{v}_i^1,\mathbf{v}_i^2\in \mathbf{V}_i, \mathbf{v}_i^1 \preceq \mathbf{v}_i^2 &\text{if}& \forall t\geq 0, \mathbf{v}_i^1(t) \leq \mathbf{v}_i^2(t)\\
\forall \phi^1,\phi^2:\mathbb{R}_+\to \chi, \phi^1 \preceq \phi^2 &\text{if}& \forall t\geq 0,\phi^1(t) \preceq \phi^2(t)
\end{eqnarray}
The control system~\eqref{eq-diff-control-velocity} is a monotone control system~\cite{Angeli2003} with regards to the relative orders defined above. More precisely, the following key property holds:
\begin{property}[Order preservation]
The flow $t \mapsto \phi_i(t,x_i,\mathbf{v}_i)$ is order-preserving with regards to $x_i$ and $\mathbf{v}_i$.
\end{property}
Note that in our open loop model, control $\mathbf{v}_i$ only acts on robot $i$, that is, $\mathbf{v}$ is a collection of independent controls: it does not achieve any kind of coordination between the robots. The control law introduced in the sequel is precisely aiming at coordinating the robots to avoid collisions and respect priorities.
\section{The proposed control law}
\label{sec:control-velocity-control-law}
Now, we propose to build a control law $f^G:\chi\to V$ such that starting from an initial collision-free configuration, the flow of the system controlled by the control law $f^G$ is ensured to remain in $\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ (thus being collision-free and respecting priorities $G$). In other words, using the terminology of~\cite{Kerrigan2000}, $\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ shall be positively invariant for the system under control law $f^G$.
The rationale for our control law is as follows. Each robot $i\in\mathcal{R}$ moves forward, unless moving forward violates the priority with regards to some robot $j\in\mathcal{R}$ with $(j,i)\in E(G)$. In the coordination space, violating such a priority means that the configuration of the system would collide with $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}$. The control law can then be formulated synthetically component-wise:
\begin{equation}
f_i^G(x):= \begin{cases}
0&\text{ if } \exists(j,i)\in E(G),\exists t\in[0,1] \text{ s.t. } \left(x+t\left({\overline{v}}_i\mathbf{e}_i+f_j^G(x)\mathbf{e}_j\right)\right)\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i} \\
{\overline{v}}_i&\text{ else.}
\end{cases}
\label{eq:definition-control-law-velocity}
\end{equation}
First of all, note that $f^G$ appears in both the left-hand side and the right-hand side in Equation~\eqref{eq:definition-control-law-velocity}. Hence, it is not obvious that Equation~\eqref{eq:definition-control-law-velocity} effectively defines a control law which is stated by the following theorem. Note that a decentralized version of the proposed control law could be used alternatively by considering the worst case scenario for each robots $(j,i)\in E(G)$, i.e., when robot $j$ stops (see the decentralized control law of Chapter~\ref{chap:control-acceleration}). However, the optimality result that we obtain in the present chapter would not hold anymore.
\begin{theorem}[Control law existence]
Given an acyclic priority graph $G$, Equation~\eqref{eq:definition-control-law-velocity} uniquely defines a control law $f^G:\chi\to V$.
\label{thm:control-law-existence}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The priority graph is assumed to be acyclic. Hence, there exists a topological ordering of the graph such that for every edge $(j,i)\in E(G)$, $j$ comes before $i$ in the ordering. Following the topological order induced by $G$, it is possible to compute $f_i^G(x)$ for all $i\in\mathcal{R}$ iteratively. As a result, Equation~\eqref{eq:definition-control-law-velocity} uniquely defines a control law $f^G:\chi\to V$.
\end{proof}
Figure~\ref{fig:control-law-velocity-example} and~\ref{fig:trajectory-velocity-control-example} show the evolution of a three-robot system under control law $f^G$ under acyclic priorities. It is clear in Figure~\ref{fig:trajectory-velocity-control-example} that the control law belongs to the "bug" family, emanating from the work of~\cite{Lumelsky1987}. Indeed, the robots go at maximum speed until they are too close to the boundary of the obstacle region. Then, they follow the boundary with a certain distance as long as necessary.
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{control-law-velocity-example}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{A three-robot system with acyclic assigned priorities: $1\succ 2$, $2\succ 3$, and $1\succ 3$. Robots are controlled under control law $f^G$. The drawings show the evolution of the robots along their paths.}
\label{fig:control-law-velocity-example}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{trajectory-velocity-control-example}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{Trajectory in the coordination space for the three-robot system under control law $f^G$ of Figure~\ref{fig:control-law-velocity-example}.}
\label{fig:trajectory-velocity-control-example}
\end{figure}
Now, we need to introduce the following notation. Given a feedback control law $f:\chi\to V$, with a slight abuse of notation we let $t \mapsto \phi(t,x,f)$ denote the vectorial flow of the system starting at initial condition $x\in \chi$ and controlled by $\mathbf{v}\in \mathbf{V}$ satisfying:
\begin{equation}
\forall k\in\mathbb{N}, \mathbf{v}(k) \equiv f(\phi(k,x,\mathbf{v}))
\end{equation}
\subsection{Priority preservation}
First of all, we prove the key property of our control law that is the safety guarantee. More precisely, starting from a configuration in $\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$, the system under control law $f^G$ is ensured to remain in $\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$, i.e., priorities $G$ are preserved. Following the terminology of~\cite{Kerrigan2000}, $\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ is positively invariant under control law $f^G$ as stated in the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}[Priority preservation]
Given an acylic priority graph $G$, $\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{G}$ is positively invariant for the system under control law $f^G$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\forall x\in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{G}, \forall t\geq 0, \phi(t,x,f^G) \in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{G}
\end{equation}
\label{thm:safety-robust-control-map-velocity}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Take an acyclic priority graph $G$ and an initial configuration $x\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$. By induction, it is sufficient to prove that the flow satisfies:
\begin{equation}
\forall t\in[0,1], \phi(t,x,f^G)\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G
\end{equation}
By construction, for all $i\in\mathcal{R}$ and for all $(j,i)\in E(G)$, we have two options:
\begin{itemize}
\item either $f_i^G(x)=0$. For all $t\in[0,1]$, we have:
\begin{eqnarray}
x_i+ t f_i^G(x) &=& x_i\\
x_j+t f_j^G(x) &\geq& x_j
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, by Property~\ref{property:geometric-invariance}, $x\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$ implies that for all $t\in[0,1]$, $\left(x+t \left(f_i^G(x)\mathbf{e}_i+f_j^G(x)\mathbf{e}_j\right)\right) \in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$.
\item or $f_i^G(x)={\overline{v}}_i$. Then, by construction of the control law, we have for all $t\in[0,1]$, $\left(x+t\left(f_i^G(x)\mathbf{e}_i+f_j(x)^G\mathbf{e}_j\right)\right) \equiv \left(x+t\left({\overline{v}}_i\mathbf{e}_i+f_j^G(x)\mathbf{e}_j\right)\right) \in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$.
\end{itemize}
Hence, in both cases, we obtain:
\begin{equation}
x+t\left(f^G_i(x) \mathbf{e}_i+f^G_j(x)\mathbf{e}_j\right) \in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}
\label{eq:eq1-pf-safety-control-law-velocity}
\end{equation}
Moreover, we have:
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_i(t,x,f^G)&=&x_i+t f^G_i(x) \\\
\phi_j(t,x,f^G)&=&x_j+t f^G_j(x)
\end{eqnarray}
As a result, Equation~\eqref{eq:eq1-pf-safety-control-law-velocity} implies that $\phi(t,x,f^G)\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j\succ i}$ for all $(j,i)\in E(G)$ and $t\in[0,1]$, i.e., $\phi(t,x,f^G)\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ for all $t\in[0,1]$.
\end{proof}
Given a configuration $x\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ and a priority graph $G$, we say $\mathbf{v}$ is a collision-free control for the pair $(x,G)$ if the flow starting from $x\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ remains in $\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$. We write $\mathbf{v}\in\mathbf{V}_G^\mathrm{free}(x)$ defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{V}_G^\mathrm{free}(x):=\left\{\mathbf{v}\in\mathbf{V}: \phi(\mathbb{R}_+,x,\mathbf{v})\subset\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G\right\}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Optimality}
First of all, we define the notion of optimality under assigned priorities used in the sequel. Given a priority graph $G$ and a control law $f$, we say $f$ is optimal for the priority graph $G$ if for all configurations $x\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ and for all controls $\mathbf{v}\in\mathbf{V}_G^\mathrm{free}(x)$, we have:
\begin{equation}
\forall t\geq 0, \phi(t,x,f) \geq \phi(t,x,\mathbf{v})
\end{equation}
In other words, the control law is optimal if for each robot, it maximizes the distance travelled through time while respecting priorities $G$. Note that this kind of optimality is even stronger than the family of Pareto optimality. Pareto optimality would state that it is impossible to make any individual robot travel farther without making at least one robot travel less. By contrast, our optimality result states that even if other robots travel less, it's impossible to make one robot travel farther while respecting the assigned priorities, i.e., all individual objectives are optimized. As a consequence, the obtained trajectory is optimal for a whole set of utility functions, more precisely, all utility functions which grow with the distance traveled by robots. For example, it minimizes the average exit time of robots, it also minimizes the maximum exit time of robots (the time at which the last robot exits the intersection). However, it is important to note that the optimality result is conditioned on the assigned priorities. Note that the trajectory resulting from the application of the proposed control law corresponds to the left-greedy optimal trajectory of References~\cite{Ghrist2005,Ghrist2006}, where it is noticed that it is a local optimum, in that it is optimal over trajectories belonging to the same homotopy class. Hence, obtaining a globally optimal trajectory would require exploring all feasible priorities, i.e., exploring all homotopy classes.
\begin{theorem}[Optimality]
Given an acyclic priority graph $G$, the control law $f^G$ is optimal for the priority graph $G$, in the sense that for all controls $\mathbf{v}\in\mathbf{V}_G^\mathrm{free}(x)$, we have:
\begin{equation}
\forall t\geq 0, \phi(t,x,f^G) \geq \phi(t,x,\mathbf{v})
\end{equation}
\label{thm:control-law-optimality}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We will prove Theorem~\ref{thm:control-law-optimality} by contraposition. Take an acyclic priority graph $G$, an initial condition $x\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}$ and a control $\mathbf{v}\in\mathbf{V}$, Assume that there exists $i\in\mathcal{R}$ and $t\geq 0$ such that $\phi_i(t,x,f^G) < \phi_i(t,x,\mathbf{v})$. We have to prove that $\phi(\mathbb{R}_+,x,\mathbf{v})\cap\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G\neq\emptyset$. Consider $I:=\{t \geq 0: \exists i\in\mathcal{R}: \phi_i(t,x,f^G) < \phi_i(t,x,\mathbf{v})\}$. By assumption, $I\neq\emptyset$, then $I$ is a lower-bounded non-empty subset of $\mathbb{R}$, so that $t^0=\inf I$ exists. Let $k^0$ be the unique $k\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $t^0\in[k,k+1)$. By definition of $t^0$ and as the velocity control is piece-wise constant, we have:
\begin{equation}
\forall j\in\mathcal{R}, \phi_j(k^0,x,f^G) \geq \phi_j(k^0,x,\mathbf{v})\label{eq:not-already-overtaking-k}
\end{equation}
and there exists $i\in\mathcal{R}$ such that:
\begin{equation}
\phi_i(k^0+1,x,f^G) < \phi_i(k^0+1,x,\mathbf{v}) \label{eq:overtaking-k-plus-1}
\end{equation}
As $V_i=\{0,{\overline{v}}_i\}$ (binary velocity control), Equations~\eqref{eq:overtaking-k-plus-1} and~\eqref{eq:not-already-overtaking-k} imply that:
\begin{equation}
\phi_i(k^0,x,f^G) = \phi_i(k^0,x,\mathbf{v}) \label{eq:phi-i-equality-k}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{v}_i(k)={\overline{v}}_i>f^G_i(x^0)=0\label{eq:velocity-strictly-greater}
\end{equation}
where $x^0:=\phi(k^0,x,f^G)$. As $f^G_i(x^0)=0$, by construction of the control law $f^G$, there is necessarily an edge $(j,i)$ in the graph $G$ satisfying:
\begin{equation}
\left(x^0+t\left({\overline{v}}_{i}\mathbf{e}_{i}+f_j^G(x^0)\mathbf{e}_j\right)\right) \in \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i} \label{eq:collision-proof-optimality}
\end{equation}
for some $t\in[0,1]$. Assume additionally that $i$ is chosen to be a maximal element of the (acyclic) sub-graph of $G$ containing only vertices satisfying Equation~\eqref{eq:overtaking-k-plus-1}. Then, as $(j,i)\in E(G)$, $j$ does not satisfy Equation~\eqref{eq:overtaking-k-plus-1} and we have:
\begin{equation}
\phi_j(k^0+t,x,f^G) \geq\phi_j(k^0+t,x,\mathbf{v})
\label{eq:j-not-overtaking}
\end{equation}
Combining Equations~\eqref{eq:phi-i-equality-k} and~\eqref{eq:j-not-overtaking}, we obtain:
\begin{eqnarray}
x^0_i+t{\overline{v}}_i &=\phi_i(k^0,x,\mathbf{v})+t{\overline{v}}_i=& \phi_i(k^0+t,x,\mathbf{v}) \label{eq:ineq-i-to-prove-collision}\\
x^0_j+t f_j^G(x^0) &= \phi_j(k^0+t,x,f^G) \geq& \phi_j(k^0+t,x,\mathbf{v})\label{eq:ineq-j-to-prove-collision}
\end{eqnarray}
By Property~\ref{property:geometric-invariance}, as Equations~\eqref{eq:ineq-i-to-prove-collision} and~\eqref{eq:ineq-j-to-prove-collision} are satisfied, Equation~\eqref{eq:collision-proof-optimality} implies that:
\begin{equation}
\phi(k^0+t,x,\mathbf{v})\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i} \subset \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G
\end{equation}
In conclusion,
\begin{equation}
\phi(\mathbb{R}_+,x,\mathbf{v}) \cap \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G \neq \emptyset
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
The above theorem is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:trajectory-velocity-control-example-optimality}.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{trajectory-velocity-control-example-optimality}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration of the optimality of the control law for a three-robot system.}
\label{fig:trajectory-velocity-control-example-optimality}
\end{figure}
It is clear that if at some point of time one robot tries to go faster than prescribed by the control law, a collision would occur. For example, in the left drawing, one can see that if robot $3$ tries to move forward at time $t=0$ instead of stopping as prescribed by the control law, a collision occurs (see the orange segment).
\subsection{Liveness}
A key property in motion planning is liveness, i.e., the guarantee that every robot eventually reaches its goal. In the particular case of the problem studied here, every robot is expected to exit the obstacle region. Hence, liveness is guaranteed if every robot $i\in\mathcal{R}$ eventually reaches the region $\chi^{\mathrm{goal}}:=\overline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}+\mathbb{R}_+^n$.
\begin{theorem}[Liveness]
Given an acyclic priority graph $G$ and a configuration $x^0\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$, there exists $T>0$ such that:
\begin{equation}
\phi(T,x^0,f^G)\in\chi^{\mathrm{goal}}
\end{equation}
\label{thm:liveness-control-law-velocity}
\end{theorem}
The idea of the proof is that under acyclic priorities there is always at least one non exited robot able to move forward at maximum velocity until it exits the intersection.
\begin{proof}
Take an acyclic priority graph $G$. Consider the trajectory of the robots under control law $f^G$. $G$ being acyclic, there exists an extremal vertex $i_1\in\mathcal{R}$ such that for all $j\in\mathcal{R}$, $(j,i_1)\notin E(G)$. As a result, under the control law $f^G$, robot $i_1$ will always travel at maximal velocity and it will exit the intersection (it will reach position $\overline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}_i$) in finite time $T_1$.
Now, assume that at time $T_m$, robots $i_1 \cdots i_m$ have exited the intersection and $m<n$ (there remain some robots). $G$ being acyclic, there exists an extremal element for the remaining robots denoted $i_{m+1}\in\mathcal{R}\setminus \{i_1 \cdots i_m\}$ such that for all $j\in\mathcal{R}\setminus \{i_1 \cdots i_m\}$, $(j,i_{m+1})\notin E(G)$. Collisions occurring only with non exited robots, for $t\geq T_m$ $j$ will always be at maximum velocity and it will exit the intersection in finite time at instant $T_{m+1}\geq T_m$.
Iterating this process yields a sequence $(T_1 \cdots T_n)$ and all robots have exited the intersection at time $T:=T_n$.
\end{proof}
\chapter[Priority preserving control under kinodynamic constraints]{Priority preserving control \\under kinodynamic constraints}
\label{chap:control-acceleration}
\minitoc
In the present chapter, the acceleration of the robots is assumed to be controlled, and a control law is proposed aiming at coordinating multiple robots with assigned priorities under second-order kinodynamic constraints. The method is inspired by References~\cite{DelVecchio2009,Colombo2012,Kowshik2011,Verma2012,Hafner2011} dealing with the coordination of a small number of vehicles without explicit notion of priorities. Preliminaries of the presented results are presented in our conference paper~\cite{Gregoire2013-dynamic-constraints}, and a more accomplished version in our article~\cite{Gregoire2013-priority-based}.
\paragraph{Sketch of the chapter} Similarly to the previous chapter, the first section exposes the second-order dynamics model and shows that the resulting system is a monotone control system. The second section constructs a priority preserving control law. Liveness is provably guaranteed and a robustness property is provided stating that a robot may brake at any moment with neither colliding, nor violating priorities.
\section{A monotone control system}
Each robot $i$ is modeled as a second-order control system with state $s_i=(x_i,v_i)\in S_i:=\mathbb{R} \times [0,{\overline{v}}_i]$, whose evolution is described by the differential equation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{x_i}(t) &= & v_i(t)
\label{eq-diff-state1-deterministic}
\\
\dot{v_i}(t) & =& \mathbf{u}_i(t) ~\delta(\mathbf{u}_i(t),v_i(t))
\label{eq-diff-state2-deterministic}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{u}_i:\mathbb{R}_+ \to U_i$ is the control of robot $i$ and ${\overline{v}}_i$ denotes the non-negative speed limit for robot $i$. We let $U_i:=[{\underline{u}}_i,{\overline{u}}_i]$ be the set of feasible control values. ${\underline{u}}_i<0$ represents the maximum brake control value and ${\overline{u}}_i>0$ represents the maximum throttle control value. $\delta$ is a binary function merely ensuring that $v_i\in [0,{\overline{v}}_i]$ at all times, that is,
$\delta(\mathbf{u}_i(t),v_i(t))=1$ except for $v_i(t)=0$ and $\mathbf{u}_i(t)<0$, and for $v_i(t)={\overline{v}}_i$ and $\mathbf{u}_i(t)>0$, where it vanishes.
The control is assumed to be updated in discrete time every $\Delta t>0$:
\begin{equation}
\forall k\in\mathbb{N}, \forall t\in[k\Delta t, (k+1)\Delta t), \mathbf{u}_i(t) \equiv \mathbf{u}_i(k\Delta t)
\end{equation}
The time interval $[k\Delta t, (k+1)\Delta t)$ will be referred to as (time) slot $k$. For the sake of simplicity we let $\Delta t := 1$ in the sequel. We let $\mathbf{U}_i$ denote the set of controls $\mathbf{u}_i:\mathbb{R}_+ \to U_i$ piecewise constant on intervals $[k,k+1)$, $k\in\mathbb{N}$. We let $t \mapsto \phi_i(t,s_i,\mathbf{u}_i)$ denote the flow of the system starting at initial condition $s_i\in S_i$ with control $\mathbf{u}_i \in \mathbf{U}_i$. We also define the vectorial state $s:=(s_i)_{i\in\mathcal{R}}\in S$, the vectorial control $\mathbf{u}:=(\mathbf{u}_i)_{i\in\mathcal{R}}\in \mathbf{U}:=\prod_{i\in\mathcal{R}}\mathbf{U}_i$, and the vectorial flow: $\phi(t,s,\mathbf{u}):=(\phi_i(t,s_i,\mathbf{u}_i))_{i\in\mathcal{R}}$. We let ${\underline{u}}:=({\underline{u}}_i)_{i\in\mathcal{R}}$, ${\overline{u}}:=({\overline{u}}_i)_{i\in\mathcal{R}}$ and we define the constant controls $\underline{\mathbf{u}}(t):={\underline{u}}$ and $\overline{\mathbf{u}}(t):={\overline{u}}$.
We define projection operators as follows: given a state $s=(x,v)=(s_i)_{i\in\mathcal{R}}=((x_i,v_i))_{i\in\mathcal{R}}$, we let $\pi_x(s):=x$, $\pi_{x,i}(s):=\pi_{x,i}(s_i):=x_i$, $\pi_v(s):=v$, and $\pi_{v,i}(s):=\pi_{v,i}(s_i):=v_i$. We also define projected flows as follows: $\phi_x=\pi_x \circ \phi$, $\phi_{x,i}=\pi_{x,i} \circ \phi$, $\phi_v=\pi_v \circ \phi$ and $\phi_{v,i}=\pi_{v,i} \circ \phi$. Figure~\ref{fig:control-in-acceleration} depicts the projected flow $t \mapsto \phi_{x,i}(t,s_i,\mathbf{u}_i)$ for a particular control $\mathbf{u}_i$.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{control-in-acceleration}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{An example of piecewise constant control $\mathbf{u}_i$ (left) and the corresponding projected flow $t \mapsto \phi_{x,i}(t,s_i,\mathbf{u}_i)$ starting from the initial configuration $s_i$ (right).}
\label{fig:control-in-acceleration}
\end{figure}
We introduce partial orders as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\forall \mathbf{u}_i^1,\mathbf{u}_i^2\in \mathbf{U}_i, \mathbf{u}_i^1 \preceq \mathbf{u}_i^2 &\text{if}& \forall t\geq 0, \mathbf{u}_i^1(t) \leq \mathbf{u}_i^2(t)\\
\forall s_i^1=(x_i^1,v_i^1),s_i^2=(x_i^2,v_i^2)\in S_i, s_i^1 \preceq s_i^2 &\text{if}& x_i^1 \leq x_i^2 \text{ and } v_i^1 \leq v_i^2\label{orderr:eq}\\
\forall \phi^1,\phi^2:\mathbb{R}_+\to S, \phi^1 \preceq \phi^2 &\text{if}& \forall t\geq 0,\phi^1(t) \preceq \phi^2(t)
\end{eqnarray}
The control system~\eqref{eq-diff-state1-deterministic}-\eqref{eq-diff-state2-deterministic} is a monotone control system~\cite{Angeli2003} with regards to the relative orders defined above as easily seen in Figure~\ref{fig:control-in-acceleration} (in this example, we have $\underline{\mathbf{u}}_i \preceq \mathbf{u}_i \preceq \overline{\mathbf{u}}_i$). More precisely, the following key property holds:
\begin{property}[Order preservation]
The flow $t \mapsto \phi_i(t,s_i,\mathbf{u}_i)$ is order-preserving with regards to $s_i$ and $\mathbf{u}_i$.
\end{property}
Note that in our open loop model, control $\mathbf{u}_i$ only acts on robot $i$, that is, $\mathbf{u}$ is a collection of independent controls: it does not achieve any kind of coordination between the robots. The control law introduced in the sequel is precisely aiming at coordinating the robots to avoid collisions and respect priorities.
\section{The proposed decentralized control law}
\label{law:sec}
In the absence of inertia as in Chapter~\ref{chap:optimal-control-velocity}, robots can stop instantly to respect priorities. With second-order dynamics, robots cannot stop instantly anymore and need to anticipate, taking into account their brake distance, to effectively respect priorities. The idea proposed here is to constrain the multi robot system to remain in so-called brake safe states where robots can always safely brake without colliding.
Define the set of brake safe states as follows:
\begin{equation}
B_{G}:=\{ s\in S: \phi_x\left(\mathbb{R}_+,s,\underline{\mathbf{u}}\right) \subset \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G\} \subset S
\end{equation}
According to the above definition, a state $s\in S$ is brake safe if, starting at initial condition $s$ under maximum brake control, the system remains in $\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:brake-safety}). In particular, a state $(x,0)$ with $x\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ is brake safe, so $B_G$ is not empty provided $\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ is not empty. Figure~\ref{fig:brake-safety} illustrates brake safety in the coordination space and Figure~\ref{fig:brake-safety-examples} attempts to represent the concept in the real space.
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{brake-safety}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration of brake safety in the coordination space for a two-robot scenario with the assigned priority $(i,j)\in E(G)$. The flow starting from $s^1$ (resp. $s^2$) under control $\underline{\mathbf{u}}$ is constructed. $s^1$ is not brake safe as this flow collides $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$. $s^2$ is brake safe as the flow is collision-free with regards to $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$.}
\label{fig:brake-safety}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{brake-safety-examples}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration of brake safety in the real space for a two-robot scenario. Robots with lower opacity are used to represent the flow under maximum brake command. In the left drawing, the two robots stop without colliding when applying maximum brake command: they are in a brake safe state. In the right drawing, a collision occurs when the two robots brake maximally: they are not in a brake safe state.}
\label{fig:brake-safety-examples}
\end{figure}
Brake safety is more conservative than remaining in the escape set proposed in~\cite{DelVecchio2009}, which includes all states from which there exists at least one control (not necessarily $\underline{\mathbf{u}}$) avoiding future collisions. It is also more conservative than not entering an inevitable collision state as defined in~\cite{Fraichard2004,Bouraine2011} where neither the geometric path in $\mathbb{R}_2$ nor the control to avoid collisions are fixed. The idea behind this quite conservative approach is twofold:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item designing a decentralized control law: the output of the control law proposed in the following can be computed independently on each robot. It is much different from approaches where collision-free trajectories are computed, either in a centralized manner (see, e.g.,~\cite{Colombo2012} where decentralization is considered as a possible extension), or with some agreement with message-passing through communication links (see, e.g.,~\cite{Bekris2007}).
\item demonstrating robustness regarding unexpected deceleration of some robots: we believe that this is a highly valuable property as many unpredictable events requiring a robot to brake may happen in real applications.
\end{enumerate}
Importantly, note that checking whether a state $s \in S$ is brake safe consists in computing a finite time single flow $t\mapsto\phi(t,s,{\underline{u}})$ and checking for collisions with respect to each completed obstacle region $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$ for all $(i,j)\in E(G)$, yielding a quadratric complexity.
We propose to build a control law $g^G:S\to U$ such that starting from an initial brake safe state in $B_G$, the flow of the system controlled by the control law $g^G$ is ensured to remain in $B_G$ (thus being collision-free and respecting priorities $G$). In other words, using the terminology of~\cite{Kerrigan2000}, $B_G$ shall be positively invariant for the system under control law $g^G$.
The rationale for our control law is as follows. Consider a robot $i$ and a robot $j$ that has priority over $i$. Given an initial configuration of the two robots, the worst-case scenario is when $j$ brakes whereas $i$ accelerates in the next time slot. If the trajectory of the system in the next time slot under this worst-case scenario is collision-free and if the reached state is brake safe, robot $i$ may accelerate in any case. Otherwise, it is required to brake. This is formalized below.
Let $\mathbf{u}_i^\mathrm{impulse}\in \mathbf{U}_i$ denote the impulse control for robot $i$ defined by (see Figure~\ref{fig:control-utilde}):
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{u}_i^\mathrm{impulse}(k) :=
\begin{cases}
{\overline{u}}_i & \text{if } k=0\\
{\underline{u}}_i & \text{if } k\geq 1
\end{cases}
\label{eq:impulse-control}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{control-utilde}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{The control $\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i$ used in the formulation of the control law. For $j\neq \i$ (right drawing), $\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i_j$ is simply the maximum brake command $\underline{\mathbf{u}}_j$. For $j=i$ (left drawing), $\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i_i$ is the impulse control $\mathbf{u}_i^\mathrm{impulse}$.}
\label{fig:control-utilde}
\end{figure}
Now let $\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i$ denote the worst-case vectorial control with regards to $i$ defined componentwise by (see Figure~\ref{fig:control-utilde}):
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i_j:=\begin{cases}
\mathbf{u}_i^\mathrm{impulse} & \text{if } j=i\\
\underline{\mathbf{u}}_j & \text{if } j\neq i
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The control law can then be formulated synthetically:
\begin{equation}
g_i^G(s):=\begin{cases}
{\underline{u}}_i & \text{if } \exists (j,i)\in E(G), \exists t\geq 0 \text{ s.t. } \phi_x(t,s,\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i) \in \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i} \\
{\overline{u}}_i & \text{ else.}
\end{cases}
\label{eq-control-map}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{trajectory-acceleration-control-example}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{Look of the trajectory for a three-robot system with acyclic assigned priorities $1\succ 2$, $2\succ 3$ and $1\succ 3$ under control law $g^G$. }
\label{fig:trajectory-acceleration-control-example}
\end{figure}
This simply means that robot $i$ always keeps a safe distance so that if a higher-priority robot $j$ suddenly brakes, robot $i$ may apply the maximum brake command until possibly stop without violating the priority. To this purpose, robot $i$ looks at the state that would be reached if it accelerates while the higher-priority robot $j$ brakes. If the simulated reached state is brake safe, $i$ may accelerate; otherwise, it must brake (see the two cases in Figures~\ref{fig:control-law-case1} and~\ref{fig:control-law-case1}). The look of the trajectory under control law $g^G$ is depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:trajectory-acceleration-control-example}. Note that, as for brake safety checking, computing the output of the control law is of quadratic complexity for the same reasons: it requires to compute a finite time single flow and to check for collisions. Note also that each component $g_i^G(s)$ can be computed independently for each $i\in\mathcal{R}$, which means that the proposed control law is decentralized.
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{control-law-case1}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{In this setting where robot 1 is assumed to have priority, the worst-case scenario under which robot 2 accelerates and robot 1 brakes leads to a new state which is not brake safe. In this case, the control law requires robot 2 to brake. Robots with lower opacity are used to represent the brake trajectory.}
\label{fig:control-law-case1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{control-law-case2}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{In this setting where robot 1 is assumed to have priority, the worst-case scenario under which robot 2 accelerates and robot 1 brakes leads to a new state which is brake safe. In this case, the control law allows robot 2 to accelerate. Robots with lower opacity are used to represent the brake trajectory.}
\label{fig:control-law-case2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Priority preservation}
Now, we need to introduce the following notation. Given a feedback control law $g:S\to U$, with a slight abuse of notation we let $t \mapsto \phi(t,s,g)$ denote the vectorial flow of the system starting at initial condition $s\in S$ and controlled by $\mathbf{u}\in \mathbf{U}$ satisfying:
\begin{equation}
\forall k\in\mathbb{N}, \mathbf{u}(k) \equiv g(\phi(k,s,\mathbf{u}))
\end{equation}
First of all, we prove the key property of our control law that is the safety guarantee. More precisely, starting from a brake safe state in $B_G$, the system under control law $g^G$ is ensured to remain in $B_G$, i.e., priorities $G$ are preserved and the system is always in a brake safe state. Following the terminology of~\cite{Kerrigan2000}, $B_G$ is positively invariant under control law $g^G$ as stated in the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}[Priority preservation]
Given a priority graph $G\in\mathcal{G}$, the set of brake safe states $B_G$ is positively invariant (in discrete time) for the system under control law $g^G$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\forall s\in B_G, \forall k\in\mathbb{N}, \phi(k,s,g^G) \in B_G
\label{eq:invariance-B-G}
\end{equation}
Moreover, the configuration of the system remains in $\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ through time, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\forall s\in B_G, \forall t\geq 0, \phi_x(t,s,g^G)\in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G
\label{eq:no-collision-during-time-slots}
\end{equation}
\label{thm-safe-control-map}
\end{theorem}
The above theorem asserts that under control law $g^G$, provided the system starts in a brake safe state, the sequence of future states at the beginning of each time slot is a sequence of brake safe states (see Equation~\eqref{eq:invariance-B-G}). Moreover, the flow of the system remains in $\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ in continuous time (see Equation~\eqref{eq:no-collision-during-time-slots}), i.e., no collision occurs and priorities are preserved. It is a direct consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm-robustness-brake-application} and appears as a limiting case.
\subsection{Robustness}
The control law $g_i^G$ returns the maximum control value that robot $i$ can safely apply, but it is in fact always safe to apply a lower control value, including letting all robots brake as much as possible, i.e., leading to an emergency stop. This property stated in Theorem~\ref{thm-robustness-brake-application} below is very valuable because for applications in intelligent transportation systems, even without considering extreme situations such as emergency stops, it is very usual that a vehicle needs to brake because of an unpredictable event such as a pedestrian crossing the road, or a loss of sensing/communication abilities.
\begin{theorem}[A broad class of priority preserving controls]
Given a priority graph $G\in\mathcal{G}$, an initial condition $s\in B_G$, and a control $\mathbf{u} \in \mathbf{U}$ that satisfies:
\begin{equation}
\forall k\in\mathbb{N}, \mathbf{u}(k) \leq g^G(\phi(k,s,\mathbf{u}))
\label{eq-inequality-control-map}
\end{equation}
The set of brake safe states $B_G$ is positively invariant (in discrete time), i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\forall k\in\mathbb{N}, \phi(k,s,\mathbf{u}) \in B_G
\end{equation}
Moreover, the configuration of the system remains in $\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$ through time, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\forall t\geq 0, \phi_x(t,s,\mathbf{u})\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G
\end{equation}
\label{thm-robustness-brake-application}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Take a priority graph $G\in\mathcal{G}$, an initial condition $s\in B_G$ and a control $\mathbf{u}\in\mathbf{U}$ satisfying Equation~\ref{eq-inequality-control-map}. By induction, it is sufficient to prove that the flow is collision-free for $t\in[0,1]$ and the reached state $\phi(1,s,\mathbf{u})$ is brake safe. Now, we prove that the flow of Theorem~\ref{thm-robustness-brake-application} does not intersect $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G$ for $t\in[0,1]$. Take arbitrary $t\in[0,1]$: we have to prove that for all $(j,i)\in E(G)$, $\phi_x(t,s,\mathbf{u})\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$. By construction of $g^G$, for each robot $i$, there are two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item $g_i^G(s)={\underline{u}}_i$: in this case,
\begin{equation}
\phi_i(t,s,\mathbf{u})=\phi_i(t,s,\underline{\mathbf{u}})
\label{eq:pf-discrete-case1-eq1}
\end{equation}
and by order-preservation, for all robots $j$ such that $(j,i)\in E(G)$ we have:
\begin{equation}
\phi_j(t,s,\mathbf{u}) \geq \phi_j(t,s,\underline{\mathbf{u}})
\label{eq:pf-discrete-case1-eq2}
\end{equation}
Since $s$ is brake safe, $\phi_x(t,s,\underline{\mathbf{u}})\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$. Hence, by Property~\ref{property:geometric-invariance}, Equations~\eqref{eq:pf-discrete-case1-eq1} and~\eqref{eq:pf-discrete-case1-eq2} ensure that $\phi_x(t,s,\mathbf{u})\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$ as well.
\item $g_i^G(s)={\overline{u}}_i$: by construction of the control law, $\phi_x(t,s,\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i) \in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{G}$. By order-preservation, using $\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i_i(0)={\overline{u}}_i$, we obtain:
\begin{equation}
\phi_i(t,s,\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i)=\phi_i(t,s,\overline{\mathbf{u}}) \geq \phi_i(t,s,\mathbf{u})
\label{eq:pf-discrete-case2-eq1}
\end{equation}
For all robots $j$ such that $(j,i)\in E(G)$, using $\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i_j(0)={\underline{u}}_j$, we have:
\begin{equation}
\phi_j(t,s,\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i)=\phi_j(t,s,\underline{\mathbf{u}}) \leq \phi_j(t,s,\mathbf{u})
\label{eq:pf-discrete-case2-eq2}
\end{equation}
Since $\phi_x(t,s,\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i) \in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{G}$, $\phi_x(t,s,\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i)\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$, and by Property~\ref{property:geometric-invariance}, Equations~\eqref{eq:pf-discrete-case2-eq1} and~\eqref{eq:pf-discrete-case2-eq2} ensure that $\phi_x(t,s,\mathbf{u})\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$ as well.
\end{itemize}
As a final step, we prove that the reached state $s^1:=\phi(1,s,\mathbf{u})$ is brake safe. Take arbitrary $t \geq 0$: we have to prove that for all $(j,i)\in E(G)$, $\phi_x(t,s^1,\underline{\mathbf{u}})\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$. As previously, there are two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item $g_i^G(s)={\underline{u}}_i$: then, $s^1_i=\phi_i(1,s,\underline{\mathbf{u}})$ and we have:
\begin{equation}
\phi_i(t,s^1,\underline{\mathbf{u}}) = \phi_i(1+t,s,\underline{\mathbf{u}})
\label{eq:pf-continuous-case1-eq1}
\end{equation}
Moreover, by order-preservation, for all $j$ such that $(j,i)\in E(G)$: $s_j^1 \geq \phi_j(1,s,\underline{\mathbf{u}})$. As a result, by order-preservation:
\begin{equation}
\phi_j(t,s^1,\underline{\mathbf{u}}) \geq \phi_j(1+t,s,\underline{\mathbf{u}})
\label{eq:pf-continuous-case1-eq2}
\end{equation}
Since $s$ is brake safe, $\phi_x(1+t,s,\underline{\mathbf{u}})\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$. Hence, by Property~\ref{property:geometric-invariance}, Equations~\eqref{eq:pf-continuous-case1-eq1} and~\eqref{eq:pf-continuous-case1-eq2} ensure that $\phi_x(t,s^1,\underline{\mathbf{u}})\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$ as well.
\item $g_i^G(s)={\overline{u}}_i$: then, by construction of the control law, $\phi_x(1+t,s,\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i) \in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$. Define $\tilde s^1:=\phi(1,s,\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i)$. We have $\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i(1+\tau)={\underline{u}}$ for $\tau\geq 0$. As a result, $\phi(1+t,s,\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i)=\phi(t,\tilde{s}^1,\underline{\mathbf{u}})$. Since $\phi_x(1+t,s,\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i) \in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$, $\phi_x(t,\tilde s^1,\underline{\mathbf{u}})\in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$.
By order-preservation, using $\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i_i(0)={\overline{u}}_i$, we obtain:
\begin{equation}
\tilde s^1_i = \phi_i(1,s,\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i) = \phi_i(1,s,\overline{\mathbf{u}}) \geq \phi_i(1,s,\mathbf{u}) = s^1_i
\label{eq:pf-continuous-case2-eq1-intermediate-equation}
\end{equation}
For all robots $j$ such that $(j,i)\in E(G)$, using $\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i_j(0)={\underline{u}}_j$, we have:
\begin{equation}
\tilde s^1_j = \phi_j(1,s,\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i) = \phi_j(1,s,\underline{\mathbf{u}}) \leq \phi_j(1,s,\mathbf{u}) = s^1_j
\label{eq:pf-continuous-case2-eq2-intermediate-equation}
\end{equation}
Hence, by order-preservation, Equations~\eqref{eq:pf-continuous-case2-eq1-intermediate-equation} and~\eqref{eq:pf-continuous-case2-eq2-intermediate-equation} imply:
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_i(t,\tilde{s}^1,\underline{\mathbf{u}}) & \geq & \phi_i(t,s^1,\underline{\mathbf{u}})\label{eq:pf-continuous-case2-eq1}\\
\phi_j(t,\tilde{s}^1,\underline{\mathbf{u}}) & \leq & \phi_j(t,s^1,\underline{\mathbf{u}})\label{eq:pf-continuous-case2-eq2}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\phi_x(t,\tilde s^1,\underline{\mathbf{u}})\in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$, $\phi_x(t,\tilde s^1,\underline{\mathbf{u}})\in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$, and by Property~\ref{property:geometric-invariance}, Equations~\eqref{eq:pf-continuous-case2-eq1} and~\eqref{eq:pf-continuous-case2-eq2} ensure that $\phi_x(t,s^1,\underline{\mathbf{u}})\in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$ as well.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
To illustrate the interest of Theorem~\ref{thm-robustness-brake-application}, given priorities $G$ and an initial condition $s\in B_G$ consider the two examples below.
\begin{example}[Individual brake application]
Consider a control $\mathbf{u} \in\mathbf{U}$ satisfying:
\begin{eqnarray}
\forall k\in\mathbb{N}, \mathbf{u}_i(k)&=&\begin{cases}
{\underline{u}}_i & \text{ if } k\in K \\
g_i^G(\phi(k,s,\mathbf{u})) & \text{ else.}
\end{cases} \label{eq-example-control}\\
\forall j\in\mathcal{R}, j\neq i, \mathbf{u}_j(k)&=&g_j^G(\phi(k,s,\mathbf{u}))
\end{eqnarray}
$i\in\mathcal{R}$ is a particular robot and $K \subset \mathbb{N}$ is a subset of slots. Under the control described above, the system is perfectly controlled by the control law, except during slots $K$ where the particular robot $i$ brakes while other robots are still perfectly controlled by the control law. Such a scenario may arise, for instance, in case of a momentary communication/sensing failure for one robot: if the current state is not available, the control law cannot be applied, and a brake maneuver is performed instead. The condition of Theorem~\ref{thm-robustness-brake-application} is clearly respected since for $j\neq i$, $\mathbf{u}_j(k)=g_j^G(\phi(k,s,\mathbf{u}))\leq g_j^G(\phi(k,s,\mathbf{u}))$, and $\mathbf{u}_i(k)=g_i^G(\phi(k,s,\mathbf{u}))\leq g_i^G(\phi(k,s,\mathbf{u}))$ or $\mathbf{u}_i(k)={\underline{u}}_i \leq g_i^G(\phi(k,s,\mathbf{u}))$. Hence, the flow $t \mapsto \phi(t,s,\mathbf{u})$ is collision-free and preserves priorities $G$. This illustrates that the control law is robust with regards to an individual brake application of a particular robot for an arbitrary long time, yielding a deviated but still collision-free flow respecting the assigned priorities.
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Simultaneous brake application]
Consider a control $\mathbf{u} \in\mathbf{U}$ satisfying:
\begin{equation}
\forall k\in\mathbb{N}, \mathbf{u}(k)=\begin{cases}
{\underline{u}} & \text{ if } k\in K \\
g^G(\phi(k,s,\mathbf{u})) & \text{ else.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Again, $K \subset \mathbb{N}$ is a subset of slots. Under the control described above, the system is perfectly controlled by the control law, except during slots $K$ where all robots brake simultaneously. It may arise in case of a global failure requiring an emergency brake to be performed. Again, the condition of Theorem~\ref{thm-robustness-brake-application} is clearly respected since $\mathbf{u}(k)=g^G(\phi(k,s,\mathbf{u})) \leq g^G(\phi(k,s,\mathbf{u}))$ or $\mathbf{u}(k)={\underline{u}} \leq g^G(\phi(k,s,\mathbf{u}))$. It illustrates that the control law is robust with regards to a simultaneous brake application of all robots for an arbitrary long time, yielding again a deviated but still collision-free flow respecting the assigned priorities.
\end{example}
\subsection{Liveness}
As in the case of velocity control, we aim at guaranteeing liveness, i.e., the guarantee that every robot $i\in\mathcal{R}$ eventually reaches the region $\chi^{\mathrm{goal}}:=\overline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}+\mathbb{R}_+^n$.
\begin{theorem}[Liveness]
Given an acyclic priority graph $G$ and an initial brake safe state $s\in B_G$, there exists $T>0$ such that:
\begin{equation}
\phi_x(T,s,g^G)\in\chi^{\mathrm{goal}}
\end{equation}
\label{thm:liveness-control-law}
\end{theorem}
Again, the idea of the proof is that under acyclic priorities, there is always a non exited robot able to travel at maximum throttle command until it exits the intersection.
\begin{proof}
Take an acyclic priority graph $G$. Consider the trajectory of the robots under control law $g^G$. $G$ being acyclic, there exists an extremal vertex $i_1\in\mathcal{R}$ such that for all $j\in\mathcal{R}$, $(j,i_1)\notin E(G)$. As a result, under the control law $g^G$, robot $i_1$ will always accelerate as much as possible and it will exit the intersection (it will reach position $\overline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}_i$) in finite time $T_1$.
Now, assume that at time $T_m$, robots $i_1 \cdots i_m$ have exited the intersection and $m<n$ (there remain some robots). $G$ being acyclic, there exists an extremal element for the remaining robots denoted $i_{m+1}\in\mathcal{R}\setminus \{i_1 \cdots i_m\}$ such that for all $j\in\mathcal{R}\setminus \{i_1 \cdots i_m\}$, $(j,i_{m+1})\notin E(G)$. Collisions occurring only with non exited robots, for $t\geq T_m$ $j$ will always accelerate and it will exit the intersection in finite time at instant $T_{m+1}\geq T_m$.
Iterating this process yields a sequence $(T_1 \cdots T_n)$ and all robots have exited the intersection at time $T:=T_n$.
\end{proof}
\chapter[Robustness with respect to bounded noise]{Robustness with respect\\ to bounded noise}
\label{chap:control-uncertainty}
\minitoc
In the plan-as-program approach, a low-level controller is assumed to be able to follow the planned trajectory. Uncertainty is taken into account at the control phase. This is known as the trajectory tracking problem. Many trajectory tracking systems have been proposed for different robot dynamics models~\cite{Jiang1997,Lee2001,Micaelli1993,Soetanto2003,Yang1999}. In~\cite{VanDenBerg2011}, a linearisation of the robot dynamics model around the tracked trajectory enables to obtain a linear-quadratic regulator~\cite{Todorov2006}, and under Gaussian models of uncertainty, the a-priori distribution of the trajectory around the tracked trajectory can be computed. It makes possible to compare several possible motion planning strategies in terms of collision probability, and to select one of them based on some criteria/cost function. However, even when a-priori knowledge on uncertainty is used as in~~\cite{VanDenBerg2011} to plan the trajectory, the trajectory tracking approach is still quite decoupled as the reference trajectory remains unchanged as new information comes in during the execution of the plan. It can result in undesirable behaviors particularly in case of large deviation from the reference trajectory.
In priority-based coordination, there is no reference trajectory to track. There are assigned priorities to preserve which is ensured by a control law configured by the assigned priorities (see previous chapters of the present part). In this setting, information on uncertainty can be used as an additional resource to take into account when acting, i.e., as an additional input for the control law. In~\cite{LaValle1996-uncertainty,LaValle1998-uncertainty-objective-based}, the information space approach is proposed. The information state at time $t$ contains all the information history up to date $t$. Under probabilistic uncertainty, the current information state can be considered as the distribution of the current state of the system conditionally to current history. Under non deterministic uncertainty, the current information state is the set of all possible "true" current states of the robot: one can see the non-deterministic information state as a "bubble" of possible current "true" states. In this approach, the action of robots is a function of the current information state: the control law takes into account the uncertainty on the estimated current state to decide action. The approach has since become standard (see, e.g., \cite{Petti2005-reactive-planning, Ghaemi2014}). This chapter espouses the information space approach.
Priority preserving control under bounded noise in the coordination space is considered. As in Chapter~\ref{chap:control-acceleration}, priorities guide the action of robots by configuring the control law. However, in this chapter, the control law does not take the current state of the robot as input as it is not known. We take a model of bounded uncertainty which enables to apply the non-deterministic information space approach~\cite{LaValle1996-uncertainty,LaValle1998-uncertainty-objective-based}. The control law takes as input the non-deterministic information state of the robots, i.e., the set of all possible current positions and velocities of robots along their paths. Uncertainty is only considered from the coordination space point of view. Uncertainty on the path following assumption (lateral control) and more generally realistic models of uncertainty based on real sensors/actuators models are beyond the ambition of the present thesis (it is mentioned as a perspective in the concluding part). The present chapter only aims at providing elements demonstrating the robustness abilities of the proposed priority preserving approach in the presence of bounded noise.
\paragraph{Sketch of the chapter} Section~\ref{sec:control-model-uncertainty} exposes the second-order dynamics model with bounded noise. Section~\ref{sec:evolution-information-state} defines the so-called non-deterministic information state for our particular multi robot system and provides the equations describing its evolution through time. The last section of the chapter builds a priority preserving control law taking into account uncertainty information by considering the worst-case scenario. It is guaranteed that for all possible errors/perturbations in sensing/control, no collision occurs, priorities are respected and all robots eventually go through the intersection. Additionally, the brake safety property of Chapter~\ref{chap:control-acceleration} stating that robots may safely brake at any point of time without violating priorities still holds.
\section{Control model with bounded noise}
\label{sec:control-model-uncertainty}
We slightly modify the model of Chapter~\ref{chap:control-acceleration} to account for bounded control noise. Each robot $i$ is modeled as a second-order control system with state $s_i=(x_i,v_i)\in S_i:=\mathbb{R} \times [0,{\overline{v}}_i]$, whose evolution is described by the differential equation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{x_i}(t) &= & v_i(t)+\mathbf{1}_{v_i(t)={\overline{v}}_i} \mathbf{d}^v_i(t)
\label{eq-diff-state1-non-deterministic}
\\
\dot{v_i}(t) & =& (\mathbf{u}_i(t)+\mathbf{d}^u_i(t)) ~\delta(\mathbf{u}_i(t)+\mathbf{d}^u_i(t),v_i(t))
\label{eq-diff-state2-non-deterministic}
\end{eqnarray}
with the same notations as in Chapter~\ref{chap:control-acceleration} and with $\mathbf{1}_C$ returning $1$ if condition $C$ holds, $0$ else. Basically, $\mathbf{d}^v$ models the uncertainty on maintaining maximum velocity and $\mathbf{d}^u$ models the uncertainty on the brake command. $\mathbf{d}=(\mathbf{d}^v,\mathbf{d}^u)$ is the overall exogenous control uncertainty signal. We assume that control uncertainty is bounded and we let $D:=\prod_{i\in\mathcal{R}} D_i$ with $D_i:=[\underline{d}_i,\overline{d}_i]$ and $\underline{d}_i\in\mathbb{R}_-^2$ and $\overline{d}_i\in\mathbb{R}_+^2$. We let $\mathbf{D}_i$ denote the set of uncertainty controls $\mathbf{d}_i$ taking values in $D_i$ and $\mathbf{D}:=\prod_{i\in\mathcal{R}} \mathbf{D}_i$. We let $t \mapsto \phi_i(t,s_i,\mathbf{u}_i,\mathbf{d}_i)$ denote the flow of the system starting at initial condition $s_i\in S_i$ with control $\mathbf{u}_i \in \mathbf{U}_i$ and uncertainty control $\mathbf{d}_i$. As in Chapter~\ref{chap:control-acceleration}, projected flows are defined as follows: $\phi_x:=\pi_x\circ\phi$ and $\phi_v:=\pi_v\circ\phi$. We introduce a partial order for uncertainty signals as follows:
\begin{equation}
\forall \mathbf{d}_i^1,\mathbf{d}_i^2\in \mathbf{D}_i, \mathbf{d}_i^1 \preceq \mathbf{d}_i^2 \text{ if } \forall t\geq 0, \mathbf{d}_i^1(t) \leq \mathbf{d}_i^2 (t)
\end{equation}
\begin{property}[Order preservation]
The flow $t \mapsto \phi_i(t,s_i,\mathbf{u}_i,\mathbf{d}_i)$ is order-preserving with regards to $s_i$, $\mathbf{u}_i$ and $\mathbf{d}_i$.
\end{property}
Finally, we make the following assumptions for all $i\in\mathcal{R}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\underline{d}_i^v+{\overline{v}}_i&>&0 \label{eq:assumption-uncertainty-velocity}\\
{\overline{u}}_i+\underline{d}_i^u&>&0\label{eq:assumption-uncertainty-acceleration}\\
{\underline{u}}_i+\overline{d}_i^u&<&0\label{eq:assumption-uncertainty-brake}
\end{eqnarray}
Basically, it means that:
\begin{itemize}
\item even with uncertainty on maintaining maximum velocity, the velocity is always positive;
\item even with uncertainty on control, when a robot applies maximum throttle command, it will effectively accelerate;
\item and when a robot applies maximum brake command, it will effectively brake.
\end{itemize}
\section{Evolution of the non-deterministic information state}
\label{sec:evolution-information-state}
We let $2^A$ denote the power set of any set $A$. We assume that we have observations at the beginning of every time slot. We model observations as a signal $\mathbf{y}:\mathbb{R}_+^* \to 2^S$ satisfying $\mathbf{y}(t)=S$ if $t\notin\mathbb{N}$, and $\mathbf{y}(k)$ is a parallelepiped:
\begin{equation}
\forall k\in\mathbb{N}^*_+, \mathbf{y}(k)=\prod_{i\in\mathcal{R}}\mathbf{y}_i(k)=\prod_{i\in\mathcal{R}} \mathbf{y}^x_i(k) \times \mathbf{y}^v_i(k)
\end{equation}
$\mathbf{y}^x_i(k)$ denotes the observation on the position of robot $i$ at time slot $k$ and $\mathbf{y}^v_i(k)$ the observation on the velocity of robot $i$ at time slot $k$. An observation $\mathbf{y}(k)$ provides a set of possible (true) states given the sensors information. $\mathbf{y}(t)=S$ if $t\notin\mathbb{N}$ means that there is no observation data at time $t\notin\mathbb{N}$. We let $\mathbf{Y}_i$ denote the set of observation signals $\mathbf{y}_i$ satisfying the above assumptions and $\mathbf{Y}:=\prod_{i\in\mathcal{R}} \mathbf{Y}_i$.
We remind that the non-deterministic information state at time $t$ provides the set of possible (true) states at time $t$: if the current non-deterministic information state is $\hat s\in 2^S$, the current (true) state $s\in S$ satisfies $s\in\hat s$. The evolution of the non-deterministic information state accounts for both the uncertainty on control and on sensing. Given $k\in\mathbb{N}$, for $t\in (k,k+1)$, the uncertainty on control (through $\mathbf{d}$) increases the size of possible states as time goes by. At time $k+1$, a new observation is available, and the new state of the system necessarily belongs to the range given by the observation.
The above statements lead to the non-deterministic information state flow $t\mapsto \hat\phi(t,\hat{s},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{y})$ associated to an initial condition $\hat s$, a control $\mathbf{u}$ and an observation signal $\mathbf{y}\in\mathbf{Y}$ defined as follows.:
\begin{equation}
\hat \phi(0,\hat{s},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{y}):=\hat{s}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\forall k\in\mathbb{N}, \forall t\in(0,1),
\hat\phi(k+t,\hat{s},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{y}):=\left\{\phi(t,s,\mathbf{u},\mathbf{d}):\mathbf{d}\in\mathbf{D}, s\in \hat\phi(k,\hat{s},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{y})\right\}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\forall k\in\mathbb{N},
\hat\phi(k+1,\hat{s},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{y}):=\left\{\phi(1,s,\mathbf{u},\mathbf{d}):\mathbf{d}\in\mathbf{D}, s\in \hat\phi(k,\hat{s},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{y})\right\} \cap \mathbf{y}(k+1) \label{eq:non-deterministic-flow-intersection-with-observation}
\end{equation}
The evolution of the non-deterministic information state flow is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:evolution-non-deterministic-information-state}. By order-preservation, as $D$ and $y(k)$ are parallelepipeds, and as the intersection of two parallelepipeds is a parallelepiped, it is clear that starting from an initially parallelepipedic non-deterministic information state $\hat{s}$, $\hat\phi(t,\hat{s},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{y})$ is a parallelepiped at any point of time. Note that it makes its computation easier as only two extremal points need to be computed. As for deterministic flows, projected flows are defined as follows: $\hat\phi_x:=\pi_x\circ\hat\phi$ and $\hat\phi_v:=\pi_v\circ\hat\phi$.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{evolution-non-deterministic-information-state}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{Evolution of the non-deterministic information state. For $t\in(0,1)$, the "size" of the non-deterministic information state grows until a new observation is available at $t=1$. The intersection with $y(1)$ at $t=1$ enables to take into account the new observation and reduces the "size" of the updated non-deterministic information state $\hat s^1$.}
\label{fig:evolution-non-deterministic-information-state}
\end{figure}
We let $\mathbf{S}$ denote the constant observation signal $\mathbf{y}(t)\equiv S$, i.e., there is no observation data for all $t\geq 0$. We define the set of brake safe non-deterministic states $\hat B_G$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat B_G &:=& \left\{ \hat s \in 2^\chi: \forall t\geq 0, \hat \phi_x(t, \hat s, \underline{\mathbf{u}}, \mathbf{S}) \in 2^{\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G} \right\}\\
&=&\left\{ \hat s \in 2^\chi: \forall s\in\hat s, \forall \mathbf{d}\in\mathbf{D}, \forall t\geq 0, \phi_x(t, s, \underline{\mathbf{u}}, \mathbf{d}) \in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G \right\}
\end{eqnarray}
A non-deterministic state $\hat s\in 2^\chi$ is brake safe if starting from any true state $s\in\hat s$, the flow under maximum brake command $\underline{\mathbf{u}}$ is collision-free for all possible control uncertainty signals $\mathbf{d}\in\mathbf{D}$.
\section{The proposed decentralized control law}
We are going to build a control law for the non-deterministic system. The control law maps the current information state of the system to the control to apply, i.e., it is a map $\hat g: 2^S \to U$. We let $t\mapsto \hat\phi(t,\hat{s},\hat g,\mathbf{y})$ denote the flow $t\mapsto \hat\phi(t,\hat{s},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{y})$ where $\mathbf{u}$ satisfies:
\begin{equation}
\forall k\in\mathbb{N}, \mathbf{u}(k)\equiv \hat{g}(\hat\phi(k,\hat{s},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{y}))
\end{equation}
For all $i\in\mathcal{R}$, we define the operator $\widetilde{\sup}^i$ and the uncertainty signal $\tilde{\mathbf{d}}^i$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\forall j\in\mathcal{R}, \widetilde{\sup}^i_j(\hat s)&:=&\begin{cases}
\sup \hat s_i& \text{if } j=i\\
\inf \hat s_j & \text{if } j\neq i
\end{cases}\\
\forall j\in\mathcal{R}, \tilde{\mathbf{d}}^i_j&:=&\begin{cases}
\mathbf{\overline{d}}_i & \text{if } j=i\\
\mathbf{\underline{d}}_j & \text{if } j\neq i
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
Basically, $\widetilde{\sup}^i(\hat s)$ represents the worst-case possible true state of the system for collisions with regards to $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}$. Similarly, $\tilde{\mathbf{d}}^i_j$ is the worst-case possible disturbance with regards to $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}$. The rationale of the proposed control law is to apply the same control law as without uncertainty but considering the worst-case scenario (both worst-case disturbance and worst-case true state). The control law can be formulated synthetically as follows:
\begin{equation}
\hat g_i^G(\hat s):=\begin{cases}
{\underline{u}}_i & \text{if } \exists (j,i)\in E(G), \exists t\geq 0 \text{ s.t. } \phi_x(t,\widetilde{\sup}^i(\hat{s}),\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i, \tilde{\mathbf{d}}^i) \in \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i} \\
{\overline{u}}_i & \text{ else.}
\end{cases}
\label{eq-control-map-uncertainty}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Priority preservation}
As previously, we first focus on the most important property: safety, i.e., priority preservation.
\begin{theorem}[Priority preservation]
Given a priority graph $G\in\mathcal{G}$, the set of brake safe non-deterministic information states $\hat B_G$ is positively invariant (in discrete time) for the non-deterministic system under control law $\hat g^G$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\forall \mathbf{y}\in\mathbf{Y}, \forall \hat s\in \hat B_G, \forall k\in\mathbb{N}, \hat\phi(k,\hat{s},\hat g^G,\mathbf{y}) \in \hat B_G
\label{eq:invariance-B-G-uncertainty}
\end{equation}
Moreover, the non-deterministic system remains in $2^{\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G}$ through time, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\forall \mathbf{y}\in\mathbf{Y}, \forall \hat s\in \hat B_G, \forall t\geq 0, \hat\phi_x(t,\hat{s},\hat g^G,\mathbf{y})\in 2^{\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G}
\label{eq:no-collision-during-time-slots-uncertainty}
\end{equation}
\label{thm-safe-control-map-uncertainty}
\end{theorem}
As in Chapter~\ref{chap:control-acceleration}, the above theorem is a limit case of Theorem~\ref{thm-robustness-brake-application-uncertainty} proved in the sequel.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{trajectory-acceleration-control-example-with-uncertainty}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{Look of the trajectory for a three-robot system with acyclic assigned priorities $1\succ 2$, $2\succ 3$ and $1\succ 3$ under control law $g^G$. A band is used to represent the set of all possible real configurations through time.}
\label{fig:trajectory-acceleration-control-example-with-uncertainty}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Robustness}
As in Chapter~\ref{chap:control-acceleration}, the control law $\hat g_i^G$ returns the maximum control value that robot $i$ can safely apply, but it is in fact always safe to apply a lower control value. Hence, we obtain the same robustness property that is highly valuable for applications in autonomous cars.
\begin{theorem}[A broad class of priority preserving controls]
Given a priority graph $G\in\mathcal{G}$, an initial condition $\hat s\in \hat B_G$, an observation signal $\mathbf{y}\in\mathbf{Y}$ and a control $\mathbf{u} \in \mathbf{U}$ that satisfies:
\begin{equation}
\forall k\in\mathbb{N}, \mathbf{u}(k) \leq \hat g^G(\hat \phi(k,\hat s,\mathbf{u},\mathbf{y}))
\label{eq-inequality-control-map-uncertainty}
\end{equation}
The set of non-deterministic brake safe states $\hat B_G$ is positively invariant (in discrete time), i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\forall k\in\mathbb{N}, \hat \phi(k,\hat s,\mathbf{u},\mathbf{y}) \in \hat B_G
\end{equation}
Moreover, the configuration of the non-deterministic system remains in $2^{\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G}$ through time, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\forall t\geq 0, \hat \phi_x(t,\hat s,\mathbf{u},\mathbf{y})\in 2^{\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G}
\end{equation}
\label{thm-robustness-brake-application-uncertainty}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Take a priority graph $G\in\mathcal{G}$, an initial condition $\hat s\in \hat B_G$ and a control $\mathbf{u}\in\mathbf{U}$ satisfying Equation~\eqref{eq-inequality-control-map-uncertainty}. By induction, it is sufficient to prove that the flow remains in $2^{\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G}$ for $t\in[0,1]$ and the reached state $\hat \phi(1,\hat s,\mathbf{u},\mathbf{y}) \in \hat B_G$. First, we prove that the flow of Theorem~\ref{thm-robustness-brake-application-uncertainty} does not intersect $2^{\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_G}$ for $t\in[0,1]$. Take arbitrary $t\in[0,1]$ and $(j,i)\in E(G)$: we have to prove that $\hat\phi_x(t,\hat s,\mathbf{u},\mathbf{y})\in 2^{\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}}$. By construction of $\hat \phi$, it is equivalent to prove that for all $\mathbf{d}\in\mathbf{D}$ and $s\in\hat s$, $\phi_x(t,s,\mathbf{u},\mathbf{d})\in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$. By construction of $\hat g^G$, there are two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\hat g_i^G(\hat s)={\underline{u}}_i$: in this case,
\begin{equation}
\phi_i(t,s,\mathbf{u}, \mathbf{d})=\phi_i(t, s,\underline{\mathbf{u}}, \mathbf{d})
\label{eq:pf-discrete-case1-eq1-uncertainty}
\end{equation}
and by order-preservation:
\begin{equation}
\phi_j(t, s,\mathbf{u},\mathbf{d}) \geq \phi_j(t,s,\underline{\mathbf{u}}, \mathbf{d})
\label{eq:pf-discrete-case1-eq2-uncertainty}
\end{equation}
Since $\hat s\in \hat B_G$, $\phi_x(t, s,\underline{\mathbf{u}},\mathbf{d})\in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$. Hence, by Property~\ref{property:geometric-invariance}, Equations~\eqref{eq:pf-discrete-case1-eq1-uncertainty} and~\eqref{eq:pf-discrete-case1-eq2-uncertainty} ensure that $\phi_x(t, s,\mathbf{u},\mathbf{d})\in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$ as well.
\item $g_i^G(s)={\overline{u}}_i$: by construction of the control law, $\phi_x(t,\widetilde{\sup}^i(\hat s),\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i, \tilde{\mathbf{d}}^i) \in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{G}$. By order-preservation, using $\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i_i(0)={\overline{u}}_i$, $\tilde{\mathbf{d}}^i_i=\mathbf{\overline{d}}_i$ and $\widetilde{\sup}^i_i(\hat s)=\sup \hat s_i$, we obtain:
\begin{equation}
\phi_i(t,\widetilde{\sup}^i(\hat s),\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i, \tilde{\mathbf{d}}^i)=\phi_i(t,\sup \hat s, \overline{\mathbf{u}}, \mathbf{\overline{d}}) \geq \phi_i(t,s, \mathbf{u}, \mathbf{d})
\label{eq:pf-discrete-case2-eq1-uncertainty}
\end{equation}
Again, by order-preservation, using $\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i_j(0)={\underline{u}}_j$, $\tilde{\mathbf{d}}^i_j=\mathbf{\underline{d}}_j$ and $\widetilde{\sup}^i_j(\hat s)=\inf \hat s_j$, we have:
\begin{equation}
\phi_j(t,\widetilde{\sup}^i(\hat s),\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i, \tilde{\mathbf{d}}^i)=\phi_j(t,\inf \hat s, \underline{\mathbf{u}}, \mathbf{\underline{d}}) \leq \phi_j(t,s, \mathbf{u}, \mathbf{d})
\label{eq:pf-discrete-case2-eq2-uncertainty}
\end{equation}
Since $\phi_x(t,\widetilde{\sup}^i(\hat s),\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i, \tilde{\mathbf{d}}^i) \in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$, by Property~\ref{property:geometric-invariance}, Equations~\eqref{eq:pf-discrete-case2-eq1-uncertainty} and~\eqref{eq:pf-discrete-case2-eq2-uncertainty} ensure that $\phi_x(t,s,\mathbf{u}, \mathbf{d})\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$.
\end{itemize}
As a final step, we prove that the reached state $\hat \phi(1,\hat s,\mathbf{u},\mathbf{y})$ is brake safe. It is sufficient to prove that:
\begin{equation}
\hat s^1:=\left\{\phi(1,s,\mathbf{u},\mathbf{d}):\mathbf{d}\in\mathbf{D}, s\in \hat s\right\} \in \hat B_G
\end{equation}
$\hat \phi(1,\hat s,\mathbf{u},\mathbf{y})$ is indeed a subset of $\hat s^1$ by construction of $\hat \phi$ (see Equation~\eqref{eq:non-deterministic-flow-intersection-with-observation}). Take arbitrary $t \geq 0$ and $(j,i)\in E(G)$: we have to prove that for all $s^1\in\hat s^1$ and $\mathbf{d}^1\in\mathbf{D}$, we have $\phi_x(t,s^1,\underline{\mathbf{u}}, \mathbf{d}^1)\in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$.
Take arbitrary $s^1\in\hat s^1$ and $\mathbf{d}^1\in\mathbf{D}$. We have $s^1=\phi(1,s,\mathbf{u},\mathbf{d})$ with $\mathbf{d}\in\mathbf{D}$ and $s\in \hat s$. Consider $\mathbf{d}^2\in\mathbf{D}$ and $\mathbf{u}^2\in\mathbf{U}$ satisfying $\mathbf{d}^2(0)=\mathbf{d}(0)$, $\mathbf{u}^2(0)=\mathbf{u}(0)$ and for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$, $\mathbf{d}^2(k+1)=\mathbf{d}^1(k)$ and $\mathbf{u}^2(k+1)={\underline{u}}$. By construction, we have: $\phi(t,s^1,\underline{\mathbf{u}},\mathbf{d}^1)=\phi(1+t,s,\mathbf{u}^2,\mathbf{d}^2)$.
As a result, we have to prove that $\phi_x(1+t,s,\mathbf{u}^2, \mathbf{d}^2)\in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$. As previously, there are two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item $g_i^G(s)={\underline{u}}_i$: then, we have $\mathbf{u}^2_i=\underline{\mathbf{u}}_i$, so that:
\begin{equation}
\phi_i(1+t,s,\mathbf{u}^2, \mathbf{d}^2) = \phi_i(1+t,s,\underline{\mathbf{u}}, \mathbf{d}^2)
\label{eq:pf-continuous-case1-eq1-uncertainty}
\end{equation}
Moreover, by order-preservation, we have:
\begin{equation}
\phi_j(1+t,s,\mathbf{u}^2, \mathbf{d}^2) \geq \phi_j(1+t,s,\underline{\mathbf{u}}, \mathbf{d}^2)
\label{eq:pf-continuous-case1-eq2-uncertainty}
\end{equation}
Since $s$ is brake safe, $\phi_x(1+t,s,\underline{\mathbf{u}},\mathbf{d}^2)\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$. Hence, by Property~\ref{property:geometric-invariance}, Equations~\eqref{eq:pf-continuous-case1-eq1-uncertainty} and~\eqref{eq:pf-continuous-case1-eq2-uncertainty} ensure that $\phi_x(1+t,s,\mathbf{u}^2, \mathbf{d}^2)\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$ as well.
\item $g_i^G(s)={\overline{u}}_i$: then by construction of the control law, $\phi_x(1+t,\widetilde{\sup}^i(\hat{s}),\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i, \tilde{\mathbf{d}}^i) \in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_G$. Using $\mathbf{u}^2_i \leq \tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i_i$, $\widetilde{\sup}^i_i(\hat{s})=\sup\hat s_i$ and $\tilde{\mathbf{d}}^i_i=\mathbf{\overline{d}}_i$, by order-preservation, we have:
\begin{equation}
\phi_i(1+t,\widetilde{\sup}^i(\hat{s}),\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i, \tilde{\mathbf{d}}^i) = \phi_i(1+t,\sup \hat s,\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i, \mathbf{\overline{d}}) \geq \phi_i(1+t,s,\mathbf{u}^2, \mathbf{d}^2)
\label{eq:pf-continuous-case2-eq1-uncertainty}
\end{equation}
Moreover, by order preservation, using $\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i_j=\underline{\mathbf{u}}_j$, $\widetilde{\sup}^i_j(\hat{s})=\inf\hat s_j$ and $\tilde{\mathbf{d}}^i_j=\mathbf{\underline{d}}_j$, we have:
\begin{equation}
\phi_j(1+t,\widetilde{\sup}^i(\hat{s}),\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i, \tilde{\mathbf{d}}^i) = \phi_j(1+t,\inf \hat s,\underline{\mathbf{u}}, \mathbf{\underline{d}}) \leq \phi_j(1+t,s,\mathbf{u}^2, \mathbf{d}^2)
\label{eq:pf-continuous-case2-eq2-uncertainty}
\end{equation}
Since $\phi_x(1+t,\widetilde{\sup}^i(\hat{s}),\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i, \tilde{\mathbf{d}}^i) \in \chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$, by Property~\ref{property:geometric-invariance}, Equations~\eqref{eq:pf-continuous-case2-eq1-uncertainty} and~\eqref{eq:pf-continuous-case2-eq2-uncertainty} ensure that $\phi_x(1+t,s,\mathbf{u}^2, \mathbf{d}^2)\in\chi^{\mathrm{free}}_{j \succ i}$ as well.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Liveness}
Despite uncertainty, the proposed control still ensures all robots will eventually go through the intersection. As in previous chapters, robots are expected to eventually reach the region $\chi^{\mathrm{goal}}:=\overline{x}^\mathrm{\hspace{0.2mm}obs}+\mathbb{R}_+^n$.
\begin{theorem}[Liveness]
Given an acyclic priority graph $G$, an initial brake safe non-deterministic state $\hat s\in \hat B_G$ and an observation signal $\mathbf{y}\in\mathbf{Y}$, there exists $T>0$ such that:
\begin{equation}
\hat \phi_x(T,\hat s,\hat g^G, \mathbf{y})\in 2^{\chi^{\mathrm{goal}}}
\end{equation}
\label{thm:liveness-control-law-uncertainty}
\end{theorem}
A proof of the above theorem is provided in Appendix~\ref{app:liveness-control-law-uncertainty} (under weaker assumptions).
\chapter*{Conclusions}
{\pagestyle{empty}
Part~\ref{part:priority-framework} suggested to use priorities as a plan to guide robots. In traditional planning, the plan is a reference trajectory to track and the trajectory tracking problem is a well-established problem with many existing solutions consisting in devising a control law configured by the reference trajectory in charge of tracking. However, in priority-based coordination, there is no reference trajectory. The plan is the priority graph and there is no standard tool to control robots under assigned priorities. Devising such tools has been the topic of the present part. The proposed control laws are configured by the assigned priorities, and guarantee priority preservation and liveness (all robots eventually go through the intersection). First of all, as priorities are assigned, the combinatorial complexity of multi robot control (see~\cite{Colombo2012}) is avoided, and computing the output of the control laws proposed in this part is of polynomial complexity. Moreover, in contrast with a trajectory tracking approach, the priority preservation approach retains some freedom of action at the control phase, as there is a large class of trajectories respecting the assigned priorities (instead of only one reference trajectory). In particular, the proposed control law ensures that robots -- only one, several, or even all -- may brake at any time without violating priorities. In Chapter~\ref{chap:optimal-control-velocity}, we have proposed priority preserving control for robots controlled in velocity. The trajectory resulting from the application of the proposed control law is optimal for the assigned priorities, recovering the existence of a left-greedy optimal trajectory in a given homotopy class noticed in~\cite{Ghrist2005}. Chapter~\ref{chap:control-acceleration} demonstrates that the presence of inertia can be handled using the notion of brake safety that merely consists in some kind of anticipation. The proposed control law is decentralized and demonstrates a remarkable robustness regarding unexpected deceleration of robots. The final chapter of the present part has given some elements to take into account uncertainty in priority-based coordination. Under bounded uncertainty, the idea is to consider the worst-case scenario which is well defined when priorities are assigned. Priority preservation and liveness can still be guaranteed as in the deterministic case. This chapter demonstrates the ability of the priority-based approach to handle uncertainty in a reactive manner. For example, if the current uncertainty on the position of robots is very large, under priority preserving control, all robots will brake and eventually stop safely, and will not restart until a sufficiently small uncertainty enables to go safely through the intersection. By contrast, tracking a reference planned trajectory when the uncertainty on position is very large would likely result in collisions. Hence, with a plan execution approach, if the uncertainty becomes very large, the designer should anticipate by providing an emergency maneuver to execute. Then, a new planning phase should be carried out before restarting. With priority-based coordination, such change in uncertainty -- even a complete lost of sensing capabilities -- can be handled in a reactive manner.
\cleardoublepage}
\part{Priority-based coordination}
\label{part:priority-based-coordination}
\chapter*{Introduction}
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
Part~\ref{part:priority-framework} suggested using priorities to guide robots and Part~\ref{part:priorities-to-guide-robots} provided solutions to control robots under assigned priorities. To this point, many aspects of the design of a coordination system at intersections have been left behind. Most importantly, the multi robot coordination system is an open system as robots arrive and exit the intersection through time. Hence, priorities need to be assigned dynamically. Moreover, priority assignment and control under assigned priorities need to be executed in parallel. This part has a more engineering flavor, it specifies the system architecture, how priority assignment and priority preserving control are integrated and how they interface. The proposed approach is inspired from drivers' behavior at signalized intersections. Before entering the intersection, the driver follows the preceding vehicles without colliding, and as long as the traffic signal does not give him/her the right of way, the driver does not go through the intersection. Once the vehicle is given the right of way (green signal), the driver goes through the intersection. However, the driver still retains some reactive abilities and will hopefully not enter the intersection if other vehicles are blocked and/or a pedestrian crosses the road. \parindent2em
In priority-based coordination, the so-called control area is a region of space that robots should not enter unless they have been accepted and assigned a priority with respect to other accepted robots. We adopt a three-layer architecture~\cite{Gat1998}, particularly adapted to the approach considering plans as a resource to guide action. The reactive quality of the system is ensured by a behavior-based layer. Robots' behaviors include 'follow geometric path', 'move forward', 'do not enter the control area', 'respect priorities', 'avoid pedestrians'. The entry of the control area is managed by a central agent, the intersection controller. The intersection controller assigns priorities, yet it does not assign a precise trajectory for the accepted robots. It constitutes the deliberative layer of the system, processing time-consuming tasks reasoning about the future. Finally, robots have a sequencing layer in charge of activating/deactivating/configuring behaviors. The robustness property of the control law ensuring robots may safely brake at any point of time is shown to be of high interest in the proposed architecture. It is indeed possible for, e.g., behavior 'avoid pedestrians' to require the robot to brake to avoid a detected pedestrian, without conflicting with behavior 'respect priorities', as the control law ensures that it is always priority preserving to brake at any point of time (see Theorem~\ref{thm-robustness-brake-application}). Preliminaries of the presented results can be found in our article~\cite{Gregoire2013-priority-based}.
\paragraph{Sketch of the part} Chapter~\ref{chap:coordination-system} describes the system architecture and how priorities may be assigned. Chapter~\ref{chap:simulations} provides simulation results demonstrating safety and robustness of priority-based coordination.
\end{minipage}
{\pagestyle{plain}
\clearpage
\topskip0pt
\vspace*{\fill}
\includegraphics[height=1.0\linewidth,angle=-90,trim=160 60 160 60, clip]{wordle-chap-coordination-system}
\vspace*{\fill}
\parttoc}
\chapter[Overall priority-based coordination system]{Overall priority-based\\ coordination system}
\label{chap:coordination-system}
\minitoc
\paragraph{Sketch of the chapter} The first section presents the proposed three-layer architecture and provides details on how layers interact. The second chapter focuses on priority assignment: a simple and easily implementable priority assignment policy is described, and some adaptations in order to guarantee request processing liveness and queues stability are discussed.
\section{Three-layer architecture}
For its ability to design systems with reactive qualities yet retaining planning capabilities, a three-layer architecture is proposed. As noticed in~\cite{Gat1998}, such an architecture organizes control algorithms according to whether their internal state reflects the present, the past, or predictions of the future. Figure~\ref{fig:three-layer-architecture} gives a quick overview of the proposed architecture detailed in the sequel.
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{three-layer-architecture}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{The three-layer architecture of priority-based coordination}
\label{fig:three-layer-architecture}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The intersection controller}
The intersection controller constitutes the deliberative layer of the proposed architecture -- reasoning on the future -- and manages the control area, defined as a subset of the two-dimensional real space in which the collision area wholly resides. The control area must contain, at least, the subset of the two-dimensional space corresponding to all possible collisions between robots, excluding only regions where collision avoidance is reduced to safe car following (see Figure~\ref{fig-controlled-area}).
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{controlled-area}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{The control area.}
\label{fig-controlled-area}
\end{figure}
For each path, an entry position and an exit position are defined. Let $x_i^{\mathrm{entry}}$ denote the entry position for robot $i$ and $x_i^{\mathrm{exit}}$ its exit position. Robot $i$ is in the control area if $x_i\in[x_i^{\mathrm{entry}},x_i^{\mathrm{exit}}]$. To enter the control area, robots send a request to the intersection controller. The job of the intersection controller is to process requests. Either the request is rejected, the robot cannot enter the control area and will have to send a new request; or, the request is accepted and priorities with respect to robots already accepted in the control area are assigned. This task, referred as priority assignment is the topic of Section~\ref{sec:priority-assignment}.
\subsection{The behavior-based layer}
The behavior-based layer ensures the reactive quality of the system and is implemented by designing control laws.
\paragraph{Move forward} All robots implement behavior 'move forward'. Using the second-order dynamics model of Chapter~\ref{chap:control-acceleration}, 'move forward' behavior for robot $i$ consists in applying maximum throttle command ${\overline{u}}_i$. However, this behavior is subsumed~\cite{Brooks1986} by all other behaviors, e.g., the robot will brake if another behavior like 'respect priorities' requires braking.
\paragraph{Do not enter the control area} Robots also implement 'do not enter the control area' behavior.
Each robot $i$ that has not already been accepted in the control area checks at every time slot whether accelerating (or maintaining maximum velocity) during the next time slot will inevitably result in an entry into the control area. If this is the case and if it is not accepted into the control area, robot $i$ must brake. To formulate this mathematically, the final (and maximal) position reached by robot $i$ with initial state $s_i$ under impulse control is computed as follows:
\begin{equation}
x_i^\stop(s_i) := \max \phi_{x,i}(\mathbb{R}_+,s_i,\mathbf{u}_i^\mathrm{impulse})
\label{eq:stop-position}
\end{equation}
The condition for 'do not enter the control area' behavior to make robot brake then simply becomes: $x_i^\stop(s_i)>x_i^{\mathrm{entry}}$.
\paragraph{Respect priorities} Robots also implement priority preserving control of Part~\ref{part:priorities-to-guide-robots} (Chapter~\ref{chap:control-acceleration}) through 'respect priorities' behavior. This behavior cannot be active before priorities are assigned as it needs priorities as input to configure the control law $g^G$ by specifying the priority graph $G$.
\paragraph{Additional behaviors} In addition to the behaviors presented above, in charge of coordination, robots may implement other behaviors, not directly related to coordination. First of all, the fixed paths assumption (see Section~\ref{sec:coordination-space},~Figure~\ref{fig-paths}) requires robots to implement a 'follow geometric path' behavior using lateral control. More interestingly, robots may implement behaviors to react to unexpected events. For example, for an application in autonomous vehicles, an 'avoid pedestrians' behavior is a must. It is not conceivable to let autonomous vehicles go through an intersection in an urban area, executing an open-loop planned trajectory without implementing a behavior to detect pedestrians and react accordingly. The benefit of the proposed behavior-based architecture is that a behavior like 'avoid pedestrians' can be implemented in a manner that it subsumes all other behaviors. Most of the time, such reactive safety behaviors will require the robot to brake, and priorities will be conserved as the control law of Chapter~\ref{chap:control-acceleration} guarantees that it is always priority preserving to brake at any point of time (see Theorem~\ref{thm-robustness-brake-application}). Hence, priority-based coordination can handle a large class of unexpected events -- all events requiring one or more robots to brake -- without need to replan, i.e., without need to reassign priorities.
\subsection{The sequencer}
In a three-layer architecture, the sequencer's job is to activate/deactivate and/or configure the behaviors~\cite{Gat1998} that we just listed above. When should 'do not enter the control area' behavior be deactivated in favor of 'respect priorities' behavior ? Note that the state of the sequencer reflects the past as it is necessary to store whether the robot is accepted or not into the control area and to store priorities as well, in order to configure and activate/deactivate behaviors accordingly.
The sequencer communicates with the deliberative layer, i.e., the intersection controller, by sending queries. The goal of these queries is to 'get the right of way'. The condition $x_i^\stop(s_i)>x_i^{\mathrm{entry}}-\delta$ is used as the condition to request the entry of the control area. The margin $\delta \geq 0$ enables to anticipate the entry of the control area, so that the intersection controller can possibly accept the robot into the control area in the remaining time, before 'do not enter the control area' behavior's brake condition $x_i^\stop(s_i)>x_i^{\mathrm{entry}}$ holds. The sequencer communicates asynchronously with the intersection controller to ensure a reactive quality. As long as the intersection controller does not accept the robot, the sequencer keeps 'do not enter the control area' behavior active. When the robot is accepted into the control area, 'do not enter the control area' behavior is deactivated in favor of 'respect priorities'. The assigned priorities received by the sequencer in the response of the intersection controller serve as input of 'respect priorities' behavior to configure the control law by specifying the priority graph $G$.
\section{Priority assignment}
\label{sec:priority-assignment}
This section focuses on how priorities are assigned, i.e., how the intersection controller processes entry requests.
\paragraph{Priorities as a byproduct of traditional trajectory planning algorithms} First of all, it is key to notice that priorities can be obtained as a byproduct of all existing trajectory planning algorithms espousing the plan-as-program paradigm. One can simply assign the priorities induced by the feasible path returned by the planning algorithm. For certain existing algorithms, e.g., in~\cite{Akella2002}, priorities are even directly accessible (in~\cite{Akella2002}, they can be retrieved through the binary variables of the MILP formulation of the problem). Therefore, priority assignment is not the core of the present thesis and we will not provide complex priority assignment policies adapting existing algorithms. In this section, a simple priority assignment policy is proposed resulting in acylic and thus necessarily feasible priorities. Then, perspectives towards "liveness" and "stability" guarantees are presented.
\subsection{A simple priority assignment policy}
\label{subsec:simple-priority-assignment}
The idea of the proposed policy is to let robots spend as little time as possible in the intersection area, inspired from~\cite{Dresner2008-multiagent-approach}. Thus a robot is accepted into the control area only if it can travel with maximum throttle command and with lowest priority. The second point is key: assigning the newly accepted robot the lowest priority with regards to robots already accepted into the control area leads to a necessarily acyclic graph, enforcing liveness (see Theorem~\ref{thm:liveness-control-law}). This can be formulated as follows and implementation aspects are presented in Section~\ref{sec:implementation-aspects}.
First of all, recall the control law of Chapter~\ref{chap:control-acceleration} when robots are controlled in acceleration:
\begin{equation}
g_i^G(s):=\begin{cases}
{\underline{u}}_i & \text{if } \exists (j,i)\in E(G), \exists t\geq 0 \text{ s.t. } \phi_x(t,s,\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i) \in \chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i} \\
{\overline{u}}_i & \text{ else.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
As $\kappa_{j\succ i}$ is the cross-section of $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{j\succ i}$, using the definition of $\tilde{\mathbf{u}}^i$, the control law can be formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}
g_i^G(s):=\begin{cases}
{\underline{u}}_i & \text{if } \exists (j,i)\in E(G), \exists t\geq 0: (\phi_{x,j}(t,s_j,\underline{\mathbf{u}}_j),\phi_{x,i}(t,s_i,\mathbf{u}^\mathrm{impulse}_i))\in\kappa_{j\succ i} \\
{\overline{u}}_i & \text{ else.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Consider a robot $i$ that requests the entry of the control area. To decide to accept it or not, we can simulate a trajectory that consists in applying control ${\overline{u}}_i$ constantly to robot $i$ while robots $j \neq i$ follow the trajectory that they would have followed in the absence of $i$, i.e., following control law $g^G$. Let $s=(s_j)_{j\in\mathcal{R}}$ denote the current state of robots $j\in\mathcal{R}$, let $s_i$ denote the current state of the requesting robot $i$ and let $\varsigma$ denote the simulated trajectory defined as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\forall t \geq 0, \varsigma_i(t) &:=& \phi_i(t,s_i,\overline{\mathbf{u}}_i)\\
\forall j\in \mathcal{R}, \forall t\geq 0, \varsigma_j(t) &:=& \phi_j(t,s,g^{G}) \label{eq-predicted-trajectory}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, there are two options:
\begin{itemize}
\item if for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$ and for all $j\in\mathcal{R}$ satisfying $\kappa_{ij}\neq\emptyset$, we have:
\begin{equation}
\forall t\geq 0, (\phi_{x,j}(t,\varsigma_j(k),\underline{\mathbf{u}}_j),\phi_{x,i}(t,\varsigma_i(k),\mathbf{u}^\mathrm{impulse}_i))\notin \kappa_{j\succ i}
\label{eq:condition-accept-i}
\end{equation}
the request is accepted and we do:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{R} &\gets& \mathcal{R}\cup\{i\}\\
E(G)& \gets& E(G)\cup\{(j,i):j\in\mathcal{R}, \kappa_{ij}\neq\emptyset\}
\end{eqnarray}
\item else the request is rejected.
\end{itemize}
Note that the described algorithm ensures the priority relation to be a partial order, that is $G$ to be a directed acyclic graph at all times. Each robot is sequentially accepted into the control area by the intersection controller if it can go through the intersection at maximum throttle command and after all already accepted robots. Condition~\eqref{eq:condition-accept-i} ensures that once robot $i$ is accepted and controlled by the control law $g^G$, if all robots follows $g^G$ (no uncertainty, no unexpected event), the control law will always return ${\overline{u}}_i$. This means that, in the absence of uncertainty, the coordination system will result in robots either waiting at the entry of the control area (possibly stopped at the entry), or accepted into the control area and applying maximum throttle command, thus going through the intersection at maximum speed. This is what is observable in the simulations of Subsection~\ref{subsec:sim-deterministic}. However, remind that a key motivation for our priority-based approach is precisely to handle uncertainty. Hence, if some robot does not apply maximum throttle command at some point for an arbitrary reason, the priority preserving control law will ensure that priorities are nevertheless respected as demonstrated by the simulations of Subsection~\ref{subsec:sim-unexpected-events}.
\subsection{Request processing liveness}
The weakness of the policy presented above is quite similar to the one of the First-Come-First-Serve policy of~\cite{Dresner2008-multiagent-approach}. As highlighted in~\cite{Au2011} for First-Come-First-Serve reservation policy, and it also holds for the priority assignment policy presented above, handling requests separately and not taking into account the history of requests, causes undesired behaviors like a vehicle in an alley waiting indefinitely at the entry of the intersection.
A solution is presented in~\cite{Au2011} to avoid this phenomenon. A batch policy with locking is proposed, consisting of mapping requests to a real value computed using a cost function of the form $f(wait):=a\times wait^b$ where $a,b$ are constants and $wait$ is the estimated amount of the time the robot has been waiting to enter the intersection. The "locking" mechanism is described as follows: when a request $r$ has an associated cost greater than a threshold, then requests from other robots whose path intersects the path of the robot of $r$ will not be granted, until the robot of $r$ is accepted. Interestingly, the proposed policy provably guarantees liveness, i.e., every robot waiting to enter the intersection can eventually enter. This liveness property is different from the one proved in Part~\ref{part:priorities-to-guide-robots} which ensures that once robots are accepted into the intersection, respecting the assigned priorities, they will eventually go through the intersection. The "locking" mechanism can be easily adapted to enhance performance and ensure liveness of the simple priority assignment proposed in Subsection~\ref{subsec:simple-priority-assignment}.
\subsection{Stability guarantees}
\label{subsec:bp-priority-assignment}
In traffic signal control, queue lengths are a standard indicator of a control policy's performance. In particular, recently, back-pressure control~\cite{Tassiulas1992} applied to traffic signals (see, e.g., ~\cite{Varaiya2009, Wongpiromsarn2012,Gregoire2013-capacity,Gregoire2014-unknown-routing}) aims at providing stability guarantees of the control policy. Loosely speaking, stable queues do not grow indefinitely through time. We believe that this work can be used to endow the priority assignment policy with stability guarantees.
We do not aim to formalize the proposed approach in the general case as it is beyond the scope of the present thesis, so the approach is presented for a particular example. Consider the intersection depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:intersection-BP}.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{intersection-BP}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{A four-path intersection, with two phases and four queues. Phase $p_1$ empties queues $Q_{11}$ and $Q_{12}$ and phase $p_2$ empties queues $Q_{21}$ and $Q_{22}$.}
\label{fig:intersection-BP}
\end{figure}
We let $Q_{11}$, $Q_{12}$, $Q_{21}$, $Q_{22}$ denote the queues lengths at the entry of each path. If the intersection was controlled by a traffic signal, there would be two phases: $p_1$ and $p_2$. Assuming this intersection is isolated, under standard back-pressure control, phase $p_1$ (resp. $p_2$) is applied if $Q_{11}+Q_{12} \geq Q_{21}+Q_{22}$ (resp. $Q_{11}+Q_{12} < Q_{21}+Q_{22}$).
Traffic signal control is not efficient at low traffic density because of the phase duration. A typical situation is a single vehicle waiting at the intersection for the right of way. The vehicle needs to wait for the end of the current phase before obtaining the right of way. At high traffic density, there are always queues at the entry of the intersection, so traffic signal control is particularly efficient as it lets vehicles move in platoons. Moreover, under back-pressure control, optimal stability can be proved, i.e., the queuing network is stabilized for all arrival rates that can be stably handled considering all control policies. That is why we propose an adaptive priority assignment policy that consists in applying back-pressure priority assignment if robots accumulate at the entry of the intersection (above a certain threshold), while the basic priority assignment policy presented in Subsection~\ref{subsec:simple-priority-assignment} is applied otherwise. More precisely, a phase duration $T$ and a threshold $\Delta Q^\mathrm{lim} \geq 0$ are chosen, and periodically, for $t=0,T,2T\cdots$, the phase update algorithm proceeds as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item if $(Q_{11}+Q_{12})-(Q_{21}+Q_{22}) \geq \Delta Q^\mathrm{lim}$: phase $p_1$ is applied. It means that for all the duration of the phase ($T$), only the entry requests of robots on the corresponding paths will be accepted. However, requests still need to be accepted according to the priority assignment policy presented in Section~\ref{sec:priority-assignment}. Typically, when there is a phase switch, the first requests will probably be rejected as there are still robots of the other phase in the intersection. These first requests which are rejected can be seen as a kind of yellow time.
\item if $(Q_{21}+Q_{22})-(Q_{11}+Q_{12}) > \Delta Q^\mathrm{lim}$: it is the symmetric case, and phase $p_2$ is applied.
\item otherwise, all phases are activated (both $p_1$ and $p_2$), so that the requests of all robots can be potentially accepted. The priority assignment policy is not affected by the phase, and is exactly as presented in Subsection~\ref{subsec:simple-priority-assignment}.
\end{itemize}
\chapter{ Simulations}
\label{chap:simulations}
\minitoc
\paragraph{Sketch of the chapter} The first section provides some details on the implementation of priority-based coordination in simulations. In particular, collision checking, robots random generation and the size of the control area are discussed. Mainly qualitative simulations results are then presented and interpreted.
\section{Implementation aspects}
\label{sec:implementation-aspects}
For the sake of the simplicity, we have implemented our algorithms for circle-shaped robots along straight paths. This choice eases the computation of the obstacle region as every $\kappa_{ij}$ is the interior of an ellipse whose equation can be easily derived from the radius of robots and the angle between the two straight geometric paths. All robots are supposed to be circle-shaped with a common diameter $D$. Note that the collision region between each couple of paths can be precomputed once and for all during the design phase of the intersection controller. The lateral control is not simulated and all robots are assumed to follow their assigned geometric path.
To check whether a trajectory is collision-free, as all we can do is to compute a discrete sequence of points, we have used a conservative collision checking algorithm. Basically, to check whether a given flow $(\phi(t,s,\mathbf{u}))_{t\geq 0}$ is collision-free with regards to $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$, we compute the following sequence of points of $\mathbb{R}^2$:
\begin{eqnarray}
x_i(k)&:=&\phi_{x,i}(k,s,\mathbf{u})\\
x_j(k)&:=&\phi_{x,j}(k+1,s,\mathbf{u})
\end{eqnarray}
Our collision checking algorithm asserts that the flow $(\phi(t,s,\mathbf{u}))_{t\geq 0}$ is collision-free with regards to $\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{i\succ j}$ if and only if the sequence $(x_i(k),x_j(k))_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ is collision-free with regards to $\kappa_{i \succ j}$. This method is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:collision-checking}. It is direct that it is conservative as some collision-free trajectories are not asserted to be collision-free; yet the difference vanishes for small enough time slot length.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{collision-checking}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{Method used for collision checking based on a discrete sequence of points. In the two top drawings, the trajectory for $t\in[k,k+1]$ is collision-free. However, in the case of the top right drawing the collision checking algorithm will consider the trajectory as non collision-free. In the two bottom drawings, the trajectory for $t\in[k,k+1]$ is not collision-free. In the case of the bottom left drawing, both $\phi_x(k,s,\mathbf{u})$ and $\phi_x(k+1,s,\mathbf{u})$ are collision-free. However, $x(k)$ is not collision-free. This case illustrates that checking whether the endpoints are collision-free is not sufficient, which justifies the use of $x(k)$.}
\label{fig:collision-checking}
\end{figure}
Robots are generated at the origin of each path randomly at a constant rate. Basically, at each time slot, for each path, a random value between $0$ and $1$ according to a uniform distribution is taken, and if this value exceeds a certain threshold, a robot is generated on this path. The value of this threshold is precisely the generation rate at the path. When generated, a robot $i$ is positioned with zero velocity at the coordinate $0$ of the path, or if there is already a robot $j$ at position $x_j \leq D$, $i$ is positioned at the coordinate $x_j-D$.
As noticed in~\cite{Dresner2008-multiagent-approach}, maximizing the velocity of robots in the intersection minimizes the time spent within the collision region, yielding a better performance. Hence, to ensure that robots have a maximum velocity within the collision region, the entry of the control area is defined to be far enough from the collision region (in the simulation videos we see that the robots that are not already accepted in the control area stop way before potential collision configurations).
Finally, the priority assignment policy of Subsection~\ref{subsec:simple-priority-assignment} is simplified based on heuristic considerations. To decide whether robot $i$ can be accepted or not, we need to check whether, under maximum throttle command, it can go through the intersection after all robots already accepted in the control area. To do so, note first that it is sufficient to check if it is the case for the lastly accepted robot of each intersecting path. Now, assume that robot $j$ is the lastly accepted robot on path $\gamma_j$. Intuitively, it is clear that, under maximum throttle command, robot $i$ can go through the intersection after robot $j$, if and only if there is a sufficient time offset between their entries. To this purpose, we compute:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\tau_i$~: the number of time slots necessary for robot $i$, under maximum throttle command, to reach "the entry of the collision area between paths $\gamma_i$ and $\gamma_j$", i.e., to reach position $\min\{x_i:x\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}\}$;
\item $\tau_j$~: the number of time slots necessary for robot $j$, under maximum throttle command, to reach "the exit the collision area between paths $\gamma_i$ and $\gamma_j$", i.e., to reach position $\max\{x_j:x\in\chi^{\mathrm{obs}}_{ij}\}$.
\end{itemize}
Our heuristic approach considers that, under maximum throttle command, robot $i$ can go through the intersection after robot $j$ if and only if $\tau_i\geq \tau_j$. It looks quite natural as it means that robot $i$ should "enter the collision area between paths $\gamma_i$ and $\gamma_j$" after robot $j$ exits this area. Naturally, due, e.g., to the brake safety constraint, this is not equivalent to the formulation of~Subsection~\ref{subsec:simple-priority-assignment}. However, it is much easier to implement and checking whether the heuristic condition is satisfied is also much less time consuming. Simulation results of Subsection~\ref{subsec:sim-deterministic} confirm the efficiency of our heuristic approach as robots seem to enter the control area at the right time, so as to go through the intersection at maximum speed.
\section{Simulation results}
The purpose of the presented simulations is fourfold; they aim to demonstrate:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item the ability of priority-based coordination to carry out as complex scheduling as with plan-as-program approaches;
\item the robustness enabled by planning priorities instead of precise trajectories, making possible to handle unexpected events requiring braking without replanning, making also possible to deal with bounded, possibly time-varying, uncertainty;
\item and the ability of priority assignment policies to implement back-pressure algorithms guaranteeing queues stability and opening avenues for the control of a network of autonomous intersections.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Simulations under deterministic control}
\label{subsec:sim-deterministic}
The experimental intersection is depicted in Figure~\ref{fig-simulation-intersection}. It is composed of eight straights paths. The maximum velocity of robots is such that a robot at maximum velocity travels $D/2$ (one radius) during one slot. All robots share the same kinodynamic constraints with ${\underline{u}}=-{\overline{u}}$ and 20 slots are necessary to go from stop to full speed (and conversely). Hence, to ensure that robots are at maximum velocity when they reach the first potential collision configuration, the entry position is fixed at a distance $6 D$ from the first potential collision configuration. Symmetrically, the exit position is fixed at a distance $6 D$ after the last potential collision configuration. As communication aspects are not considered in this simulation setting, there is no delay for the intersection controller to respond to requests, so robots do not need to anticipate their entry and we take $\delta\equiv 0$, i.e., robots request the entry of the control area if $x_i^\stop(s_i)>x_i^{\mathrm{entry}}$, that is just in time.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{simulation-intersection}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{The intersection composed of eight straight paths used for simulations.}
\label{fig-simulation-intersection}
\end{figure}
A video capture of the simulation for an arrival rate of $0.04$ robots per time slot on each path is available \href{http://youtu.be/T5ASnKuJLT4}{here}\footnote{\url{http://youtu.be/T5ASnKuJLT4}}. One can observe that robots not accepted in the control area stop at a distance equivalent to 6 robots before the first potential collision configuration. In this simulation, there is no uncertainty, and the video capture confirms that in the absence of uncertainty, the presented algorithms result in robots always at maximum throttle command inside the control area. Finally, note that the entry management of the control area is not a first come first serve policy. Some robots requesting the entry before another robot may be accepted into the control area after that robot.
The latter phenomenon is more obvious in the video capture of the simulation for an arrival rate of $0.08$ robots per time slot available \href{http://youtu.be/tYC6m7Z-S3Y}{here}\footnote{\url{http://youtu.be/tYC6m7Z-S3Y}}. At such an arrival rate, queues are formed at the entry of the control area, but the size of the queues are not considered for processing the requests. Finally, note that queues are stable at this arrival rate which denotes an ergodic dynamics of the system.
At this point, it just appears that priority-based coordination enables to carry out as complex scheduling as traditional approaches using a plan-as-program approach, e.g.,~\cite{Dresner2008-multiagent-approach}. However, the benefit of the priority-based approach is not visible, because in the absence of uncertainty, the control law under assigned priorities always returns ${\overline{u}}$, it is very similar to an open-loop plan execution.
\subsection{Robustness regarding unexpected deceleration}
\label{subsec:sim-unexpected-events}
Here, to illustrate the robustness of the proposed coordination system with respect to unexpected events requiring deceleration, we consider a scenario in which robots may decide to brake within the control area unexpectedly. The intersection controller, when assigning priorities, does not know that the robot is going to brake within the control area. At the beginning of every time slot, each robot $i$ may switch from a controlled regime under the control law $g^G$ to an unexpected deceleration under constant control ${\underline{u}}_i$, and vice versa, with probability transitions displayed in Figure~\ref{fig-transitions}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{transitions}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{Non-deterministic transitions between control regimes}
\label{fig-transitions}
\end{figure}
The probability values $p,q$ are chosen arbitrarily, as the goal is is not to reproduce a realistic scenario but to test and validate the robustness of the approach. One may consider transitions to brake control regime as modeling some unexpected events subject to occur in applications to transportation systems such as a loss of communication abilities or a pedestrian crossing the road, both requiring the robot to slow down unexpectedly.
A video capture of the simulation for an arrival rate of $0.04$ robots per time slot on each path is available \href{http://youtu.be/8Xz3S_OhK80}{here}\footnote{\url{http://youtu.be/8Xz3S_OhK80}}. Even if some robots stop within the control area, other robots adapt and brake if necessary thanks to the control law. In contrast with simulations under deterministic control, the control law is useful here and enables to handle robots slowing down unexpectedly. No collision occurs during the simulation, the control law is effectively safe and robust with regards to brake application. We see that the priorities are satisfied, that no collision occurs, and that all robots eventually exit the intersection, although the trajectory may be very far from the trajectory under perfect control law.
\subsection{Robustness regarding bounded uncertainty}
The simulation results that follow aim at demonstrating the robustness of priority-based coordination in the presence of bounded uncertainty in sensing and control. The same inertia/geometrical parameters as for the previous simulations are used. However, uncertainty is additionally considered.
First of all, we assume the presence of control uncertainty, so the dynamics of robots is described by Equations~\eqref{eq-diff-state1-non-deterministic}-\eqref{eq-diff-state2-non-deterministic}. In the presented simulations, the value of control uncertainty bounds are different for each robot. Their average values are (here, $n$ denotes the total number of robots through the simulation run and the sum is over all these robots):
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i} |\underline{d}_i^v|=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i}\overline{d}_i^v=0.1~|{\underline{u}}_i|
\label{eq:control-uncertainty-values-1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i} |\underline{d}_i^u|=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i}\overline{d}_i^u=0.1~{\overline{u}}_i = 0.1~|{\underline{u}}_i|
\label{eq:control-uncertainty-values-2}
\end{equation}
and the actual control uncertainty bounds on each robot vary between $0$ and twice the average values according to a uniform distribution. This enables to illustrate that the proposed approach can deal with different control uncertainty bounds on each robot. In average, the uncertainty in control is $10\%$ of the maximum control value as stated by Equations~\eqref{eq:control-uncertainty-values-1} and~\eqref{eq:control-uncertainty-values-2}.
Uncertainty in sensing is also simulated and again, as for control uncertainty, the value of sensing uncertainty bounds are different for each robot. Let $\delta y_i^x$ and $\delta y_i^v$ denote the respective maximum absolute errors in position and velocity observations on robot $i$, their average values are:
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i} \delta y_i^v=0.1~{\overline{v}}_i
\label{eq:sensing-uncertainty-values-1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i} \delta y_i^x = D/2
\label{eq:sensing-uncertainty-values-2}
\end{equation}
and again, the actual observation uncertainty bounds on each robot vary between $0$ and twice the average values according to a uniform distribution. In average, the uncertainty in position is one radius of robot and the uncertainty in velocity is $10\%$ of the maximum velocity as stated by Equations~\eqref{eq:sensing-uncertainty-values-1} and~\eqref{eq:sensing-uncertainty-values-2}.
Note that to decide to accept or not a robot in the control area, the intersection controller can only access to the non-deterministic state of robots. The heuristic approach is adapted to deal with that and the values of $\tau_i$ and $\tau_j$ (see Section~\ref{sec:implementation-aspects}), which are necessary to decide to accept or not a robot in the control area, are computed based on the average state of robots considering all possible current true states.
A video capture of the simulation for an arrival rate of $0.02$ robots per time slot on each path is available \href{http://youtu.be/vpqHbNE6smM}{here}\footnote{\url{http://youtu.be/vpqHbNE6smM}}. The red segments represent the set of positions where a robot believes it is located in. One can see that no collision occurs, neither between robots, nor between the red segments. It confirms that the control law in the non-deterministic information space proposed in Chapter~\ref{chap:control-uncertainty} results in a collision-free trajectory of the non-deterministic information state.
Finally, to demonstrate the robustness of our approach regarding time-varying uncertainty, we consider a scenario where uncertainty on the observation of position is much higher during a limited time period. In the following simulations, all the parameters are unchanged, but between time slots $t = 500$ and $t = 1000$, the uncertainty on position measures is suddenly multiplied by a factor $10$. A video capture of the simulation for an arrival rate of $0.02$ robots per time slot on each path is available \href{http://youtu.be/k14t-fYpy3g}{here}\footnote{\url{http://youtu.be/k14t-fYpy3g}}. It is remarkable that such a change in the uncertainty of position observation can be handled in a completely reactive manner. Note also that, interestingly, the priority assignment policy during the period of large position uncertainty demonstrates an emerging traffic signal like behavior.
\subsection{Stability guarantees under back-pressure control}
The following simulation results illustrate the ability of priority-based coordination to ensure both efficiency in term of travel time at low traffic density and stability of the queue lengths at high traffic density, in an adaptive manner. The adaptive priority assignment policy proposed in Subsection~\ref{subsec:bp-priority-assignment} has been implemented with the same inertia/geometrical parameters as the simulations presented previously and simulations results are presented in Figure~\ref{fig:bp-simulations}.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{arrivals-004.pdf}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{arrivals-012.pdf}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{queue-004.pdf}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{queue-012.pdf}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{tts-004.pdf}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{tts-012.pdf}\hfill
\end{center}
\caption{Simulations under adaptive priority assignment policy for two arrival rate scenarios.}
\label{fig:bp-simulations}
\end{figure}
For the phase duration, we take $T=100\text{ time slots}$ and the threshold is $\Delta Q^\mathrm{lim}=30$. We compare the behavior of the system under the simple priority assignment policy presented in Section~\ref{sec:priority-assignment} (referred as "NO BP" in Figure~\ref{fig:bp-simulations}) versus the adaptive priority assignment policy proposed here (referred as "BP" in Figure~\ref{fig:bp-simulations}). The top drawings provide the evolution of the arrival rate through time for the two scenarios considered. The drawings in the center depict the evolution of the sum of the four queue lengths ($Q=Q_{11}+Q_{12}+Q_{21}+Q_{22}$) through time. Finally, the bottom drawings represent the average total time spent by robots currently in the intersection. On the left drawings of Figure~\ref{fig:bp-simulations}, it is clear that at low traffic density, the behavior under both policies are identical: it is not surprising as the queue difference is not likely to be greater than the threshold, so that the two priority assignment policies coincide most of the time. On the right drawings of Figure~\ref{fig:bp-simulations}, it appears that the queues get unstable under the priority assignment policy of Section~\ref{sec:priority-assignment} for an arrival rate of $0.12$ robots per time slot. By contrast, under adaptive priority assignment policy, queues are stable. In conclusion, the proposed adaptive priority assignment policy combines the efficiency of the priority assignment policy of Section~\ref{sec:priority-assignment} at low traffic density and the stability guarantees of back-pressure control at high traffic density.
\chapter*{Conclusions}
The present part proposed a priority-based coordination system adopting a three-layer architecture integrating both priority assignment -- in the deliberative layer -- and priority preserving control -- in the behavior-based layer -- which are executed in parallel and interface through the sequencing layer. The proposed coordination system is able to manage continuous arrivals of robots at the intersection and to assign priorities dynamically. The proposed architecture takes full benefit of the brake safety property of priority preserving control of Part~\ref{part:priorities-to-guide-robots} as some behavior may require a robot to brake at any moment to handle some unexpected event with the guarantee that priorities will be respected. Priority-based coordination demonstrates both planning and reactive abilities.
In the proposed setting, priority assignment is centralized and is processed by the intersection controller. It is the planning -- time consuming -- task: assigning efficient priorities requires reasoning about the future. Interestingly, previous work can be used to design efficient priority assignment policies. Priorities are indeed a byproduct of existing trajectory planning algorithms as it suffices to assign the priorities induced by the output planned trajectory. That is why little attention has been paid to the design of efficient priority assignment policies in this part. However, what is quite novel is that, some algorithms commonly used for the control of traffic signals proved useful to assign priorities at high traffic densities as it becomes more efficient to have a traffic-signal-like behavior. Interestingly, priority assignment can adapt to traffic load resulting in a traffic-signal-like behavior ensuring queue lengths stability at high traffic density, and in a much more complex scheduling through combinatorial optimization of priorities to minimize travel delays at low traffic density. This brings elements to the debate about whether autonomous intersection management can really outperform traffic signals. We believe that at high traffic density, a traffic-signal-like behavior is likely to be an optimal strategy as it enables to move robots in platoons, maximizing throughput. However, at low traffic density, optimizing priorities can significantly decrease travel delays and outperform traffic signals. The results of the present part demonstrate that priority-based coordination is able to perform both strategies adaptively.
As highlighted in the introduction of the thesis, a key motivation to the automation of transportation systems is a reduced need of costly infrastructure. Therefore, a major concern of the architecture proposed here is that it requires a central agent at each junction with processing capabilities. However, the only task which is centralized is priority assignment. We believe that the conciseness of the priority graph that merely maps each couple of robot identifiers to a binary value encoding the priority, is a real asset to design a distributed priority assignment policy. However, if first-come-first-serve distributed priority assignment is likely to be quite easily designed, distributed priority assignment performing some combinatorial optimization will be a much more challenging task.
\part*{Conclusions and perspectives}
\addcontentsline{toc}{part}{Conclusions and perspectives}
\fancyhead[RE]{\bfseries\nouppercase{Conclusions and perspectives}}
\fancyhead[LO]{\bfseries\nouppercase{Conclusions and perspectives}}
\section*{Conclusions}
This thesis proposed to study the coordination of mobile robots at intersections espousing an approach considering planning as the computation of resources to guide -- not control -- robots. As a result, the plan representation appeared to differ widely from what it is in traditional motion planning. In traditional approaches, planning consists in computing a planned reference trajectory that robots must execute. The reference trajectory constitutes the plan and in the control phase, a control law configured by the reference trajectory is in charge of tracking the planned trajectory. In the approach of this thesis, the plan is the priority graph encoding the particular homotopy class chosen to solve the coordination problem and to our knowledge, there existed no standard control scheme to ensure the described trajectory belongs to the chosen homotopy class, i.e., to ensure priorities are respected. In priority-based coordination, as there is no reference trajectory, there is no trajectory tracking which is replaced by so-called priority preserving control. Our approach using priorities as a plan to guide -- not control -- robots confirmed suitable to coordinate multiple robots at an intersection area, endowing the system with robustness properties. Part~\ref{part:priority-framework} provides a powerful tool to characterize the structure of solutions to the coordination problem: the priority graph. Previous work already noticed the existence of homotopy classes of feasible paths in the coordination space, yet without providing a meaningful representative of homotopy classes. The main contribution of the first part of the thesis is to provide such a meaningful representative: the priority graph. Priorities uniquely encode the homotopy classes of feasible paths. Choosing a particular priority graph to coordinate robots appears as the discrete part of the coordination problem. It thus provides a geometrical understanding in the coordination space of why planning priorities instead of a precise trajectory results in an increased robustness. It merely appears as the consequence of constraining the path of robots in the coordination space to remain in a homotopy class -- a large set of feasible paths continuously deformable into each other --, instead of assigning a particular precise feasible path to follow. The "size" of the homotopy class provides some freedom of action. Part~\ref{part:priorities-to-guide-robots} demonstrates that robots can easily go through the intersection while respecting priorities in a reactive manner. Under assigned priorities, the combinatorial complexity of multi robot control is avoided as for each pair of robots there is not two strategies to avoid collisions anymore: the robot with lower priority must decelerate in favor of the robot with higher priority. It is thus not surprising that priority preserving control can be carried out in polynomial time. From the coordination space point of view, priority preserving control ensures that the trajectory described by the multi robot system belongs to the homotopy class encoded by the assigned priorities. To this purpose, a control law is configured by the assigned priorities and is in charge of priority preservation. It is very different from the trajectory tracking approach as it allows for example all robots to stop for a while to handle some unexpected event while respecting priorities, i.e., without replanning. By contrast, in traditional motion planning, the plan must be executed, and the only way to recover some freedom of action is replanning. In the absence of inertia, the control law proposed in Chapter~\ref{chap:optimal-control-velocity} ensures that the resulting trajectory is optimal for the assigned priorities, recovering the existence of a local optimum in each homotopy class~\cite{Ghrist2005}. Even though the dynamics model used in Chapter~\ref{chap:control-acceleration} is quite simple, it convinces that the additional complexity in the presence of kinodynamic constraints can be easily tackled by introducing the brake safety constraint. The byproduct of the conservative brake safety constraint is an increased robustness regarding unexpected deceleration of robots. Moreover, the proposed control scheme is decentralized as the output of the control law can be computed on each robot independently, thus not requiring any form of agreement through communication links. This valuable benefit is allowed by the prior agreement on the priority graph which is done at the planning level. This prior agreement which requires some form of communication enables to select a particular strategy for collision avoidance -- the priority graph --, so that no more agreement is required at the control level which can be decentralized. Finally, Chapter~\ref{chap:control-uncertainty} provides some elements to control the system in the presence of uncertainty. It shows that bounded uncertainty can be handled by considering worst-case scenarios. Even though the uncertainty model is quite simple, it demonstrates that the key benefit of priority-based coordination is its ability to handle uncertainty in a reactive manner. For example, robots may stop for a while if uncertainty is very large due to communication concerns and restart without replanning, merely using a control law in the information space. Part~\ref{part:priority-based-coordination} has a more engineering flavor and proposes a three-layer architecture integrating both priority assignment and priority preserving control which are executed in parallel. Priority assignment is carried out by a central deliberative intersection controller. Robots implement multiple behaviors including one ensuring priorities are respected. Robot's sequencer interfaces the reactive and the deliberative layers through asynchronous communication with the intersection controller to negotiate the entry of the control area and by activating/deactivating/configuring primitive behaviors. Compared to traditional plan-as-program approaches, robots retain reactive capabilities through the intersection. A large class of unexpected events -- all events requiring braking -- can be handled in a reactive manner without need to replan endowing the system with significant robustness. This thesis proposes a novel class of coordination systems at intersections -- using priorities to guide robots -- and therefore still suffers from some limitations and opens several perspectives for future work.
\section*{Limitations and perspectives}
\subsection*{From the theoretical point of view}
\paragraph{Homotopy classes under imperfect lateral control} The path-following assumption of Figure~\ref{fig-paths} is key to the definition of priorities and to the existence of homotopy classes of feasible paths uniquely encoded by priorities. In real systems, perfect path following cannot be guaranteed as lateral control is based on imperfect mapping/localization data and imperfect actuators. Hence, future work should investigate which assumptions on lateral control still guarantee all the results of Part~\ref{part:priority-framework} which is the foundation of the priority-based approach. We believe that under bounded uncertainty on lateral control, the results of Part~\ref{part:priority-framework} can be extended by considering the worst-case obstacle region considering all possible geometric paths. However, this could decrease performance and it would raise the problem of handling a lateral error beyond the fixed bound.
\paragraph{Dealing with partial information} In the current setting, all robots are assumed to know the assigned priorities and the current state of other robots. Even though Chapter~\ref{chap:control-uncertainty} provides elements on how to deal with bounded uncertainty, it still assumes that all robots know the complete priority graph and the current non-deterministic information state of all other robots, which is still a strong assumption. Further work should focus on relaxing these assumptions. We believe that priority-based coordination has real strengths to deal with partial information concerns. First of all, some priorities are redundant, as if robots $2$ and $3$ travel along the same path (say $3$ follows $2$) and have both priority over robot $1$, then robot $1$ only needs to know that it has priority over the first of the two robots, i.e., robot $2$. Moreover, to execute the priority preserving control law, a given robot only needs to know the current state of robots in the neighborhood as there is no need to anticipate beyond a certain area.
\paragraph{Distributed priority assignment} As highlighted in the conclusion of Part~\ref{part:priority-based-coordination}, while a key motivation to the automation of transportation systems is a reduced need of costly infrastructure, the proposed three-layer architecture requires a central agent at each junction with processing capabilities. Distributed priority assignment would imply a consensus algorithm as all robots need to agree on a common decision: the assigned priorities. We believe that without efficiency considerations, previous work on consensus algorithms should help to design simple distributed priority assignment policies, e.g., a first-come-first-serve policy. However, optimizing priorities requires to perform time consuming algorithms reasoning about the future and a distributed implementation of such algorithms should prove challenging.
\subsection*{From the application point of view}
\paragraph{Challenges for an implementation in real systems} First of all, localization and mapping aspects have not been addressed in this thesis and are challenges in themselves. These topics are intensive research fields, both in robotics and intelligent transportation systems communities. Priority-based coordination requires building a map specifying predefined geometric paths to go through the intersection and robots need to have an estimate of their position on their path. We believe that for an application in self-driven vehicles, existing maps of the road network and lane markings/panels -- more generally, the physical infrastructure -- should help localization and mapping tasks. Communication is another important aspect that has been left behind. Standardized messages should be designed to support priority-based coordination, taking into account constraints in terms of delay and amount of data. This is one of the tasks currently achieved in the European project Autonet2030 where a complete cooperative system architecture is designed for the cooperation of intelligent vehicles supporting, in particular, coordination at intersections. We believe that the conciseness of the plan representation -- the priority graph is merely mapping couple of robot identifiers to a binary value -- is a valuable feature of priority-based coordination as it limits the amount of data to be exchanged. By contrast, plan-as-program approaches need to exchange precise trajectories which include much more data.
\paragraph{Sharing the road between autonomous and human-driven vehicles} Autonomous vehicles will arrive gradually, and they will have to "share the road" for a while. According to~\cite{LaFortelle2014}, only 50\% of vehicles will be autonomous by 2030. Cooperation between autonomous/semi-autonomous/human-driven vehicles thus appears necessary. As respecting priorities is a capability of both humans and robots, the priority-based approach is particularly adapted for the development of algorithms aiming at coordinate both human-driven and autonomous vehicles. In~\cite{Qian2013}, a priority-based autonomous intersection management system is proposed in this context of "mixed traffic flow". Priorities are assigned by an intersection controller, yet human-driven vehicles are not aware of that, and just respect traffic signals as in a usual signalized intersection. A video capture of simulations is available \href{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3B_FrNn_Pk}{here}\footnote{\url{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3B_FrNn_Pk}}.
\paragraph{Energy efficient priority preserving control} Priority preserving control proposed in Part~\ref{part:priorities-to-guide-robots} is a kind of bang-bang control switching quite abruptly between maximum brake and maximum throttle. Such control law, while priority preserving, raises energy efficiency concerns as abrupt control switches are energy consuming. To this purpose, we believe that model predictive control with a cost function accounting for both priority preservation, delay reduction and energy efficiency should prove useful by anticipating the need to brake and result in smoother trajectories as demonstrated by recent work~\cite{Makarem2013}.
\paragraph{Handling priority violation} The present work assumed robots respect the assigned priorities. We are convinced that the ability to respect priorities is a must that self-driven vehicles need to possess to be deployed on the roads. People would accept that vehicles cannot follow a precise trajectory through an intersection. By contrast, they would not accept an autonomous vehicle unable to respect assigned priorities. That is why we believe that priority violations should occur mainly under major system failure of one robot. Another reason why it can occur in an application to self-driven cars is when a driver decides to stop the self-driving system and to take back the control of the vehicle for some unexpected reason. Such circumstances would require both priority violation detection and real-time dynamic priority assignment with all the attention paid on safety, i.e., collision avoidance.
\paragraph{Towards a network of autonomous intersections}
All the work around traffic signal control demonstrates that controlling a network of intersections is of high complexity. Recent work based on back-pressure algorithms tend do demonstrate that queues stability guarantees of the network can be obtained, while each intersection controller uses only local information. Future work should extend the simple back-pressure priority assignment policy at a single intersection proposed in Chapter~\ref{chap:coordination-system} and consider adaptive priority assignment at a network of autonomous intersections using back-pressure algorithms.
\paragraph{Towards coordination of aerial drones}
Finally, even though this work was originally motivated by applications in autonomous vehicles on roadways, applications to other fields should be investigated. For instance, the results of this thesis may be applicable to coordinate aerial drones in a three-dimensional space provided the geometric three-dimensional paths followed by drones are fixed. If so, each drone $i$ still has only one degree of freedom -- its curvilinear coordinate along its three-dimensionnal path $\gamma_i \subset \mathbb{R}^3$ -- and the priority-based framework proposed in this thesis is still applicable.
\cleardoublepage
\fancyhead[RE]{\bfseries\nouppercase{\leftmark}}
\fancyhead[LO]{\bfseries\nouppercase{\rightmark}}
\bookmarksetup{startatroot
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
As originally pointed by \cite{DEE75}, gaps change the original frequency content of any sampled signal, because the observed power spectrum is the result of a convolution of the original signal with the observational window. When the gaps are small as compared with the total time span, techniques based on gap-filling have been commonly used \citep{FAH82,BRO90,FOS99,ROQ00,GAR14}. For larger gaps, the prewhitening techniques become unavoidable \citep{BRE93}.
Most of the popular gap-filling algorithms do not guarantee the preservation of the original frequency content, which is crucial for asteroseismology to be reliable. The most widely used technique, as it is the case for \corot\ data, is the linear interpolation because of its simplicity.
Space missions like \corot\ \citep{BAG06} or \kepler\ \citep{GIL10} have observed a large sample of stars with two main objectives: first the detection of transits to look for planets orbiting other stars and second, to characterize the stars through asteroseismology. Asteroseismology makes possible the determination of global properties of the stars like the radius or age, and allows also to infer the internal structure and internal rotation profile. For this objective a long and uninterrupted observation is required to obtain reliable results. In order to detect transits more precise measurements and a better time sampling is required. The requisites for both these objectives are fulfilled by the space missions, which are observing continuously and with an unprecedented resolution. Nevertheless, a photometric time series without gaps is an ideal case which is never reached. In practice, there are always some invalid flux measurements due to operational procedures like the change of mask, reorientation, data downloading, or environmental effects like the impact of energetic particles, as it is the case when \corot\ pass through the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA). These produce invalid data or interruptions in the time series that affect the analyses in the frequency domain.
We introduce here a new gap-filling method (MIARMA) which is based on a non-closed form and can represent any kind of function, even non-analytic functions, thus preserving the original frequency content of the signal. This method make use of a forward-backward predictor based on autoregressive moving average (\arma) models in order to fill the gaps present in astronomical time series. By applying this method to time series of stars with different pulsational characteristics observed by \corot\ satellite, new properties of the light curves are revealed.
We first review in Sect.2 some of the issues found when analysing gapped time series, which are reduced when appropriate interpolation methods are used, and we show how some of the usual interpolation methods are not appropriate, proving that an adequate gap-filling method could improve significantly the frequency determination of the oscillations in time series. In Sect.3 we describe the method for gap-filling based on modelling valid data segments as \arma\ processes. Then, in Sect.4 the application of the method is shown in three different cases: the \ds\ star \stara, the Be star \starb, and the solar-like \starc. A discussion follows in Sect.5 on the consequences of the results presented and the conclusions are presented in Sect.6.
\section{Gaps in time series}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{fig1.eps}}
\caption{Periodogram of the \ds\ star HD~172189 calculated using a Fast Fourier Transform of the linearly interpolated time series (blue), and as interpolated by MIARMA (red). Notice on the inset how the frequencies in the \ds\ instability range are affected by the spectral window.}
\label{alias}
\end{figure}
In order to consider the effects of the gaps (meaning not only the lack of measurements but also invalid flux measurements) in the estimation of the power spectra one must consider the mathematical result due to \cite{DEE75}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-dee}
\frac{1}{N} F_N(\nu) = F(\nu)\ast W_N(\nu)
\end{equation}
That is, the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) of a gapped time series is the convolution of the Fourier Transform of the original function $F(\nu)$ with the spectral window $W_N(\nu)$, which is defined as the DFT of the function describing the observational time.
All of the issues related with gaps in time series derive from this simple formula. First of all, the spectral window always contains a sinc function related to the length of the observation making the amplitudes of the peaks originated from harmonic components reduced because the power is spread in sidelobes. For long observations, as it is the case with space satellites, this effect is insignificant, but when the gaps are regularly distributed, another sinc function appears in the spectral window related to the length of the gaps that spreads much more power of the central peak in sidelobes - spectral leakage. As a consequence the signal-to-noise ratio is reduced leading to a less reliable frequency detection that affects parameter estimation.
The spectral window also can cause that spurious frequencies appear far from the central peak which can be confused with other peaks misleading the frequency detection and identification.
On the other hand, $W_N(\nu)$ is a complex function so it introduces a deviation in the original phases of the signal. This deviation is difficult to determine when the gaps are not regularly distributed. This makes difficult the determination of the phases, which is crucial in the study of resonances in high amplitude pulsating stars \citep{GAR96} or in the determination of phase differences between different wavelengths for mode identification \citep{GAR00}.
Another issue concerns the normalisation of the periodogram to give a consistent estimation of the power spectrum. This problem was solved by \cite{SCA82} with a proper normalisation of the real and imaginary part that preserve the statistical properties of the regular sampling when the sampling is irregular. However, the Lomb-Scargle periodogram gives the same result as filling with zeros the gaps to obtain a regular sampling and then calculating the periodogram through a FFT. It can be shown that the convolution of the data with the spectral window introduce correlations between Fourier frequencies \citep{STA08}. In this way, as the Lomb-Scargle periodogram does not remove the effect of the spectral window, correlations between frequencies due to the gaps are maintained.
These effects have a lower impact in the case of \corot\ and \kepler\ than in ground-based observations since the duty cycle is always higher than $80\%$ and the gaps are not so regularly distributed as the diurnal cycle. However, it is still crucial to reduce them in order to obtain a consistent estimation of the power spectra. This is specially relevant in the case of \corot\ observations as the invalid data measurements introduced by the SAA are quasiperiodic \citep{AUV09}.
In order to obtain the power spectrum of a gapped time series many approaches have been used in the past. The most simple one is filling the gaps with zeros and then computing the periodogram of the evenly sampled time series with a FFT. This technique has the same pathologies that are found when using unequally-spaced data. Replacing the gaps with zeros does not avoid the spectral window contribution at all.
A second approach more commonly used is a simple linear interpolation between valid segments. This might be a good approach when the gaps and the variance of the time series are small, but in other cases this solution is insufficient to remove the aliases as can be seen in Fig.\ref{alias}. This figure shows the periodogram of the \corot\ level 2 data for the binary star HD~172189 which presents \ds\ pulsations. The gaps in the time series used to calculate the periodogram were filled by linear interpolation (details in Sect.~4). Note that when interpolating linearly the gaps the spurious peaks due to the spectral window appears clearly, but they are almost removed when the \arma\ interpolation method that we propose in the next section is used.
Other more sophisticated gap-filling techniques (e.g. \citeauthor{FOS99} 1999) used an approach based on the autocorrelation of the oscillation signals.
More recently, the inpainting technique, based on a sparse representation of a dictionary of wavelet functions, is being used for filling gaps in \corot\ \citep{SAT10,MAT10,MAT13} and \kepler\ data \citep{GAR14}. However, all these methods for filling gaps make use of analytic functions and cannot guarantee that the original frequency content is preserved in the filling procedure. Instead, we used a forward-backward predictor for gap-filling which takes only minimal data prior and after the gaps and interpolates using a non-closed form expression, that is, an autoregressive moving average process. This method do not require any representation a priori and allow analytic and non-analytic functions to be fitted.
\section{MIARMA: an \arma\ interpolation method}
\subsection{Autoregressive methods}
The aim of these methods is to determine a parametric representation of a time series assuming that the correlation between data can be expressed in a recursive formula like this:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-ar}
x_n = a_0 + \sum_{k=1}^p a_k x_{n-k} + \epsilon_n
\end{equation}
where $x_n$ is the time series, $a_k$ are the $p$ parameters of the autoregressive model AR(p) of order p, $\epsilon_n$ is the error and usually $a_0=0$ when the time series has zero mean. This representation can be used to model any kind of variability, analytic or not. For example, \cite{YUL27} showed that the solution of the differential equation of the damped harmonic oscillator can be expressed as a AR(2) process, that is:
\begin{equation*}
x_n = a_1 x_{n-1} + a_2 x_{n-2} + \epsilon_n.
\end{equation*}
Then, for time series originated from multiperiodic pulsating stars with M harmonic components it is reasonable to assume an AR representation with 2*M coefficients.
A moving average process (MA) is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-ma}
x_n = \sum_{k=1}^q b_k \epsilon_{n-k} + b_0 \epsilon_n
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_n$ is an independent white noise process, $b_k$ are the q parameters of the model MA(q), and $b_0$ is usually normalised to 1. The moving average model can be identified with a linear filter with coefficients $b_k$ and input $\epsilon_n$ giving $x_n$ as the output.
These two representations are directly related: the MA representation is based on correlations between the inputs $\epsilon_n$ while the AR representation is based on correlations between the outputs $x_n$. Indeed, it can be demonstrated that an AR representation can be determined from a MA and vice versa.
On the other side, a mixed autoregressive moving average process \arma(p,q) can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-arma}
x_n = \sum_{k=1}^p a_k x_{n-k} + \sum_{k=1}^q b_k \epsilon_{n-k} + \epsilon_n.
\end{equation}
Notice that with the notation used above the AR(p) process represented in Eq.~\ref{eq-ar} can be also ARMA(p,0), and the MA(q) process represented in Eq.~\ref{eq-ma} can be also ARMA(0,q). Thus the \arma\ representation is a generalisation of AR and MA. Furthermore, some processes can be represented with a finite number of parameters in the ARMA representation while they require infinite parameters in a pure AR or MA. In those cases, an \arma\ model can give an exact representation of a signal while the others cannot and it is computationally more efficient. For a comprehensive discussion of these methods see \cite{SCA81}.
Likewise, we can state that the \arma\ representation is as general as Wold's theorem \citep{WOL38} permits, namely that any stationary signal can be represented as the sum of a deterministic (AR) plus a stochastic process (MA). In this way, these models are optimal since an exact representation of the signal can be found independently of its properties: periodic or aperiodic, deterministic or stochastic, analytic or non-analytic, chaotic or not.
\subsection{The algorithm}
Autoregressive methods have been used in the past in the context of pulsating stars for filling gaps. \cite{FAH82} used them for the first time with pure AR processes and global modelling. However, it can be easily seen that this method fails when the time series is non-stationary since the coefficients change during the observation. In \cite{ROQ00} an AR local model was used. This allows to reproduce seasonal changes in the time series and a certain non-stationarity is permitted, but the order is fixed by an arbitrary criteria, i.e. the average length of the data segments.
\cite{ROT10} used a second order AR process whose parameters are determined through the Expectation Maximization algorithm. In that case, the amplitudes of the estimates depends on the duration of the time series and the computational cost is high because they have to model the whole time series globally too.
As far as we know these have been the only non-analytic approaches for filling gaps used in the field of asteroseismology.
Besides all the drawbacks mentioned, as only \arma\ provides an exact solution it can be considered as the most reliable method.
The gap-filling method we introduce here is similar to the original method of \cite{FAH82} but instead of AR models we used \arma\ models. Also, instead of a global model for the whole data set MIARMA implements local models. The algorithm basically consists in three steps: first, a criterion based on physical principles for selecting the optimal order of the \arma\ model; secondly, the data segments before and after a given gap are fitted using an \arma\ model of the order selected in the first step; next, the gap is interpolated using a weighted function of a forward and a backward prediction based on the models of the selected data segments. The second and third steps are repeated for each gap contained in the entire time series.
In the next sections we will describe throughly each of these steps.
\subsubsection{Criterion for selecting the order}
The criterion for selecting the order is a crucial step in this process (i.e. the number of harmonic components that can be fitted, that is, the frequency content, depends on the number of coefficients of the model). In this sense: too low values lead to models with insufficient spectral resolution, too high values lead to overfitting and inestability. We follow a statistical treatment for selecting the order based on the Akaike Information Criterion \citep{AKA74}.
This criterion is based on the maximization of the likelihood of the model parameters, that is, the quadratic mean error of the prediction \citep{ULR79}. The AIC parameter is defined as:
\begin{equation}
AIC = N\cdot\log V + 2\cdot d
\end{equation}
where V is the sum of the squares of the residuals for a given model, d is the number of parameters (for ARMA $d=p+q$) and N the number of data to be modelled. The quantity V is obtained by fitting an ARMA(p,q) model each time.
The first term of AIC formula quantifies the entropy rate or prediction error of the model. The second term penalizes the number of free parameters used by the model. According to Akaike's theory the optimal model is the one with lowest AIC value. The Akaike criterion derives from purely physical considerations, indeed it was called originally the Principle of Maximum Entropy. Therefore, this criterion is objectively self-consistent because it guarantees that the model found is the best approximation to the physical process observed using the available information.
The procedure used here for selecting the order iterates from a set of models with different orders (p,q) and select the one with the minimum AIC value. In this way the optimal model for the data is always guaranteed whatever the range of the orders (p,q) explored. Note that in order to obtain a robust estimation of the order (i.e. valid for the entire time series) the longest non-interrupted data segment is selected for the calculations of the AIC coefficients.
\subsubsection{gap-filling}
Once the orders are selected using AIC, an \arma\ model is locally fitted to the data segment located before and after every gap. In order to do this the coefficients $a_k$ and $b_k$ appearing in Eq.\ref{eq-arma} have to be determined for each data segment. In the case of an AR model the parameters can be determined using minimum least squares, the moment method, or MCMC methods, but for an \arma\ model it is necessary to use an iterative procedure to obtain the coefficients of the MA part. The algorithm used by MIARMA is based on an iterative algorithm that minimizes the sum of the quadratic errors checking the convergence after a number of iterations.
The \arma\ interpolation in the gaps is based on the following equations:
\begin{equation*}
x_n = x^f_n w_n^f + x^b_n w^b_n
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
w^f_n = 1 - w^b_n = w.k, \qquad k \in (1, l_g)
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation}
w = \frac{1}{1 + l_g}
\end{equation}
where $x^f_n$ and $x^b_n$ are forward and backward predictions inside the gaps, $w^f_n$ and $w^b_n$ the weights normalizing those predictions respectively, and $l_g$ the length of the gap.
Usual algorithms for fitting \arma\ models are insensitive to the arrow of time, that is, they cannot make backward predictions. We solve this problem by mirroring the data segment after the gap, performing a forward prediction and subsequently mirroring the result again. Although in \cite{ROQ00} a backward prediction is used, as far as we know, our technique is a novel solution in the field.
The whole gap-filling algorithm here described is carried out through each gap contained in the time series analyzed and the procedure is iterated until no gap is present or a predefined limit is reached.
Predictions lose coherence rapidly when the gaps are much more larger than the data segments modelled. In this way, the method is self-consistent because it can decides whether a prediction is no longer feasible attending the coherence loss. Unlike usual gap-filling techniques, which are based on analytic methods assuming that the pattern modelled in the data segments is stable and repeats until infinite, the method introduced here take into account the natural limits of prediction. It is possible to decide when a given prediction is not reliable (e.g. a possible result when applying this algorithm is that no interpolation is reliable). That is, contrary to analytic methods this algorithm guarantees that the predictions are reliable. In this sense MIARMA is optimised to preserve the frequency content of the time series, i.e., it guarantees that the conditions for Parseval's theorem to be valid are fulfilled.
\section{Results: CoRoT data}
The passing through the SAA introduce most of the invalid data (gaps) that are present in \corot\ observations \citep{AUV09}. As described in \cite{SAM07}, two sets are available in \corot\ level 2 data: the gapped data, and a regularly sampled dataset obtained by using linear interpolation in order to patch the invalid data produced during the SAA crossing.
Here we compare now the regularly sampled light curves obtained by using MIARMA with the original \corot\ level 2 data (linearly interpolated) in three cases of stars showing different pulsational characteristics: the \ds\ \stara, showing periodic variations of the same order as the \corot\ observational window, the Be star \starb, showing longer time variations, and the solar-like \starc, with rapid time variations. The data we use for the next sections were gathered by the ultrahigh precision CCD cameras onboard \corot\ satellite with the primary objective of studying stellar pulsations (seismofield camera).
\subsection{\stara}
The case of A-F main sequence stars is particularly critical because they show pulsation frequencies close to the orbital frequency of the satellite. In particular the \ds\ star \stara\ could be consider as a prototype to investigate the impact in this kind of variable stars.
For this star it is clear that the linear interpolation does not preserve the signal (see Fig.~\ref{stara-lc}) in contrast to the \arma\ interpolation.
The power spectrum of the linearly interpolated time series is seriously affected by the spectral window of \corot\ (see Fig.~\ref{stara-per}) in contrast with the \arma\ interpolation where the window is eliminated. The impact of the linear interpolation is so strong as the gapped data.
Definitively, the linear interpolation does not improve the original power spectrum biased by orbital aliases in this kind of pulsating stars.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{fig2.eps}}
\caption{Example of comparison between \arma\ gap-filling (red) and the linear interpolation (blue) for two gaps in the light curve of the \ds\ star \stara\ observed by \corot.}
\label{stara-lc}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{fig3.eps}}
\caption{Periodogram of the light curve of \stara\ observed by \corot\ after the \arma\ interpolation (red), and after the linear interpolation (blue). In the inset the range where \ds\ pulsations are excited is shown.}
\label{stara-per}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{\starb}
When the period of variation is much larger than the size of the gaps, which is the case of Be stars, the filling provided by linear and \arma\ interpolation
looks similar. However, this is only a matter of scale as can be seen in the inset of Fig.~\ref{starb-lc} for the Be star \starb. It is commonly assumed that
so small gaps in the light curve have no effect on the power spectrum, however, we show here that for \starb\ the spectrum obtained from the linear interpolation provided by
the \corot\ pipeline is clearly biased by the spectral window of the orbital frequency (13.97 \cd), in contrast to the \arma\ interpolation, in which such
an effect has been removed (see Fig.~\ref{starb-per}).
Due to the ultrahigh sensitivity of the instrument detectors, even the very small temperature variations within the technical specifications, are sufficient to make the instrument response a function of the orbit. This produces a modulation of the signal which is more significant for the frequencies with the highest amplitudes. Such a modulation appears in both spectra as a peak at 13.97 \cd, which is the orbital period of the satellite (inset of Fig.~\ref{starb-per}).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{fig4.eps}}
\caption{Comparison between \arma\ gap-filling (red) and the linear interpolation (blue) for the light curve of the Be star \starb\ observed by \corot. In the inset a short segment of 1.44 hrs of duration is shown. Note that the size of gaps is around $\sim$0.014 ${\rm d}$, which one order of magnitude smaller than the pulsation period of the star (several days)}
\label{starb-lc}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{fig5.eps}}
\caption{Periodogram of \starb\ obtained after \arma\ interpolation (red) and after linear interpolation (blue). In the inset the range from 0 to 130 d$^{-1}$ is shown.}
\label{starb-per}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{\starc}
The solar-like star \starc\ was chosen to test MIARMA algorithm with star showing rapid variations, i.e. the CoRoT gaps contain several stellar pulsation cycles.
The optimal model for the longest segment without invalid data (640 datapoints of a total length of 369601 datapoints) is ARMA(37,0), i.e. a purely autoregressive model with 37 terms.
Although, the most frequent gap length is 9 minutes \citep{APP08}, some gaps last up to 0.2 days. Furthermore, this time series has a very high level of noise. All these make the linear interpolation quite erratic (see Fig.~\ref{starc-lc1}). However, in the interpolated segment between 1.0 and 1.2 days, \arma\ predicts a signal with a kind of fine structure. We do not know the origin of such an structure, but we be confident (see next section) that ARMA prediction does not correspond to a white noise process.
The comparison of power spectra obtained with the two interpolation methods (Fig.~\ref{starc-per}) looks quite similar with slightly higher amplitudes for the ARMA interpolation (see inset of the figure) . However, a detail study of their difference using the absolute value of the amplitudes ($\Delta A= |A(ARMA) - A(LIN)|$) shows negligible non-systematic differences (Fig.~\ref{starc-per}, lower panel).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{fig6.eps}}
\caption{Comparison between \arma\ interpolation (upper panel in red) and linear interpolation (lower panel in green) for the light curve of \starc\ observed by the \corot\ satellite. Valid data is depicted in blue (both panels).}
\label{starc-lc1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{fig7.eps}}
\caption{Periodogram of \starc\ coming from linear interpolation (blue), and \arma\ interpolation (red). Notice that the order is inverted in the inset because the peaks in the p-mode region are higher for the periodogram of \arma\ interpolated data.}
\label{starc-per}
\end{figure*}
\section{Discussion}
Using a method of interpolation capable to preserve the original frequency content like MIARMA could be determining in order to perform seismic studies of A-F stars as, for example, the determination of periodicities in the pulsational spectrum of \ds\ stars \citep{AGH09}. Indeed, it has been shown \citep{JPG14a} that the amplitudes of the periodicities between frequencies are about 20$\%$ lower when linear interpolation is used for filling the gaps instead \arma\ interpolation.
We have shown that linear interpolation is insufficient to eliminate the effects of the spectral window in the power spectrum of classical pulsating stars observed by \corot. On the other side, the effects of the linear interpolation on the spectral window are insignificant in the case of solar-like stars. Nevertheless, the contribution of the signal found by \arma\ is not included when a linear interpolation is made so changing the original frequency content. Definitively, in order to fulfill the necessary condition for asteroseismology, it is necessary to use a gap-filling that preserves the original frequency content of the signal whatever the range of the excited pulsational frequencies.
The most recent reference to a gap-filling method in asteroseismology is the k-inpainting algorithm, presently used for \kepler\ data \citep{GAR14}. This algorithm is based on a sparsity prior of wavelets functions . We compared the results obtained by using this technique on the \corot\ data of \starc\ with those obtained by using MIARMA (see Fig.~\ref{starc-lc2}). Apparently the fine-scale structure observed in the light curve of \starc\ is preserved when performing both methods. Nevertheless, as the essential difference between the two approaches is that K-inpainting is based on analytic functions (namely Discrete Cosinus Transform) and MIARMA is not, we decided to test the ability of discerning noise from signal of both methods.
Both methods are used to interpolate gaps introduced in a purely random normally distributed time series (see Fig.~\ref{test}) with $\sigma = 0,2381$. As the necessary condition for gap-filling is to preserve the original frequency content of the signal, a proper interpolation should be zero. This only happens with \arma\ interpolation ($\sigma = 0,0753$, the small deviations from zero due to numerical error). On the other hand, the inpainting algorithm tries to mimick the completely random variations of the data ($\sigma = 0,2730$) thus failing to preserve the signal. This test demonstrates that the k-inpainting algorithm changes the original content of the signal.
On the light of this test the interpolation obtained with the inpainting technique in Fig.~\ref{starc-lc2} is not reliable because it is not clear whether it is reproducing the signal or the intrinsic noise of the time series. At the same time, Akaike criterion proves to be relevant to distinguish between white noise and signal as has been shown by the test. Hence, clearly the fine-scale structure interpolated by using \arma\ is not a white noise process. In any case these are novel features with unknown origin. We can speculate that the origin could be connected to the non-analyticity revealed in previous work of the authors \citep{JPG14b} in A-F stars. This is something that has to be examined more deeply in future studies.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{fig8.eps}}
\caption{Comparison between \arma\ interpolation (upper panel in red) and inpainting (lower panel in green) for the light curve of \starc\ observed by the \corot\ satellite. Valid data is depicted in blue (both panels).}
\label{starc-lc2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{fig9.eps}}
\caption{Interpolation of gaps in a time series originated from a gaussian white noise process. Upper panel shows results from the inpainting technique and lower panel shows results from ARMA interpolation.}
\label{test}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
Small and periodic gaps in time series of pulsating stars released by the space photometric mission \corot\ produce aliases of the satellite orbital period in the power spectra. Due to the very high duty cycle of the instrument, the amplitudes of these aliases are very small.
Linear interpolation is commonly used for filling those gaps in order to remove the aliasing effect. Here we demonstrate that while this approach works for high frequency pulsators (e.g. solar-like stars), it is not the case for longer period variables (e.g. A-F, Be stars, etc.), for which the aliases remain in the power spectra.
We present here MIARMA, a new method for filling gaps based on ARMA processes which preserve the original information contained
in the time series. When the gaps of the CoRoT light curves are filled using this algorithm, all the aliases are eliminated whatever the type of variable considered. This is the reason why the method has been accepted by the \corot\ Scientific Committee for its implementation in the next correction of the data gathered.
When MIARMA interpolates data corresponding to the solar-like \starc\ the algorithm recognise as a signal the fine structure seen at a very short time scales. Other algorithms like inpainting provides similar results. However when a gapped time series of pure white noise is analysed, inpainting interpolates white noise datapoints while ARMA gives the correct answer, namely zeros.
\begin{acknowledgements}
The authors acknowledge support from the "Plan Nacional de Investigación" under project AYA2012-39346-C02-01, and from the "Junta de Andaluc\'{i}a" local government under project 2012-P12-TIC-2469.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{aa}
|
\section{Introduction}
In recent decades, various groups of mathematicians have independently studied resolutions of binomial ideals, and resolutions of monomial ideals. Many beautiful results have been obtained, but resolutions of sums of such ideals remain elusive. It is exactly these types of ideals that will be studied in this present work.
In the first section, we will discuss the combinatorial setup we will be using for the rest of work. The objects of interest are subsets of $\Z^n$ that are typically infinite. (In the existing theory, researchers utilized finite subsets of $\N^n$.) We will draw on the language of \cite{BHS} to generalize the tools from \cite{ES} and \cite{MS}.
The next section examines subsets of $\Z^n$ that are groups as well as antichains. We will call them antichain lattices, and we will work intimately with them throughout the remainder of the work. Our antichain condition parallels other work where the subgroups are not allowed to intersect the positive orthant anywhere but 0; requiring that the lattice is an antichain is a more concise way to state this condition.
We will give a brief review of resolutions in the following sections, specifically focusing on resolutions of certain types of binomial ideals that have been studied in \cite{ES} and \cite{MS}.
The penultimate section will take us on our final step before we begin resolving our desired ideals. We will need to enter the world of Laurent monomial modules, which is the analogue of monomial ideals, but in a larger ambient space. We will look at $k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$-modules contained in the Laurent polynomial ring over $k$.
The final section, where the bulk of the new work lies, will tie everything together in the full generality of $\Z^n$, but our final computation will actually be in $\Z^3$ because the the increasingly complex computations in $\Z^n$ do not lend themselves to concise notation. That is, we will give the general combinatorial algorithm for the resolution of certain ideals with binomial and monomial generators in $k[x_1,x_2,x_3]$ as the main result. We will conclude with a detailed example outlining the full algorithm.
\section{Subsets of $\Z^n$}
The general setup we will be working with is one of $M$-sets, where $M$ is a monoid.
\begin{definition}
Let $M=<M,\ast, 0>$ be a monoid. Then an $M$-set is a set $S$ together with a map $$\begin{array}{ccc}M\times S & \rightarrow & S \\ (m,s) & \mapsto & ms\end{array}$$ such that $(m\ast m')s=m(m's)$ and $0s=s$.
\end{definition}
\vspace{.3cm}
\subsection{Subsets of $\Z^n$ as a Poset}
We have the following definitions and notations for elements $\alpha, \beta$ and subsets $A$ of $\Z^n$:
\singlespace
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\alpha\in\R^n$, then $\pi_j(\alpha)$ denotes the $j^{th}$ component of $\alpha$.
\item $\alpha \leq \beta$ if $\pi_i(\alpha) \leq \pi_i(\beta)$, $i=1, \dots, n$
\item $\alpha < \beta$ if $\alpha \leq \beta$, and $\alpha \neq \beta$
\item $\alpha << \beta$ if $\pi_i(\alpha) < \pi_i(\beta)$, $i=1, \dots, n$\footnote{At times, we use the notation $a<< b$ for $a,b\in\R$ to mean that $b$ is much greater than $a$, but context will prevent any notational confusion.}
\item $\min(A) := \{\alpha \in A | \zeta < \alpha \Rightarrow \zeta \notin A\}$
\item If $A = A + \N^n$, then $A$ is an $\N^n$-set with the map being defined by $(\eta,\alpha)\mapsto \eta\alpha=\alpha+\eta$.
\item The $\N^n$ set generated by $A$ is $A+\N^n=\{\zeta \in \Z^n | \exists \alpha \in A \text{ with } \alpha \leq \zeta\}$
\item If $\alpha,\beta\in\Z^n$, then $\alpha\vee\beta=(\text{sup}\{\alpha_1,\beta_1\}, \dots, \text{sup}\{\alpha_n,\beta_n\})$, and $\alpha\wedge\beta=-(-\alpha\vee-\beta)$.
\end{enumerate}
\doublespace
\begin{definition}
A descending chain in a poset $X$ is a function $f:I\rightarrow X$ where $I\subseteq \N$ is an interval and $f(i)>f(j)$ if $i<j$. If $A\subseteq X$ does not have any infinite descending chains, we will say it satisfies the decending chain condition, and we call it a DCC set.
\end{definition}
If $A\subseteq\Z^n$ is a DCC $\N^n$-set, then $\min(A)+\N^n=A$. The definition of $\min(A)$ implies that it is an antichain with respect to the weak order on $\Z^n$.
There is a bijection between monomials in $k[x_1, \dots, x_n]$ and vectors in $\N^n$. If $I=<m_1, \dots, m_s>$, where $m_i=X^{a_i}$, then the monomials in $I$ are exactly the vectors in the $\N^n$-set generated by $A=\{a_1, \dots, a_s\}$.
\begin{definition}
For $\alpha\in\Z^n$, the support of $\alpha$ is $\supp(\alpha)=\{i\mid\pi_i(\alpha)\neq0\}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
Let $\eta\in\Z^n$, and let $[n]=\{1, \dots, n\}$. Let $T_{\eta}=\eta-\N^n=\{\eta-\alpha\mid\alpha\in\N^n\}$, and say that for nonempty $X\subseteq[n]$, an $X$-face of $T_{\eta}$ is $\{\alpha\in\Z^n | \pi_i(\alpha)=\pi_i(\eta) \text{ for all } i\in X\}$. Let $T^o_{\eta}=\eta-\N^n_{>0}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\label{generic}
Let $A\subseteq \Z^n$. We say $A$ is generic if for all $\eta\in\Z^n$, such that $T^o_{\eta}\cap A=\emptyset$, $T_{\eta}$ contains at most one element of $A$ on each face.
\end{definition}
If $A$ is an $\N^n$-set that has a minimal element, it is never generic. This is because if $\alpha\in\min(A)$, then $T^o_{\alpha+(1,0,\dots,0)}\cap A=\emptyset$, but $T^o_{\alpha+(1,0,\dots,0)}$ contains two points on one face. Because of this, we will adopt the convention of calling a DCC $\N^n$-set generic if its generating antichain is generic.
\subsection{Neighborly Sets}
If $A\subset\Z^n$, we wish to have a way of distinguishing certain subsets of $A$ that have desirable properties. This distinction will be in the form of neighborly sets.
\begin{definition}
Let $A\subset\Z^n$, and let $B\subset A$. We say that $B$ is neighborly in $A$ if $T^o_{\vee B}\cap A=\emptyset$. We say $B$ is maximally neighborly if $B$ is neighborly and $B'\supset B$ implies $B'$ is not neighborly.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
\
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $A\subset\Z^n$ is an antichain, then each $\alpha\in A$ is a neighborly set.
\item If $\Lambda \in\Z^2$ is generated by $(1,-1)$, and $A=\{(1,1)\}+\Lambda$, then $\{(i+1,i-1),(i+2,i-2)\}$ is a maximally neighborly set of $A$.
\item The empty set.
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}
\begin{lemma}\label{inducedneighborly}
If $A\subseteq\Z^n$, and $B\subseteq A$ is neighborly, then every subset of $B$ is neighborly.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}$ $
Since $B$ is neighborly, we have that $T^o_{\vee B}\cap A=\emptyset$. Additionally, since $B'\subseteq B$, we have that $T^o_{\vee B'}\cap A\subseteq T^o_{\vee B}\cap A=\emptyset$, and hence $T^o_{\vee B'}\cap A=\emptyset$. Therefore, $B'$ is neighborly.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
Let $A\subset\Z^n$ and let $B\subset A$. If $B'\subseteq A$ and $\vee B'=\vee B$ implies that $B'=B$ for all such $B'\subseteq A$, then $B$ is called strongly neighborly.
\end{definition}
\begin{prop}\label{niceprop}
Let $A\subset\Z^n$. Then $B\subset A$ strongly neighborly implies that $B$ is neighborly, and the converse holds if $A$ is generic.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}$ $
Let $B$ be strongly neighborly. Then for any $B'\subset A$ such that $\bigvee B=\bigvee B'$, we have that $B=B'$. If $T^o_{\vee B}\cap A\neq\emptyset$, then there exists $\alpha\in A$ such that $\alpha<<\bigvee B$, and hence $\bigvee B=\bigvee(B\cup\alpha)$. Then $B=B\cup\alpha$, which is a contradiction, and hence $T^o_{\vee B}\cap A=\emptyset$, so $B$ is neighborly.
Now suppose that $B$ is neighborly and $A$ is generic, then at most one element of $A$ lies on each face of $T_{\vee B}$ by definition. Now consider $B'$ such that $\bigvee B=\bigvee B'$. Each $\beta\in B$ contributes to $\bigvee B$ in some component because of genericity. If $\beta'\in B'$ contributes to $\bigvee B$ what $\beta$ did, then they lie in the same face of $T_{\vee B}$ and hence must be the same. In this manner, we conclude that each element of $B$ matches up with an element of $B'$, and vice versa, and hence $B=B'$, so $B$ is strongly neighborly.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}\label{scarfdef}
If $A\subseteq\Z^n$, let $N(A):=\{\text{strongly neighborly sets of } A\}$, and let $N_i(A):=\{\sigma\in N(A) | |\sigma|=i+1\}$. We call $N(A)$ the Scarf complex of $A$.
\end{definition}
\begin{prop}\label{prop2.15}
If $A\subseteq\Z^n$, then $N(A)$ is a simplicial complex.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}$ $
By Lemma \ref{inducedneighborly}, neighborliness is closed under taking subsets. Hence, $\sigma\in N_i(A)$ is an $i$-face of $N(A)$, and $N_{i-1}(A)\ni\tau\subseteq\sigma$ is a face of $\sigma$.
\end{proof}
\section{Antichain Lattices}
In the existing literature, the requirement that $\Lambda\cap\N^n=0$ is often imposed on lattices $\Lambda\subseteq\Z^n$. For brevity, we will work with lattices that are also antichains.
If $\Lambda\subseteq\Z^n$ is an antichain lattice, then we define $\IL\subset k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ to be the ideal generated by $$\{X^{\lambda^+}-X^{\lambda^-}\mid\lambda\in\Lambda\}$$ Notice that any monoid morphism $\phi:\N^n\rightarrow\N^m$ extends to a group homomorphism $\overline{\phi}:\Z^n\rightarrow\Z^m$, and that $\ker(\overline{\phi})$ is an antichain lattice. Also, $\phi$ induces $\hat{\phi}:k[x_1,\dots,x_n]\rightarrow k[y_1,\dots,y_m]$, and $\ker(\hat{\phi})=I_{\ker(\overline{\phi})}=\{X^{\alpha^+}-X^{\alpha^-} | \alpha\in\ker{\overline{\phi}}\}$.
\subsection{Markov Bases} $ $
A Markov basis is a useful tool in bridging the gap between the combinatorial Scarf complex and the algebraic object $I_{\Lambda}$. This will be done via the fundamental theorem of Markov bases (Theorem \ref{markdef}). Save for Proposition \ref{markovneighbors}, the basic Markov basis theory treatment is from \cite{DS}.
Consider an antichain lattice $\Lambda \subseteq \Z^n$. Define the \emph{fiber over u} for $u \in \N^n$ to be $\mathcal{F}(u):= (u+\Lambda)\cap\N^n = \{v\in \N^n | u-v\in\Lambda\}$. Now consider an arbitary finite subset $\mathcal{B}\subseteq\Lambda$. For an arbitrary element $u\in\N^n$, we can define a graph denoted $\mathcal{F}(u)_{\mathcal{B}}$ where the vertices are the elements of $\mathcal{F}(u)$ and the edges are between vertices $v, w$ if $v - w$ or $w - v$ are in $\mathcal{B}$.
\begin{definition}\label{markdef1}A Markov basis of a lattice $\Lambda\in\Z^n$ is a finite set $\mathcal{B}\subseteq\Lambda$ such that $\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{B}}(u)$ is connected for all $u\in\N^n$. We call a Markov basis \emph{minimal} if it is such with respect to inclusion.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\emph{[Theorem 1.3.2, \cite{DS}]}If $\mathcal{B}$ and $\mathcal{B}'$ are minimal Markov bases for a lattice, then $|\mathcal{B}|=|\mathcal{B}'|$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{markdef}\emph{[Theorem 1.3.6, \cite{DS}]}A subset $\mathcal{B}$ of a lattice $\Lambda$ is a (minimal) Markov basis if and only if the set $\{X^{b^+}-X^{b^-} | b\in\mathcal{B}\}\subset k[x_1, \dots, x_n]$ forms a (minimal) generating set of the lattice ideal $\IL=<X^{b^+}-X^{b^-} | b\in\Lambda>$.
\end{theorem}
In the future, we will be referring to Theorem \ref{markdef} more often than to Definition \ref{markdef1}
\begin{definition}
Let $\Lambda\subset\Z^n$ be a lattice. For any $\beta\in\Z^n$, the fiber over $\beta$ is $\beta+\N^n\cap\Lambda$.
\end{definition}
\begin{prop}\label{markovneighbors}
Let $\Lambda\subseteq\Z^n$ be a lattice that is an antichain. If $B$ is a Markov basis of $\Lambda$ and $\mathcal{N}$ is the set of neighbors of the origin, then $\mathcal{N}=B\cup-B$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} $ $
First, notice that $\mathcal{N}\subseteq B\cup -B$ because if $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ are neighborly, then there is a fiber of $\Lambda$ that contains only $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$.
For the opposite inclusion, it suffices to show that $\mathcal{N}$ is a Markov basis. As a Markov basis, it will contain a minimal Markov basis, and because neighborliness is closed under taking negatives, it will also contain the negative of that minimal Markov basis. For any two minimal Markov bases, $B$ and $B'$, it is the case that $B\cup -B=B'\cup-B'$, so we will be finished. We proceed by proving that $\mathcal{N}$ is a Markov basis by showing that for any fiber, any two points in the fiber are connected by a path of neighborly pairs of elements.
Suppose that $F$ is a fiber of $\Lambda$ that contains only two elements. Then those two elements are neighborly, and hence there is a neighborly path between them. Now suppose that the result holds for all fibers $F$ such that $|F|<m$. Suppose $F$ is a fiber such that $|F|=m$, and suppose $\lambda_1,\lambda_2\in F$ where $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ are not neighborly. Without loss of generality, let $F$ be the fiber over $\lambda_1\wedge\lambda_2$. Since $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ are not neighborly, there exists $\alpha\in F$ such that $\alpha<<\lambda_1\vee\lambda_2$.
Let $$\Delta_1=\{i\in[1,\dots,n]\mid\pi_i(\lambda_1)>\pi_i(\lambda_2)\}$$ Then $\pi_i(\lambda_1)>\pi_i(\alpha)$ for all $i\in\Delta_1$ and $\pi_j(\lambda_1)<\pi_j(\alpha)$ for all $j\in\Delta_1^c$. By construction, $\pi_i(\alpha)>\pi_i(\lambda_2)$ for all $i\in\Delta_1$, and $\pi_j(\alpha)<\pi_j(\lambda_2)$ for all $j\in\Delta_1^c$. Therefore, $(\alpha-\lambda_1)\wedge 0>(\lambda_2-\lambda_1)\wedge 0$ and hence $(\alpha\wedge\lambda_1)>(\lambda_1\wedge\lambda_2)$.
We can draw two conclusions from this final inequality. The first is that $(\alpha\wedge\lambda_1+\N^n)\cap\Lambda\subset(\lambda_1\wedge\lambda_2+\N^n)\cap\Lambda$, and the second is that $\lambda_2\notin(\alpha\wedge\lambda_1+\N^n)\cap\Lambda$. The final conclusion to draw is that the minimal fiber containing $\alpha$ and $\lambda_1$ has size less than $n$, and likewise for $\lambda_2$. Thus, by the inductive hypothesis, there is a neighborly path from $\lambda_1$ to $\alpha$ and another from $\alpha$ to $\lambda_2$, creating the desired neighborly path from $\lambda_1$ to $\lambda_2$.
\end{proof}
Our use of Markov bases will be ubiquitous henceforth. The primary goal of this section was to establish the fact that the generating sets of the ideals we will work with later all have a very specific form. More structural lemmas along these lines will establish this fact more rigorously later.
\begin{comment}
\begin{example}\label{markovgrowth}In the following examples, we will look at some numerical semigroups generated by varying lists of integers, and look at a Markov bases of the corresponding lattices.\footnote{All computations either were, or could be, obtained using the command markov in 4ti2.}
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $G=<3, 4, 5>$, then an associated Markov basis is \newline $\{(3,-1,-1),(-1,2,-1),(-2,-1,2)\}$.
\item If $G=<4, 5, 6>$, then an associated Markov basis is $\{(1,-2,1),(3,0,-2)\}$.
\item If $G=<20, 24, 25, 31>$\footnote{This example was given in \cite{MS} as the smallest generic codimension 1 lattice in $\Z^4$}, then an associated Markov basis is \newline $\{(4,-1,-1,-1),(3,-2,2,-2),(2,3,-2,-2),(1,2,1,-3),(-2,4,-1,-1),\newline (-3,3,2,-2),(-1,-1,3,-1)\}$.
\item If $G=<20, 24, 25, 32>$, then an associated Markov basis is \newline $\{(2, -3, 0, 1),(2, 1, 0, -2),(4, -2, 0, -1),(5, 0, -4, 0)\}$.
\item If $G=<17, 25, 31, 47, 66>$, then an associated Markov basis has 11 elements.
\item If $G=<928, 963, 968, 1275, 1321>$\footnote{This is the smallest generic codimension 1 lattice in $\Z^5$ known to the author.}, then an associated Markov basis has 15 elements.
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}
Example \ref{markovgrowth} was intended to show the reader that as the dimension of the lattice increases, the size of the Markov basis grows faster and seemingly erratically. We can bound the size of the Markov basis, though, and under certain conditions, we can show that the size is fixed. Under more general conditions, bounds have been found; they are generally very large, but nonetheless achievable. The interested reader can find the bounds in \cite{shallcross}, although the lexicon and setting is different.
\end{comment}
\subsection{Generic Lattices}
In our quest to unite the various definitions of genericity, we will now consolidate two definitions of generic from the literature. Namely, we will unite Definition \ref{genlat} from \cite{PS} and Definition \ref{generic} from \cite{MS}.
\begin{definition}\label{genlat}If $\Lambda\subset\Z^n$ is an antichain lattice, we say $\Lambda$ is generic if there is a minimal Markov basis $L$ of $\Lambda$ such that each $\lambda\in L$ is fully supported.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\label{genericsmatch}
If $\Lambda\subset\Z^n$ is an antichain lattice, then $\Lambda$ is generic as in Definition \ref{genlat} if and only if $\Lambda$ is generic in $\Z^n$ as in Definition \ref{generic}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} $ $
By Proposition \ref{markovneighbors}, we can first consider an identical statement: the neighbors of the origin with respect to $\Lambda$ are fully supported if and only if there are no neighborly pairs that share a component.
Let $\Lambda$ be generic by Definition \ref{genlat}. Under lattice translations, if $$L=\{\text{neighbors of the origin with respect to }\Lambda\},$$ then $$\alpha+L=\{\text{neighbors of }\alpha\text{ with respect to }\Lambda\}$$ If $\beta\in\alpha+L$, then $pi_1(\alpha)\neq\pi_i(\beta)$ for $i=1,\dots, n$ because the elements of $L$ are fully supported, and $beta=\alpha+\ell$ for some $\ell\in L$. Because of this, if there exists a $\beta$ such that $\pi_i(\beta)=\pi_i(\alpha)$, then $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are not neighborly. Therefore, there exists $\gamma\in T^o_{\alpha\vee\beta}\cap\Lambda$ by definition. That is, there exists $\gamma<<\alpha\vee\beta$ and hence $\Lambda$ is generic by Definition \ref{generic}.
Let $\Lambda$ be generic by Definition \ref{generic}. Then for all $\alpha,\beta\in\Lambda$ such that $pi_i(\alpha)=\pi_i(\beta)$, there exists $\gamma\in\Lambda$ such that $\gamma<<\alpha\vee\beta$. That is, $\gamma\in T^o_{\alpha\vee\beta}\cap\Lambda$. Therefore, if $\pi_i(\alpha)=\pi_i(\beta)$ for some $i=1,\dots, n$, then they are not neighborly. Hence, if $\alpha,\beta$ are to be neighborly, $\alpha-\beta$ must be fully supported. Thus, if $A$ is the set of neighbors of $\alpha$, then the vectors $\{\alpha-\beta\mid\beta\in A\}$ are fully supported, and hence $\Lambda$ is generic by Definition \ref{genlat}.
\end{proof}
Lemma \ref{genericsmatch} shows us that the notion of a generic lattice from \cite{PS} matches the definition for generic we have already seen for $\N^n$-sets.
\section{$\Lambda$-sets}
In this section, we will generalize the lattices from the previous section into $\Lambda$-sets, and then reform some of the notions and definitions we had for lattices. If not explicitly mentioned, our lattices will continue to be subsets of $\Z^n$, antichains and generic.
The primary object of study in this section is a $\Lambda$-set, which is a specific case of an $M$-set, where $M$ is a monoid. If $A\subseteq\Z^n$, and $A=A+\Lambda$, then $A$ is a $\Lambda$-set under the map $A\times\Lambda\rightarrow A$ defined by $(\alpha,\lambda)\mapsto\alpha+\lambda$.
\subsection{Structure of $\Lambda$-sets}
\begin{definition}
Suppose $A=A+\Lambda$. If $A_0\subseteq A$, we call $A_0$ a set of $\Lambda$-representatives for $A$ if
\begin{enumerate}
\item $A=A_0+\Lambda$
\item $a,b\in A_0$ implies $a-b\notin\Lambda$
\end{enumerate}
Call $A$ $\Lambda$-finite if $A$ has a finite set of representatives.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
All $\Lambda$-finite sets are DCC sets, a fact that will be used nearly constantly without mention.
\end{remark}
Unless $\Lambda=\{0\}$, infinitely many options for $A_0$ exist. When thinking of $A=\Lambda\cup(\alpha_0+\Lambda)$, we could choose $A_0=\{\alpha,\alpha_0+\beta\}$ for any $\alpha,\beta\in\Lambda$ without any reference to the Euclidean distance between $\alpha$ and $\beta$. It will be important later to be able to address this distance, so we will develop a method for choosing an $A_0$ that has an additional desirable property: closeness.
\begin{lemma}\label{closeness}
Let $\Lambda\subset\R^n$ and let $A$ be $\Lambda$-finite. Let $V$ be the subspace of $\R^n$ spanned by $\Lambda$, and let $\mathcal{C}$ be a fundamental region ($k$-parallelapiped, where $\Lambda$ has codimension $n-k$) of $\Lambda$ in $V$. If $\pi:\R^n\rightarrow V$ is the orthogonal projection map, then there is a set of $\Lambda$-representatives for $A$ contained in $\pi^{-1}(\mathcal{C})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have that $A$ is $\Lambda$-finite, so choose $A_0$ as a finite set of representatives. For ease, order $A_0$ as $\alpha_1 < \alpha_2<\cdots<\alpha_s$, and consider $\pi(\alpha_1)+\mathcal{C}$. Since $\pi(\alpha_1)\neq\pi(\alpha_i)$ for all $i>1$, and $\pi(\alpha_i)+\mathcal{C}+\Lambda$ is a division of $V$ into $k$-parallelapipeds, there exists a $\lambda_i\in\Lambda$ such that $(\pi(\alpha_i)+\mathcal{C}+\lambda_i)\cap(\pi(\alpha_i)+\mathcal{C})\neq\emptyset$. To complete the proof, let the representative set be $\pi^{-1}(\alpha_1)\cup\{\pi^{-1}(\alpha_i+\lambda_i) | i>1\}$.
\end{proof}
Although there will be many situations where this property is not needed, we will henceforth only consider sets of $\Lambda$-representatives of $\Lambda$-finite sets of the form of the conclusion of Lemma \ref{closeness}.
\begin{prop}\label{structural}Let $A$ be a generic $\Lambda$-finite set, then $N_i(A)$ is $\Lambda$-finite set under the map $N_i(A)\times\Lambda\rightarrow N_i(A)$ where $(\sigma,\lambda)\mapsto\sigma+\lambda$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}$ $
If $\sigma\in N_i(A)$, then $\sigma+\lambda\in N_i(A)$ for all $\lambda\in\Lambda$, so $N_i(A) = N_i(A)+\Lambda$, and hence it is a $\Lambda$-set. The $\Lambda$-finiteness property will come as a corollary to Lemma \ref{locallyfinitelemma}.
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
We will conclude this section with a few remarks about the generalizations we have done here. First, note that if $A_0$ is a singleton, then $A$ is a translation of $\Lambda$. Additionally, the simplicial complex put on $\Lambda$ is identical to the simplicial complex that we can define iteratively by saying two points $\alpha,\beta\in\Lambda$ have an edge between them there is no third element $\gamma\in\Lambda$ such that $\gamma<<\alpha\vee\beta$. This coincides verbatim with the definition of the Scarf complex (Lemma \ref{scarfneighbors}), which in turn coincides with the Buchberger graph from \cite{MS}, and shows the reader that we are augmenting the space of objects that previous algorithms have been applied to.
Furthermore, since we now have a simplicial complex, we are granted the existence of certain mappings involving the faces of subsimplices; these maps will be exploited in great detail in later chapters.
\end{comment}
\section{Resolutions}
This section will review our primary object of study: resolutions. We will mostly address the general definitions via our specific uses, and in particular, via a constructive algorithm. We will cover the definitions associated to cellular resolutions, which encompasses the algorithm that we will apply to the scarf complex in later chapters.
\begin{definition}
Let $M$ be an $S$-module, then a \emph{resolution} of $M$ is a complex $F_{\bullet}$ with maps $\delta_i$ such that $$0\longleftarrow M \overset{\delta_0}\longleftarrow F_0 \overset{\delta_1}\longleftarrow F_1 \overset{\delta_2}\longleftarrow \cdots \leftarrow :F_{\bullet}$$ is exact. I.e., if $\ker(\delta_i)=\im(\delta_{i+1})$. The resolution is free if $F_i$ is free for all $i$. If the resolution is free, then $F_i=S^{\beta_i}:=\underbrace{S\oplus \cdots \oplus S}_{\beta_i\text{ times}}$, and if it is minimal, the $\beta_i$s are collectively called the Betti numbers of the resolution.
\end{definition}
\subsection{Resolutions of Lattice Ideals}
Later, we will cover resolutions of lattice ideals in more generality, but for this section, we will give the basic results concerning lattice ideals.
\begin{definition}\label{M_A}\emph{[Definition 9.11, \cite{MS}]} Let $A\subseteq\Z^n$. Then $M_A$, is the $S$-submodule of the Laurent polynomial ring $S^{\pm}=k[x_1^{\pm 1}, \dots, x_n^{\pm 1}]$ generated by $\{X^{\alpha} | \alpha\in A\}$.
\end{definition}
In \cite{MS}, one will find that the Scarf complex of $A\in\Z^n$ is defined as the set of strongly neighborly sets, where we have defined it to be the set of neighborly sets. We saw in Lemma \ref{niceprop} that when $A$ is generic, strongly neighborly and neighborly are identical, and as such, the reader does not need to make any distinction going foward.
We will finish this section with a prelude to what we intend to do with the machinery we have hitherto developed. In section \ref{next}, we will construct a collection of maps that we will associate to simplicial complexes. When we apply this construction to the Scarf complex of a generic $\Lambda$-set, $A$, we will obtain free a free resolution of $M_A$ as an $S$-module. Additionally, we will be able to resolve lattice ideals by considering the construction modulo the lattice. The machinery behind these ideas will be developed in later sections in more general situations. The machinery will primarily exploit the structure of the lattice, and in fact, we will use a more general version of the Scarf complex.
\subsubsection{Lattice Ideal Resolutions in $\Z^3$}
In $\Z^3$, we have a remarkable amount of control over Markov bases of lattices. In particular, the Markov bases will have three elements, $\lambda_1, \lambda_2$, and $\lambda_3$, and they can be chosen such that $\lambda_1=-(\lambda_2+\lambda_3)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lambdares}
If $\Lambda\subset\Z^3$ is a generic antichain lattice with codimension 1 and Markov basis $\lambda_1 = \{(\alpha_1,-\beta_1,-\gamma_1), \lambda_2 = (\alpha_2,-\beta_2,-\gamma_2), \lambda_3 = (\alpha_3,-\beta_3,-\gamma_3)\}$, then the minimal free resolution of $S/\IL$ is
\begin{displaymath}
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
S/\IL & \leftarrow & S & \leftarrow & Se_{\lambda_1}\oplus Se_{\lambda_2}\oplus Se_{\lambda_3} & \leftarrow & Se_{p_1}\oplus Se_{p_2} \\
& & b_1 & \mapsfrom & e_{\lambda_1} & x_3^{\gamma_2}e_{\lambda_1}+x_1^{\alpha_3}e_{\lambda_2}+x_2^{\beta_1}e_{\lambda_3} & \mapsfrom e_{p_1} \\
& & b_2 & \mapsfrom & e_{\lambda_2} & x_2^{\beta_3}e_{\lambda_1}+x_3^{\gamma_1}e_{\lambda_2}+x_1^{\alpha_2}e_{\lambda_3} & \mapsfrom e_{p_2} \\
& & b_3 & \mapsfrom & e_{\lambda_3} & &
\end{array}
\end{displaymath}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Apply the tools from section \ref{6} that we will cover latter. Alternatively, \cite{H3}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Cellular Resolutions}\label{next}
Let $\Lambda\subseteq\Z^n$ be an antichain lattice, and let $A$ be a generic $\Lambda$-finite set. We already have that $N(A)$ is a simplicial complex; to the simplicial structure, we can add more information in the form of face labels. We will label the face $\sigma$ of $N(A)$ with $\vee\sigma$.
\begin{definition}
Let $S=k[x_1, \dots, x_n]$, and let $F_i(N(A)):=\displaystyle{\bigoplus_{\sigma\in\N_i(A)}Se_{\sigma}}$ be the free $S$-module with generators $\{e_{\sigma}\mid\sigma\in N_i(A)\}$.
\end{definition}
If $\sigma=\{\sigma_0,\dots,\sigma_i\}\in N_i(A)$, then $\partial_j\sigma=\{\sigma_0,\dots,\sigma_{j-1},\sigma_{j+1},\dots,\sigma_i\}$. Let $\phi_i: F_i(N(A))\rightarrow F_{i-1}(N(A))$ be defined as follows: \begin{equation}\label{mapeq}\begin{array}{cccc}\phi_i: & F_i(N(A)) & \rightarrow & F_{i-1}(N(A)) \\ & e_{\sigma} & \mapsto & \sum_{j=0}^i(-1)^jX^{\vee\sigma-\vee\partial_j\sigma}e_{\partial_j\sigma}\end{array}\end{equation}
\begin{prop}
With $\phi_i$ defined above, $\phi_i\phi_{i-1}=0$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Chapter 8 of \cite{W1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
Let $X$ be a simplicial complex labeled with suprema in $\Z^n$, and let $X_i$ be the set of $i$-faces of $X$. The cellular free complex supported on $X$, denoted $\mathcal{F}_{X}$, is the complex of free $k[x^{\pm 1}_1, \dots, x^{\pm 1}_n]$-modules generated by $e_{\sigma}$ for $\sigma\in X_i$. If $X$ is acyclic, we pair $X$ together with the maps $\phi$ from (\ref{mapeq}) to obtain the cellular free resolution supported on $X$. We also denote it $\mathcal{F}_{X}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
If $X$ is a simplicial complex labeled with elements of $\Z^n$, then for all $b\in\Z^n$, $X_{\preceq b}$ is the subcomplex supported on all faces $\sigma$ such that $\vee\sigma\leq b$.
\end{definition}
\begin{prop}
The cellular free complex $\mathcal{F}_{X}$ supported on $X$ is is a cellular resolution if and only if $X_{\preceq b}$ is acyclic over $k$ for all $b\in\Z^n$. When $\mathcal{F}_{X}$ is acyclic, then it is a free resolution of $M_{X}=\{X^{\zeta}\mid\zeta\text{ the label of some face of } X\}$, the $k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$-submodule of $k[x_1^{\pm1}, \dots, x_n^{\pm1}]$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}$ $
This is an extension of the finite case given in Proposition 4.5 in \cite{MS}, but the proof runs identically.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}\label{isresolution}
Let $\Lambda\subset\Z^n$ be an antichain lattice, and let $A$ be a generic $\Lambda$-finite set. Then $$F_{\bullet}: \cdots \rightarrow F_i(N(A))\overset{\phi_i}\rightarrow F_{i-1}(N(A))\overset{\phi_{i-1}}\rightarrow\cdots F_0(N(A))\overset{\phi_1}\rightarrow M_A$$ is a resolution of $M_A$ as an $S$-module.
\end{example}
\subsection{Taylor and Hull Resolutions}
\subsubsection{Hull Complex}
We begin with some notation. We will always assume that $t\in\R$ with $t>1$ and that $A\subset\Z^n$. Let $$E_t(\alpha)=(t^{\pi_1(\alpha)}, \dots, t^{\pi_n(\alpha)})$$ for $\alpha\in\Z^n$ and $$E_t(A)=\{E_t(\alpha)\mid\alpha\in A\}$$ Additionally, we will let $$\mathcal{P}_t(A)=\conv(E_t(A)+\N^n)= \R_{\geq0}^n+\conv(E_t(A))$$
\begin{lemma}\label{exponentialconvex}
If $A\subseteq\Z^n$ is a generic $\Lambda$-finite set for some antichain lattice $\Lambda\subseteq\Z^n$, then for $t>1$, the vertices of $\mathcal{P}_t(A)$ are $E_t(A)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}$ $
It suffices to show that $E_t(A)$ is convex for large enough $t$. First note that from \cite{RK}, we have the following condition for convexity: a set $C\in\R^n$ is convex if and only if for all $x,y\in C$, $<N_C(x)-N_C(y), x-y>\geq 0$, where $N_C(x)$ is the normal vector to $C$ at $x$.\footnote{In \cite{RK}, as here, we will consider a normal vector at a point to be any vector inside the normal cone at that point. That is, we can choose a normal vector to any plane that is tangent at the point, and the result still hols.}
Let $a\in\R_{>0}^n$ and let $t\in\R_{>1}$. Let $$H_a=\{x\in\R^n | a\cdot x\geq 0\}$$
and
$$\partial H_a=\{x\in\R^n | a\cdot x=0\}.$$
Then $$t(H_a)=\{t(x) | a\cdot x \geq 0\}$$
$$=\{(t^{x1}, \dots, t^{x_n}) | a_1x_1 + \cdots + a_nx_n\geq 0\}$$
$$=\{(\xi_1, \dots, \xi_n) | \xi_1^{a_1}\dots\xi_n^{a_n}\geq 1, \xi_i=t^{x_i}\}$$
and
$$t(\partial H_a)=\{(\xi_1, \dots, \xi_n) | \xi_1^{a_1}\dots\xi_n^{a_n} = 1\}$$
To simplify notation, let $f_a(\xi)=\xi_1^{a_1}\dots\xi_n^{a_n}$. Then we have that $t(\partial H_a)$ is the level set defined by $f_a(\xi)=1$ and $t(H_a)=\{\xi | f_a(\xi)\geq 1\}$. Note that since $t$ is a homeomorphism from $\R^n$ to $\R^n$, we have that $t(\partial H_a)=\partial t(H_a)$.
We wish to show that $C=t(H_a)$ is convex. By the aforementioned convexity condition, we can show $<N_C(x)-N_C(y),x-y>\geq 0$ for all $x,y\in C$. We clearly only need to check this on the boundary of $C$, which is what we will do. The (outward facing) normal vector to $\partial C$ at $\xi$ is $-\nabla f_a(\xi)$. Now $\frac{\partial f_a}{\partial \xi_i}=\frac{a_i}{\xi_i}f_a(\xi)$ and if $\xi\in\partial C$, then $f_a(\xi)=1$. Thus $\nabla f(\xi)=(\frac{a_1}{\xi_1},\cdots, \frac{a_n}{\xi_n})$ for all $\xi\in\partial C$.
To finish the computation, choose $\xi,\eta\in\partial C$. Then $$N_C(\xi)=-(\frac{a_1}{\xi_1},\cdots, \frac{a_n}{\xi_n})$$
and
$$N_C(\eta)=(\frac{a_1}{\eta_1},\cdots, \frac{a_n}{\eta_n})$$
Now $<N_C(\xi)-N_C(\eta),\xi-\eta>=<(\dots, \frac{a_i(\xi_i-\eta_i)}{\xi_i\eta_i},\dots),(\dots,\xi_i-\eta_i,\dots)>$
$=a_1\frac{(\xi_1-\eta_1)^2}{\xi_1\eta_1} + \cdots + a_n\frac{(\xi_n-\eta_n)^2}{\xi_n\eta_n}\geq 0$. So we have that $C$ is convex.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor5.2}
Let $A\subseteq\Z^n$ be a generic $\Lambda$-finite set for some antichain lattice $\Lambda\subseteq\Z^n$, and $t>1$. If $F$ is a face of $\conv(E_t(A))$, then $F\cap E_t(A)=E_t(\sigma)$ where $\sigma\in N(A)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We already have that $E_t(A)$ is the vertex set of $\mathcal{P}_t(A)$. Suppose that $F$ is a maximal face of $E_t(A)$ and let $F\cap E_t(A)=\{t^{\alpha_1}, \dots, t^{\alpha_r}\}$. Suppose for a contradiction that $\{\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_r\}\notin N(A)$. Then there exists $b\in A$ such that $b<<\vee\alpha_i$. Therefore $E_t(b)<<E_t(\vee\alpha_i)=\vee E_t(\alpha_i)$. We have three cases to consider.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $E_t(b)\in\conv(E_t(\alpha_1), \dots, E_t(\alpha_r),\vee E_t(\alpha_i))$.
\item $E_t(b)\notin\conv(E_t(\alpha_1), \dots, E_t(\alpha_r),\vee E_t(\alpha_i))$.
\item $E_t(b)\in F$.
\end{enumerate}
Examining each case:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We would have that $E_t(b)$ lies in the interior of $\mathcal{P}_t(A)$, contradicting Lemma \ref{exponentialconvex}.
\item This would imply that the hyperplane containing $F$ separates $E_t(A)$, contradicting the convexity of $\mathcal{P}_t(A)$.
\item If $E_t(b)\in F$, increase $t$ by $\epsilon> 0$ to be back in case 2.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
Before we cover the main concepts in this section, we first need a structural lemma that underlies many statements that will be made later.
\begin{lemma}
Let $A\subset\Z^n$, and suppose that $A$ is a generic $\Lambda$-finite set for some antichain lattice $\Lambda$. Then for $t>>0$, $\partial(\conv(E_t(A)+\N^n))\cong\R^{n-1}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} $ $
Let $B=\{\beta\in\R^n\mid\pi_1(\beta)+\cdots+\pi_n(\beta)=0\}$, and for each $\beta\in B$, let $\ell_{\beta}=\{\beta+s(1,\dots,1)\mid s\in\R\}$. Since $\partial(\conv(E_t(A)+\N^n))$ is convex, and $B\cap\N^n=0$, we have that each $\ell_{\beta}$ intersects $\partial(\conv(E_t(A)+\N^n))$ in at most one point. To see that $\ell_{\beta}$ intersects $\partial(\conv(E_t(A)+\N^n))$ at all, notice that the point of $\partial(\conv(E_t(A)+\N^n))$ that is closest to the origin is the point of intersection with $\ell_0$. Call this point $\gamma$. Then $\N^n\subset\partial(\conv(E_t(A)+\N^n))-\gamma$. The line connecting any point $\eta$ on any coordinate face of $\N^n$ to the closest point on $B$ passes through $\partial(\conv(E_t(A)+\N^n))-\gamma$, showing that each $\ell_{\beta}$ intersects $\partial(\conv(E_t(A)+\N^n))$ in exactly one point.
Therefore, we have a bijection between $B$ and $\partial(\conv(E_t(A)+\N^n))$. For each $\beta\in B$, call this point of intersection $\beta'$. Consider the map $$\begin{array}{cccc} f: & \partial(\conv(E_t(A)+\N^n)) & \rightarrow & B \\ & \beta' & \mapsto & \beta\end{array}$$
Since $f$ maps different elements along lines parallel to $t(1,\dots,1)$, then two points that are close in $\partial(\conv(E_t(A)+\N^n))$ remain close under $f$. This also holds mutatis mutandis under $f^{-1}$, which maps $\beta'$ to $\beta$. Therefore, we have a continuous bijection with a continuous inverse, and hence $\partial(\conv(E_t(A)+\N^n))$ and $B$ are homeomorphic. Since $B$ is a hyperplane in $\R^n$, it is homeomorphic to $\R^{n-1}$, and hence, so is $\partial(\conv(E_t(A)+\N^n))$.
\end{proof}
Continuing, we need to show an important property of $A$.
\begin{lemma}\label{locallyfinitelemma}
Let $\Lambda$ be an antichain lattice, and let $A\in\Z^n$ be a generic $\Lambda$-finite set. Then for each $\alpha\in A$, the set of neighbors of $\alpha$ is finite.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof runs similarly to the proof of Proposition 9.4 in \cite{MS}. Since $A$ is $\Lambda$-finite, we can choose a set of $\Lambda$-representatives and call it $A_0$. Then we have $|A_0|$ copies of $\Lambda$ in $A$. We can find all the primitive elements (defined in the referenced proof) by individually translating each copy of $\Lambda$ to contain the origin, finding the associated primitive elements, then translating them back. There are only finitely many primitive elements for each copy of $\Lambda$, and hence only finitely many overall.
The second half of the proof runs identically.
\end{proof}
For $A\subseteq\Z^n$, let $\hull_t(A)=\{E_t(F)\subseteq E_t(A)\mid \conv(E_t(F))\text{ is a face of }\mathcal{P}_t(A)\}$.
\begin{prop}\label{stableposet}
If $A\in\Z^n$ is generic, then there exists $T\in\R$ such that for $t,t'\geq T$, $\hull_t(A)=\hull_{t'}(A)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}$ $
Let $B_i=B(0,i)$ be the ball of radius $i$ about the origin in $\R^n$. If $\mathcal{V}_{i,t}=B_i\cap\hull_t(A)$, then $\hull_t(A)=\varinjlim\mathcal{V}_{i,t}$. By Proposition 4.14 of \cite{MS}, there exists a $T\in\R$ such that for $t,t'\geq T$, $\hull_t(\mathcal{V}_{i,t})=\hull_{t'}(\mathcal{V}_{i,t})$. Specifically, the Proposition tells us that $T=(n+1)!$. Since this holds for all $\mathcal{V}_{i,t}$, it holds under the direct limit, and hence when $T>(n+1)!$, $\hull_t(A)=\hull_{t'}(A)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Although not mentioned explicitly, if $A$ were not generic, Proposition \ref{stableposet} fails. This is because there will exist two elements that share a component without a third element dividing the supremum of the first two. Under the exponentiation, these two elements would continue to share a component for all $t$, which would imply the existence of a supporting hyperplane of $\mathcal{P}_t(A)$ that was parallel to a coordinate plane, violating Lemma \ref{exponentialconvex}.
\end{remark}
When $t$ is large enough, $\hull_t(A)$ is independent of $t$, so we will drop the subscript and use $\hull(A)$ when it is understood that $t\geq T$.
\begin{prop}\label{locallyfinite}
Let $A\subset\Z^n$ be a $\Lambda$-finite set for some antichain lattice $\Lambda\subset\Z^n$. For all $\alpha\in A$, $$|\{\sigma\in\hull(A)\mid\alpha\in\sigma\}|<\infty$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}$ $
If a face of $\hull(A)$ were incident with infinitely many other faces, that would imply the existence of an edge that was incident with infinitely many other edges; up to a suitable translation, we could consider the point of incidence to be 0, contradicting Lemma \ref{locallyfinitelemma}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
In Lemma \ref{locallyfinitelemma}, we worked strictly in $A$ and $N(A)$, but Proposition \ref{locallyfinite} made a claim about $\hull(A)$. However, we have a structure-preserving bijection between the two objects, so, up to notation, the claim in the lemma could have been made as a claim about $\hull(A)$.
\end{remark}
\begin{prop}
If $A\subseteq\Z^n$ is a $\Lambda$-finite set for some antichain lattice $\Lambda\subseteq\Z^n$, then every face of $\conv(E_t(A))$ is a polyhedron.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} $ $
It is clear that $\conv(E_t(A))$ is the intersection of half-spaces from Lemma \ref{exponentialconvex}, so it remains to show that each face is the convex hull of finitely many points.
If $\conv(E_t(A))$ had a supporting hyperplane that contained infinitely many points, that would imply the existence of a hyperplane containing infinitely many points of $A$. The only such hyperplanes are those that are parallel to $\Lambda$ and that contain $\alpha_0+\Lambda$ for some $\alpha_0\in A$. But by Theorem 9.14 of \cite{MS}, these collections of points are mapped to locally finite sets under the exponentiation map, and hence no supporting hyperplane of $\conv(E_t(A))$ containing infinitely many points exists.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Taylor Complexes and Resolutions}
\begin{definition}
A simplicial complex with labels from a lattice is a function from the vertices of the complex to the lattice. The label of a simplex is the supremum of the labels of its vertices.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\label{cellrescoeffs}
Let $\Delta$ be a simplicial complex labeled with suprema from $\Z^n$, and let $\Delta_i=\{i\text{-faces of }\Delta\}$. Let $S=k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ and $S(e_{\sigma})$ be the principal $S$-module generated by $e_{\sigma}$. The Taylor Complex supported on $\Delta$ is $$\mathcal{F}_{\Delta}: \cdots \overset{d_{i+1}}\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_i\overset{d_i}\rightarrow\cdots\overset{d_1}\rightarrow\mathcal{F}_0\overset{d_0}\rightarrow 0$$ where $$\mathcal{F}_i=\bigoplus_{\sigma\in\Delta_i}S(e_{\sigma})$$ and if $\sigma=\{\alpha_0,\dots,\alpha_i\}$, and $\sigma\setminus j=\{\alpha_0,\dots,\alpha_{j-1},\alpha_{j+1},\dots,\alpha_i\}$, $$d(e_{\sigma})=\sum_{\alpha_j\in\sigma}(-1)^{j-1}(X^{\vee\sigma-\vee\sigma\setminus j})e_{\sigma\setminus j}.$$
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
In \cite{MS}, the Taylor complex is defined on a finite set in $\N^n$, but there is no reason for this other than making the $\Delta_i$ finite.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
The Taylor resolution of $A\subseteq \Z^n$ is the Taylor complex supported on the simplicial complex that is full over $A$. I.e., the faces of the simplicial complex are in bijection with the finite subsets of $2^A$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
If $N(A)$ is the Scarf complex of $A$ (Definition \ref{scarfdef}), then $\mathcal{F}_{N(A)}$ is the algebraic Scarf complex, which is the Taylor complex supported on the Scarf complex.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Note that the Scarf complex is a labeled simplicial complex, and the algebraic Scarf complex is that complex coupled with a collection of maps.
\end{remark}
\begin{prop}\label{scarfsubcomplex}
If $A\subseteq\Z^n$, then every free $S$-resolution of $M_A$ contains the algebraic Scarf complex $\mathcal{F}_{N(A)}$ as a subcomplex.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}$ $
The Taylor resolution is an $S$-resolution of $M_A$. By \cite{P2}, it must contain a minimal resolution. Call that minimal resolution $\mathcal{F}_{\bullet}$. By definition, $\mathcal{F}_{\bullet}$ must contain all relations of $M_A$ in all dimensions. Additionally, the Taylor resolution contains the Scarf complex by construction, which in turn contains relations of $M_A$ without repitition. Since the Scarf complex does not necessarily contain all relations, it is a subcomplex of $\mathcal{F}_{\bullet}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem137}
If $A\subset\Z^n$, then $\mathcal{F}_{N(A)}$ is isomorphic to a subcomplex of $\hull(A)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} $ $
Let $\sigma\subset A$ be a face of the Scarf complex. Then $\sigma$ is strongly neighborly. We wish to relabel the elements of $\sigma$ in a meaningful way. To do this, consider $i\in [p]$ and let $$J(i)=\{j\in [n] \mid \pi_j(\vee\sigma\setminus i)<\pi_j(\vee\sigma)\}$$
Notice that $J(i)$ is nonempty, because if it was empty, then $\alpha_i$ would not contribute to $\bigvee \sigma$, and hence $\sigma$ could not be neighborly because $\bigvee\sigma = \bigvee(\sigma\setminus\alpha_i)$. Additionally, for similar reasons, $J(i)\nsubseteq\bigcup_{k\neq i}J(k)$. Therefore, for each $i\in [p]$, there is a $j=j(i)\in [n]$ such that $\alpha_i$ contributes to $\bigvee\sigma$ in component $j(i)$ and no other element of $\sigma$ does. Now for each $\alpha_i\in\sigma$, choose such a $j(i)$, and relabel $\alpha_i$ as $\alpha_{j(i)}$. Then $\pi_i(\alpha_i)>\pi_i(\alpha_k)$ for all $k\neq i$.
The second step of the proof is that $\{t^{\pi_i(\alpha_k)}\}$ is a nonsingular matrix for large enough $t$. It suffices to show this by showing that for large enough $t$, \begin{equation}\label{tlarge}\prod_{i=1}^pt^{\pi_i(\alpha_i)}>p!\prod_{i=1}^pt^{\pi_i(\alpha_{\rho(i)})}\end{equation} for any non-identity permutation $\rho$ of $[p]$. If (\ref{tlarge}) is satisfied, then the term $\prod_{i=1}^pt^{\pi_i(\alpha_i)}$ will dominate all other terms $\det(\{t^{\pi_i(\alpha_k)}\})$, and hence the matrix will be nonsingular. Assume $t>p$, then $$\frac{\prod_{i=1}^pt^{\pi_i(\alpha_i)}}{\prod_{i=1}^pt^{\pi_i(\alpha_{\rho(i)})}}=\prod_{i=1}^pt^{\pi_i(\alpha_i)-\pi_i(\alpha_{\rho(i)})}\geq\prod_{i=1}^pt\geq\prod_{i=1}^pp=p^p>p!$$
Therefore, inequality (\ref{tlarge}) is satisfied for all non-identity permutations $\rho$.
This says that the points $\{t^{\alpha_1}, \dots, t^{\alpha_p}\}$ are affinely independent. Because they are affinely independent, the convex hull of the points forms a simplex in which every point is a vertex.
By definition, $\hull(A)_{\preceq\vee\sigma}$ is exactly the convex hull of $\{t^{\alpha_1}, \dots, t^{\alpha_p}\}$. Because $\sigma$ is (strongly) neighborly, there is no other subset of $A$ that has the same supremum as $\sigma$. As such, if a face of $\hull(A)$ is labeled with $x^{\vee\sigma}$, it necessarily came from the image of $\sigma$, and since the exponential map is injective, there can be only one such face. Proposition \ref{scarfsubcomplex} says that every free resolution contains the algebraic Scarf complex as a subcomplex. This tells us that in addition to there being at most one face with label $x^{\vee\sigma}$, there also must be at least one. Therefore, every strongly neighborly set of $A$ is present as a face in $\hull(A)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}It will be common to drop the phrase "is isomorphic to" from Theorem \ref{theorem137} and just say that $\mathcal{F}_{N(A)}$ is a subcomplex of $\hull(A)$.
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}\label{scarfequalshull}
If $A\subset\Z^n$ is a generic $\Lambda$-finite set for some antichain lattice $\Lambda\subset\Z^n$, then $N(A)\cong\hull(A)$.
\end{theorem}
We need a lemma to prove the theorem.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma137}
If $A\subset\Z^n$ is a generic $\Lambda$-finite set for some antichain lattice $\Lambda\subset\Z^n$, and $F$ is a face of $\hull(A)$, then for every $\alpha\in A$, there is a component $\pi_j(\alpha)$ such that $\pi_j(\alpha)\geq\pi_j(\vee F)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}$ $
The analogous statement in \cite{MS}, Lemma 6.14 has a finite $A\subset\N^n$, but the hypothesis is never used, and the proof runs identically for infinite $A\subset\Z^n$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}{[Theorem \ref{scarfequalshull}]}$ $
Let $F$ be a face of $\hull(A)$ and let $\{\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_p\}\subset A$ be the points that correspond to the vertices of $F$. That is, $F=\{E_t(\alpha_i)\}$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $\pi_i(\bigvee_j\alpha_j)\neq0$. For a contradiction, assume that $\{\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_p\}$ is not a face of $N(A)$. This could occur in two cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists $k\in\{1,\dots,p\}$ such that $\bigvee_{j\neq k}\alpha_j=\bigvee_j\alpha_j$.
\item There exists $\beta\in A$ such that $t^{\beta}\notin F$ and $\beta<\bigvee_j\alpha_j$. (I.e., $\bigvee_j\alpha_j=\beta\vee\bigvee_j\alpha_j$.)
\end{enumerate}
For the first case, if we apply Lemma \ref{lemma137} to $\alpha_k$, then there exists a $j$ such that $\pi_j(\alpha_k)=\pi_j(\bigvee_j\alpha_j)$, and hence there is an element $\alpha_{\ell}$ such that $\pi_j(\alpha_k)=\pi_j(\alpha_{\ell})$. Since $A$ is generic, there exists $\gamma\in A$ such that $\gamma<<\alpha_k\vee\alpha_{\ell}$, and hence $\gamma\leq\bigvee_j\alpha_j$, contradicting Lemma \ref{lemma137}.
In the second case, if we assume we are distinct from the first case, then for any $\alpha_k\in\{\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_p\}$, there exists $j$ such that $\pi_j(\alpha_k)=\pi_j(\bigvee_i\alpha_i)\geq\pi_j(\beta)$. If the inequality is equality, then by genericity, there exists $\beta'<<\bigvee_i\alpha_i$, which is a contradiction to Lemma \ref{lemma137} again, so we have a strict inequality. Having a strict inequality means that $\beta<<\bigvee_i\alpha_i$, again contradicting Lemma \ref{lemma137}.
In both cases, we reached contradictions, and hence every face of $\hull(A)$ is a face of the Scarf complex. Coupled with Theorem \ref{theorem137}, we have that $\hull(A)\cong N(A)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{scarfresolves}
If $A\subset\Z^n$ is a generic $\Lambda$-finite set for some antichain lattice $\Lambda\subset\Z^n$, then $\mathcal{F}_{(N(A))}$ minimally resolves $M_A$ as an $S$-module.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}$ $
We already have that $\mathcal{F}_{\hull(A)}$ resolves $M_A$, and Theorems \ref{theorem137} and \ref{scarfequalshull} together give us that $\mathcal{F}_{N(A)}$ also resolves it. The resolution is minimal because no two faces of $N(A)$ have the same degree.
\end{proof}
\section{Different Module Structures}\label{6}
Currently, we are operating under the condition that $A\subset\Z^n$ is a generic $\Lambda$-finite set such that $\Lambda\subseteq\Z^n$ is an antichain lattice. With these assumptions, we have constructed a minimal free resolution of the $S$-submodule $M_A=\{\sum_{\alpha}c_{\alpha}X^{\alpha}\}$ of the Laurent polynomial ring $S^{\pm}=k[x_1^{\pm 1}, \dots, x_n^{\pm 1}]$. The minimal free resolution we constructed, namely the algebraic Scarf complex of $A$ may only have finitely many nonzero dimensions, but in most dimensions, the module is infinitely generated. That is, $$(\mathcal{F}_{N(A)})_i=\bigoplus_{\sigma\in N_i(A)}Se_{\sigma}$$ is nonzero for only finitely many $i$, but for the $i$'s for which it is nonzero, there are typically infinitely many $\sigma\in N_i(A)$.
An underlying structure that we have hitherto underutilized is the grading on $S$, and hence on the $S$-modules.
\subsection{Gradings on S}
The polynomial ring $S=k[x_1, \dots, x_n]$ is graded by $\N^n$, and hence all the $S$-modules we have seen have also been graded by $\N^n$. Because of this grading, and our ability to associate any monomial in $S$ to a vector in $\N^n$, it will be helpful at times to consider $S$ as the monoid algebra $k[\N^n]$. This notation will be used when considering gradings that are less common than the $\N^n$-grading. There is a second grading present for many examples that we have yet to consider: the $\Lambda$-grading.
Consider the rings $$S[\Lambda]\cong k[\N^n][\Lambda]=\{\sum_{\alpha,\lambda}c_{\alpha\lambda}X^{\alpha}z^{\lambda}\mid c_{\alpha\lambda}\in k\text{ finitely non-zero }, \alpha\in \N^n, \lambda\in\Lambda\}$$ and $$k[\N^n+\Lambda]=\{\sum_{\beta}c_{\beta}X^{\beta}\mid c_{\beta}\in k\text{ finitely non-zero }, \beta\in\N^n+\Lambda\}$$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma1137}Let $A\subset\Z^n$ be a $\Lambda$-finite set such that $\Lambda\subset\Z^n$ is an antichain lattice. With $M_A=\{\sum_{\alpha}c_{\alpha}t^{\alpha}\mid c_{\alpha}\in k \text{ finitely non-zero }, \alpha\in A+\N^n\}$,
\
\begin{enumerate}
\item $M_A$ is a $k[\N^n+\Lambda]$-module, with action defined by:
$$(x^\beta, t^\alpha)\mapsto t^{\alpha+\beta},\; \alpha\in A+\N^n, \beta\in \N^n+\Lambda,$$ and linearity.
\item $M_A$ is a $S[\Lambda]$-module, with action defined by:
$$(x^\beta z^{\lambda}, t^\alpha)\mapsto t^{\alpha+\beta+\lambda},\; \alpha\in A, \beta\in \N^n, \lambda\in\Lambda,$$ and linearity.
\item The set $\{\,t^\alpha\mid\alpha\in A\,\}$ is a minimal set of generators for $M_A$ as an $S$-module.
\item The set $\{\,t^\alpha\mid\alpha\in A_0\,\}$ is a minimal set of generators for $M_A$ as a $k[\N^n+\Lambda]$-module.
\item If $A\subseteq \Lambda+\N^n$ and $A=A+\Lambda+\N^n$, then $M_A$ is an ideal in $k[\N^n+\Lambda]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\
\begin{enumerate}
\item We have the following equalities that show the result:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(x^{\beta},t^{\alpha_1}+t^{\alpha_2})\mapsto t^{\alpha_1+\beta}+t^{\alpha_2+\beta}=x^{\beta}t^{\alpha_1}+x^{\beta}t^{\alpha_2}$.
\item $(x^{\beta_1}+x^{\beta_2},t^{\alpha})\mapsto t^{\alpha+\beta_1}+t^{\alpha+\beta_2}=x^{\beta_1}t^{\alpha}+x^{\beta_2}t^{\alpha}$.
\item $(x^{\beta_1}x^{\beta_2},t^{\alpha})\mapsto t^{\alpha+\beta_1+\beta_2}=x^{\beta_1}t^{\alpha+\beta_2}=x^{\beta_1}(x^{\beta_2}t^{\alpha})$.
\item $(1,t^{\alpha})\mapsto t^{\alpha+0}=t^{\alpha}$.
\end{enumerate}
\item Identical to part 1 with the realization that $\beta+\lambda\in A$, and $\alpha+A\in A$.
\item Let $M_A\ni m=\sum c_{\alpha}t^{\alpha}$ for finitely many $\alpha\in A+\N^n$. If some $\alpha$ is not in $A$, then there exists an $\eta\in\N^n$ and $\alpha_0\in A$ such that $\alpha=\alpha_0+\eta$. Then we have that $c_{\alpha}t^{\alpha}=c_{\alpha}t^{\alpha_0+\eta}=c_{\alpha}t^{\eta}t^{\alpha_0}$. But $t^{\eta}\in S$, so $A$ generates $M_A$ as an $S$-module.
\item Mutatis mutandis with part two, except that now every $\alpha\in A+\N^n$ is written as $\alpha_0+\lambda+\eta$.
\item It suffices to show that $\alpha+\beta\in A+\N^n$ when $\alpha\in A+\N^n$ and $\beta\in\N^n+\Lambda$. If $\alpha=\lambda_1+\eta_1$, and $\beta=\lambda_2+\eta_2$, then $\alpha+\beta=\lambda_1+\lambda_2+\eta_1+\eta_2$, and since $A=A+\lambda+\N^n$, we have that $\alpha+\beta\in A+\N^n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
We have already defined the algebraic Scarf complex to be the Taylor complex supported on $N(A)$. Implicit in this definition was the consideration of the algebraic Scarf complex as a complex of $S$-modules. We have now seen that these modules can be considered as $S[\Lambda]$-modules.
\begin{definition}
If $A\subset\Z^n$ is a $\Lambda$-finite set such that $\Lambda\subset\Z^n$ is an antichain lattice, then the Taylor complex supported on $N(A)/\Lambda$ considered as a complex of $S[\Lambda]$-modules is $\mathcal{F}^{\Lambda}_{N(A)}$.
\end{definition}
A typical free module in $\mathcal{F}^{\Lambda}_{N(A)}$ would be of the form $$\bigoplus_{\sigma+\Lambda\in N_i(A)/\Lambda}S(e_{\sigma+\Lambda})$$ Due to the onerous nature of this notation, we often will refrain from writing out the modules in detail.
\subsubsection{The Functor $\underline{\white{M}}\otimesS S$}
Let $J$ be the ideal $<1-z^{\lambda}\mid\lambda\in\Lambda>$ in $S[\Lambda]$, and let $\overline{J}$ be the image of $J$ in $k[\N^n+\Lambda]$ under the map $z^{\lambda}x^{\alpha}\mapsto x^{\alpha+\lambda}$.
\begin{lemma}
Let $M$ be an $S[\Lambda]$-module. Then $S\otimes_{S[\Lambda]}M\cong M/JM$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}$ $
Define $b:S\times M\rightarrow M/JM$ by $b(s,m)=sm+JM$. Then $b$ is surjective and $S$-bilinear. Furthermore, $b$ is $S[\Lambda]$-bilinear because $b(x^{\lambda}s,m)=\overline{sm}=b(s,x^{\lambda}m)$. Therefore, $b$ induces an $S$-algebra morphism from $S\otimes_{S[\Lambda]}M$ to $M/JM$, and we can exhibit an inverse. The kernel of the map $m\mapsto1\otimes m:M\rightarrow S\otimes_{S[\Lambda]}M$ contains $JM$, hence this map induces a morphism $M/JM$ to $S\otimes_{S[\Lambda]}S$.
\end{proof}
Let $A=\Lambda$, under the usual conditions, and consider $M_A\otimesS S=M_{\Lambda}\otimesS S$. If $I_A=\IL=<X^{\lambda^+}-X^{\lambda^-}\mid\lambda\in\Lambda>$ as usual, then $\IL=\overline{J}\cap S$, and $$M_{\Lambda}\otimesS S\cong k[\N^n+\Lambda]/\overline{J}\cong (S+\overline{J})/\overline{J}\cong S/(\overline{J}\cap S)\cong S/\IL$$
More generally, we can let $M_0$ be the $S$-submodule of $k[\Z^n]$ generated by $\{x^{\alpha}\mid\alpha\in A_0\}$, where $A=A_0+\Lambda$, as usual. Then notice that if $\alpha\in A$, we can write $\alpha=\alpha_0+\lambda$ for some $\alpha_0\in A_0$ and $\lambda\in\Lambda$, and as such, we have that $x^{\alpha}=x^{\alpha_0}-(1-z^{\lambda})x^{\alpha_0}$. With this representation of $x^{\alpha}$, we see that $M_A=M_0+JM_A$. Therefore, we have $$M_A\otimesS S\cong M_A/JM_A\cong (M_0+JM_A)/JM_A\cong M_0/(JM_A\cap M_0)$$
This is too general to say much about, so we will make the assumption that $A\subset\N^n+\Lambda$. With this assumption, we have the following useful lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{repsinN}
If $A\subset\N^n+\Lambda$, where $\Lambda\subset\Z^n$ and $\Lambda\cap\N^n=0$, then for any $\alpha\in A$, there are $\alpha_0\in\N^n$ and $\lambda\in\Lambda$ such that $\alpha=\alpha_0+\lambda$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}$ $
Let $\alpha\in A$. Then there exists $\lambda\in\Lambda$ such that $\alpha\in-T_{\lambda}$. Let $\alpha_0=\alpha-\lambda$. Then $\alpha_0\in-T_{\alpha-\lambda}\subseteq\N^n$, completing the proof.
\end{proof}
If we choose a generating set for $A$ that is distinguished by being contained in $\N^n$, then using Lemma \ref{lemma1137}, we have that $$M_A\otimesS S\cong M_0(JM_A\cap M_0)= M_0(\IL\cap M_0)\cong (M_0+\IL)/\IL$$
Therefore, in this case, we can identify $M_A\otimesS S$ with the monomial ideal of $S/\IL$ that is generated by $$\{x^{\alpha}+\IL\mid\alpha\in A_0\}$$
Additionally, we have $$k[\Z^n]\otimesS S\cong k[\Z^n]/Jk[\Z^n]\cong k[\Z^n/\Lambda]$$
With this last computation, since $M_A$ is an $S$-submodule of $k[\Z^n]$, we make the claim that $M_A\otimesS S$ is the $S$-submodule of $k[\Z^n/\Lambda]$ generated by the image of $M_0$. The proof of this claim will come as corollary to Theorem \ref{equivalentcategories}
\subsection{Categorical Equivalence}
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be the category of $S[\Lambda]$-modules with the usual $\Z^n$-grading. Under the tensor product $\underline{\white{M}}\otimesS S$ that we just worked with, the images are $\Z^n/\Lambda$-graded. With this setup, let $\mathcal{B}$ be the category of $\Z^n/\Lambda$-graded $S$-modules.
\begin{theorem}\label{equivalentcategories}\emph{[Theorem 9.17, \cite{MS}]}
The tensor product $\pi(\underline{\white{M}})=\underline{\white{M}}\otimesS S:\mathcal{A}\rightarrow\mathcal{B}$ is an equivalence of categories.
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary}
If $\mathcal{F}_{\bullet}$ is any $\Z^n$-graded free resolution of $M_A$ over $S[\Lambda]$, then $\pi(\mathcal{F}_{\bullet})$ is a $\Z^n/\Lambda$-graded free resolution of $S/\IL$ over $S$. Moreover, $\mathcal{F}_{\bullet}$ is minimal if and only if $\pi(\mathcal{F}_{\bullet})$ is minimal.
\end{corollary}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm6.8}
For an antichain lattice $\Lambda\subset\Z^n$, and a $\Lambda$-finite set $A\subset\Z^n$, the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The algebraic Scarf complex of $A$, $\mathcal{F}_{N(A)}$.
\item The hull resolution of $A$.
Additionally, they are minimal free $S$-resolutions of $M_A$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}$ $
This theorem is a generalization of Theorem 9.24 from \cite{MS}. The machinery is unchanged, but the setting is broader with the same conclusion and identical proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
The isomorphism in Theorem \ref{thm6.8} can be chosen to commute with the $\Lambda$-actions and therefore the isomorphism holds for $S[\Lambda]$-modules and we have a minimal free $S[\Lambda]$-resolution of $M_A$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
This is an identical statement to Corollary \ref{cor5.2}, but with a different application.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
The minimal free resolution of a generic lattice ideal $I_{\Lambda}$ is $\pi(N(\Lambda))$.
\end{corollary}
\section{Application of the Horseshoe Lemma}
To bring everything we have worked on together, we will need the first part of the Horseshoe Lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{horseshoe}
Suppose given a commutative diagram $$\begin{array}{cccccccccc} & & & & & & & 0 & & \\ & & & & & & & \downarrow & & \\ \cdots & P_2' & \overset{d'_2}\rightarrow & P_1' & \overset{d'_1}\rightarrow & P_0' & \overset{d'_0}\rightarrow & A' & \rightarrow & 0 \\ & & & & & & & \white{M}\downarrow i_A & & \\ & & & & & & & A & & \\ & & & & & & & \white{M}\downarrow \pi_A & & \\ \cdots & P_2'' & \overset{d''_2}\rightarrow & P_1'' & \overset{d''_1}\rightarrow & P_0'' & \overset{d''_0}\rightarrow & A'' & \rightarrow & 0 \\ & & & & & & &\downarrow & & \\ & & & & & & & 0 & & \end{array}$$
where the column is exact and the rows are projective resolutions. Set $P_n=P_n'\oplus P_n''$. Then there exists maps from $P_n$ to $P_{n-1}$ generated from $d'_n$ and $d''_n$ such that $P_{\bullet}$ is a projective resolution of $A$.
\end{lemma}
In our particular case of using cyclic $S$-modules, all of our modules are free and hence projective. Before we arrive at a situation where we can use the Horseshoe Lemma, we need to verify a few conditions first.
\begin{lemma}\label{containsmarkov1}
Let $A\subset\Z^n$ be a generic $\Lambda$-finite set for some antichain lattice $\Lambda\subset\Z^n$ such that $A=A_0+\Lambda$ with $A_0\subset\N^n$ and $A_0\neq\{0\}$. Let $B$ be a minimal Markov basis of $\Lambda$, and assume that $\alpha\nleq\lambda^+$ and $\alpha\nleq\lambda^-$ for all $\lambda\in B$. Then every minimal generating set of $\IL+I_{A_0}\subseteq S$ contains $$\{X^{\lambda^+}-X^{\lambda^-}\mid\lambda\in L\}$$ for some minimal Markov basis $L$ of $\Lambda$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}$ $
Because of Proposition \ref{markovneighbors}, we have that a minimal Markov bases is a subset of a finite set of positive and negative pairs of vectors. A minimal Markov basis is any subset of this set that chooses one vector from each pair. As such, the minimal bases only differ by sign patterns, and hence the property $\alpha\in A_0$, $\alpha\nleq\lambda^+$ and $\alpha\nleq\lambda^-$ for all $\lambda\in B$ holds for all Markov bases.
This condition tells us that $X^{\lambda^+}-X^{\lambda^-}\notin I_{A_0}$. However, we know that $X^{\lambda^+}-X^{\lambda^-}\in \IL+I_{A_0}$, and hence $X^{\lambda^+}-X^{\lambda^-}\in \IL$. This holds for all $\lambda\in B$, and hence by the fundamental theorem of Markov bases (Theorem \ref{markdef}), the generating set of $\IL+I_{A_0}$ must contain binomials corresponding to a Markov basis.
\end{proof}
So we have shown that for our generic $\Lambda$-finite sets $A\subseteq\Z^n$ with $\Lambda$-representatives $A_0$, the ideal $\IL+I_{A_0}$ in $S$ can only be written in such a form.
\begin{prop}\label{mainresult}
Let $A\subset\Z^n$ be a generic $\Lambda$-finite set for some antichain lattice $\Lambda\subset\Z^n$ with $\Lambda$-representatives $A_0\subset\N^n$ and $A_0\neq\{0\}$. If $I_{A_0}=<X^{\alpha}\mid\alpha\in A_0>$, then the syzygy modules of the minimal free resolution of $I_{\Lambda}+I_{A_0}$ are submodules of the syzygy modules of $\pi(\mathcal{F}_{N(\Lambda)})\oplus\pi(\mathcal{F}_{N(A)}) $.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}$ $
Consider the exact sequence $$0\rightarrow \IL \hookrightarrow \IL+I_{A_0} \twoheadrightarrow (I_{A_0}+\IL)/\IL \rightarrow 0$$ By previous arguments, $\pi(\mathcal{F}_{N(\Lambda)})$ and $\pi(\mathcal{F}_{N(A)})$ are free resolutions of $\IL$ and $I_{A_0}$, respectively. By the Horseshoe Lemma, there exists maps that can be paired with the syzygy modules of $\pi(\mathcal{F}_{N(\Lambda)})\oplus\pi(\mathcal{F}_{N(A)})$ that form a resolution of $\IL+I_{A_0}$. By \cite{P2}, all graded free resolutions contain a minimal graded free resolution, completing the proof.
\end{proof}
Unfortunately, even though $\pi(\mathcal{F}_{N(\Lambda)})$ and $\pi(\mathcal{F}_{N(A)})$ minimally resolve the binomial ideal $\IL\subset S$, and the monomial ideal $(I_{A_0}+\IL)/\IL\subseteq S/\IL$ respectively, the Horseshoe Lemma makes no claim as to the minimality of $\pi(\mathcal{F}_{N(\Lambda)})\oplus\pi(\mathcal{F}_{N(A)})$ as a resolution. The key to utilizing the Horseshoe Lemma is to understand the maps that are created from the separate resolutions.
\subsection{Lifting Terms}
The proof of the Horseshoe lemma provides a method for defining the new maps of the constructed resolution. In the diagram in Lemma \ref{horseshoe}, the horizontal maps terminating in $A$ are defined first by lifting the map $\epsilon''$ to a map $\overline{\epsilon}'':P_0''\rightarrow A$, and then defining $i_A\circ\epsilon'\oplus\overline{\epsilon}'':P_0'\oplus P_0''\rightarrow A$. Once this map is constructed, then the process is iterated. A lifting is defined when we choose a representative of $N_i(A)$ from its $\Lambda$-orbit for each $i$.
\subsection{Lifting Terms in $\Z^3$}
When working with the syzygy modules of the ideal $I_A=\IL+I_{A_0}$, we have several symbols that must be handled very carefully. In particular, if we have chosen a set of representatives for each $\Lambda$-orbit of $N(A)$, then each face $F$ has a representative face $F'$ such that $F=F'+\lambda$ for some $\lambda\in\Lambda$. Additionally, each face of $F$ has its own representative that may or may not be a face of $F$. These considerations lead us to the following potential problem. In $N(A)/\Lambda$, we have generators of our modules of the from $e_{\sigma+\Lambda}=e_{\overline{\sigma}}$; in $N(A)$, it would appear that we have generators of the form $e_{\sigma}$, but that is only true of the representative we chose for the lifting. As such, we need a definition for $e_{\sigma}$ if $\sigma$ is not a representative.
\begin{lemma}\label{abcd}
Let $\Lambda\subset\Z^3$ be an antichain lattice with minimal Markov basis $\{\lambda_i\}$, and let $g\in\Lambda$. Then there exists $\{c_i\}\subset S$ such that $$X^{g^+}-X^{g^-}=\sum_ic_i(X^{\lambda_i^+}-X^{\lambda_i^-})$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} $ $
By definition of $\IL$, if $g\in\Lambda$, then $X^{g^+}-X^{g^-}\in\IL$, and by the fundamental theorem of Markov bases, $\{X^{\lambda_i^+}-X^{\lambda_i^-}\}$ generates $\IL$.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}\label{1234}
Let $\Lambda$ be an antichain lattice in $\Z^3$ with minimal Markov basis $\{\lambda_i\}$, and let $P_0=\pi(\mathcal{F}_{N(A)})_0\oplus\pi(\mathcal{F}_{N(\Lambda)})_0=(\displaystyle{\bigoplus_{\sigma\in A_0}}Se_{\sigma})\oplus Se_{\lambda_1}\oplus Se_{\lambda_2}\oplus Se_{\lambda_3}$, where $A_0$ is a set of $\Lambda$-representatives of $N_0(A)$. Let $g\in\Lambda$ such that $X^{g^+}-X^{g^-}=\sum_ic_i(X^{\lambda_i^+}-X^{\lambda_i^-})$ and let $C=\{c_i\}$. Then we define $e_g(C)=\sum c_ie_{\lambda_i}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}\label{uptosomething}
For all $C\subset S$ satisfying Definition \ref{1234}, if $d_0:P_0\rightarrow I_A$, then $d_0(e_g(C))=X^{g^+}-X^{g^-}$. Because of this, we can relax the notational dependence of $e_g$ on $C$.
\end{remark}
We now have a way to consider the symbol $e_g$ in terms of the symbols $e_{\lambda_i}$, which are generators of the $0^{th}$ dimensional module in the resolution of $\IL$. These symbols will often arise in symbolic computations, and needed to be addressed before we proceeded.
\begin{lemma}\label{N_1lifting}
Let $A\subset\Z^3$ be a generic $\Lambda$-finite set for a codimension 1 lattice $\Lambda\subset\Z^3$. Let $B,C\in\N^3$, $f,g\in\Lambda$ and $\sigma=\{B+f,C+g\}\subset N_1(A)$ oriented from $B+f$ to $C+g$. If $P_0=(\displaystyle{\bigoplus_{\sigma\in A_0}}Se_{\sigma})\oplus Se_{\lambda_1}\oplus Se_{\lambda_2}\oplus Se_{\lambda_3}$, $I_A=\IL+I_{A_0}$, and $d_0:P_0\rightarrow I_A$, then $$d_0(e_\sigma)=X^{S-(C+g)}e_C-X^{S-(B+f)}e_B+X^{S-g^+}e_g-X^{S-f^+}e_f$$ where $S=(B+f)\vee(C+g)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}$ $
The first two terms of the expression are $d'(e_{\sigma})$ when we consider $\sigma$ as an element of $N_1(A)/\Lambda$. So we need to show that if we attempted to use this same map for $d(e_{\sigma})$, then we would have the second pair of terms of the expression left over. Computing, $$dd(e_{\sigma})=d(X^{S-(C+g)}e_C-X^{S-(B+f)}e_B)=X^{S-(C+g)}d(e_C)-X^{S-(B+f)}d(e_B)$$ $$=X^{S-g}-X^{S-f}\neq 0$$
Therefore, we need to add an expression to $X^{S-(C+g)}e_C-X^{S-(B+f)}e_B$ such that applying $d$ to that expression will give us $X^{S-g}-X^{S-f}$. That expression is exactly $X^{S-g^+}e_g-X^{S-f^+}e_f$. Applying $d$, we get $$X^{S-g^+}(X^{g^+}-X^{g^-})-X^{S-f^+}(X^{f^+}-X^{f^-})$$ $$=X^S-X^{S-g^++g^-}-X^S+X^{S-f^++f^-}=X^{S-g}-X^{S-f}$$ as required.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
In Lemma \ref{N_1lifting}, even though we were equipped with Definition \ref{1234}, it appears as though we did not use it. This is because if we had replaced $e_g$ with $\sum c_ie_{\lambda_i}$, all the terms would have canceled just as if we had left $e_g$ in the computation. This situation repeats itself often in similar computations, and when we are able, we will use the analogues of $e_g$ directly in future computations with the understanding that they are only symbolic.
\end{remark}
Since we are in $\Z^3$, need only have Definition \ref{1234} and a similar definition for faces to handle all possible cases we might run into.
\begin{lemma}\label{efgh}
Let $A\subset\Z^3$ be a generic $\Lambda$-finite set for some codimension 1 antichain lattice $\Lambda\subset\Z^3$ with minimal Markov basis $\{\lambda_i\}$. Let $A_1$ be a set of $\Lambda$-representatives of $N_1(A)$. Suppose $t\in N_1(A)$ with endpoints $B+f$ and $C+g$. Let $t^r\in N_1(A)$ be the representative of $t$ and assume that $t=t^r+h$ with $h\in\Lambda$. Let $c_i, c_i', d_i, d_i'$ be the coefficients described in Lemma \ref{abcd} for $g-h, g, f-h$, and $f$, respectively. If $P_1=(\displaystyle{\bigoplus_{\sigma\in A_1}}Se_{\sigma})\oplus Se_{p_1}\oplus Se_{p_2}$ where $p_1,p_2$ are as in Lemma \ref{lambdares}, and $P_0=(\displaystyle{\bigoplus_{\sigma\in A_0}}Se_{\sigma})\oplus Se_{\lambda_1}\oplus Se_{\lambda_2}\oplus Se_{\lambda_3}$ and $d_1:P_1\rightarrow P_0$, then, symbolically, $$d_1(e_t)-d_1(e_{t^r})=\sum(c_iX^{\vee t^r-(g-h)^+}-c_i'X^{\vee t-g^+}-d_iX^{\vee t^r-(f-h)^+}+d_i'X^{\vee t-f^+})e_{\lambda_i}$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}$ $
We compute with the understanding that $d(e_t)$ is a symbolic computation. To aid in the computation, we can create a diagram out of the hypothesis as follows:
\begin{center}
\scalemath{.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[line cap=round,line join=round,>=triangle 45,x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm]
\draw (2.0,6.0)-- (4.0,2.0);
\draw (4.0,2.0)-- (7.0,4.0);
\draw (7.0,4.0)-- (5.0,8.0);
\draw (5.0,8.0)-- (2.0,6.0);
\draw (1.1600000000000006,6.720000000000002) node[anchor=north west] {$B+f$};
\draw (4.600000000000002,8.780000000000003) node[anchor=north west] {$C+g$};
\draw (3.200000000000002,2.000000000000001) node[anchor=north west] {$B+(f-h)$};
\draw (6.940000000000004,4.000000000000002) node[anchor=north west] {$C+(g-h)$};
\draw (2.6000000000000014,4.280000000000001) node[anchor=north west] {$h$};
\draw (6.120000000000004,6.460000000000003) node[anchor=north west] {$h$};
\draw (3.2600000000000016,7.620000000000003) node[anchor=north west] {$t$};
\draw (5.560000000000003,3.160000000000001) node[anchor=north west] {$t_r$};
\begin{scriptsize}
\draw [fill=black] (2.0,6.0) circle (2.5pt);
\draw [fill=black] (5.0,8.0) circle (2.5pt);
\draw [fill=black] (4.0,2.0) circle (2.5pt);
\draw [fill=black] (7.0,4.0) circle (2.5pt);
\end{scriptsize}
\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{center}
$$d(e_{t^r})=X^{\vee t^r-(C+g-h)}e_C-X^{\vee t^r-(B+f-h)}e_B + X^{\vee t^r-(g-h)^+}\sum c_ie_{\lambda_i}-X^{\vee t^r-(f-h)^+}\sum d_ie_{\lambda_i}$$
$$d(e_t)=X^{\vee t-(C+g)}e_C-X^{\vee t-(B+f)}e_B + X^{\vee t-g^+}\sum c'_ie_{\lambda_i}-X^{\vee t-f^+}\sum d'_ie_{\lambda_i}$$
Taking the difference and rearranging, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq137}(X^{\vee t^r - (C+g-h)}-X^{\vee t -(C+g)})e_C-(X^{\vee t^r - (B+f-h)}-X^{\vee t -(B+f)})e_B$$
$$+\sum(c_iX^{\vee t^r-(g-h)^+}-c'_iX^{\vee t-g^+})e_{\lambda_i}-\sum(d_iX^{\vee t^r-(f-h)^+}-d'_iX^{\vee t-f^+})e_{\lambda_i}\end{equation}
Notice now that $$\vee t^r-(C+g-h)=(B+f-h)\vee(C+g-h)-(C+g-h)=(B+f)\vee(C+g)-h-(C+g-h)$$
$$=(B+f)\vee(C+g)-(C+g)=\vee t-(C+g),$$ so the first parenthetical expression of \ref{eq137} is 0, and by an identical computation, the second parenthetical expression is also 0. This leaves us with the desired result
\end{proof}
Definition \ref{exists?} will exemplify the nature of Remark \ref{uptosomething} in the sense that we will define the term exactly by how it acts under the mapping, and not how it acts as a module element. As in Definition \ref{N_1lifting}, we will not need to reference the defining set in practice, and will supress the notation.
\begin{definition}\label{exists?}
Under the conditions of Lemma \ref{efgh}, we define $d(e_t(\mathcal{B}))=d(e_{t^r})+\sum b_id(e_{p_i})$, where $p_i$ is as in Lemma \ref{lambdares}, $\mathcal{B}=\{b_i\}$, and the $b_i$ satisfy $$\sum(c_iX^{\vee t^r-(g-h)^+}-c_i'X^{\vee t-g^+}-d_iX^{\vee t^r-(f-h)^+}+d_i'X^{\vee t-f^+})e_{\lambda_i}=\sum b_id(e_{p_i})$$
\end{definition}
We will call the expressions computed for Definitions \ref{1234} and \ref{exists?} lifting terms in their respective dimensions.
\subsection{Example}
To conclude, we will compute a example using the tools developed here.
\begin{example}
Let $\Lambda$ be the lattice generated by $\{(-1,2,-1),(3,-1,-1)\}$in $\Z^3$, and let $A_0=\{\alpha\}=\{(1,2,0)\}$. A minimal Markov basis of $\Lambda$ is $\{\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3\}=\{(-1,2,-1),(3,-1,-1),(-2,-1,2)\}$\footnote{Markov basis computations can be performed in 4ti2, \cite{ti}}. For representatives, we will choose \linebreak $A_1=\{r,s,t\}= \{\{(1,2,0),(4,3,-1)\},\{(1,2,0),(3,3,-2)\},\{(1,2,0),(0,4,-1)\}\}$, and $A_2=\{u,v\}=\{\{(1,2,0),(0,4,-1),(3,3,-2)\},\{(1,2,0),(3,3,-2),(4,3,-1)\}\}$ with the orientations as listed, and we obtain the following diagram for $N(A)/\Lambda$ where the representatives are indicated by solid lines or filled in circles, and the suprema labeled in the appropriate places.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.65][line cap=round,line join=round,>=triangle 45,x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm]
\fill[fill=black,fill opacity=1.0] (-0.12,3.77) -- (0.12,3.77) -- (0,3.98) -- cycle;
\fill[fill=black,fill opacity=1.0] (3.77,0.12) -- (3.77,-0.12) -- (3.98,0) -- cycle;
\fill[fill=black,fill opacity=1.0] (3.86,4.02) -- (4.03,3.85) -- (4.09,4.08) -- cycle;
\draw (0,0)-- (0,8);
\draw [dash pattern=on 3pt off 3pt] (0,8)-- (8,8);
\draw [dash pattern=on 3pt off 3pt] (8,8)-- (8,0);
\draw (8,0)-- (0,0);
\draw (0,0)-- (8,8);
\draw (-0.12,3.77)-- (0.12,3.77);
\draw (0.12,3.77)-- (0,3.98);
\draw (0,3.98)-- (-0.12,3.77);
\draw [shift={(5.07,1.46)}] plot[domain=-3.25:1.69,variable=\t]({1*0.54*cos(\t r)+0*0.54*sin(\t r)},{0*0.54*cos(\t r)+1*0.54*sin(\t r)});
\draw [shift={(1.75,4.84)}] plot[domain=-3.25:1.69,variable=\t]({1*0.54*cos(\t r)+0*0.54*sin(\t r)},{0*0.54*cos(\t r)+1*0.54*sin(\t r)});
\draw (-1.25,-0.17) node[anchor=north west] {(1,2,0)};
\draw (7,-0.17) node[anchor=north west] {(0,4,-1)};
\draw (-1.25,9) node[anchor=north west] {(4,1,-1)};
\draw (7,9) node[anchor=north west] {(3,3,-2)};
\draw (-2.3,4.3) node[anchor=north west] {(4,2,0)};
\draw (3.42,-0.1) node[anchor=north west] {(1,4,0)};
\draw (8,4.3) node[anchor=north west] {(3,4,-1)};
\draw (3.42,8.9) node[anchor=north west] {(4,3,-1)};
\draw (3.9,4.37) node[anchor=north west] {(3,3,0)};
\draw (2.19,6.5) node[anchor=north west] {(4,3,0)};
\draw (5.61,2.66) node[anchor=north west] {(3,4,0)};
\begin{scriptsize}
\fill [color=black] (0,0) circle (2.5pt);
\draw [color=black] (0,8) circle (2.5pt);
\draw [color=black] (8,0) circle (2.5pt);
\draw [color=black] (8,8) circle (2.5pt);
\fill [color=black,shift={(5,2)},rotate=90] (0,0) ++(0 pt,3.75pt) -- ++(3.25pt,-5.625pt)--++(-6.5pt,0 pt) -- ++(3.25pt,5.625pt);
\fill [color=black,shift={(1.68,5.38)},rotate=90] (0,0) ++(0 pt,3.75pt) -- ++(3.25pt,-5.625pt)--++(-6.5pt,0 pt) -- ++(3.25pt,5.625pt);
\end{scriptsize}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
We must first compute the resolution of $(\IL+I_{A_0})/\IL$ using the coefficients computed from Definition \ref{cellrescoeffs}. For example, the relation associated to the edge $t$ is $xze_{\overline{\alpha}}-y^2e_{\overline{\alpha}}=(xz-y^2)e_{\overline{\alpha}}$.\footnote{We are making a slight abuse of the diagram here: the diagram should only explicity be used for the resolution of $I_A$, but if we ignore the repeated edges, we can make use of it as a guide for the resolution of $(I_A+\IL)/\IL.$} The relation associated to the face $u$ is $x^2e_{\overline{t}}+ze_{\overline{r}}-ye_{\overline{s}}$. Omitting the details of the remaining computations, we have that the resolution of $(\IL+I_{A_0})/\IL$, $\pi(\mathcal{F}_{N(A)})$ is
$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}Se_{\overline{u}}\oplus Se_{\overline{v}} & \rightarrow & Se_{\overline{r}}\oplus Se_{\overline{s}}\oplus Se_{\overline{t}} & \rightarrow & Se_{\overline{\alpha}} & \rightarrow & (\IL+I_{A_0})/\IL\\
e_{\overline{u}} & \mapsto & x^2e_{\overline{t}}+ze_{\overline{r}}-ye_{\overline{s}} & & & & \\
e_{\overline{v}} & \mapsto & ze_{\overline{t}}+ye_{\overline{r}}-xe_{\overline{s}} & & & & \\
& & e_{\overline{t}} & \mapsto & (xz-y^2)e_{\overline{\alpha}} & & \\
& & e_{\overline{r}} & \mapsto & (y-x^3z)e_{\overline{\alpha}} & & \\
& & e_{\overline{s}} & \mapsto & (z^2-x^2y)e_{\overline{\alpha}} & & \\
& & & & e_{\overline{\alpha}} & \mapsto & xy^2+\IL
\end{array}$$
Using the same diagram for the lifting computations, we will again show one example from each dimension. The edge $t$ is of the form $\{\alpha,\alpha+\lambda_1\}$ oriented from $\alpha$ to $\alpha+\lambda_1$. Making the substitutions into Lemma \ref{N_1lifting}, we have that $B=\alpha$, $f=0$ (consequently, $e_f=0$), $C=\alpha$, and $g=\lambda_1$. Therefore, our lifted map will be $$d_1(e_t)=X^{S-(\alpha+\lambda_1)}e_{\alpha}-X^{S-\alpha}e_{\alpha}+X^{S-\lambda_1^+}e_{\lambda_1}$$ $$=xze_{\alpha}-y^2e_{\alpha}+xy^2e_{\lambda}$$$$=(xz-y^2)e_{\alpha}+xy^2e_{\lambda_1}$$
We will show the use of Lemma \ref{efgh} for the face $u$. Notice that the edges $t$ and $s$ are already representatives, so we will only need a lifting term for our tranlsation of the edge $r$. From Lemma \ref{efgh}, we have that $f=\lambda_1$, $g=-\lambda_3$, and $h=\lambda_1$. Additionally, we already have computed that $\vee r=(3,4,-1)$ and $\vee r^r=(4,2,0)$. What is left to compute are the $c_is, c'_is, d_is,$ and $d'_is$. The three easy cases are $c'_i,d_i,$ and $d_i'$: $f=\lambda_1$ implies $d'_1=1$ and $d'_2=d'_3=0$; $g=-\lambda_3$ implies $c'_3=-1$ and $c'_1=c'_2=0$; and $f=h$ implies $d_i=0$ for all $i$. For $g-h$, we need to write $X^{(g-h)^+}-X^{(g-h)^-}=\sum c_i(X^{\lambda_i^+}-X^{\lambda_i^-})$. Since $g-h=\lambda_2$, we have that $c_2=1$ and $c_1=c_3=0$.
Continuing, we have $$d_1(e_r^r)-d_1(e_r)=X^{(3,4,-1)-(0,2,0)}e_{\lambda_1} + X^{(4,2,0)-(3,0,0)}e_{\lambda_2}-X^{(3,4,-1)-(2,1,0)}e_{\lambda_3}$$ $$=x^3y^2z^{-1}e_{\lambda_1}+xy^2e_{\lambda_2}+xy^3z^{-1}e_{\lambda_3}$$
To use this, $$d_2(e_u)=x^2e_t+ze_r-ye_s$$
$$=x^2e_{t^r}+z(e_{r^r}-xy^2(x^2z^{-1}d^{-1}_1(e_{\lambda_1})+d^{-1}_1(e_{\lambda_2})-yz^{-1}d^{-1}_1(e_{\lambda_3})))-ye_{s^r}$$
$$=x^2e_{t^r}+ze_{r^r}-ye_{s^r}-xy^2e_{p_1}$$
Omitting the remaining similar computations, we have
$$\scalemath{.8}{\begin{array}{ccccccc} Se_u\oplus Se_v & \overset{d_2}\rightarrow & Se_{p_1}\oplus Se_{p_2} \oplus Se_r \oplus Se_s\oplus Se_t & \overset{d_1}\rightarrow & Se_{\lambda_1}\oplus Se_{\lambda_2}\oplus Se_{\lambda_3} \oplus Se_{\alpha} & \overset{d_0}\rightarrow & I_A \\
e_u & \mapsto & x^2e_{t^r}+ze_{r^r}-ye_{s^r}-xy^2e_{p_1} & & & & \\
e_v & \mapsto & ze_{t^r}+ye_{r^r}-xe_{s^r}-xy^2e_{p_2} & & & & \\
& & e_{p_1} & \mapsto & x^2e_{\lambda_1}+ze_{\lambda_2}-ye_{\lambda_3} & & \\
& & e_{p_2} & \mapsto & ze_{\lambda_1}+ye_{\lambda_2}-xe_{\lambda_3} & & \\
& & e_r & \mapsto & xy^2e_{\lambda_2} - (x^3-yz)e_{\alpha} & & \\
& & e_s & \mapsto & xy^2e_{\lambda_3} - (x^2y-z^2)e_{\alpha} & & \\
& & e_t & \mapsto & xy^2e_{\lambda_1} - (y^2-xz)e_{\alpha} & & \\
& & & & e_{\lambda_1} & \mapsto y^2-xz \\
& & & & e_{\lambda_2} & \mapsto x^3-yz \\
& & & & e_{\lambda_3} & \mapsto x^2y-z^2 \\
& & & & e_{\alpha} & \mapsto xy^2
\end{array}}$$
\end{example}
\begin{remark}
During long computations, such as we have just completed, many small perturbations occur without mention, such as rearranging terms, or moving negative signs around. One notable point from the previous computation was the occurence of $z^{-1}$ during an intermediate step. Although $z^{-1}\notin S$, the end result justified the means, so we choose to ignore the phenomenon.
\end{remark}
\section{Conclusion}
The main result of this paper is Proposition \ref{mainresult} together with Lemmas \ref{N_1lifting} and \ref{efgh}. The general case runs identically, where we perform formal computations and match it with what our representatives should look like, defining the lifting terms in higher dimensions accordingly. The result is analogous, but messier, versions of Lemmas \ref{N_1lifting} and \ref{efgh} for any dimension.
The author has recently become acquainted with the work of L\"{u} in \cite{lu1} and \cite{lu2} in which one can make very nice statements concerning the minimality of resolutions obtained from applications of the horseshoe lemma. In the three dimensional case covered here, minimality was essentially free, but in higher dimensions, the computation of all the lifting terms is a daunting undertaking. Using these new results has the potential to prove some very clean statements about minimality, and this will be explored in the future.
An additional line of research lies in studying ideals of the form $I=<X^{\lambda_i^+}-X^{\lambda_i^-} | \lambda_i \text{ generates } \Lambda>$ for some generic antichain lattice $\Lambda$. This is different from the existing case in that we are not requiring a full Markov basis, just a full lattice basis. The idea that is supported by preliminary computations is that one can pass from the deficient ideal to the full lattice ideal $I_{\Lambda}$, then perform the algorithm outlined in this paper, then pass from that resolution into another resolution via a simple algorithm. This has been shown to work in three dimensions, and further cases will be studied.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Understanding the connection between galaxies and dark matter halos
is one of the most important goals of astrophysics and cosmology. The
framework of the halo occupation distribution (HOD) provides a
powerful means of studying the relation of galaxy distributions with
underlying dark matter distributions
\citep{seljak00,peacock00,scoccimarro01,cooray02,kravtsov04,hamana04,zheng05}.
The HOD characterizes the galaxy bias in terms of the halo occupation
number, the average number of galaxies within individual dark halos as
a function of halo masses, $\langle N(M)\rangle$, and is very
successful in explaining clustering properties of galaxies
\citep[e.g.,][]{zehavi11,white11,wake11,leauthaud12,coupon12,hikage14,more14}.
The idea of the HOD has also been applied to rarer cosmological
objects such as quasars \citep{kayo12,richardson12,shen13}.
The HOD model tells us how galaxies are connected to dark matter
halos {\it statistically}. A natural extension is then to consider how
well we can connect galaxies to dark matter halos for {\it individual}
galaxies. Naively we can infer the host halo property of individual
galaxies by examining number densities of galaxies around the target
galaxies, since a higher number density suggests that the target
galaxy is more likely to reside in a group- or cluster-scale dark
matter halo. However it is also possible that the galaxy actually
resides in a low-mass halo which appears to be associated with a
massive halo because of chance projection along the line-of-sight. The
redshift information is usually not sufficient to remove the chance
projection, particularly because the observed spatial distributions of
galaxies in massive halos are significantly elongated in the redshift
direction due to peculiar motions of the galaxies (the so-called
Fingers of God effect).
In this paper, we develop a theoretical framework to compute the
probability distribution function (PDF) of host halo masses of
individual galaxies given number counts of nearby galaxies,
assuming that the true HOD is known a priori. We employ the HOD
formalism to predict, for each galaxy, the expected number of
neighboring galaxies within a cylinder of redshift interval $\pm
\Delta z$ and transverse comoving distance within $r_{\rm p,max}$.
We include contributions from both galaxies within the same host halo
and those residing in different halos. The result is used to derive
the conditional PDF of host halo masses of a galaxy given the
neighboring galaxy counts within the cylinder
\citep[see also][for a similar study using a semi-analytic model
of galaxy formation]{haas12}.
We compare our results
with those from a mock galaxy catalog constructed from the Millennium
Run simulation \citep{springel05,henriques12}.
Neighboring galaxy counts, or sometimes referred as
counts-in-cylinders, have also been used to constrain the HOD from
observations. For instance, \citet{lin04} directly counted number of
galaxies within massive clusters to constrain the HOD at high mass
end. \citet{chatterjee13} counted the number of quasars in galaxy
clusters to try to break degeneracies in the quasar HOD.
\citet{reid09} conducted a counts-in-cylinders analysis to study
the HOD of luminous red galaxies \citep[see also][]{ho09}.
In the previous studies, however, connecting galaxies to dark halos,
including the estimate of chance projection, has been attempted rather
empirically, e.g., using mock galaxy catalogs. The new theoretical
framework developed in this paper provides a more rigorous means of
connecting neighboring galaxy counts and the underlying HOD.
The structure of this paper is as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:nc}, we
present our analytic model to compute neighboring galaxy counts within
the HOD framework. Using the result, in Section~\ref{sec:pdf} we
derive conditional PDFs of the host halo mass given neighboring galaxy
counts. We compare our analytic model predictions with results from
the mock galaxy catalog in Section~\ref{sec:mock}. We discuss
possible extensions and applications of our model in
Section~\ref{sec:ext}, and give a summary in Section~\ref{sec:summary}.
Where necessary we use the $\Lambda$-dominated cold dark matter
cosmology model employed by the Millennium Run simulation, where
$\Omega_m=0.25$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.75$,
$H_0=100h~{\rm km~s^{-1}~Mpc^{-1}}$ with $h=0.73$, $n_s=1$, and
$\sigma_8=0.9$.
\section{Halo occupation distribution approach to neighboring galaxy counts}
\label{sec:nc}
\subsection{Halo occupation distribution}
The HOD model specifies the mean halo occupation number
$\langle N(M)\rangle$ as a function of halo mass $M$. Given the mass
function and clustering properties of dark matter halos calibrated by
$N$-body simulations, the HOD modeling enables us to analytically
compute clustering properties of galaxies. Following \citet{zheng05},
we consider central and satellite galaxies separately
\begin{equation}
\langle N(M)\rangle =\langle N_{\rm cen}(M)\rangle +
\langle N_{\rm sat}(M)\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $\langle N_{\rm cen}(M)\rangle$ and $\langle N_{\rm
sat}(M)\rangle$ describe the central and satellite components,
respectively. We parametrize both components as
\citep[e.g.,][]{zheng05,white11}
\begin{equation}
\langle N_{\rm cen}(M)\rangle=
\frac{1}{2}{\rm erfc}\left[\frac{\ln(M_{\rm min}/M)}
{\sqrt{2}\sigma}\right],
\label{eq:hod_cen}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\langle N_{\rm sat}(M)\rangle=
\langle N_{\rm cen}(M)\rangle\left
(\frac{M-\kappa M_{\rm cut}}{M_1}\right)^\alpha.
\label{eq:hod_sat}
\end{equation}
Here $M_{\rm min}$ is the characteristic minimum mass that can host
central galaxies, $\sigma$ is the characteristic transition width,
$\kappa M_{\rm cut}$ is the cutoff mass for satellites, and $M_1$ and
$\alpha$ determine how the mean number of satellite galaxies within
halos grows as a function of halo masses (also see Table~\ref{tab:hod}
below). This functional form is motivated by cosmological galaxy
formation simulations and is known to explain various observational
data very well.
In the following, the galaxies for which we wish to infer host dark
matter halo masses are referred to as {\it target} galaxies, while the
galaxies surrounding them (as seen in projection on the sky) are called
{\it neighboring} galaxies. Quantities associated with target
(neighboring) galaxies are denoted with a subscript or superscript t
(n). The subscript p serves as a reminder when a quantity is evaluated
in projection.
\subsection{Neighboring galaxy counts}
Our primary goal is to compute number counts of neighboring galaxies
around a target galaxy. Throughout the paper we count the number of
neighboring galaxies within a cylinder defined by a redshift interval
$\pm \Delta z$ and transverse comoving distance
$r_{\rm p}<r_{\rm p, max}$. We denote these neighboring galaxy counts
as $N_{\rm p}=N_{\rm p}(<r_{\rm p, max})$. For a galaxy at redshift
$z$, the volume integral of the cylinder is explicitly written as
\begin{equation}
\int dV_{\rm c} =\int_{z-\Delta z}^{z+\Delta z} \frac{c\,dz}{H(z)}
\int_0^{r_{\rm p,max}} 2\pi r_{\rm p} dr_{\rm p}.
\end{equation}
It is convenient to derive an explicit expression for the volume
integral of the two-point correlation function $\xi(\mathbf{x})$ over
the cylinder. Suppose the redshift interval is large enough to include
correlated structures, we have
\begin{equation}
\int dV_{\rm c} \xi(\mathbf{x})=
\int_0^{r_{\rm p,max}} 2\pi r_{\rm p} dr_{\rm p} w_{\rm p}(r_{\rm p}).
\end{equation}
The projected correlation function $w_{\rm p}(r_{\rm p})$ is related
to the power spectrum $P(k)$ via
\begin{equation}
w_{\rm p}(r_{\rm p})=\int \frac{k\,dk}{2\pi}P(k)J_0(kr_{\rm p}),
\end{equation}
with $J_\alpha(x)$ being the Bessel functions of the first kind.
Using the relation $\int_0^x dx'\, x'J_0(x')=xJ_1(x)$
we then obtain
\begin{equation}
\int dV_{\rm c} \xi(\mathbf{x})= \int_0^\infty dk\,
r_{\rm p,max}P(k)J_1(kr_{\rm p,max}).
\label{eq:xi_pk}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{1-halo term}\label{sec:1h}
We first consider the so-called 1-halo term, i.e., number
counts of neighboring galaxies that reside in the same dark
halo. Neighboring galaxy counts should depend on where in the halo
the target galaxy is located. We can include this effect by computing
neighboring galaxy counts for central and satellite galaxies
separately.
Using the expression given in Equation~(\ref{eq:xi_pk}), we can derive
the average number of neighboring galaxies within the cylinder around a
central galaxy as
\begin{equation}
\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 1h,c}\rangle_M
=\int_0^\infty dk\, r_{\rm p,max}
J_1(kr_{\rm p,max})\langle N_{\rm sat}(M)\rangle \tilde{u}(k|M),
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{u}(k|M)$ is the Fourier transform of the normalized
number density profile of satellite galaxies, $u(r|M)$
\begin{equation}
\tilde{u}(k|M)=\int_0^{r_{\rm 200c}}4\pi r^2 dr\, u(r|M)\, j_0(kr),
\end{equation}
with $j_0(x)=\sin(x)/x$ being the spherical Bessel function. In this
paper, we define the halo mass $M$ by
the total mass within a sphere of $r_{\rm 200c}$, within which the mean
density is 200 times the critical density of the Universe. We use this
overdensity in order to compare our results with those from the mock
galaxy catalog of \citet[][see
Section~\ref{sec:mock}]{henriques12}. We make the simplifying
assumption that the satellite number density profile follows the
matter density profile of dark matter
\citep[][hereafter NFW]{navarro97}
\begin{equation}
u(r|M)=\frac{\rho(r)}{M}=\frac{\rho_s}{M(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2},
\end{equation}
and is truncated at $r_{\rm 200c}$.
An important parameter to characterize the NFW profile is
concentration $c_{\rm 200c}=r_{\rm 200c}/r_s$. We use the
mass-concentration relation from \citet{duffy08}
\begin{equation}
c_{\rm 200c}=\frac{5.71}{(1+z)^{0.47}}\left(\frac{M}
{2\times 10^{12}h^{-1}M_\odot}\right)^{-0.084}.
\end{equation}
Similarly, the 1-halo term of the average number of neighboring
galaxies around a satellite galaxy at distance $r$ from the
halo center is derived as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle N_{\rm p}^{{\rm 1h,s}(r)}\rangle_M
&=&\int_0^\infty dk\, r_{\rm p,max}J_1(kr_{\rm p,max})\nonumber\\
&&\hspace*{-8mm}\times
\left[\langle N_{\rm cen}(M)\rangle +\langle N_{\rm sat}(M)
\rangle \tilde{u}(k|M)\right]j_0(kr).
\end{eqnarray}
In each halo with mass $M$, we can also define the probability of a
member galaxy being a central or a satellite galaxy at $r$ as
\begin{equation}
p({\rm c}|M)=\frac{\langle N_{\rm cen}(M)\rangle}{\langle N(M)\rangle},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
p({\rm s},r|M)=\frac{\langle N_{\rm sat}(M)\rangle}{\langle
N(M)\rangle} u(r|M).
\end{equation}
The average neighboring galaxy counts within the same halo are then
computed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 1h}\rangle_M
&=&\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 1h,c}\rangle_M p({\rm c}|M)\nonumber\\
&&+\int_0^{r_{\rm 200c}}
4\pi r^2dr \langle N_{\rm p}^{{\rm 1h,s}(r)}\rangle_M
p({\rm s},r|M),\nonumber\\
&=&\int_0^\infty dk\, r_{\rm p,max}J_1(kr_{\rm p,max})
\frac{1}{\langle N(M)\rangle}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace*{-21mm}\times
\left[2\langle N_{\rm cen}(M)\rangle\langle N_{\rm sat}(M)\rangle
\tilde{u}(k|M)+\langle N_{\rm sat}(M)\rangle^2
\tilde{u}(k|M)^2\right].
\label{eq:ngc_ave_1h}
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand, the probability distribution of the host dark halo
mass is given by
\begin{equation}
p(M)=\frac{1}{\bar{n}}\langle N(M)\rangle\frac{dn}{dM},
\label{eq:pm}
\end{equation}
where $dn/dM$ is the mass function of dark matter halos, for which we adopt
the fitting function of \citet{tinker08}, and $\bar{n}$ is
the average number density of the target/neighboring galaxy population
defined by
\begin{equation}
\bar{n}=\int_0^\infty dM\langle N(M)\rangle\frac{dn}{dM}.
\label{eq:n3dave}
\end{equation}
Hence the average neighboring galaxy counts from galaxies residing in
halos of all masses reduce to
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 1h}\rangle &=&
\int_0^\infty dM\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 1h}\rangle_M p(M)\nonumber\\
&=& \bar{n} \int_0^\infty dk \, r_{\rm p,max}
P^{\rm 1h}(k) J_1(kr_{\rm p,max})\nonumber \\
&= & \bar{n} \int dV_{\rm c} \xi^{\rm 1h}(\mathbf{x}),
\label{eq:np_1h_all}
\end{eqnarray}
where $P^{\rm 1h}(k)$ is the standard 1-halo term of galaxy power
spectrum
\begin{eqnarray}
P^{\rm 1h}(k)&=&\frac{1}{\bar{n}^2}\int_0^\infty
dM \frac{dn}{dM} \nonumber\\
&& \hspace*{-21mm}\times \left[2\langle N_{\rm
cen}(M)\rangle\langle N_{\rm sat}(M)\rangle
\tilde{u}(k|M)+\langle N_{\rm sat}(M)\rangle^2\tilde{u}(k|M)^2\right].
\end{eqnarray}
\subsubsection{2-halo term and background}
Next we consider the 2-halo term, i.e., contributions to neighboring
galaxy counts from different halos. We shall include contributions
from both the spatially correlated halos and uncorrelated structures
along the line-of-sight.
We start by describing neighboring galaxy counts formally as
\begin{equation}
N_{\rm p}(<r_{\rm p, max})=\int dV' n_{\rm t}(\mathbf{x}')
\int dV_{\rm c} n_{\rm n}(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{x}'),
\label{eq:np_formal}
\end{equation}
where $n_{\rm t}(\mathbf{x})$ is the number density of the target
galaxy. The number density of neighboring galaxies is written using
the density fluctuation $\delta_{\rm n}=\delta_{\rm n}(\mathbf{x})$ as
$n_{\rm n}(\mathbf{x})=\bar{n}(1+\delta_{\rm n})$.
Since we are interested in a single
target galaxy, $n_{\rm t}(\mathbf{x})$ is written as
\begin{equation}
n_{\rm t}(\mathbf{x})=\bar{n}_{\rm t}(1+\delta_{\rm t})=\delta_{\rm D}
(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_{\rm t}),
\end{equation}
where $\delta_{\rm D}(\mathbf{x})$ denotes the Dirac delta function,
$\mathbf{x}_{\rm t}$ is the location of that galaxy, and
\begin{equation}
\int dV n_{\rm t}(\mathbf{x})=\int dV \bar{n}_{\rm t}=1,
\end{equation}
where the integral is performed over a sufficiently large volume.
The average 2-halo neighboring galaxy counts for the target galaxy in
a halo of mass $M$, including the background contribution, are
obtained from Equation~(\ref{eq:np_formal}) as
\begin{equation}
\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 2h}\rangle_M=\bar{N}_{\rm n}
+\Delta^{\rm2h}_{N,{\rm tn}}.
\end{equation}
The first term describes the background contribution (or random chance
projection), while the second term describes the enhancement of
neighboring galaxy counts due to clustering of the underlying matter
density field. Each term is explicitly written as
\begin{equation}
\bar{N}_{\rm n}=\bar{n}\int dV_{\rm c},
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta^{\rm 2h}_{N,{\rm tn}}&=&
\bar{n}\int dV_{\rm c} \xi^{\rm 2h}_{\rm tn}(\mathbf{x})\nonumber\\
&= &
\bar{n}
\int_0^\infty dk\,r_{\rm p,max}P^{\rm 2h}_{\rm tn}(k)J_1(kr_{\rm p,max}).
\end{eqnarray}
In practice, there are additional terms originating from higher order
correlation functions \citep[see Sec. 39 of][]{peebles80}. In this
paper we ignore those higher order contributions for simplicity. As we
will see below, this is a reasonably good approximation in our case
where we study number counts projected over redshift ranges that is
much larger than typical correlating lengths ($\mathcal{O}(10)$~Mpc).
The 2-halo term of the power spectrum is simply given by
\begin{equation}
P^{\rm 2h}_{\rm tn}(k)=b(M)\bar{b}P_m(k),
\end{equation}
where $b(M)$ is the halo bias for which we adopt a fitting function of
\citet{tinker10}, $P_m(k)$ is the linear matter power spectrum
(computed using the fitting formulae of \citealt{eisenstein99}),
and $\bar{b}$ is the average galaxy bias computed by
\begin{equation}
\bar{b}=\frac{1}{\bar{n}}
\int_0^\infty dM\,b(M)\langle N(M)\rangle\frac{dn}{dM}.
\end{equation}
Again by averaging $\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 2h}\rangle_M$ over $p(M)$
(Equation~\ref{eq:pm}) we deduce an expression similar to
Equation~(\ref{eq:np_1h_all})
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 2h}\rangle &=&
\int_0^\infty dM\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 2h}\rangle_M p(M)\nonumber\\
&=& \bar{N}_{\rm n}+
\bar{n} \int dV_{\rm c} \xi^{\rm 2h}(\mathbf{x}),
\label{eq:ngc_ave_2h}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\xi^{\rm 2h}(\mathbf{x})$ is the Fourier transform of the
two-halo galaxy power spectrum $P^{\rm 2h}(k)=\bar{b}^2P_m(k)$.
Based on this formalism we can also derive the variance of neighboring
galaxy counts in the limit of $\int dV\rightarrow\infty$ as
\begin{equation}
(\sigma^{\rm 2h}_{\rm p})^2\equiv
\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 2h}N_{\rm p}^{\rm 2h}\rangle_M
-\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 2h}\rangle_M^2 =
\bar{N}_{\rm n}+\bar{N}_{\rm n}\Delta^{\rm 2h}_{N,{\rm nn}},
\label{eq:ngc_var_2h}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta^{\rm 2h}_{N,{\rm nn}}&=&\frac{\bar{n}^2}{\bar{N}_{\rm n}}
\int dV_{\rm c} \int dV_{\rm c}'\xi_{\rm nn}^{\rm
2h}(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}')\nonumber\\
&= &\bar{n}\int_0^\infty \frac{2dk}{k}P^{\rm 2h}_{\rm nn}(k)
\left[J_1(kr_{\rm p,max})\right]^2,
\end{eqnarray}
with $P^{\rm 2h}_{\rm nn}(k)=P^{\rm 2h}(k)=\bar{b}^2P_m(k)$.
Again, we have ignored contributions from higher order correlations.
\section{Probability distributions of neighboring galaxy counts
and host dark halo masses}
\label{sec:pdf}
\subsection{Probability distribution of neighboring galaxy counts}
We start by deriving the PDF of neighboring galaxy counts around a
target galaxy that resides in a dark halo with mass $M$. For this
purpose, we adopt the following assumptions: (1) the PDF of 1-halo
neighboring galaxy counts follows the Poisson distribution, which is a
reasonable assumption at least for massive halos where $\langle
N(M)\rangle$ is large \citep[e.g.,][]{lin04,zheng05}, (2) the PDF of
2-halo plus background neighboring galaxy counts follows the
log-normal distribution, given that the probability distribution
function of cosmological density fields is accurately described by the
log-normal distribution \citep[e.g.,][]{kayo01}, and (3) the 1-halo
and 2-halo PDFs are uncorrelated with each other.
For the expected value of $\lambda$, the Poisson distribution gives
the PDF of observed number $N$ as
\begin{equation}
p^{\rm P}(N|\lambda)
=\frac{\lambda^N e^{-\lambda}}{N!}.
\end{equation}
We include the position dependence of the galaxy in the calculation of
the PDF of 1-halo neighboring galaxy counts. Using the results given
in Section~\ref{sec:1h}, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
p^{\rm 1h}(N_{\rm p}^{\rm 1h}|M)&=&
p^{\rm P}(N_{\rm p}^{\rm 1h}|\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 1h, c}\rangle_M)
p({\rm c}|M)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace*{-10mm}+\int_0^{r_{\rm 200c}}4\pi r^2dr \,p^{\rm P}
(N_{\rm p}^{\rm 1h}|\langle N_{\rm p}^{{\rm s}(r)}\rangle_M)
p({\rm s},r|M).
\label{eq:pdf_ngc_1h}
\end{eqnarray}
We assume that the PDF of 2-halo neighboring galaxy counts follows the
log-normal distribution
\begin{equation}
p^{\rm LN}(N|\mu, s)
=\frac{1}{N\sqrt{2\pi}s}e^{-\frac{(\ln N-\mu)^2}{2s^2}}.
\label{eq:logn}
\end{equation}
Detailed discussions on the validity of this assumption are given in Appendix.
We then obtain
\begin{equation}
p^{\rm 2h}(N_{\rm p}^{\rm 2h}|M)=p^{\rm LN}(N_{\rm p}^{\rm 2h}|\mu_M, s_M),
\end{equation}
where the parameters $\mu_M$ and $s_M$ are related to the mean
$\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 2h}\rangle$ and variance
$(\sigma^{\rm 2h}_{\rm p})^2$ as
\begin{equation}
\mu_M=\ln\frac{\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 2h}\rangle^2}
{\sqrt{\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 2h}\rangle^2+(\sigma^{\rm 2h}_{\rm p})^2}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
s^2_M=\ln\left[1+\frac{(\sigma^{\rm 2h}_{\rm p})^2}
{\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 2h}\rangle^2}\right].
\end{equation}
Finally we combine these two PDFs to obtain the PDF of total neighboring
galaxy counts
\begin{equation}
p(N_{\rm p}|M)=\sum_{N=0}^{N_{\rm p}} p^{\rm 1h}(N_{\rm p}-N|M)
p^{\rm 2h}(N|M).
\label{eq:pofnp}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Probability distribution of host halo masses}
We now turn the problem around and ask how well we can infer the host
halo mass of a single target galaxy from observed neighboring galaxy
counts. This is obtained by using the Bayes' theorem
\begin{equation}
p(M|N_{\rm p})=\frac{p(N_{\rm p}|M)p(M)}{\int dM p(N_{\rm p}|M)p(M)},
\label{eq:pofm}
\end{equation}
where $p(N_{\rm p}|M)$ and $p(M)$ are given in
Equations~(\ref{eq:pofnp}) and (\ref{eq:pm}), respectively.
\section{Comparison with the mock galaxy catalog}
\label{sec:mock}
\subsection{Mock galaxy catalog}
We use the all-sky light-cone mock catalog from \citet{henriques12} to
test our analytic predictions. This mock is based on the
semi-analytic model of \citet{guo11}, and is constructed by
replicating the Millennium Run simulation box ($500\,h^{-1}$Mpc on a
side) without transformations such as rotation, translation, or
inversion. \citet{guo11} showed that their model can reproduce
important statistical properties of nearby galaxies such as the
stellar mass function and two-point correlation function.
For each galaxy in the mock, information such as the sky position,
redshift, apparent and absolute magnitudes, host dark matter halo
mass, and central/satellite designation, is available. The catalog is
flux limited to $i<21$. In this paper, we generate a volume-limited
galaxy subsample of $M_i<-20$ to about $z=0.2$ and use the subsample
for our analysis.
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{0.95}
\plotone{fig1.eps}
\caption{
The mean halo occupation number of the mock galaxy catalog. Filled
squares show the mean occupation number directly obtained from the
mock catalog. The solid line is best-fitting halo occupation number
with Equations~(\ref{eq:hod_cen}) and (\ref{eq:hod_sat}). Dotted
curves represent contributions from the central and satellite
components. Best-fit parameters are summarized in
Table~\ref{tab:hod}.
}
\label{fig:hod}
\end{figure}
\begin{deluxetable}{cc}
\tablecaption{Best-fit HOD parameters}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Best-fit value}
}
\startdata
$M_{\rm min}[h^{-1}M_\odot]$ & $10^{11.277}$\\
$\sigma$ & 0.207\\
$\kappa M_{\rm cut}[h^{-1}M_\odot]$ & $10^{11.666}$\\
$M_1[h^{-1}M_\odot]$ & $10^{12.370}$\\
$\alpha$ & 0.960
\enddata
\label{tab:hod}
\end{deluxetable}
\subsection{Halo occupation number}
An essential ingredient in our formalism is the halo occupation number
$\langle N(M)\rangle$. In the mock galaxy catalog, we know host halo
properties of individual galaxies, which allows us to derive the mean
halo occupation number directly without ambiguity. We fit the halo
occupation number obtained directly from the mock catalog to the
parametrized form in Equations~(\ref{eq:hod_cen}) and
(\ref{eq:hod_sat}), which contains five free parameters in total. We
show the fitting result in Figure~\ref{fig:hod}, and summarize
best-fit parameters in Table~\ref{tab:hod}. We find that the HOD model
adopted in this paper reproduces the mean occupation number in the
mock galaxy catalog very well.
\subsection{Neighboring galaxy counts}
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{0.95}
\plotone{fig2.eps}
\caption{
The average neighboring galaxy counts within the comoving
transverse distance $r_{\rm p,max}$. The number counts are computed
around galaxies at $z=0.15$ which reside in host halos with mass
$M$. The redshift range of the neighboring galaxies is set to
$z=0.15\pm 0.02$. Symbols show the result from the mock galaxy
catalog for host halo masses of $M=10^{12}$ ({\it open circles}),
$10^{13}$ ({\it filled squares}), and $10^{14}h^{-1}M_\odot$ ({\it
crosses}), and solid lines show corresponding analytic model
predictions including both 1-halo and 2-halo contributions. The
upper panel shows the average neighboring galaxy counts
$\langle N_{\rm p}(<r_{\rm p,max})\rangle_M$
(Equation~\ref{eq:ngc_ave}), whereas the lower panel shows its
standard deviation $\sigma_{\rm p}$ (Equation~\ref{eq:ngc_var}).
}
\label{fig:nc}
\end{figure}
Before comparing the PDF of the halo mass, we first check whether our
analytic model reproduces neighboring galaxy counts in the mock galaxy
catalog. The average (projected) neighboring galaxy counts around a
galaxy inside a halo with mass $M$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\langle N_{\rm p}(<r_{\rm p,max})\rangle_M =
\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 1h}\rangle_M+\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm
2h}\rangle_M,
\label{eq:ngc_ave}
\end{equation}
where $\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 1h}\rangle_M$ and $\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm
2h}\rangle_M$ are given in Equations~(\ref{eq:ngc_ave_1h}) and
(\ref{eq:ngc_ave_2h}), respectively.
We compute neighboring galaxy counts as a function of the maximum
comoving transverse distance $r_{\rm p,max}$. The redshift of target
galaxies for which neighboring galaxy counts are considered is
arbitrarily fixed at $z=0.15$. In the mock galaxy catalog, we actually
use galaxies in the small redshift range of $z=0.15\pm
0.005$. Throughout the paper we consider the redshift range of
neighboring galaxies of $\Delta z=0.02$, which is sufficiently large
to include the correlated structure.
Figure~\ref{fig:nc} (upper panel) compares the average neighboring
galaxy counts from the mock galaxy catalog with the analytic
calculation (Equation~\ref{eq:ngc_ave}). We consider target galaxies
living in halos of three masses, $M=10^{12}$, $10^{13}$, and
$10^{14}h^{-1}M_\odot$, and find that our model agrees well with the
mock result, both at small and large $r_{\rm p,max}$ where 1-halo and
2-halo contributions are dominated, respectively. As expected,
neighboring galaxy counts are higher for galaxies in more massive host
halos.
We also check the variance of the average neighboring galaxy counts,
$\sigma_{\rm p}^2\equiv \langle N_{\rm p}N_{\rm p}\rangle_M
-\langle N_{\rm p}\rangle_M^2$. Again, the variance is given by the
sum of 1-halo and 2-halo contributions
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\rm p}^2=(\sigma_{\rm p}^{\rm 1h})^2+
(\sigma_{\rm p}^{\rm 2h})^2,
\label{eq:ngc_var}
\end{equation}
where $(\sigma_{\rm p}^{\rm 2h})^2$ is derived in
Equation~(\ref{eq:ngc_var_2h}). Given the PDF of 1-halo neighboring
galaxy counts (Equation~\ref{eq:pdf_ngc_1h}), we can compute
$(\sigma_{\rm p}^{\rm 1h})^2$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
(\sigma_{\rm p}^{\rm 1h})^2&=&
\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 1h}\rangle_M-\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm
1h}\rangle_M^2+\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm
1h,c}\rangle_M^2 p({\rm c}|M)
\nonumber\\&&
+\int_0^{r_{\rm 200c}}4\pi r^2dr \langle N_{\rm p}^{{\rm 1h,s}(r)}\rangle_M^2
p({\rm s},r|M).
\end{eqnarray}
The comparison shown in Figure~\ref{fig:nc} (lower panel) indicates
that the analytic model reproduces the variance as well, in both
1-halo and 2-halo regimes. However there is relatively large deviation
of the analytic model at $r_{\rm p,max}\sim 1h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ for the
host halo mass of $M=10^{14}h^{-1}M_\odot$. This might be explained by
the non-Gaussian error of the 2-halo term at very small scale.
Another possible explanation of the discrepancy is the presence of
satellite galaxies outside $r_{\rm 200c}$; we find that the mock
galaxy catalog contains satellite galaxies that are located outside
$r_{\rm 200c}$ ($\sim 10$~\%), whereas we have assumed that all
satellite galaxies are located within $r_{\rm 200c}$.
\subsection{PDF of host halo masses}
We now compare our model of PDFs of the host halo masses given
neighboring galaxy counts, $p(M|N_{\rm p})$ (Equation~\ref{eq:pofm}),
with those obtained directly from the mock galaxy catalog.
Figure~\ref{fig:pofm} compares the PDFs from the mock galaxy catalog
with our analytic model. We find that our analytic models are in
reasonably good agreement with the simulation result. In particular
the analytic model nicely captures the complex behaviors of the PDFs.
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1}
\plotone{fig3.eps}
\caption{
PDFs of the host halo masses of galaxies with neighboring
galaxy counts within $r_{\rm p,max}$ being $N_{\rm p}$, $p(M|N_{\rm
p})$. From top to bottom panels, we consider three different
maximum comoving transverse distance, $r_{\rm p,max}=0.5$, $1$, and
$8h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$, within which the number of neighboring galaxy
is counted. Different symbols show conditional PDFs for different
neighboring galaxy counts $N_{\rm p}$ from the mock galaxy catalog,
and corresponding analytic model predictions (Equation~\ref{eq:pofm})
are plotted by solid lines.
}
\label{fig:pofm}
\end{figure}
We find the PDF exhibits two peaks when the number of neighboring
galaxies $N_{\rm p}$ is large. The higher mass peak corresponds to the
case that the galaxy resides in massive halos with about the peak
mass. On the other hand, the lower mass peak is due to the chance
projection, i.e., the low-mass host halo of the galaxy is superposed
on a massive halo or a dense structure on the sky, which boosts the
neighboring galaxy counts. Our analytic model reproduces this behavior.
We find that the dependence of the PDFs on neighboring galaxy counts is
weak for the large cylinder radius of $r_{\rm p,max}=8 h^{-1}{\rm
Mpc}$ for which the contribution is dominated by the 2-halo term. Although
neighboring galaxy counts depend on the host halo mass due to the halo
mass dependence of the halo bias, neighboring galaxy counts also involves
the large scatter originating from clustering of neighboring galaxies
(see Figure~\ref{fig:nc}). Thus, in order to infer the host halo mass
of individual galaxies, small cylinder radii of $r_{\rm p,max}\la 1
h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ should be used for neighboring galaxy counts.
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{0.9}
\plotone{fig4.eps}
\caption{
Contours of the variance of inferred host halo masses,
$\sigma^2_{\log M}$ which is computed from the conditional PDF
$p(M|N_{\rm p})$, in the $r_{\rm p,max}$-$\Delta z$ plane. The
input halo mass is $M=10^{14}h^{-1}M_\odot$, and the average
neighboring number $\langle N_{\rm p}(<r_{\rm p,max})\rangle_M$
(Equation~\ref{eq:ngc_ave}) is used for the input $N_{\rm p}$ to
compute the PDF. Dotted, dashed, dot-dashed, and solid lines show
contours of $\sigma^2_{\log M}=0.1$, $0.2$, $0.4$, and $0.8$,
respectively.
}
\label{fig:wpm}
\end{figure}
With the analytic model of PDFs of the host halo masses, we can easily
explore how different choices of neighboring counts provide tighter
constraints on halo masses. In addition to $r_{\rm p,max}$ discussed
above, we can also adjust the redshift range $\Delta z$. Here we
demonstrate how we can
optimize $r_{\rm p,max}$ and $\Delta z$ from the PDFs. As a specific
example, we consider an input halo mass of $M=10^{14}h^{-1}M_\odot$.
We first compute the average neighboring number $\langle N_{\rm
p}(<r_{\rm p,max})\rangle_M$ (Equation~\ref{eq:ngc_ave}) for given
values of $r_{\rm p,max}$ and $\Delta z$, and compute the conditional
PDF $p(M|N_{\rm p})$ (Equation~\ref{eq:pofm}) given the number count
$N{\rm p}$ equal to the average neighboring number. We quantify the
tightness of the halo mass inference by computing the variance of the
halo mass $\log M$, $\sigma^2_{\log M}$, using the computed
PDF. Smaller $\sigma^2_{\log M}$ indicates a narrower peak of the
PDF and therefore tighter constraints on the halo mass. The contours
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:wpm} confirm that cylinder radii of $r_{\rm
p,max}\sim 0.5-1 h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ provide tightest constraints on
the halo masses. We find that the dependence on $\Delta z$ is not very
strong, but smaller $\Delta z$ generally produces tighter constraints,
because of the smaller number of projected galaxies. We note that the
best choice of the parameters depends also on other factors such as
halo masses and underlying HOD models.
\section{Extensions and applications}
\label{sec:ext}
In Section~\ref{sec:mock} we have used a mock galaxy catalog to
demonstrate that our analytic model can robustly predict the PDF of
halo mass for a {\it single} galaxy, given its neighboring counts.
Although the example we have considered is somewhat idealized (i.e.,
with 100\% spectroscopic sampling and redshift success rate), we note
that these conditions are not required. In principle, for a given
galaxy sample, as long as we can accurately model its HOD, our model
can be used to predict the host halo mass PDF for the galaxies {\it
in} the sample.
Here we briefly discuss various ways to extend the scope and
capabilities of our model, including the possibility to distinguish
central galaxies from satellites, the situation when the target and
neighboring galaxies are from two different galaxy samples, the
potential of improving the PDF with neighboring counts within multiple
apertures, constraints on the HOD itself, the application to galaxy
samples selected with photometric redshifts, and the prospect of
applying the same principle to inferring masses of galaxy clusters.
\subsection{Probability of being central}
In many of HOD studies, central and satellite components are treated
separately. Therefore it is of great interest to know whether each
galaxy corresponds to the central or satellite type. This can be
obtained easily in this theoretical framework. From
Equation~(\ref{eq:pdf_ngc_1h}), we derive the joint probability of
being a central galaxy and having a 1-halo neighboring galaxy count of
$N_{\rm p}^{\rm 1h}$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
p^{\rm 1h}({\rm c},N_{\rm p}^{\rm 1h}|M)=
p^{\rm P}(N_{\rm p}^{\rm 1h}|\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 1h, c}\rangle_M)
p({\rm c}|M),
\end{eqnarray}
By replacing $p^{\rm 1h}(N_{\rm p}-N|M)$ in Equation~(\ref{eq:pofnp})
with $p^{\rm 1h}({\rm c},N_{\rm p}-N|M)$ and inserting the result to
Equation~(\ref{eq:pofm}), we obtain the joint PDF of $p({\rm c},M|N_{\rm p})$. The probability of being central given the host halo mass $M$
and neighboring galaxy count $N_{\rm p}$ is then obtained as
\begin{eqnarray}
p({\rm c}|M, N_{\rm p})=\frac{p({\rm c},M|N_{\rm p})}{p(M|N_{\rm p})}.
\label{eq:pcen}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{0.95}
\plotone{fig5.eps}
\caption{
The probability of being a central galaxy given the halo mass and
neighboring galaxy counts (Equation~\ref{eq:pcen}). The cylinder
radius is fixed to $r_{\rm p,max}=0.5h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$. We consider
three different $N_{\rm p}$: $N_{\rm p}=3$ ({\it solid}), $10$
({\it dotted}), and $30$ ({\it dashed}).
}
\label{fig:cent}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:cent} shows some examples of $p({\rm c}|M, N_{\rm p})$
for the cylinder of radius $r_{\rm p,max}=0.5h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$. The
probability is generally higher for smaller halo masses, simply
because there are fewer satellite galaxies in lower mass halos (see
Figure~\ref{fig:hod}). On the other hand, the probabilities shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:cent} exhibit dependences on neighboring galaxy
counts $N_{\rm p}$, suggesting that neighboring galaxy counts do provide
information when determining whether a galaxy is central or not.
\subsection{The use of different galaxy populations}
While we have assumed that the target galaxy for which we infer the
host halo mass and neighboring galaxies are the same population and
they share the same HOD, in principle we can use populations with
different HODs for neighboring galaxy counts (e.g., red and blue
galaxies, galaxies of different luminosity/stellar mass, or
groups/clusters instead of galaxies). The extension of our theoretical
framework to this situation is straightforward. Suppose the halo
occupation number of the target galaxy $\langle N^{\rm t}(M)\rangle$
differs from that of neighboring galaxies $\langle N^{\rm n}(M)\rangle$,
the 1-halo neighboring galaxy counts are modified as
\begin{equation}
\langle N_{\rm p}^{\rm 1h,c}\rangle_M
=\int_0^\infty dk\, r_{\rm p,max}
J_1(kr_{\rm p,max})\langle N^{\rm n}_{\rm sat}(M)\rangle
\tilde{u}_{\rm n}(k|M),
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle N_{\rm p}^{{\rm 1h,s}(r)}\rangle_M
&=&\int_0^\infty dk\, r_{\rm p,max}J_1(kr_{\rm p,max})\nonumber\\
&&\hspace*{-8mm}\times
\left[\langle N^{\rm n}_{\rm cen}(M)\rangle +\langle N^{\rm n}_{\rm sat}(M)
\rangle \tilde{u}_{\rm n}(k|M)\right]j_0(kr),
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
p({\rm c}|M)=\frac{\langle N^{\rm t}_{\rm cen}(M)\rangle}{\langle N^{\rm
t}(M)\rangle},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
p({\rm s},r|M)=\frac{\langle N^{\rm t}_{\rm sat}(M)\rangle}{\langle
N^{\rm t}(M)\rangle} u_{\rm t}(r|M),
\end{equation}
where $u_{\rm t}$ and $u_{\rm n}$ are spatial distributions of
satellite components of target and neighboring galaxies, respectively,
and the PDF of the host halo mass becomes
\begin{equation}
p(M)=\frac{1}{\bar{n}_{\rm t}}\langle N^{\rm t}(M)\rangle\frac{dn}{dM},
\end{equation}
and the average bias for the 2-halo calculation becomes
\begin{equation}
\bar{b}_{\rm n}=\frac{1}{\bar{n}_{\rm n}}
\int_0^\infty dM\,b(M)\langle N^{\rm n}(M)\rangle\frac{dn}{dM},
\end{equation}
where $\bar{n}_{\rm t}$ and $\bar{n}_{\rm n}$ are average number
densities (see Equation~\ref{eq:n3dave}) of target and neighboring
galaxies, respectively. Also note that $\bar{n}$ in $\langle N_{\rm
p}^{\rm 2h, c}\rangle_M$ should be interpreted as $\bar{n}_{\rm n}$.
Since different galaxy populations probe different halo masses, the
use of different galaxy populations for neighboring galaxy counts can
help improve the inference of the host halo mass.
\subsection{The use of multiple apertures}
The inference of the host halo mass may be improved further by
considering multiple apertures, i.e., combining neighboring galaxy
counts with different cylinder radii. In this case, we need to take
account of the covariance of neighboring galaxy counts carefully.
We leave the exploration of this possibility for future work.
\subsection{Improving the analytic model}
There is also room for the improvement of our analytic model. For
instance, attempts to improve the halo model have been made by
including the halo exclusion effect and non-linearity of the 2-halo
power spectrum \citep[e.g.,][]{tinker05}. The evaluation of
non-Gaussian error may be necessary to improve the estimate of the
variance of 2-halo neighboring galaxy counts,
$(\sigma^{\rm 2h}_{\rm p})^2$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:nc}). We have also
ignored the complexity of the halo properties, such as the scatter in
the concentration parameter and the halo triaxiality.
The HOD model itself is also subject to possible improvements,
e.g., by including assembly bias \citep{wang13,zentner14,lacerna14}
and relative velocities of central galaxies \citep{skiba11}.
\subsection{Constraints on HOD with counts-in-cylinders}
Neighboring galaxy counts depend on the underlying HOD model, and
therefore in principle they can be used to constrain the HOD
itself. For this application, it is crucial to estimate and remove the
chance projection. One can infer the effect of pure chance projection
by estimating the average number density, but the 2-halo contribution
is not homogeneous but clustered around the target galaxy. The
theoretical framework developed in this paper may be used to estimate
the 2-halo contribution and its variance to derive more rigorous
constraints on HOD with counts-in-cylinders.
\subsection{Extension to galaxy samples with photometric redshifts}
Although our formalism is readily applicable to several spectroscopic
surveys such as Sloan Digital Sky Survey \citep[SDSS;][]{york00},
Galaxy And Mass Assembly
\citep[GAMA;][]{driver11}, PRIsm MUlti-object Survey
\citep[PRIMUS;][]{coil11}, VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey
\citep[VIPERS;][]{guzzo14}, and eventually Dark Energy Spectroscopic
Instrument \citep[DESI;][]{levi13}, and Subaru Prime Focus
Spectrograph \citep[PFS;][]{takada14},
it is highly desirable to extend our model to incorporate samples
selected with photometric redshifts, so that we could fully exploit
the potential offered by large imaging surveys such as Subaru Hyper
Suprime-Cam \citep[HSC;][]{miyazaki12} survey, Dark Energy
Survey\footnote{http://www.darkenergysurvey.org/}, and Large
Synoptic Survey Telescope \citep[LSST;][]{lsst09}.
We plan to address this extension in a future paper.
\subsection{Inferring galaxy cluster masses using neighboring cluster counts}
Galaxy clusters have long been regarded as a powerful cosmological
probe, as their abundance is sensitively dependent on parameters such
as $\Omega_m$ and $\sigma_8$. Accurate knowledge of cluster mass is
required, however, before any useful cosmological constraints can be
deduced \citep{weinberg13}. Our formalism could be straightforwardly
applied to galaxy clusters, especially samples detected in
optical/near-IR imaging surveys, for which it has typically been
difficult to deduce mass reliably for individual clusters. With the
knowledge of PDF of cluster mass, it should be possible to obtain
tighter constraints from cluster abundance.
\section{Summary}
\label{sec:summary}
In the highly successful HOD framework, the dark matter halo mass is
the sole factor controlling the galaxy formation process. It is thus
critically important to be able to estimate the halo mass of galaxies.
Traditionally, this is achieved by techniques such as strong
gravitational lensing \citep[e.g.,][]{bolton08}, galaxy-galaxy
lensing \citep[e.g.,][]{mandelbaum06}, satellite kinematics
\citep[e.g.,][]{more09}, and large scale clustering
\citep[e.g,.][]{zehavi11}. Except for the
first method, all the others work in a statistical sense, that is,
they cannot be applied to a single galaxy. An alternative method is
developed by \citet{yang05}, where the concept of abundance matching
is employed to a large group catalog which includes groups with only
one member. Under the assumption of one-to-one correspondence between
halo mass and stellar mass/luminosity content of the group members, a
halo mass is {\it assigned} to each of the groups. However, with this
approach, little or no information on the PDF of the halo mass is
provided. Furthermore,
given the difficulties in constructing group group catalogs
at low mass halo regime and the associated uncertainties, the
one-to-one correspondence between these groups and dark halos
is likely to break down, rendering halo mass assignment unreliable.
We have developed a theoretical framework to compute the PDF of the
host halo mass for a single galaxy, given its neighboring galaxy counts.
We have derived explicit expression for the number of neighboring
galaxies within the cylinder of redshift interval $\pm \Delta z$ and
transverse comoving distance $r_{\rm p}<r_{\rm p,max}$ in terms of the
HOD model. We include both 1-halo contribution from the same host halo
and 2-halo contribution including chance projection for the neighboring
galaxy counts. We have used the result to obtain the conditional PDF
of the host halo mass given neighboring galaxy counts.
We compare our analytic model with results from the mock galaxy
catalog, finding reasonable agreements. The PDF of the host halo
mass exhibits complex behavior, with generally two peaks at low- and
high-mass regimes for the case of large neighboring galaxy counts. This is
understood as the effect of chance projection along the
line-of-sight, which can boost neighboring galaxy counts even if the host
halo is a low-mass halo. We find that cylinder radii
of $\sim 0.5-1h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ are optimal for the inference of the
host halo mass, at least for the case of the HOD examined in this
paper.
This paper serves as a proof-of-concept for our theoretical framework,
and we expect our new approach to have many applications.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank an anonymous referee for useful comments and suggestions.
This work was supported in part by World Premier International
Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan, and
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the JSPS (26800093).
MO acknowledges the hospitality of ASIAA where this work was
partly done.
YTL acknowledges support from the Ministry of Science and Technology
grant NSC 102-2112-M-001-001-MY3 and the hospitality of Kavli IPMU
where this work was initiated.
|
\section{Introduction}
Throughout this paper, all terminologies and notations on graph theory can be referred to the textbook by D. B. West. \cite{W} A {\it spanning tree} $T$ of a graph $G$ is a subgraph of $G$ which is a tree and $V(T)=V(G)$. A {\it $k$-edge-coloring} of a graph $G$ is a mapping from $E(G)$ into a set of colors $\{1,2,\cdots ,k \}$. A $k$-edge-coloring is {\it proper} if incident edges receive distinct colors. Let $\varphi$ be a $k$-edge-coloring of a graph $G$. If $K$ is a subgraph of $G$, for convenience, we use $\varphi|_{{}_K}$ to denote the edge-coloring of $K$ induced by $\varphi$, i.e., $\varphi|_{{}_K}(e)=\varphi(e)$ for each $e\in E(K)$. Note here that in this paper, all edge-colorings are proper.
If $G$ has a proper $k$-edge-coloring, then $G$ is said to be properly $k$-edge-colorable. The {\it chromatic index} of a graph $G$ is the minimum number $k$ such that $G$ is properly $k$-edge-colorable. It's well-known that the chromatic index of $K_{2m}$ is $2m-$1. Let $\varphi$ be a proper (2$m-1$)-edge-coloring of $K_{2m}$ and $C$ be the color set. For each $x\in V(K_{2m})$, define $\varphi_x$ as the mapping from $V(K_{2m})\setminus \{x\}$ to $C$ by $\varphi_x(y)=c$ if $\varphi(xy)=c$. Clearly, $\varphi_x$ is bijective. Let $\varphi^{-1}_x(c)$ be the vertex adjacent to $x$ with the edge colored $c$. For a vertex set $V$ and a color $c$, let $[V]_c=V\cup \{ u|~\varphi(uv)=c, v\in V\}$. For convenience, we use $v\langle c\rangle$ to denote the edge incident to $v$ with color $c$.
A subgraph in an edge-colored graph is said to be {\it multicolored} if no two edges have the same color. Therefore, a question arises naturally: can the edges of a properly (2$m-$1)-edge-colored $K_{2m}$ be partitioned into multicolored subgraphs, such that each has $2m-$1 edges. Here are three conjectures related to this problem.
\vspace{0.7cm}
\\
{\bf Constantine's Conjecture (Weak version) \cite{C}}
\begin{it} For any positive integer m, $m>2$, there exists a proper $(2m-$1$)$-edge-coloring of $K_{2m}$ such that all edges can be partitioned into m isomorphic multicolored spanning trees.
\end{it}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\\
{\bf Brualdi-Hollingsworth Conjecture \cite{BH}}
\begin{it} If $m>2$, then in any proper edge-coloring of $K_{2m}$ with $2m-$1 colors, all edges can be partitioned into m multicolored spanning trees.
\end{it}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\\
{\bf Constantine's Conjecture (Strong version) \cite{C}}
\begin{it} If $m>2$, then in any proper edge-coloring of $K_{2m}$ with $2m-$1 colors, all edges can be partitioned into m isomorphic multicolored spanning trees.
\end{it}
\vspace{0.5cm}
The first conjecture has been proved by Akbari et al \cite{AAFL}. As to the second conjecture, a partial result by Krussel et al \cite{KMV} shows that there are three multicolored spanning trees in $K_{2m}$ for any proper (2$m-$1)-edge-coloring of $K_{2m}$. Essentially, nothing was done so far on the third one. In this paper, we set off the first step by finding three disjoint isomorphic multicolored spanning trees in a proper (2$m-$1)-edge-colored $K_{2m}$ for $m\geq 14$.
It is worth of mention here that the above conjectures will play important roles in applications if they were true. An application of parallelisms of complete designs to population genetics data can be found in \cite{BCML}. Parallelisms are also useful in partitioning consecutive positive integers into sets of equal size with equal power sums \cite{J}. In addition, the discussions of applying colored matchings and design parallelisms to parallel computing appeared in \cite{H}.
\section{The main results}
We start with the notion of a latin square. Let $S$ be an $n$-set. A {\it latin square} of order $n$ based on $S$ is an $n\times n$ array such that each element of $S$ occurs in each row and each column exactly once. For example,
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline 0 & 1 \\
\hline 1 & 0 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
is a latin square of order 2 based on $\{0,1\}=\mathbb{Z}_2$. Since this latin square corresponds to a group table of $\langle \mathbb{Z}_2, + \rangle$, the latin square is also known as a 2-group latin square.
For convenience, a latin square of order $n$ based on $S$ is denoted $L=[~l_{i,j}~]$ where $l_{i,j}\in S$ and $i,j \in \mathbb{Z}_n$. Let $L=[~l_{i,j}~]$ and $M=[~m_{i,j}~]$ be two latin squares of order $l$ and $m$ respectively. Then the direct product of $L$ and $M$ is a latin square of order $l\cdot m$ : $L\times M=[~h_{i,j}~]$ where $h_{x,y}=(~l_{a,b},m_{c,d}~)$ provided that $x=ma+c$ and $y=mb+d$. For instance, let $L$ be the
2-group latin square; then $L\times L$ is a latin square of order 4 based on $\mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2$, as in Figure \ref{LxL}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.95]{LxL.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{LxL} $L\times L$.}
\end{figure}
A {\it transversal} of a latin square of order $n$ is a set of $n$ entries, one from each column and one from each row, such that these $n$ entries are all distinct. For instance, in $L\times L$, $\{h_{0,0}, h_{1,2}, h_{2,3}, h_{3,1}\}$ is a transversal. $L\times L$ is easily seen to have 4 disjoint transversals. The following shows $L^n=L\times L\times \cdots \times L$ based on ${\mathbb{Z}_2}^n$ has $2^n$ disjoint transversals for each $n\geq 2$.
\begin{pro}
\label{transversal} $L^n$ has $2^n$ disjoint transversals for each $n\geq 2$.
\end{pro}
\proof The proof is by induction on $n$. By Figure 2, $n=2$ is true.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{transversals.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{transversals} 4 transversals in $L^2$.}
\end{figure}
Assume that the assertion is true for each $k\geq 2$. Let $L^k=[{l_{a,b}}^{(k)}]$ and $L^{k+1}=$
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline ${L_0}^k$ & ${L_1}^k$ \\
\hline ${L_1}^k$ & ${L_0}^k$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular} .
By definition of direct product, we have ${L_0}^k = [m_{a,b}]$ where $m_{a,b}=(0~,~{l_{a,b}}^{(k)})$ (a ($k+$1)-dim.~vector) and ${L_1}^k = [\overline{m}_{a,b}]$ where $\overline{m}_{a,b}=(1~,~{l_{a,b}}^{(k)})$. We shall use the set of $2^k$ disjoint transversals in $L^k$ to construct $2^{k+1}$ disjoint transversals in $L^{k+1}$.
Let $\{A_i~|~i=0,1,2,\cdots,2^k-1 \}$ be the set of disjoint transversals obtained in $L^k$ by induction hypothesis. Without loss of generality, we may let $A_i$ be the transversal which contains the entry ${l_{0,i}}^{(k)}$, $i=0,1,2,\cdots,2^k-1$. Now, we shall use $A_{2i}$ and $A_{2i+1}$, $i=0,1,2,\cdots,2^{k-1}-1$, to construct four disjoint transversals in $L^{k+1}$. For convenience, we explain the construction by using $A_0$ and $A_1$.
Since $A_0$(respectively $A_1$) is a transversal in $L^k$, the corresponding entries in ${L_0}^k$ form a transversal, so are the corresponding entries in ${L_1}^k$. Let the corresponding transversals of $A_0$ in ${L_0}^k$ and ${L_1}^k$ be $\overline{A}_{0,0}$ and $\overline{A}_{1,0}$ respectively. Similarly, let the corresponding transversals of $A_1$ be $\overline{A}_{0,1}$ and $\overline{A}_{1,1}$ respectively. Note that for $0\leq r,s\leq 1$, $\overline{A}_{r,s}$ has $2^k$ entries, one from each row and from each column. Now, for $0\leq r,s\leq 1$, we split $\overline{A}_{r,s}$ into two parts: ${\overline{A}_{r,s}}^{(u)}$ is the set of entries from the first to the $2^{k-1}$-th row of $\overline{A}_{r,s}$, and ${\overline{A}_{r,s}}^{(l)}$ is the set of entries of the other half. By defining $B_0,B_1, B_2$ and $B_3$ as in Figure \ref{new_transversals}, we have four transversals in $L^{k+1}$ as desired.
Since for $i=1,2,\cdots,2^{k-1}-1$, $\overline{A}_{2i}$ and $\overline{A}_{2i+1}$ can also be used to construct four transversals in $L^{k+1}$, we have a set of $2^{k+1}$ transversals in $L^{k+1}$. By the reason that $A_0, A_1,\cdots, A_{2^k-1}$ are disjoint transversals, we conclude the proof. \qed
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{new_transversals.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{new_transversals} 4 transversals in $L^{k+1}$ constructed from $A_0$ and $A_1$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma} \label{unique} If $\mu$ is a proper $(2m-$1$)$-edge-coloring of $K_{2m}$, $m\geq 2$, such that any two colors induce a 2-factor with each component a 4-cycle, then {\rm (a)} $2m=2^n$ for some $n\geq 2$ and {\rm (b)} $K_{2m}$ contains a clique $K$ of order $2^k$, $1\leq k \leq n-1$ such that $\{\mu(e)~|~e\in E(K)\}$ is a $(2^k-$1$)$-set, i.e., $\mu|_{{}_K}$ is a $(2^k-$1$)$-edge-coloring of $K$.
\end{lemma}
\proof First, we claim that (b) is true. The proof is by induction on $n$. Clearly, it is true when $n=2$. By hypothesis, let $H$ be a clique of order $2^h$, $h<k$, and $\mu|_{{}_H}$ is a $(2^h-$1$)$-edge-coloring of $H$. Without loss of generality, let $V(H)=\{x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_{2^h}\}$ and the colors used in $H$ be $\{c_1,c_2,\cdots,c_{2^h-1}\}$. Since $\mu$ is a proper (2$m-$1)-edge-coloring of $K_{2m}$, each color occurs around each vertex. Let $c_{2^h}$ be a color not used in $H$. Then, we have a set $H'$, $H'\cap H=\phi$, $H'=\{y_1,y_2,\cdots,y_{2^h}\}$ such that $\mu(x_iy_i)=c_{2^h}$ for $i=1,2,\cdots,2^h$. Now, by the reason that any two colors induce a $C_4$-factor, we conclude that $\mu|_{{}_{H'}}$ is also a $(2^h-$1$)$-edge-coloring of $H'$, moreover, $\mu(x_ix_j)= \mu(y_iy_j)$ for $1\leq i \neq j \leq 2^h$. Therefore, the complete bipartite graph $K_{2^h,2^h}=(H,H')$ has a $2^h$-edge-coloring following by the same reason. This implies that $\mu|_{{}_{H\cup H'}}$ is a $(2^{h+1}-$1$)$-edge-coloring of the clique induced by $H\cup H'$. So, we have the proof of (b).
Suppose $2m=2^r\cdot p$ where $p$ is an odd integer and $p\neq 1$. Using the above argument, we can find the largest clique $G$ of order $2^s$ which uses $2^s-1$ colors. Then we partition the vertices of $K_{2m}$ into two sets $X$ and $Y$ where $X=V(G)$, and let $|Y|=q$. Here, we notice that $q<2^s$. Consider these $2^s-1$ colors used in coloring the edges of $G$, there are total $(2^s-1)(2^{r-1}\cdot p)$ edges which use these colors. But, we have used these colors in $G$. Hence, there remains $\d \frac12(2^s-1)(2m-2^s)$ edges to be colored by using these colors. Since the edges between X and Y can't be colored with any of these colors, they have to be in Y. But, since $q<2^s$ and $2m-2^s=q$, $\d \frac12(2^s-1)(2m-2^s) > {q \choose 2}$, a contradiction. This implies that $p=1$, and we have the proof of (a). \qed
\begin{lemma} {\rm\cite{BH}} \label{partitionK8} Let $\mu$ be a proper 7-edge-coloring of $K_8$ such that for any two colors form a $C_4$-factor. Then the edges of $K_8$ can be partitioned into 4 isomorphic multicolored spanning trees.
\end{lemma}
\begin{thm} \label{partition} If $\mu$ is a proper $(2m-$1$)$-edge-coloring of $K_{2m}$, $m>2$, such that any two colors form an $C_4$-factor, then the edges of $K_{2m}$ can be partitioned into m isomorphic multicolored spanning trees.
\end{thm}
\proof By Lemma \ref{unique}, $2m=2^n$ for some $n>2$. We prove the theorem by induction on $n$. By Lemma \ref{partitionK8}, $n=3$ is true.
Assume that the assertion is true for each $k\geq 3$ and consider $K_{2^{k+1}}$.
From the process of the proof of Lemma \ref{unique}, there must exist two disjoint cliques of order $2^k$ with $2^k-$1 colors in $K_{2^{k+1}}$. Let $V(K_{2^{k+1}})=A\cup B$ where $A, B$ are the vertex sets of the two cliques. Consider the colors of the edges between $A$ and $B$. Let $A=\{a_0, a_1, \ldots, a_{2^k-1}\}$, $B=\{b_0, b_1, \ldots, b_{2^k-1}\}$ and $M=[m_{i,j}]$ where $m_{i,j}= \mu(a_ib_j)$. It's clear that $M$ is a latin square; furthermore, $M\cong L^k$. By Proposition \ref{transversal}, $M$ has $2^k$ disjoint transversals. This implies that there are $2^k$ perfect matchings in the complete bipartite graph induced by $A\cup B$. Note that the two cliques induced by $A$ and $B$ respectively have $2^{k-1}$ multicolored isomorphic spanning trees of order $2^k$, respectively. Thus, by assigning a perfect matching to each spanning tree, we obtain $2^k$ spanning trees of order $2^{k+1}$. Moreover, these spanning trees are isomorphic and multicolored. \qed
For the presentation of the proof of our main theorem, we define the following notations. In a properly ($2m-$1)-edge-colored $K_{2m}$, a {\it u-star} $S_u$ is a spanning tree consisting of all edges incident to $u$, where $u\in V(K_{2m})$. Suppose $T$ is a multicolored spanning tree of $K_{2m}$ with two leaves $x_1$ and $x_2$. Let the edges incident to $v_1$ and $v_2$ be $e_1$ and $e_2$ respectively, and $\varphi(e_1)=c_1$, $\varphi(e_2)=c_2$. Then let $T[x_1,x_1;c_1,c_2]$ be the tree obtained from $T$ by removing the edges $e_1, e_2$ and adding the edges $x_1\langle c_2\rangle, x_2\langle c_1\rangle$.
At first, we show the existence of two disjoint isomorphic multicolored spanning trees.
\begin{lemma} \label{two trees} Let $\varphi$ be an arbitrary proper $(2m-$1$)$-edge-coloring of $K_{2m}$. Then there exist two disjoint isomorphic multicolored spanning trees in $K_{2m}$ for $m\geq 3$.
\end{lemma}
\proof Let $V(K_{2m})=\{x_i| ~i=1,2,\ldots,2m \}$. We split the proof into two cases.
\begin{description}
\item[Case 1.] There exists a 4-cycle $(x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4)$ such that $\varphi(x_1x_2)=b$, $\varphi(x_3x_4)=c$, and $\varphi(x_1x_4)$ $=\varphi(x_2x_3)=a$. Let $T_1=S_{x_1}[x_2,x_4;b,a]$ and $T_2=S_{x_2}[x_1,x_3;b,a]$, see Figure \ref{2_trees}. Clearly, they are the desired spanning trees.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{2_trees.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{2_trees} Two isomorphic spanning trees of Case 1.}
\end{figure}
\item[Case 2.] If any two colors of this edge-coloring induce a $C_4$-decomposition of $K_{2m}$, then we have the proof by Theorem \ref{partition}. \qed
\end{description}
Now, we are ready for the main result.
\begin{thm} \label{three trees} Let $\varphi$ be an arbitrary proper $(2m-$1$)$-edge-coloring of $K_{2m}$. Then there exist three disjoint isomorphic multicolored spanning trees in $K_{2m}$ for $m\geq 14$. \end{thm}
\proof From the proof of Lemma \ref{two trees}, we only need to consider the case: there exist two colors which do not induce a $4$-cycle factor. Let $T_1$ and $T_2$ be the isomorphic multicolored spanning trees obtained in Lemma \ref{two trees}. Clearly, $K_{2m}-T_1-T_2$ is disconnected ($\{x_1,x_2\}$ induces a component in this graph). Let $\varphi^{-1}_{x_3}(b)=y_1$, $\varphi^{-1}_{x_4}(b)=y_2$ and $U=V(K_{2m})-\{x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,y_1,y_2\}$. Since $m\geq 14$, we can choose a vertex $u\in U$ such that the two colors $\varphi(ux_1)$ and $\varphi(ux_2)$ are different from those colors on the edges of the graph induced by the vertex set $\{x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4\}$. Without loss of generality, let $\varphi(ux_1)=1$ and $\varphi(ux_2)=2$. Moreover, let $v_1\in U~\backslash ~\{u\}$ and $\varphi(x_1v_1)=3$ such that $\varphi^{-1}_{v_1}(b)\neq \varphi^{-1}_{x_4}(1)$ and the two vertices $\varphi^{-1}_u(3)$ and $\varphi^{-1}_{v_1}(1)$ are elements in $U~\backslash ~\{u\}$. Now, pick $v_2\in U~\backslash ~\{u,v_1,\varphi^{-1}_{v_1}(b) \}$ and let $\varphi(x_2v_2)=4$ such that $\varphi^{-1}_{v_2}(b)\neq \varphi^{-1}_{x_3}(2)$ and the two vertices $\varphi^{-1}_u(4)$ and $\varphi^{-1}_{v_2}(2)$ are elements in set $U~\backslash ~\{u\}$. Note that we can always pick $v_1$ and $v_2$ consecutively since $m\geq 14$.
Let $T_1'=T_1[u,v_1;1,3]$ and $T_2'=T_2[u,v_2;2,4]$. Assume that $\varphi^{-1}_u(3)=u_1$ and $\varphi^{-1}_u(4)=u_2$. If $u_1=\varphi^{-1}_{v_1}(1)$, then adjust $T_1'$ to $T_1'[v_1,x_4;1,b]$. Similarly, if $u_2=\varphi^{-1}_{v_2}(2)$, then adjust $T_2'$ to $T_2'[v_2,x_3;2,b]$. Then $T_1'$ and $T_2'$ both have two types. In either case, they are disjoint and isomorphic. Figure \ref{T1} shows the types of $T_1'$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{T1.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{T1} Two types of $T_1'$.}
\end{figure}
Now, we are ready to construct the third tree. Let $T_3$ be the graph $S_u[u_1,u_2;3,4]$. Then choose one edge $w_1w_2$ with color $3$ in the graph induced by $V(K_{2m})\backslash \{x_1,x_2,u,u_2\}$ and assume $\varphi(uw_1)=c_1$, $\varphi(uw_2)=c_2$. Let $W=\{x_1,x_2,u_1, \varphi^{-1}_{u_1}(4),w_1,w_2\}$. Since $m\geq 14$, there exists one color, $c_r$, such that $\varphi^{-1}_{u_2}(c_r)\notin W$ and $\varphi^{-1}_u(c_r)\notin [W]_{c_1} \cup [W]_{c_2}$. Let $\varphi^{-1}_{u_2}(c_r)=z_1$ and $\varphi^{-1}_u(c_r)=z_2$. Since $\varphi(z_1z_2)$ may be $c_1$ or $c_2$, we can assume $\varphi(z_1z_2)\neq c_1$. Finally, let $T_3'$ be obtained from $T_3$ by removing the edges $u_2\langle 3\rangle,u\langle c_p\rangle, u\langle c_r\rangle$ and then adding the edges $u_2\langle c_r\rangle,w_1\langle 3\rangle,z_2\langle c_p\rangle$. Thus, the third spanning tree is constructed, see Figure \ref{T3}. Since all spanning trees contain exactly four vertices which are of distance 2 from vertices $x_1,x_2$ and $u$ respectively, they are isomorphic. This concludes the proof. \qed
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{T3.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{T3} $T_3'$.}
\end{figure}
\noindent{\bf \Large Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the referee for his careful reading and his important comments that significantly improve the presentation of this paper.
\rm
\bigskip
|
\section{}
\section{Introduction}
A physical process involving four light fields can be used to transfer information of a light field to a medium in the form of spatially extended spin waves and to subsequently retrieve it. This effect is widely used for a variety of applications including atomic quantum memories based on read/write sequences \cite{Lukin2000,Julsgaard2004,Matsukevich2004,Eisaman2005,Hosseini2009}, where the fields are temporally separated, or -- based on four-wave mixing -- the creation of exotic wavelengths \cite{Scheid2009}, wavelength conversion \cite{Radnaev2010} or the production of correlated photon pairs \cite{Chaneliere2006, Willis2011}.
Additionally, non-linearities of the medium itself can be exploited to impose non-classical features onto the light field created, e.g. squeezed states of light \cite{Slusher1985}.
The strong interaction between Rydberg states \cite{Tong2004,Singer2004,Vogt2006} can be used to enhance the non-linearities of the medium \cite{Friedler2005, Pritchard2010, Peyronel2012}, on the basis of which a source of single photons has been proposed \cite{Saffman2002, Saffman2010} and realized in an ultracold atomic ensemble \cite{Dudin2012a}.
For Rydberg excitation in thermal vapor, however, a broad distribution of velocity classes is present, which leads to motion-induced decoherence on the nanosecond timescale due to the Doppler effect. While narrow-band coherent Rydberg excitation is possible for the observation of steady state phenomena like EIT \cite{Mohapatra2007} or CW four-wave mixing \cite{Kolle2012}, significantly larger bandwidths are favorable for the study of coherent dynamics. Coherent dynamics in the frozen gas regime, where the excitation bandwidth exceeds the Doppler width, has been demonstrated previously \cite{Huber2011a}.
In this letter, we investigate the dynamics beyond the frozen gas regime, where the atomic velocities still have a significant influence on the time evolution.
We present measurements of a pulsed four-wave mixing experiment via a Rydberg state in atomic vapor above room temperature.
The excitation to the Rydberg state is conducted via a two-photon excitation in a pulsed manner within a duration of
few nanoseconds, while the final state is weakly coupled by a CW laser. We observe light emission on the fourth transition during the time of the excitation. As the excitation bandwidth to the Rydberg state is below the respective Doppler width, no single-atom coherent dynamics like e.g. Rabi flopping \cite{Huber2011a} can be expected from the Doppler ensemble. However, within a certain range of the excitation Rabi frequency we observe two signal peaks, where the second peak occurs after the excitation pulse has passed the atomic sample. This second signal peak can be attributed to a revival of constructive interference between radiating atomic dipoles of different velocity classes that are excited within the thermal ensemble.
The interplay of the different velocity classes
will be discussed in detail with the help of a four-level model to describe this non-trivial temporal dynamics in the signal. We find good agreement with the model over a range of different Rabi frequencies.
Density-dependent measurements are conducted to investigate the re-absorption of the four-wave mixing signal in the atomic medium. We find that the magnitude of the signal can be well described by a simple model based on Lambert-Beer's absorption law.
The behavior of the signal strength for different optical densities allows to draw conclusions about energy and momentum conservation in the photonic part of the system.
\section{Experimental situation}
We use a vapor cell filled with rubidium at natural abundance ($72.2\%$ $^{85}$Rb, $27.8\%$ $^{87}$Rb). The thickness of the vapor-filled volume is $\sim\,680\,\mathrm{\upmu m}.$
The four-wave mixing process is conducted in a diamond excitation scheme (fig.~\ref{fig:schema}a). We address the Rydberg state by an effective two-photon transition via the D1 line.
The laser at $795\,\mathrm{nm}$ is locked blue detuned by $\Delta_{795}/2\pi = 1\,\mathrm{GHz}$ with respect to the $\,5\mathrm{S}_{1/2},F=3\rightarrow 5\mathrm{P}_{1/2},F'=3$ transition ($^{85}\mathrm{Rb}$).
The adjacent transition to the Rydberg state is coupled by a \mbox{$\sim\! 2\,\mbox{-}\,3\,\mathrm{ns}$} pulse at $475\,\mathrm{nm}$ produced by a seeded dye laser amplifier similar to \cite{Schwettmann2007}. Both lasers provide Rabi frequencies in the range of several hundred MHz.
The Rydberg state, in turn, is weakly coupled on the way down to the $5\mathrm{P}_{3/2}$ state by a CW laser at $480\,\mathrm{nm}$ ($\Omega_{480}/2\pi \lesssim 10\,\mathrm{MHz}$, depending on the Rydberg state). This laser is locked resonantly to the respective transition with reference to the center of gravity of the $\,5\mathrm{S}_{1/2},F=3$ D2 hyperfine lines.
In phase-matched configuration this leads to coherent and directed light emission on the D2 line at $780\,\mathrm{nm}$.
All lasers share the same linear polarization.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{schema}
\caption{(a) Diamond excitation scheme. We use a pulsed two-photon-excitation scheme for addressing the Rydberg state $n\mathrm{S}_{1/2}$ via the D1-line.
A third CW laser couples the Rydberg level to the $5\mathrm{P}_{3/2}$ state, from which the atoms radiate coherently to the ground state completing the four-wave mixing process.
(b) Optical setup. All three beams are overlapped in the vapor cell in co-propagation configuration thereby fulfilling the phase-matching condition. The four-wave mixing signal at $780\,\mathrm{nm}$ is separated from the excitation light by a stack of optical bandpass filters before detection.
\label{fig:schema}}
\end{figure}
We fulfill the phase-matching condition spatially with a fully co-propagating alignment of the three laser beams (fig.~\ref{fig:schema}b).
The light is separated from the excitation lasers by a stack of optical bandpass filters and subsequently recorded by a single photon counting module. The time evolution of the signal, therefore, has to be acquired by statistical measurements of the photon delay relative to the laser pulse. Although the signal strength is well above single photon level and thus has to be attenuated accordingly, we have chosen this detection method for its good time resolution and sensitivity.
\section{Model}
We describe the single-atom dynamics with a four-level model coupled by three different light fields. Using a density matrix approach \cite{Fleischhauer2005}, the time evolution is given by the master equation $\dot{\hat{\rho}}=-\frac{i}{\hbar}[\hat{H},\hat{\rho}]+L(\hat{\rho})$. The corresponding Hamiltonian in the rotating wave approximation reads
\begin{equation}
\hat{H} = \hbar
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \frac{1}{2}\Omega_{795} & 0 & 0\\
\frac{1}{2}{\Omega_{795}}^* & - \Delta_{795} & 0 & \frac{1}{2}\Omega_{475}(t) \\
0 & 0 & - \Delta_{780} & \frac{1}{2}\Omega_{480} \\
0 & \frac{1}{2}{\Omega_{475}}^*(t) & \frac{1}{2}{\Omega_{480}}^* & - \Delta_{\mathrm{Ryd}}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
The Lindblad operator $L(\hat{\rho})$, which is defined in analogy to its three-level version \cite{Huber2011a}, accounts for the spontaneous decays. The respective decay rates, however, do not have a significant influence on the timescales of the experiment.
We extract the time dependence of $\Omega_{475}(t)$ from the temporal envelope of the experimental pulse shape.
The radiated electric field due to the oscillating atomic dipole moment is determined by the coherence of the respective transition $\rho_{31}$. For the whole Doppler ensemble, the resulting electric field amplitude is given by the superposition of the individual fields which yields
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:efield}
E_0\propto N\cdot \left\langle\rho_{31}\right\rangle_\mathrm{v},
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the atomic number density and the angular brackets $\left\langle\,.\,\right\rangle_\mathrm{v}$ denote the average over the one-dimensional Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution.
If phase-matching is fulfilled, the intensity can be written as
\begin{equation}
I\propto N^2\cdot \left|\left<\rho_{31}\right>_v\right|^2.
\end{equation}
As a consequence, interference effects between electric fields from different velocity classes can occur.
\section{Dynamics}
In the absence of the $475\,\mathrm{nm}$ pulse, the system is essentially uncoupled and thus resides in the ground state \ket{1}. During the pulse, the excitation dynamics occurs directly between the ground and Rydberg state due to the off-resonant intermediate state \ket{2}. The weak coupling of the transition $\ket{4}\rightarrow \ket{3}$ causes no additional dynamics in the system.
Within a certain range of Rabi frequencies we observe a double-peak structure in the temporal shape of the four-wave mixing signal (fig.~\ref{fig:generic_oscillation}a). In this case, the Rydberg state addressed is 30S at an atomic density of $N = 0.4\,\mathrm{\upmu m}^{-3}$ \footnotemark[1
, where no effects of Rydberg-Rydberg interaction are expected on the relevant timescale \cite{Baluktsian2013}.
The error bars represent Poissonian uncertainties of the photon statistics. Fluctuations of the laser pulse intensity, which are on the order of 10\%, are not taken into account.
As the individual Rabi frequencies on the two-photon transition to the Rydberg state are not completely negligible in comparison to the detuning to the intermediate state \ket{2}, the maximum contrast of the double-peak structure is not observed exactly at the two-photon resonance to the Rydberg state. By performing frequency scans of both upper lasers, the maximum contrast has been determined to be at $\Delta_\mathrm{Ryd}/2\pi = 200\,\mathrm{MHz}$ blue detuned to the Rydberg state (of atoms at rest).
The signal is well described by the four-level model,
where the overall amplitude as been fitted to the data. The parameters of the model are $\Omega_{795}/2\pi = 335\,\mathrm{MHz}$, $\Omega_{475,\mathrm{max}}/2\pi = 375\,\mathrm{MHz}$ and $\Omega_{480}/2\pi = 5\,\mathrm{MHz}$, where $\Omega_{475,\mathrm{max}}$ denotes the peak pulse Rabi frequency.
The Rabi frequencies agree with intensity and pulse energy measurements within the experimental error.
The effective two-photon Rabi frequency on the transition $\ket{1}\rightarrow \ket{4}$, in turn, is approximately given by $\Omega_\mathrm{eff}/2\pi = (\Omega_{795}\Omega_{475,\mathrm{max}}/2\Delta_{795})/2\pi = 63\,\mathrm{MHz}$.
No Rabi oscillations are observed in the signal during the short time of the pulse in agreement with the small excitation Rabi frequency $\Omega_\mathrm{eff}$. The respective atomic populations extracted from the model (fig.~\ref{fig:generic_oscillation}b) for the velocity class of maximum Rydberg population $v_0$
show that the Rydberg population does not exceed $\sim 0.25$ corresponding to $1/8$ Rabi cycle ($\pi/4$ pulse). The second peak in the signal, therefore, cannot be attributed to Rabi oscillations but has to originate from the interplay of different velocity classes in the thermal atomic ensemble.
Note that in this case $v_0\neq 0$ due to the finite $\Delta_\mathrm{Ryd}$ (fig.~\ref{fig:generic_oscillation_vel}a).
In order to describe this behavior, we define two quantities: an amplitude parameter $\left\langle\left|\rho_{31}\right|\right\rangle_v$ that characterizes the magnitude of the radiated electric field of individual atoms in the Doppler ensemble and an interference parameter
\begin{equation}
\frac{\left|\,\left\langle\rho_{31}\right\rangle_v\right|}{\left\langle\left|\rho_{31}\right|\right\rangle_v}
\end{equation}
that accounts for the relative phase between the fields of different velocity classes. The interference parameter is normalized to one for fully constructive interference.
These two parameters can be extracted from the model and are shown in fig.~\ref{fig:generic_oscillation}c.
At early times, the rise of the amplitude parameter is predominantly determined by the excitation dynamics to the Rydberg state due to the pulse. After the pulse ($t \approx 4\,\mathrm{ns}$), the curve flattens off and increases only slowly as additional populations from the Rydberg state is pumped down to state \ket{3} at the low coupling rate of the $480\,\mathrm{nm}$ laser.
The interference parameter, on the other hand, is initially one as the time evolution of all velocity classes is still in phase for short times due to the Fourier uncertainty principle. The subsequent decline is caused by dephasing of different velocity classes since the time evolution is significantly determined by the Doppler detuning. The interference parameter reaches its smallest value at the same time as the signal minimum and exhibits a subsequent revival that is the cause of the second signal peak.
The signal shape, hence, results from the combination of two effects: the increase of the individual coherences and simultaneous de- and re-phasing between different velocity classes.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{generic_oscillation}
\caption{(a) Typical four-wave mixing signal. The experimental signal (bars) is well described by a four-level model (blue line). After the pulse, the signal is governed by free evolution (red line) of the coherences in the thermal ensemble.
(b) Rydberg and ground state population for the velocity class $v_0$.
(c) Amplitude parameter $\left\langle\left|\rho_{31}\right|\right\rangle_v$ and interference parameter $\left|\left\langle\rho_{31}\right\rangle_v\right|/\left\langle\left|\rho_{31}\right|\right\rangle_v$.
The interference parameter is also shown in 10-fold magnification (dashed line).
(d) Sketch of the coherences for different velocity classes in a Bloch sphere picture for selected points in time
(\textcircled{1}-\textcircled{5} indicated in (a)). Further explanations are found in the text.}
\label{fig:generic_oscillation}
\end{figure}
An intuitive illustration of the time-evolution can be given with the help of the Bloch sphere, where only the two levels of the radiating transition $\ket{3}\rightarrow\ket{1}$ are considered.
Note, however, that the length of the corresponding Bloch vector is not constant in this case as the two levels do not form a closed system.
In this picture, the coherences that describe the radiated electric field (eq.~\ref{eq:efield}) are the projection of the state vector into the equatorial plane.
The situation is sketched in the images in fig.~\ref{fig:generic_oscillation}d for characteristic points in time \textcircled{1}-\textcircled{5}, which are also indicated in fig.~\ref{fig:generic_oscillation}a. In order to maintain the symmetry of the illustration, the system is considered in the reference frame of the velocity class $v_0$.
As soon as the system is coupled by the laser pulse, the coherence of the velocity class $v=v_0$ (red arrow) is increasing along the symmetry axis of the plane while the coherences of the faster and slower velocity classes (blue and violet arrows, respectively) move around ellipse-like trajectories right and left of the symmetry axis. The trajectories, again, are given by the projection of the respective Bloch vector trajectories onto the equatorial plane. (The fact that the aspect ratio of the trajectory is different for each velocity class has been neglected in the drawing for the sake of clarity. The dashed circles represent the boundary of the Bloch sphere.)
At the beginning of the pulse, the Bloch vectors of all velocity classes point towards the bottom of the sphere, such that the coherence is zero. As they start to rise, the coherences grow, leading to a signal increase (\textcircled{1}). Subsequently, the coherences dephase as they follow different trajectories determined by their respective atomic velocity. As a consequence, the signal increase slows down until a local maximum is reached (\textcircled{2}). Then, as the coherences evolve further, the signal decreases until a minimum is reached (\textcircled{3}). The minimum is predominantly caused by destructive interference of $v>v_0$ and $v<v_0$ velocity classes. Further evolution of the coherences causes the signal to increase again.
After the pulse, the levels are not coupled anymore and consequently all coherences perform circular motion along the equator while their magnitude, which for each velocity class is given by the prior time evolution due to the pulse, does not change anymore. This leads to a re-phasing on the opposite ``side'' (\textcircled{4}), which is the origin of the second signal peak. As the angular frequency depends on the velocity class, though, the subsequent dephasing (\textcircled{5}) finally causes the signal to decrease down to zero.
The exact relationship between the atomic dynamics and the signal shape after the pulse can be understood more easily in Fourier space.
In the case of zero coupling, the coherence of each velocity class evolves freely with the phase $\propto \exp(-i\cdot k_{780} v\cdot t)$, where $k_{780}$ in the phase-matched case is given by the wave vector of the signal light. Hence, the Doppler-averaged coherence can be written as
\begin{align}
\rho_{31}(t) \propto \int dv &\;\overbrace{\exp\left(\scriptstyle{-\frac{mv^2}{2k_B T}}\right)\cdot\rho_{31}(t_0,v) }^{A(v)}\nonumber\\
&\cdot \exp\left[-i\cdot k_{780} v\cdot (t-t_0)\right].
\end{align}
This is essentially the Fourier transform of $A(v)$, which is given by the distribution of the coherences in velocity space at a certain time $t_0$ after the pulse. The coherences $\rho_{31}(t_0,v)$ themselves are determined by the prior atomic dynamics due to the pulse. The situation at time \textcircled{4} after the pulse is shown in fig.~\ref{fig:generic_oscillation_vel}.
The excitation bandwidth determines the width of Rydberg-excited velocity classes $\Delta v$ (fig.~\ref{fig:generic_oscillation_vel}a) via the wave vector of the two-photon transition: $k_{\mathrm{eff}} \Delta v = (k_{795}+k_{475}) \Delta v$.
Due to the low excitation bandwidth, only a small window of velocity classes is excited to the Rydberg state out of the whole velocity distribution,
which translates via the weak coupling of the $480\,\mathrm{nm}$ laser to a window in the velocity distribution of the coherences $\rho_{31}(t_0,v)$ (fig.~\ref{fig:generic_oscillation_vel}b).
The signal ($\propto \left|\rho_{31}(t)\right|^2$) calculated from the Fourier transform of this distribution is plotted in fig.~\ref{fig:generic_oscillation}a and describes the decline of the signal in good agreement.
In general this description is valid as long as the additional population pumped down from the Rydberg state by the $480\,\mathrm{nm}$ laser after the pulse is small during the respective time interval.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{generic_oscillation_vel}
\caption{
Selected atomic quantities for the different velocity classes in the thermal ensemble at $t_0 = 5\,\mathrm{ns}$ (\textcircled{4} indicated in fig.~\ref{fig:generic_oscillation}a). (a) Rydberg population and Gaussian velocity distribution. (b) Coherence on the radiating transition.
}
\label{fig:generic_oscillation_vel}
\end{figure}
In other words, the time evolution of the signal after the pulse is determined by the (phase and amplitude) aperture in momentum space $A(v)$ of the radiating atomic dipoles that has been imprinted by the excitation lasers. In our case, the aperture is quite smooth due to the low excitation Rabi frequency which, in turn, via Fourier transform leads to a smooth time-envelope of the signal that does not exhibit any additional revivals at later times.
In conclusion, the second signal peak originates from a re-occurrence of constructive interference between the coherences of different velocity classes. In that sense the second peak can be referred to as motion-induced revival.
We have investigated the four-wave mixing signal for different excitation Rabi frequencies.
Here, the Rydberg state addressed is 25S at an atomic density of $N = 1.9\,\mathrm{\upmu m}^{-3}$ \footnotemark[1], where no Rydberg interaction effects are expected.
The results are shown in fig.~\ref{fig:Oscillations_bandwidth} for different $\Omega_{795}$ (rows) and pulse Rabi frequencies $\Omega_{475,\mathrm{max}}$ (columns). The experimental data is well described by the four-level model over the whole range. The curves of the model are the result of a simultaneous fit to all experimental traces, where the only two fit parameters are the overall amplitude and a single parameter for the excitation Rabi frequencies $\Omega_{795}$ and $\Omega_{475,\mathrm{max}}$, which are related by a fixed ratio. This ratio is inferred from the relative laser intensities and pulse energies, taking into account the dipole matrix elements for the two different transitions. The temporal dependence of $\Omega_{475}(t)$ is entirely defined by the experimentally measured pulse shape.
Note that, as the dynamics is largely determined by the effective two-photon Rabi frequency $\Omega_\mathrm{eff} = \Omega_{795}\Omega_{475,\mathrm{max}}/2\Delta_{795}$, the temporal shape of the signal looks similar for different $\Omega_{795}$ and $\Omega_{475,\mathrm{max}}$ but same $\Omega_\mathrm{eff}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Oscillations_bandwidth}
\caption{Four-wave mixing signals for different excitation Rabi frequencies. The pulse Rabi frequency $\Omega_{475,\mathrm{max}}$ is varied along the columns and $\Omega_{795}$ along the rows. The envelope of the pulse intensity is depicted by the white-shaded curve at the bottom of each column together with a dark-shaded area to indicate the time interval of the pulse.
\label{fig:Oscillations_bandwidth}}
\end{figure}
For small Rabi frequencies, only a single signal peak is observed. With increasing $\Omega_\mathrm{eff}$, the signal revival starts to occur and grows, finally exceeding the first peak.
The height of the second peak is very sensitive to the effective Rabi frequency as it originates from interference as discussed above.
The relative height of the two peaks can thus be used as a convenient experimental tool to gauge Rabi frequencies.
The shape of the signal is determined mainly by the ratio between the excitation Rabi frequency $\Omega_\mathrm{eff}$ and the Fourier width of the pulse $\Delta\omega$.
In the case of $\Omega_\mathrm{eff} \ll \Delta\omega$, the excitation bandwidth is given by $\Delta\omega$ and the phase evolution of the coherences $\rho_{31}(t,v)$ is dominated by the respective Doppler detuning.
Via Fourier transform, this translates to a single-peak envelope in the time-domain. In this regime of linear coupling, the coherence increases linearly with $\Omega_\mathrm{eff}$, i.e.\ the height of the signal peak is proportional to $\Omega_\mathrm{eff}^2$.
As the $\Omega_\mathrm{eff}$ approaches the same order of magnitude as $\Delta\omega$, the excitation bandwidth and, in turn, the time evolution of the coherences is determined by both quantities. The non-linear coupling favors the excitation of $v\neq v_0$ velocity classes slightly more than in the linear regime, which leads to the emergence of the signal revival as discussed above.
An even higher Rabi frequency leads to a higher population of excited atoms. The increase of the second peak with $\Omega_\mathrm{eff}$, however, is predominantly caused by an enhancement of the constructive interference due to higher velocity classes participating in the process.
The height of the first peak does not increase significantly anymore at higher Rabi frequencies, as there are two effects that cancel each other. Specifically, the signal increases faster while the signal minimum shifts to earlier times due to higher velocity classes that are contributing.
In summary, the double peak structure in the four-wave mixing signal is clear evidence for coherent evolution of the individual velocity classes that are present in the hot gas of atoms.
Additionally, we have verified that the signal strength shows linear dependence on the $480\,\mathrm{nm}$ laser intensity ($\propto \Omega_{480}^2$) while the temporal shape remains unaffected.
\section{Density dependence}
Furthermore, we have investigated the signal strength of the four-wave mixing signal for different atomic densities. To avoid effects of Rydberg interaction, the Rydberg state 22S is chosen here.
In this case, the pulsed laser is blue detuned by $360\;\mathrm{MHz}$ with respect to the two-photon resonance while the $480\,\mathrm{nm}$ laser is still on resonance.
Fig.~\ref{fig:reabsorption} shows the time-integrated four-wave mixing signal as a function of atomic and optical density.
The signal saturates at high densities due to re-absorption of signal light in the atomic medium. For even higher densities ($N > 10\,\mathrm{\upmu m^{-3}}$), we find a decline in the signal, which is likely caused by superradiant effects of the Rydberg state but requires further investigation.
We describe the density dependence of the signal by means of a simple re-absorption model. Due to the off-resonant intermediate state \ket{2}, absorption effects on the excitation lasers can be neglected while they are passing through the atomic medium. The four-wave mixing signal itself, however, experiences absorption, which leads to the saturation behavior for high densities. For a medium with density $N$, optical density $O\!D$ and spatial extent $d$, a light field is created at each position $x$ in the medium along the direction of light propagation. This field is subject to absorption on its way through the remaining medium $d-x$. For sufficiently weak signals (Rabi cycle phase $\ll \pi$), the absorption can be described by Lambert-Beer's law. In case of phase-matching, the resulting electric field from all atoms is given by constructive superposition of the individual fields and yields
\begin{equation}
E_0\propto \int_0^d N \cdot\mathrm{exp}\left[-\frac{O\! D}{2d}(d-x)\right]\,\mathrm{d}x
\end{equation}
with the corresponding intensity
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:reabsorption_intensity}
I\propto \left(\frac{N}{O\! D}\right)^2\left[1-\mathrm{exp}\left(-\frac{O\! D}{2}\right)\right]^2.
\end{equation}
The intensity curve follows a quadratic onset and subsequent saturation.
The shape of the curve
only depends on the absolute value of the optical density.
In general, the optical density is proportional to the atomic number density but also to the frequency of the respective light field (fig.~\ref{fig:reabsorption}, inset). Hence, for a known atomic density, the saturation behavior indicates the detuning of the four-wave mixing light. It can be seen from fig.~\ref{fig:reabsorption} that the experimental data agrees with the optical density of light detuned by $360\,\mathrm{MHz}$, which is consistent with the detuning of the laser pulse and thus with the conservation of photonic energy in the four-wave mixing process. The absorption curve for resonant light clearly does not fit the data. Note that in both cases, the amplitude has been fitted to the saturation value of the experimental signal. When comparing absolute amplitudes, both curves follow the same onset but the curve for resonant light saturates earlier (at $(N/O\! D)^2$).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{re-absorption}
\caption{Density dependence of the integrated four-wave mixing signal. The blue circles show the experimental data for different optical densities. The error bars are Poissonian standard deviations.
The black lines represent the re-absorption model, where the optical density corresponds to a detuning of $360\;\mathrm{MHz}$ (black solid line) and to resonant light (black dashed line). The overall amplitude factor has been chosen to match the experimental saturation value.
The red curve shows the model without re-absorption in the detuned case, which scales quadratically with the atomic number density.
$O\!D$ on the x-axis refers to the optical density for light resonant to the center of the Doppler profile of the $^{85}\mathrm{Rb}\; 5\mathrm{S}_{1/2}, F = 3\rightarrow 5\mathrm{P}_{3/2}, F'$ transition. The density axis refers to the density of $^{85}\mathrm{Rb}$ atoms in the $F = 3$ ground state.
The inset depicts the optical density for the Rb D2 line. The dashed and solid vertical lines indicate the detunings, which correspond to the resonant and detuned models, respectively, illustrated in the main graph.
\label{fig:reabsorption}}
\end{figure}
Furthermore, the data exhibits a quadratic onset that is reproduced by the model in very good agreement. The quadratic onset is a direct consequence of phase-matching, i.e.\ momentum conservation for the light fields.
In summary, we find consistency of the four-wave mixing signal with momentum and energy conservation for the participating light fields from the position of the slope and the quadratic signal onset.
\vspace{3cm}
\section{Conclusion}
In conclusion, we have observed time-resolved signals from a pulsed four-wave mixing process via a Rydberg state on the nanosecond timescale in thermal vapor of rubidium.
While previous experiments have demonstrated that coherent Rydberg dynamics can be achieved in the frozen gas regime, where all atoms evolve equally \cite{Huber2011a}, we have investigated the regime, where the atoms evolve differently depending on the respective velocity as the Doppler effect has a significant influence on the temporal evolution.
We have observed a revival of the four-wave mixing signal that we can attribute to re-phasing of different radiating atomic velocity classes in the thermal ensemble. The signal revival is thus evidence for coherent Rydberg evolution beyond the frozen gas regime in an Alkali gas above room temperature.
Over a large range of Rabi frequencies, we find good agreement with a four-level model.
Finally we have investigated the density dependence of the four-wave mixing signal. By comparing the shape of the corresponding curve to a re-absorption model we have been able to draw conclusions about the phase-matching and the detuning of the four-wave mixing light, which is consistent with energy and momentum conservation of the light fields involved.
\begin{acknowledgments}
The work is supported by the ERC under Contract No. 267100, BMBF within Q.com-Q (Project No. 16KIS0129) and the EU project MALICIA. B.H. and A.K. contributed equally to this work.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}}
\else
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
\fi
\IEEEPARstart{G}{iven} the crucial aspect of energy optimization in embedded and mobile systems, even a tiny amount of energy gained via a better understanding of thermal effects may have significant business and ecological impacts.
Temperature is an important factor influencing energy consumption of {\color{black} entire systems and, in particular,} microprocessors while executing programs.
Understanding and accurately modeling this relationship may bear impact beyond optimized system operation management.
This point is particularly acute for any system running on electrical battery such as mobile devices or sensors which participate in the \ac{IoT}.
Moreover, temperature and its variations affect the reliability of {\color{black} electronic} circuits.
Thermal gradients that occur both in space and time, induced by the variability in {\color{black}heat sources, e.g.,} microprocessor load and operations, generate thermal cycles that have an adverse affect on the failure rate of the system~\cite{Kong:2012:RTM:2187671.2187675}.
For example, a 10$^\circ$C to 15$^\circ$C temperature increase may halve a microprocessor's lifetime~\cite{Viswanath:2000:TPC}.
The \ac{ITRS} even states that processor costs and performance specifications may be limited by the lifetime reliability and is of primary concern in the microprocessor's design phase~\cite{5763032}.
Since power consumption increases exponentially with increasing silicon temperature~\cite{2014:devogeleer:samos}, thermal management techniques are employed to avoid self-destruction, to increase the \ac{MTTF} and minimize power consumption.
{\color{black}Moreover, from a user experience point of view, the skin temperature of portable devices should also be limited.
Experimental data show that the maximum skin temperature of hand-held devices should not exceed 41{$^\circ$C}\ to 45{$^\circ$C}, depending on the material, to assure the user's touch comfort~\cite{Berhe200733873}.}
Thermal management techniques may be deployed at the system design phase or can be deployed dynamically at run time by \acp{TMU} and \ac{DTM} systems.
A plethora of thermal control methods for microprocessors {\color{black}and embedded systems exist.
These methods} show trade-offs between temperature profile, frequency settings, power consumption and implementation complexity~\cite{Zanini:2013:OTC:2390191.2390197}.
Thermal management methods often incorporate a model describing the temporal thermal behavior of the {\color{black}system}.
Exponential-based models are popular, and scientifically sound for systems without internal heat generation and subject to active cooling, e.g., forced air or water cooling.
{\color{black}Exponential thermal behavior is also assumed in finite element analysis, as thermal capacities show \small{RC}-like behavior~\cite{1650228}.}
However, passively cooled systems, as frequently found in embedded systems, particularly mobile devices but also flats screen TVs etc., are not always forcibly cooled.
These {\color{black}passive systems} are subject to the same physical laws for dissipating their heat to the environment, but rely on different aspects of the heat dissipation process, {\color{black}such as radiative cooling.
Henceforth, passive cooling will imply the presence of radiative cooling.}
In this paper, we develop an accurate analytical solution to the problem of passive cooling of embedded systems.
It is important to understand the difference between an exponential cooling law and the cooling law of passively cooled devices since, in the literature, the radiative cooling aspect is frequently neglected.
We believe that this is because it is considered a secondary order factor and because of its non-linear nature, which poses problems in mathematical derivations and simulations.
In the case of active cooling, convective heat transfer {\color{black}usually} dominates the other heat transfer modes whereas, for passive cooling, radiation may become equally important, sometimes even more important, and may dominate the convective heat transfer mode.
{\color{black}This is especially true for large cooling surface areas, in the context of embedded systems.
Wagner and Maltz~\cite{Wagner5454212} also noted that the importance of radiation in dissipating the heat from exposed surfaces should not be underestimated.}
When radiation cannot be neglected, the transient thermal behavior of the system will deviate from an exponential cooling law.
In this paper we analyze under which circumstances the radiation is significant enough for it not to be neglected.
We show that the size of the cooling surface plays an important role in this question.
In particular, in cases where the cooling surface of the device is larger than about $> 1$\,dm${}^2$, the difference between the usual exponential model and passive cooling is significant.
Based on the passive cooling law's complex formulation, and in the absence of accurate temperature measurement samples, our work therefore suggests that an exponential cooling law is accurate enough for small {\color{black}systems, e.g., {\small SoC} applications,} and for systems that require low processing overhead.
{\color{black}We compare active and passive cooling processes of a system in the context of a mobile embedded device, i.e., a computer system including internal heat generators and subject to cooling.}
The main contributions of this paper are:
\begin{itemize}
\item the accurate analytical solution for the problem of (passive) cooling of a system subject to radiation, convection, and internal heat generation;
\item approximations to the exact analytical solution for use in practical \acp{DTM} of embedded systems, validated by intense simulations;
\item actionable rules-of-thumb to decide when passive cooling becomes non-negligible compared to active cooling in embedded systems.
\end{itemize}
The rest of the document is developed as follows.
Section \ref{sec:Thermal_Management_Techniques} highlights the use of cooling laws in existing research related to thermal management units {\color{black} in embedded applications}.
Section~\ref{sec:coolinglaws} develops the exact cooling law for microprocessors subject to passive cooling;
this law is also validated via finite-element simulations and approximations are analyzed.
Besides, the impact of active cooling of microprocessors is also discussed.
{\color{black}Section~\ref{sec:laws_differ} studies the performance difference between the exponential cooling law and the passive cooling law, based on our analytical model.}
We conclude in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} with a summary and give directions for future research.
\section{Radiative Cooling in Existing Thermal Management Techniques}
\label{sec:Thermal_Management_Techniques}
Thermal management techniques for embedded systems have been devised to control their heat dissipation.
Excessive heat dissipation may have adverse effects on performance, the short term and long term failure rate of the {\color{black}system, and microprocessors in particular.}
Basic run-time thermal management decisions can be rudimentary, such as {\color{black}using smart sleep modes} or clock gating.
Yet, if service continuation is needed, more advanced thermal techniques are required.
Thermal-aware design of systems and microprocessors can also be effective to minimize peak and average heat dissipation during run time.
The challenge here, however, lies in decision making based on incomplete design and run-time detail information.
To get a current perspective on how such issues are addressed in the literature, we surveyed top computer architecture and \ac{VLSI} conferences for papers devoted to \acp{TMU}, \acp{DTM} and temperature-aware design methods based on heat transfer theory.
The conferences surveyed are {\small ISCA}, {\small MICRO}, {\small ASPLOS}, {\small HPCA}, {\small PACT}, {\small ISLPED}, {\small ICCAD}, {\small DAC}, {\small DATE}, {\small ASP-DAC} from 2010 to 2014.
We identified 35 papers focusing on the thermal optimization of microprocessors or embedded systems using heat transfer models.
90\% of these papers base their results solely upon simulation or numerical analysis; the remaining ones use either actual measurements or a combination of simulation and measurements to make their point.
Beside custom thermal simulators and models, non-commercial and open-source thermal simulators are mostly used: these are based on finite-element methodologies.
Commercial applications such as {\small COMSOL} Multiphysics$^\circledR$, Autodesk Simulation CFD or {\small FLoTHERM}$^\circledR$, which support the radiative heat transfer mode, are not used in the selected papers.
About 40\% of the selected papers deploy Hotspot for their thermal simulations.
Hotspot~\cite{1650228} is a self-proclaimed accurate and fast thermal model designed for microprocessor architectural analysis, e.g., floor planning.
The basic setup of Hotspot includes active cooling via a heat sink.
No passive cooling capabilities are available in Hotspot.
Other experimental simulators, such as LightSim~\cite{6742997}, {\small CONTILTS}~\cite{DBLP:journals/jolpe/HanKK07}, {\small ISAC}~\cite{4039519} and PowerBlurr~\cite{5444285}, also allow for thermal analysis of microprocessors, but are less popular and again, none support radiative cooling.
In most of the simulations, the temperature at steady-state and transient temperatures are available, where the steady-state case is much faster to compute than the transient behavior.
It is worthwhile to ponder upon why no non-commercial simulators support radiative cooling.
One reason could be that the non-linear behavior of radiation is not easy to handle in mathematical formulations although advanced finite element techniques could be employed in numerical simulations.
Also, it is not always clear to what extent radiation actually affects the thermal behavior {\color{black}of semiconductors or embedded systems.}
As a result, given the lack of passive cooling capabilities in many simulators, it is not surprising that passive cooling has not gotten much attention in the thermal management research community.
In fact, we found only one paper~\cite{Vincenzi:2011:FTS:2016802.2016842}, about 3D integrated circuits, which mentions that radiation may influences the thermal behavior of microprocessors; yet in this work no further reference to radiation is found.
Nevertheless, 30\% of the papers we surveyed claim that their research is applicable to mobile embedded systems, a situation in which passive cooling is usually of the essence.
Beside generic thermal microprocessor simulators, dedicated embedded system thermal simulators were also developed.
Therminator~\cite{Xie:2014:TTS:2627369.2627641}, for example, is a thermal simulator designed to simulate heat dissipation in smartphones.
Finite element methodologies are used to compute the heat propagation through an arbitrary {\color{black}heterogeneous} smartphone configuration, which includes a \ac{PCB}, battery, case, display etc.
The authors show that their dedicated thermal simulator produces results that are close to what commercial \ac{CFD} software would calculate.
Therminator takes the convective and conduction heat transfer modes into account.
Again, heat loss via radiation, however, is not implemented in their thermal simulator.
Luon et al.~\cite{Luo20081889} analyzed the issue of thermal management on mobile phones based on numerical simulation and basic thermal models.
The authors came up with design proposals on how to improve the thermal management of mobile phones by studying the steady-state behavior of the system.
Even though radiation is mentioned in the introduction including formulations, radiation is not present in their stead-state analysis.
Gurrum et al.~\cite{6249032} decomposed, just as Luo et al.~\cite{Luo200
81889}, a hand-held device in multiple subparts with different physical properties and analyzed its thermal behavior.
Radiation, however, did not come to their attention.
{\color{black}Lee et al.~\cite{4544324} modeled the steady-state thermal behavior of hand-held electronic devices using \small{ANSYS}, a commercial finite element simulator.
The authors enabled radiation in their simulations.
However, they do not discuss to what extend their results are affected by the presence of radiation.
The data they published do not allow to estimate its impact either.}
From our literature survey we conclude that the numerical tools used for thermal behavior of embedded systems can be classified into three categories.
First, we have the general-purpose \ac{CFD} software, which is able to simulate arbitrary systems including all modes of heat transfer.
These systems require the most efforts to produce interesting results.
The second class corresponds to dedicated embedded system simulators.
We have observed that the designers of the simulators are aware of surface radiation but they do not provide support in their simulators.
And last, which are the most popular, are the generic microprocessor thermal simulators.
We have not seen any of these microprocessor simulators supporting the radiative heat transfer mode.
{\color{black}This state of affairs provides us with a strong motivation for our work to go beyond previously-established thermal models by incorporating radiative cooling capabilities.
Our work strives to understand the possible impact of radiation on the transient and steady-state thermal behaviors of microprocessors in the context of embedded systems.}
\section{Cooling Laws}
\label{sec:coolinglaws}
The exponential cooling law is the most widely used cooling law to model the thermal behavior of {\color{black} entire embedded systems or microprocessors}, as shown by our literature survey.
The rationale behind an exponential law is based on temperature traces of forcibly cooled systems, which indeed show clear exponential behavior~\cite{Luo20081889,6249032}.
One may attribute the exponential curve to Newton's law of cooling.
However, the presence of internal heat generation, which renders the direct applicability of Newton's law of cooling irrelevant for computer systems, should not be forgotten.
In the sequel we show however that Newton's law of cooling extended with internal heat generation also yields an exponential cooling law.
For passively cooled microprocessors, the radiative heat transfer mode, beside natural convection, also needs to be taken into account.
In this section, after a brief overview of basic heat transfer principles~\cite{cengel2010heat}, we develop the cooling law for an actively cooled {\color{black}system with internal heat generation}.
We then adept this model to radiative cooling to obtain our first contribution, a representative model for passively cooled systems {\color{black}with internal heat generation.
Besson~\cite{0143-0807-31-5-013} used the same approach to model radiative cooling.
Besson showed, by comparing experimental data with his analytical results, that this approach is adequate in modeling thermal-related physical problems.}
\subsection{Basics of Heat Transfer}
Heat transfer happens via a combination of the three fundamental modes: \emph{convection}, \emph{conduction}, and \emph{radiation}.
Each of these modes follows its respective law.
In the sequel we assume an isothermal body {\color{black}with internal heat generation} that cools via convection and radiation.
Isothermal conditions may be approximated if the body heats up uniformly, or if the internal heat conduction happens considerably faster than the heat loss of the body to the environment.
Therefore we won't discuss conduction in detail.
A solid body immersed in a moving fluid, e.g, air or water, is subject to energy exchange if the temperatures of the body and the moving fluid differ.
Energy is \emph{convected} from or to the body if the moving fluid has a different temperature from the body.
The energy transfer rate $q$ [W] between the moving fluid and the surface of the body is formally known as \emph{Newton's law of cooling}:
\begin{equation}
q = C \frac{d T}{d t}= h_\mathrm{ac} S (T_m - T),\label{eq:netwoncooling}
\end{equation}
where $T_m$ is the temperature of the moving fluid (environment), $S$, the cooling surface area of the body, and $h_\mathrm{ac}$, the \emph{convective heat transfer coefficient} [W/(m$^2\cdot$K)].
Radiative heat transfer happens through exchange of electromagnetic waves, possible through both vacuum and transparent media.
Stefan-Boltzmann's law states that the power radiated from a \emph{blackbody} is proportional to its temperature.
A \emph{blackbody} is a body that absorbs all incident radiation.
In particular, Stefan-Boltzmann's law states that the radiative heat transfer rate $q$ is proportional to the blackbody's temperature to the 4th power:
\begin{equation}
q = \epsilon\sigma S T^4,\label{eq:Stefan-Boltzmann-law}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon\in[0,1]$ is the \emph{emissivity} of a gray body's surface (dimensionless), and $\sigma$ is the Boltzmann constant $5.6697 \times 10^{-8}$ [W/(m$^2\cdot$K$^4$)].
A \emph{gray body} is a body that reflects a certain amount of the incident radiation.
The emission and absorption of a gray body can be well represented by a blackbody's behavior scaled by its emissivity: $0 \leq \epsilon \leq 1$.
In practical situations the total heat loss of a body via radiation is equal the emitted radiation minus the absorbed radiation:
\begin{equation}
q = \epsilon\sigma S (T^4_a - T^4),
\end{equation}
where $T_a$ is the radiation temperature of the environment.
Here we implicitly assumed that the environment has the same emissivity as the body itself.
The total heat transfer from a body happens via the combination of the basic heat transfer modes.
Beside, a body may also produce heat $H(\cdot)$ [W] which is referred to as \emph{internal heat generation}.
The internal heat generation may be a function of space, time, temperature or others.
{\color{black}In the sequel we will assume that the internal heat generation is homogeneously present throughout the entire body, independent of time, but dependent on temperature}.
\subsection{On the Isothermal Assumption}
{\color{black}Our work assumes quasi-isothermal conditions of the system under study, meaning that the temperature is quasi-constant throughout the surface of the system.
Assuming quasi-isothermal conditions simplifies the mathematical derivation of the transient thermal behavior considerably, as we will see further.
We can observe isothermal conditions of embedded systems in practice.
For example, in Figure~\ref{fig:appleiPad}, Wagner and Maltz~\cite{Wagner33873} showed via thermal imaging that the surface of an Apple iPad has near-isothermal properties.}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\hfill
\subfloat[an Apple iPad by Wagner and Maltz~\cite{Wagner33873}]{ \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{iPad.jpg}
\label{fig:appleiPad}}
\hfill
\subfloat[an unnamed thin notebook by Mongia et al.~\cite{Mongia2008992}]{ \includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Mongia.jpg}
\label{fig:laptop}}
\hfill
\caption{\color{black}Experimental thermal imaging of the skin temperature of (a) an Apple iPad~\cite{Wagner33873} and (b) an unnamed thin notebook~\cite{Mongia2008992}. The iPad exemplifies the quasi-isothermal surface of an embedded system. The surface temperature varies between 30{$^\circ$C}\ and 35{$^\circ$C}. On the other hand, the thin notebook shows large temperature variations, between 25{$^\circ$C}\ and 48{$^\circ$C}. Here, aggressive active cooling methods extract the heat as fast as possible from the heat sources inside the device.}
\label{fig:thermal_imaging}
\end{figure*}
{\color{black}The reason why this tablet shows a quasi-isothermal profile is that inside the tablet a fan driving a copper heat duct is installed to distribute internally the heat generated by the \ac{SoC}.
This results in a more or less uniform thermal profile for the tablet.
Besides active heat distribution techniques, polymer/graphite/copper/aluminum-based heat spreaders are also often used to facilitate passive head spreading within a computer system.
Isothermal properties may, however, not always be present in embedded systems.
Figure~\ref{fig:laptop} shows an example of the thermal image of an unnamed thin and light notebook~\cite{Mongia2008992}.
In this example, it is evident that the thermal profile can less likely be deemed isothermal within the thermal operating range of an embedded system.
Acquiring a detailed thermal profile of a three-dimensional system is perhaps almost impossible to obtain.
The trade-off between tractability and accuracy has to be addressed when it comes to thermal profiling of an embedded system.
Temperature sensors can be installed to measure the temperature at certain spots, but then the space between sensors is not covered and must be interpolated.
Thermal imaging, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:thermal_imaging}, shows a detailed thermal profile, but only of the surface of the system.
From an analytical point of view, equations were developed that express the transient and steady-state thermal behaviors of systems subject to convective cooling.
One of the most realistic analytical modeling was done by Yovanovich~\cite{693656884} and Lee et al.~\cite{ssdf5sd5466s8d74} for non-isothermal axisymmetric cylindrical homogeneous bodies subject to convection and a heat source applied to one side.
These analytical expressions are, however, rather complex and tend to be expressed in a non-closed form.
Furthermore, convection has linear properties w.r.t. temperature; radiation, on the other hand, shows non-linear properties.
Thus, adding support for radiative cooling may render those analytical derivations even more complex.
An alternative to analytical expressions to obtain non-isothermal profiles of systems is to resort to \ac{CFD} or finite element simulations.
However, neither \ac{CFD} simulations nor non-closed form equations are tractable for online thermal optimization methods with limited resources, in terms of performance and energy, such as those found in embedded system.
In such situations, assuming quasi-isothermal conditions may be an effective method to trade overhead for a sufficient level of accuracy.
Moreover, in a system sporting only one temperature sensor, one doesn't have many alternatives but applying Occam's razor principle and assuming isothermal properties while assessing the thermal behavior.
In the sequel, we will assume isothermal behavior to estimate the magnitude of the radiative cooling component, aiming at assessing its importance compared to other cooling modes.
This approach is based on our closed-form analytical equation, which can easily be applied to other applications.
This is not meant to be a detailed modeling, but rather a method to measure the influence of the radiative cooling component and a first-order approximation of the transient thermal behavior of a computer system.
For dealing with the case where a non-isothermal profile is key, we advise to look into complex tools such as finite element simulations.
}
\subsection{Active Cooling: the Newtonian Approach}
\label{sec:newtonapproach}
{\color{black}Actively cooled systems spend energy to forcibly cool down the system.
The most basic and widely used active cooling technique is an air fan mounted directly on the system, or on a heat sink attached to the system.
More advanced actively cooled systems include fluid cooling.
Fluids-based cooling devices are more effective but also more expensive, more complex to maintain and more hazardous for the hardware.
Examples of technologies under development for active thermal management of portable electronic devices are phase-change materials, micro heat pipes, conductivity materials such as carbon~\cite{Grimes20102363}, thermoelectric cooling, and two-phase refrigerant cooling.
Active cooling is usually associated with Newton's law of cooling.}
Newton's law of cooling states that the temperature rate of change of a system is proportional to the difference between the ambient temperature and the system's temperature.
\acfp{TMU} and \acfp{DTM} often assume the system to cool down following Newton's law of cooling.
{\color{black}Newton developed his law experimentally for systems under the following conditions:%
\begin{enumerate}
\item the body is quasi-isothermal throughout;
\item it conducts heat much faster than it gains from the surrounding; and
\item the body's average temperature is not too large.
\end{enumerate}%
The latter condition implies the neglect of radiation.
Gockenbach and Schmidtke~\cite{Gockenbach:netwonheat} showed analytically, via heat transfer theory, that under these conditions indeed the cooling process can be approximated by an exponential-based law satisfactorily.
Newton's conditions are frequently assumed in experimental thermal management systems~\cite{Kong:2012:RTM:2187671.2187675,10.1109/L-CA.2003.5,Zhang:2007:AAT:1326073.1326131,10.1109/TPDS.2007.1092,conf/asplos/HeathCGRJ06,Jayaseelan:2008:TAT:1509456.1509593,Forte:2013:ETV:2465787.2465798}.
For actively cooled systems an exponential assumption is a good approximation when radiative and conductive cooling may be neglected, as we explain in the sequel.
Let's take a look at an actively cooled system with an internal heat source.}
Assume that for an isothermal system the stored energy is approximated by the sum of the heat transfer induced by \emph{convective cooling}: $h_\mathrm{ac} S (T_m-T)$, and an \emph{internal heat generation} (ihg): {\color{black}$\eta_1 T + \eta_0$, which we deem linearly temperature-dependent} as a first-order approximation:
\begin{eqnarray}
C \frac{d T}{d t} & = & \text{convection} + \text{internal heat generation} \nonumber\\
& = & \text{$h_\mathrm{ac} S(T_m - T)$} + (\eta_1 T + \eta_0).\label{eq:start1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $C$ is the body's heat capacity and $T_m$ the ambient temperature.
Note that, if the active cooling system consists of a fan and heat sink, then $h_\mathrm{ac}$ depends upon the dimensions of the heat sink, and the \ac{rpm} of the fan.
Moreover, $\eta_1$ and $\eta_0$ are also dependent on the activity and the temperature-dependency of the heat source.
{\color{black}For example, for microprocessors, the clock frequency, type of computations, and load on the system, or the brightness of an \small{LCD} display, could affect the heat generation.
Then,} similar to Weissel and Bellosa's~\cite{weissel04thermalmanagement} work, one gets, from Equation~\ref{eq:start1}:
\begin{eqnarray}
T - \frac{\eta_0+h_\mathrm{ac} S T_m}{h_\mathrm{ac} S-\eta_1} & = & c_0 e^{-\frac{(h_\mathrm{ac} S-\eta_1) }{C} t},
\end{eqnarray}
while imposing the initial condition at $t=0$: $T(0)=T_0$.
Therefore $c_0=T_0-\frac{\eta_0+h_\mathrm{ac} S T_m}{h_\mathrm{ac} S-\eta_1}$, and thence
\begin{equation}
T_\mathrm{ac}(t) = \frac{\eta_0+h_\mathrm{ac} S T_m}{h_\mathrm{ac} S-\eta_1} + \left(T_0-\frac{\eta_0+h_\mathrm{ac} S T_m}{h_\mathrm{ac} S-\eta_1}\right)e^{-\frac{(h_\mathrm{ac} S-\eta_1) }{C} t}.\label{eq:solution-newton}
\end{equation}
It is clear that such a system is only stable if the cooling process with constant $h_\mathrm{ac}$ convects heat away from the system faster than the system is generating internal heat.
The system is stable if there exists an equilibrium temperature $T_e$ for the system, which is equivalent to saying that
\begin{equation}
0 = h_\mathrm{ac} S(T_m - T_e) + (\eta_1 T_e + \eta_0) \Rightarrow h_\mathrm{ac} = \frac{\eta_1 T_e + \eta_0}{S(T_e - T_m)},\label{eq:hatTe-active}
\end{equation}
where all constants $\{T_e,T_m,\eta_1,\eta_0\}\in\mathbb{R}^+$.
We can state, given that $h_\mathrm{ac}$ must be positive, that $T_e > T_m$.
We can also conclude from Equation~\ref{eq:solution-newton} that $h_\mathrm{ac}$ is always larger than $\eta_1/S$.
If $h_\mathrm{ac} < \eta_1/S$, the exponent in Equation \ref{eq:solution-newton} would go to infinity over time.
In practical applications, the value of $h_\mathrm{ac}$ must be dimensioned properly such that the system's $T_e$ stays below the maximum operation temperature.
Not surprisingly, Newtonian cooling with linear internal heat generation yields again an exponential relationship between temperature and time.
Consequently, the power $P$ consumed by the system, which is an affine transformation of temperature ($ihg = \eta_1 T + \eta_0 $), will also exhibit exponential behavior.
An exponential model for actively cooled systems with linear (or constant, $\eta_1 = 0$) internal heat generation is therefore a valid approximation.
The exponential assumption is however not quite the same as assuming simple Newtonian cooling, as the coefficients in both models are different, mainly due to the presence of the internal heat generation.
In the case of the presence of internal heat generation, the equilibrium temperature $T_e$ of the system will be larger than the ambient temperature, see Equation~\ref{eq:solution-newton} for $t \rightarrow \infty$.
\subsection{Passive Cooling via Radiation, (Natural) Convection and subject to Internal Heat Generation}
\label{sec:radcooling}
We now adapt the previous model, {\color{black}designed for for active cooling}, to better fit passively cooled embedded systems.
Systems that are not actively cooled must indeed rely on passive cooling to attain a temperature equilibrium state.
Passive cooling mechanisms include radiation, but also natural convection.
Note though, that convection may be considerably smaller than when the system is actively cooled.
The convection arising here may be originating from buoyancy forces, or natural movement of air, e.g., wind.
In the case of buoyancy forces, sometimes the convection is referred to as \emph{natural convection} as the movement of air is not enforced on the system.
Let's assume an isothermal body subject to radiative cooling and convection with internal heat generation.
The temperature change of such an object at any given point in time is equal to the heat absorbed from the environment, plus the internal heat generation, minus the heat released to the environment.
Absorption of heat happens via radiation whereas the release of heat is happening both via radiation and convection.
The temperature change of such a system, with internal heat generation (ihg), can be represented by the following equation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d T}{d t} & = & \frac{1}{C}(\text{radiation} + \text {convection} + \text{ihg}) \nonumber\\
& = & {\epsilon \sigma S ( T^4_a - T^4)} + hS(T_a - T) + (\eta_1 T + \eta_0),\label{eq:start}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon$ is the emissivity of the body, and $\sigma$ is the Boltzmann constant.
Here it is assumed that the internal heat generation is linearly dependent on the temperature of the body: $H(T)=\eta_1 T + \eta_0$. Yet, higher order polynomials (up to the 3rd order) can be used as well for the following derivation to hold (as shown in Appendix~A).
Also, $T_m$ is presumed to be equal to $T_a$.
By rearranging Equation~\ref{eq:start} we obtain:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d T}{d t} = \frac{1}{C} \{ - \epsilon \sigma S T^4 + ( \eta_1 - hS) T + ( \eta_0 + S[ h T_a + \epsilon \sigma T^4_a ])\}. \label{eq:diff-passive}
\end{equation}
Here, the right-hand side is a 4th-order polynomial.
The derivation (provided in Appendix~B) shows that the exact solution to the problem of cooling of a {\color{black}system} subject to radiation, convection, and internal heat generation is given by Equation~\ref{eq:solution-passive}.
\begin{multline}
t = -\frac{1}{\kappa_4}\bigg(A\ln|T-\omega_1 | + B\ln|T-\omega_2 | + \frac{C}{2} \ln| (T-\alpha)^2 \\
+ \beta^2| + \frac{\alpha C-D}{\beta}\arctan\left( \frac{T-\alpha}{\beta} \right) + c_o \bigg),\label{eq:solution-passive}
\end{multline}
Here, $c_o$ must satisfy the initial conditions $t(T_0)=0$, if $t(T)$ denotes the right-hand side expression in Formula~\ref{eq:solution-passive}:
\begin{multline}
c_o -A\ln|T_0-\omega_1 | - \frac{C}{2} \ln| (T_0-\alpha)^2 + \beta^2| \\
- B\ln|T_0-\omega_2 | - \frac{\alpha C+D}{\beta}\arctan\left( \frac{T_0-\alpha}{\beta} \right),
\end{multline}
the $\omega_*$ are the roots of the 4th-order polynomial given in Equation~\ref{eq:diff-passive} (we define $\omega_{1,2}$ as the real roots, $\omega_{3,4}$ as the complex conjugates), and
\begin{subequations}
\begin{empheq}{align}
A & =~ \frac{1}{ (\omega_1-\omega_2)((\Re(\omega_3)^2+\Im(\omega_3)^2)-\omega_1 (2\Re(\omega_3)-\omega_1))} \nonumber\\
B & =~ -A \frac{\Re(\omega_3)^2 + \Im(\omega_3)^2 - \omega_1 (2\Re(\omega_3)-\omega_1) }{\Re(\omega_3)^2 + \Im(\omega_3)^2 - \omega_2 (2\Re(\omega_3)- \omega_2) } \nonumber\\
C & =~ -(A+B) \nonumber\\
D & =~ A (2\Re(\omega_3)-\omega_1) + B (2\Re(\omega_3)- \omega_2),\nonumber
\end{empheq}
\end{subequations}
where $\Re$ and $\Im$ denote the real and imaginary parts of complex numbers, respectively.
Surprisingly, our result is consistent with the solution presented by Besson~\cite{0143-0807-31-5-013}, even though he modeled a different physical problem.
Besson however assumed some simplifications, different assumptions from ours, and solved the differential equation via other methods.
Nonetheless his solution also contains three \emph{logarithms}, one of them containing a second-order polynomial, and an \emph{arctan}.
Because of Besson's simplifying assumptions, however, his equation is limited to the case where $T-T_a = T+\frac{\eta_1}{\eta_0}$, which is a special case of our initial problem.
Similarly to actively cooled system, the passively cooled system will tend towards an equilibrium temperature $T_e$ only if Equation~\ref{eq:diff-passive} equates to zero.
Given that an equilibrium temperature $T_e$ exists, the convective heat transfer coefficient $h_\mathrm{pc}$ must be such that
\begin{eqnarray}
h_\mathrm{pc} & = & \frac{\eta_1 T_e + \eta_0 + \epsilon\sigma S (T^4_a-T_e^4) }{S(T_e - T_a)},\label{eq:hatTe-passive}
\end{eqnarray}
where all constants $\{T_e,T_a,e,S,\eta_1,\eta_0\}\in\mathbb{R}^+$.
Consequently, this is only possible if $ T_e > T_a$, as in the case of active cooling, and $\eta_1 T_e + \eta_0 > \epsilon \sigma S (T_a^4 - T_e^4)$.
The accurate solution for passively cooled objects as presented in Equation~\ref{eq:solution-passive} {\color{black}yields time in} function of the temperature: $t(T)$.
For practical reasons, such as for \acp{DTM}, \acp{TMU}, or \ac{PID} control techniques, an analytical formulation in the form of $T(t)$ is preferred.
Inverting the exact solution is however, not a straightforward task, mainly because the \emph{arctan} is hard to deal with as it keeps recurring.
Numerical approaches will thus be preferred to compute this exact inverse solution.
In Section~\ref{sec:approx_f(T)_t} we will discuss approximations to the exact solution.
{\color{black}For the interested reader, more details of the passive cooling law given by Equation~\ref{eq:solution-passive} is developed by De\,Vogeleer~\cite{kdvPHDthesis}.}
\subsection{Experimental Validation of the Accurate Cooling Law Applied to a Microprocessor}
\label{sec:experimental_validation}
To validate the passive cooling solution defined in Equation~\ref{eq:solution-passive}, we setup a set of \ac{CFD} simulations in {\small COMSOL} where we analyze the transient thermal behavior of a slice of silica glass (SiO$_2$), as silica glass is close to the thermal properties of a microprocessor.
A {\small 3D} conjugate heat transfer scenario was created, with simulation settings as shown in Table~\ref{table:comsol_settings}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{{\color{black}Configuration of the {\smaller COMSOL} simulations used for the validation of our analytical model}. Specific values were calculated for the convective heat transfer coefficient ($h_\mathrm{ac}$) and internal heat generation (ihg) such that a predefined equilibrium temperature is reached.}\label{table:comsol_settings}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\sc Constants} \\\hline
symbol & value & dim. \\\hline
$\sigma$ & 5.670$\times$ 10$^{-8}$ & W/(m$^{2}\cdot$K$^{4}$) \\
$\epsilon$ & 0.94 & - \\
$T_a$ & 20 & $^\circ$C \\
$D$ & 2 & mm \\
$S$ & 0.01 & m$^2$ \\
$C$ & $S\times D\,\times$\,1548709 & J/K\\\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\sc Variables} \\\hline
symbol & value & dim. \\\hline
heating: $h_\mathrm{ac}$ & 11.144 & W/(m$^2\cdot$K) \\
cooling: $h_\mathrm{ac}$ & 76.939 & W/(m$^2\cdot$K) \\
$\eta_1$ & 9.407 & W/K $\times$ 10$^{-3}$ \\
$\eta_2$ & 1.318 & W \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The exact same values, as listed in this table, were also used in our theoretical model.
To approximate an isothermal object in {\small COMSOL} we have multiplied the thermal conductivity of the silica glass by $10^3$, {\color{black}in a way similar to Wagner and Maltz's approach~\cite{Wagner5454212}}.
The silica glass has a surface area of 0.01\,m$^2$.
For the heating process $T_0$ is set to 25$^\circ$C and $T_e$ is scaled between $T_0$ and 45$^\circ$C.
Similarly, for the cooling process $T_0$=45$^\circ$C and $T_e$ is scaled between $T_0$ and 25$^\circ$C.
The temperature values we chose correspond to what is typically encountered when using a mobile device.
We used linear internal heat generation with the parameters as shown in Table~\ref{table:comsol_settings}.
The convective heat transfer coefficient $h_\mathrm{ac}$ was set (Equation~\ref{eq:hatTe-passive}) such that with the given internal heat generation the predefined equilibrium temperature is attained.
We look at levels of internal heat conversion derived from ARM Cortex A15 quad-core processor power measurements on the Exynos 5210 \ac{SoC}~\cite{2014:devogeleer:samos}.
The shown internal heat conversion represents the A15 processor running at maximum frequency while executing four applications in parallel.
Figure~\ref{fig:comsol-tran} shows the transient thermal behavior of the silica glass as described above.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\input{comsol-Tlarge-Smedium.tex}
\caption{\color{black}A realistic example of the transient thermal behavior as per {COMSOL}, SPICE and the analytical cooling model from Section~\ref{sec:radcooling}. The parameters, as shown in Table~\ref{table:comsol_settings}, were used to simulate the cooling of a tablet-like object with internal heat generation representative for a powerful SoC microprocessor. The transient thermal behavior and errors for different levels of internal heat generation and surface size look similar.}
\label{fig:comsol-tran}
\end{figure}
Both the cooling and heating process are shown in the same graph.
We have also generated data for various surface areas, internal heat generation levels and equilibrium temperatures; since all graphs look similar we don't show all of them.
Our theoretical model curves follow the experimental {\small COMSOL} curves well.
The maximum temperature difference between our model and the {\small COMSOL} results is less than 0.5$^\circ$C.
Interestingly, the {\small COMSOL} transient data seems to have a slightly steeper slope than our theoretical model.
This could be originating from the fact that the {\small COMSOL} object is not 100\% isothermal.
{\color{black}Figure~\ref{fig:comsol-tran} also shows the results of a simulated electrical circuit in \small{SPICE}, modeling the same cooling problem, based on the current/thermal equivalence~\cite{azar1997thermal}.
The temperature dependency of the radiative component was modeled with a \emph{voltage-controlled current source} to simulate its non-linear properties.
The \small{SPICE} simulations follow the analytical results systematically well.
The maximum difference is around 25\,mK, which is negligibly small.}
Despite the small temperature discrepancy between our analytical model, the {\small COMSOL} data {\small SPICE} we may deem our model an appropriate solution for passive cooling with internal heat generation.
\subsection{Approximations of the Accurate Cooling Law}
\label{sec:approx_f(T)_t}
The accurate solution for the passive heat Equation~\ref{eq:solution-passive} is of the form $f(T)=t$.
Ideally, for practical motivations, we would like to know the inverse $f(t)=T$.
For example, this may be convenient for the equation to be used in \ac{PID} controller systems.
Calculating the inverse of Equation~\ref{eq:solution-passive} is, however, a challenging endeavor.
Therefore, we will utilize effective approximations to obtain an invertible heat equation.
Finding a useful expression $f(t)=T$ requires isolating $T$ in Equation~\ref{eq:solution-passive}.
Mainly the presence of the \emph{arctan} {\color{black}challenges} the mathematical derivation.
Linearization or differential approximation will not provide any help as the derivative within the pertinent temperature range, i.e., between 25$^\circ$C and 45$^\circ$C, is far from being constant.
Converting the \emph{arctan} into a logarithm introduces imaginary numbers; yet, applying complex exponentiation rules will not get rid of the \emph{arctan}.
The \emph{arctan} keeps recurring further on in the derivation.
So we need to walk different paths to come to a solution for $f(t)=T$.
Table~\ref{table:approximations:overview} shows an overview of three different approximations that we will consider.
\begin{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2}
\caption{\color{black}Summary of the presented approximations to the accurate passive cooling law. The \emph{coefficient approximation} approximates Stefan-Boltzmann's law with a quadratic polynomial. The \emph{O'Sullivan approximations} use binomial expansion to reduce the polynomial order of the cooling law. \label{table:approximations:overview}}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline
{\sc Approximation} & {\normalsize $T(t)$} \\\hline
Coefficient & {\normalsize $T = \frac{\omega_1 \pm \omega_2c_o e^{-\frac{\kappa_2}{A} t}}{1\pm c_oe^{-\frac{\kappa_2}{A}t }}$} \\\hline
O'Sullivan 1st & {\normalsize $T = \left(T_0-T_a + \frac{p}{n}\right) e^{-\frac{n}{C}t} - \frac{p}{n} + T_a$} \\\hline
O'Sullivan 2nd & {\normalsize $T = \frac{\omega_1 \pm \omega_2c_o e^{-\frac{m}{A} t}}{1\pm c_oe^{-\frac{m}{A}t }}$} \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The derivation and motivation behind each approximation, as well as the definition of all the variables, are expounded in Appendix~C.
In short, the \emph{coefficient approximation} models the radiation within a specific temperature range with a quadratic polynomial.
This reduces Equation~\ref{eq:diff-passive} to a second-order problem.
The \emph{first} and \emph{second O'Sullivan approximations} are based on a binomial expansion~\cite{Sullivan:newton} that mingles the coefficients of Equation~\ref{eq:diff-passive} in a deterministic manner.
The advantage is that the resulting equation is invertible when higher-order coefficients are dropped.
Also, the accuracy of the approximation can be controlled by the degree of coefficients selected.
As can be observed from Table~\ref{table:approximations:overview} the coefficient approximation and the second-order O'Sullivan approximation are similar in shape.
However, the definition of their respective variables have no common ground.
Let us analyze the accuracy of the approximations.
We define the measure of accuracy as the \ac{RMSE} between the accurate cooling solution $\phi$ and an approximate solution $\psi$ for $n$ samples:
\begin{equation}
\text{RMSE} = \sqrt{ \frac{\sum_{i=0}^n(\phi_i-\psi_i)^2 }{n}},
\end{equation}
where $n$ is the number of samples over which \ac{RMSE} is computed.
We define $n$=500 and equally spaced between $t\in\{0,t(0.99\cdot T_e)\}$ (see Equation~\ref{eq:solution-passive} for $f(T)=t$).
The accurate cooling law and its approximations are generated with the same constants as the {\sc\small COMSOL} simulation of the previous section in Table~\ref{table:comsol_settings}.
We investigate the accuracy while changing surface area $S$, internal heat generation (ihg),
equilibrium temperature $T_e$, for the cooling and warming process separately.
We set $T_0$=25$^\circ$C for the heating process and $T_0$=55$^\circ$C for the cooling process.
We variate the equilibrium temperature $T_e$ between 25$^\circ$C and 55$^\circ$C.
The convective heat transfer coefficient is computed accordingly to attain the respective equilibrium temperature based on Equation~\ref{eq:hatTe-passive}.
The variables generated for the accurate cooling law are then used to compute the approximations.
Figure~\ref{fig:battle_of_the_approximations} shows the \ac{RMSE} of the approximations for different surface areas, internal heat generation and equilibrium temperature settings.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\subfloat[RMSE as a function of cooling surface area]{\input{approx-S-min.tex}%
\label{fig:temp-delay:b}}
\hfil
\subfloat[RMSE as a function of $|T_0-T_e|$]{\input{approx-Te-min.tex}%
\label{fig:temp-delay:d}}
\caption{Root mean-square error {\smaller RMSE} between the accurate cooling law and the approximations. On the left (a) the surface area $S$ is variable, whereas the equilibrium temperature $T_e$ is variable in the right graph ($S=0.01$\,m$^2$) (b). The \emph{Coefficient Approximation} seems to outperform the other approximations. The \emph{Second-order O'Sullivan approximation} is performing acceptably as well for small values of $|T-T_a|$. {\color{black}Increasing the internal heat generation results in a decrease of the approximation error. We observe on average an overall ten-fold decrease between the maximum and minimum internal heat generation values.}}
\label{fig:battle_of_the_approximations}
\end{figure*}
From all graphs the coefficient approximation is clearly performing best.
Also, the second-order O'Sullivan approximation is considerably better than the first-order O'Sullivan approximation.
However, for very small surface area the errors in all approximations are acceptable.
Interestingly, the first-order O'Sullivan approximation does well for small surface areas, because the radiative part in the heat equation becomes negligible for smaller surface areas, and so the passive heat equations tends towards an exponential cooling law (see next section).
Consequently the first-order O'Sullivan approximation, being an exponential function, is able to approximate accurately the cooling law well for very small surface areas: $S < 0.005$\,m$^2$.
The errors for small internal heat generation seem to be systematically larger than the errors for the maximum internal heat generation case.
The same observation can be made for the heating and cooling processes.
The heating approximation seems to be more erroneous than the cooling process.
For variable equilibrium temperatures we see that for $|T_0-T_e|$ the error increases for the heating process and decreases for the cooling process.
In the derivation of the O'Sullivan approximations we have assumed that $T-T_a$ remains relatively small.
This implies that the larger $T$ departs from $T_a$ the more imprecise the approximation becomes.
For the cooling process $T_0$=55$^\circ$C and the equilibrium temperature $T_e$ was scaled between 25$^\circ$C and 55$^\circ$C.
Similarly, for the heating process $T_0$ was set to 25$^\circ$C and $T_e$ was scaled between 25$^\circ$C and 55$^\circ$C.
In both cases $T_a$ was fixed to 20$^\circ$C.
Thus as the cooling process approaches $T_a$ for increasing $|T_0-T_e|$, $T-T_a$ becomes smaller, and hence also the error between the O'Sullivan approximations and the exact cooling law.
The reverse observation is also valid for the heating process; \ac{RMSE} becomes larger for larger values of $T-T_a$.
The error properties in the case of the coefficient approximation is dependent on the fit of the second-order polynomial on the (quadratic) radiation function.
Overall, we do not advise to use the first-order O'Sullivan approximation, unless the surface area is really small, i.e., $\approx 0.005$\,m$^2$.
The second-order O'Sullivan approximation can be used but with caution.
The equilibrium temperature should not depart too much from the ambient temperature $T_a$; $T-T_a < 15^\circ$C seems acceptable.
We recommend, however, the use of the coefficient approximation, even though the solution isn't much elegant when the large polynomial coefficients are introduced.
\section{Comparison of the Passive and Active Cooling Laws Under Isothermal Conditions}
\label{sec:laws_differ}
Given the intrinsic complexity of the (inverse) function describing passive cooling compared to the rather straightforward exponential specification of other cooling modes, it is worth investigating in which cases dealing with it is necessary in practice.
We ran a large series of simulations to understand under what circumstances the passive and active cooling laws differ from each other.
{\color{black} The main difference between the active cooling (exponential-based) and the passive cooling law (see Section~\ref{sec:radcooling}) is the presence of the radiative heat transfer mode.}
Thus, if the radiative heat transfer is negligible compared to the convective heat transfer, the passive cooling law will approach an exponential cooling law.
We explore when such situations occur in concrete {\color{black}embedded system} use cases.
Let us recall that, for an isothermal body with internal heat generation, Equation~\ref{eq:solution-newton} governs active cooling and Equation~\ref{eq:solution-passive} governs passive cooling.
The internal heat generation $H(T)$ is a function of the temperature $T$.
We have shown that $H(T)$ is well described by an exponential equation~\cite{2014:devogeleer:samos}.
Even more, within the temperature range $25^\circ C < T < 55^\circ C$, the exponential can be approximated well with a linear or quadratic polynomial.
Yet, for the more extended temperature range $25^\circ C < T < 85^\circ C$, an exponential function is advised.
{\color{black}We compare the active and passive cooling of a system in the context of embedded devices, e.g., low-power {\small SoC}s or tablets subject to internal heating generation and cooling.
In order to do so, we assume a simplified system model: an isothermal volume with internal heat generation, cooled via convection and radiation.}
\begin{table}
\centering
\small
\caption{Variables used for the comparison of the active and passive cooling laws. The steady-state thermal behavior is analyzed. As a result, \label{table:sim:settings}}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\sc Constants} \\\hline
symbol & value & dim. \\\hline
$\sigma$ & 5.670$\times$ 10$^{-8}$ & W/(m$^{2}$K$^{4}$) \\
$\epsilon$ & 0.94 & - \\
$T_a$ & 20 & $^\circ$C \\\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\sc Variables} \\\hline
symbol & value & dim. \\\hline
$S$ & $[0,6]\times$10$^{-3}$& m$^2$ \\
$T$ & $[25,85]$ & $^\circ$C \\
$h$ & (see Equation \ref{eq:hatTe-active}/\ref{eq:hatTe-passive}) & W/(m$^2$K) \\
$\alpha_\text{min,max}$ & $\{0.396,4.030\}$ & W \\
$\beta_\text{min,max}$ & $\{29.015,32.010\}$ & - \\
$\gamma_\text{min,max}$ & $\{82.738,149.797\}$ & - \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{table:sim:settings} shows the values used in our simulations.
The table lists the fixed variables: $\sigma$, $\epsilon$ and $T_a$.
We chose the emissivity of {\small PVC}\footnote{\color{black}Emissivity values of various packaging materials of embedded systems are often close to 0.95 to facilitate passive cooling.} for $\epsilon$ and fixed $T_a$ to be a representative room temperature.
The variables that may vary during the analysis are also listed.
We study the impact of the surface area $S$ over which the device cools via convection and radiation.
The minimum surface size was set to a square with a side of 1\,cm.
This is representative for a small \ac{SoC}; for example, the Samsung Exynos 5 \ac{SoC} has a side length of 1.6\,cm.
The maximum surface area was set to 0.06\,m$^2$, which is a representative area for a large tablet.
We analyze the behavior of the system within the temperature range $T\in[25,85]^\circ$C.
Throughout the analysis, we define the internal heat generation $H(T)$ to be an exponential function ($\alpha + e^{(T - \gamma) / \beta}$); the coefficients are shown in Table~\ref{table:sim:settings} as pairs.
The left values are for minimal internal heat generation, the right values for maximum internal heat generation.
The values for $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ were derived from power and temperature measurements on a \ac{SoC} sporting a {\small\sc CORTEX} A15~\cite{2014:devogeleer:samos}.
We measured the system's power consumption when the A15 is running at full capacity, i.e., at 1.6\,GHz, and when the A15 is running in low-power mode, i.e., at 800\,MHz.
{\color{black}
The heat capacity $C$ of the system is the product of its volume and its specific heat capacity and density.
In fact, in steady-state analysis the heat capacity does not affect the equilibrium temperature $T_e$.
Similarly, the performance metric $\Delta\tau$, used in Section~\ref{sec:temperature_differences}, is unaffected by $C$ as it merely scales equally the passive and active cooling processes in time.
This means that the data generated for the forthcoming Figures~\ref{fig:temp-delay} and \ref{fig:rcr} are independent of the actual composition of the body, being homogeneous or not, as long as the quasi-isothermal assumption holds.
Therefore, specific values for volume, specific heat capacity and density are not required in this section's analysis.
This analysis can thus apply to any system of arbitrary composition and size.
Also, note that the internal heat generation model used here only addresses the heat generated by a microprocessor.
In a more realistic setting, other components inside a computer system may also generate heat, e.g., radio interfaces, displays, \small{DC-DC} converters.
The heat generation model used here can be deemed as a lower bound on the actual internal heat generation of a practical embedded system.}
\subsection{Relative Heat Transfers}
First, we look at the ratio of the convective heat transfer coefficients of the passive and active cooling cases.
The temperature $T_0$ at $t$=0 is set to 25$^\circ$C.
Then we compute the respective convective heat transfer coefficients as per Equation~\ref{eq:hatTe-passive} and Equation~\ref{eq:hatTe-active} based on a series of equilibrium temperatures $T_e$.
The ratio $r_\mathrm{cr}$ of the convective heat transfer coefficients is given by
\begin{equation*}
r_\mathrm{cr} = \frac{h_\mathrm{pc}}{h_\mathrm{ac}} = \frac{\epsilon \sigma S (T_a^4 - T_e^4) + H(T_e)}{H(T_e)}.
\end{equation*}
$r_\mathrm{cr}$ shows how much the active and passive cooling laws will resemble.
If $r_\mathrm{cr}=1$, there is no difference between the two cooling cases.
The more $r_\mathrm{cr}$ tends to zero, the more the two cooling laws will deviate in behavior.
Figure~\ref{fig:rcr} shows the ratio of the convective heat transfer coefficient of the passive and active cooling cases.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\subfloat[maximum internal heat generation]{\input{hpchac-large.tex}%
\label{fig:gull}}
\hfil
\subfloat[minimum internal heat generation]{\input{hpchac-small.tex}%
\label{fig:tiger}}
\caption{{\color{black}Ratio between the convective heat transfer coefficients of active and passive cooling, at a given equilibrium temperatures $T_e$ [$^\circ$C] (curve labels) and ambient temperature $T_a$ of 20$^\circ$C.} In Figure (a) the internal heat generation is set to a maximum, while in (b) it is set to a minimum, following Table~\ref{table:sim:settings}. The vertical dashed lines represent typical surfaces of a {\smaller SoC} ($\approx 2.5$\,cm$^2$), a smartphone ($\approx 70$\,cm$^2$) and a tablet ($\approx 5$\,dm$^2$). A horizontal reference line is drawn at $r_\mathrm{cr} = 0.95$.}
\label{fig:rcr}
\end{figure*}
Given that $r_\mathrm{cr}$ stays well above 0.95, it is observed that, for a small system, similar to an \acp{SoC} (left most vertical dashed line), the difference between active and passive cooling will be very small for all equilibrium temperatures ranging between 20$^\circ$C to 85$^\circ$C.
For a moderate surface area, e.g., the size of an average smartphone (middle vertical dashed line), the radiative cooling starts to become more prominent already for temperatures close to the ambient temperature $T_a$.
For equilibrium temperatures more than about 5$^\circ$C above $T_a$, signs of deviating behavior will become clearly visible.
Large surface areas and equilibrium temperatures close to $T_a$ will yield a $r_\mathrm{cr}$ that is smaller than 0.95.
This implies that the radiative cooling for large surfaces has definitely to be taken into account.
As a general rule of thumb, we can say that the larger the equilibrium temperature and the cooling surface, the more behavioral differences between passive and active coolings will occur.
So how large are the differences temperature-wise in particular?
\subsection{Temperature Differences}
\label{sec:temperature_differences}
When looking at the temperature differences between the passive and active cooling laws at specific points in time, we must differentiate between the cooling and heating processes.
Convective heat transfer is proportional to the difference of the {\color{black}system's} temperature and the ambient temperature, and is therefore \emph{independent} on the absolute temperature of the {\color{black}system} and environment.
This results in a symmetry between the heating and the cooling processes for convective heat transfer.
The radiative heat transfer, on the other hand, is \emph{dependent} on the absolute values of the body and the environment.
This is illustrated as follows for the convective and radiative heat transfers respectively:
\begin{eqnarray}
| h S (T - (T-x)) | & = & | h S( T - (T+x)) | \nonumber\\
| \epsilon \sigma S (T^4 - (T-x)^4) | & \neq & | \epsilon \sigma S (T^4 - (T+x)^4) |\label{eq:convective-inequality}
\end{eqnarray}
As a consequence, due to the last inequality, the radiative heat transfer process will not be symmetric for the cooling and heating processes.
Moreover, when radiative heat transfer is combined with convective heat transfer, the symmetry property of the heating and cooling processes will not hold either.
Let us define the temperature lag $\Delta T$ between two actively and passively cooled identical {\color{black}systems}, measured at the moment when the passively cooled {\color{black}system} reaches a reference temperature $T_\mathrm{pc}$.
The reference temperature $T_\mathrm{pc}$ is henceforth defined as $T_\mathrm{pc}=0.85(T_e-T_0)+T_0$, i.e., when the {\color{black}system}'s temperature has reached 85\% of its equilibrium temperature, starting from $T_0$.
It is also assumed that both the passively and actively cooled {\color{black}systems} have the same internal heat generation process and initial condition $T_0$ at $t=0$.
Figure~\ref{fig:temp-delay} shows the relative temperature lag $\Delta \tau$, which is defined as the absolute temperature lag $\Delta T$ divided by the temperature difference at $t=0$ and at equilibrium $|T_e - T_0|$:
\begin{equation}
\Delta \tau = \frac{\Delta T}{|T_e-T_0|} = \frac{T_\mathrm{pc} - T_\mathrm{ac}}{|T_e-T_0|}.\label{eq:deltatau}
\end{equation}
{\color{black}Even though the definition of $\Delta \tau$ here is time-independent, it does tell us something about the difference in transient behavior between passive and active cooling processes.}
The relative temperature lag $\Delta\tau$ is depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:temp-delay} for both a large and a small internal heat generation, as defined before, and for the heating and cooling processes separately.
{\color{black}The smaller $\Delta \tau$, the better.}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\subfloat[cooling -- max internal heat generation]{\input{dtdelay-ilarge-heat.tex}%
\label{fig:temp-delay:a}}
\hfil
\subfloat[cooling -- min internal heat generation]{\input{dtdelay-ismall-heat.tex}%
\label{fig:temp-delay:b}}
\hfil
\subfloat[cooling -- max internal heat generation]{\input{dtdelay-ilarge-cool.tex}%
\label{fig:temp-delay:c}}
\hfil
\subfloat[cooling -- min internal heat generation]{\input{dtdelay-ismall-cool.tex}%
\label{fig:temp-delay:d}}
\caption{Relative time lag $\Delta\tau$ (Equation~\ref{eq:deltatau}) for the internal heat generation set to the maximum (a,c), and set to the minimum (b,d). The curves are generated for different equilibrium temperatures (see curve labels in $^\circ$C). On the top row, the heating process is depicted (a,b), with the cooling process on the bottom row (c,d). The three vertical dotted lines represent typical surfaces for a {\smaller SoC} ($\approx 2.5$\,cm$^2$), a smartphone ($\approx 70$\,cm$^2$) and a tablet ($\approx 5$\,dm$^2$). Data points on the right of the blue dashed lines have negative convective heat transfer coefficients.}
\label{fig:temp-delay}
\end{figure*}
A reference line is drawn for $\Delta \tau = 5\%$.
Data points on the right of the dashed blue line show configurations with one or more negative convective heat transfer coefficients.
This implies that in these cases additional heat needs to be added to attain the given equilibrium temperature.
These data points are however, not of concern in our work.
For the case of large internal heat generation, the relative temperature lag $\Delta \tau$ for small surfaces stays below 0.5\%, meaning that the presence of radiative heating will be quasi unnoticeable here.
$\Delta\tau$ stays around 5\% in the case of small internal heat generation, which may be difficult to spot.
{\color{black}Contemporary embedded system temperature sensors, e.g., on-die microprocessor sensors, report frequently temperature values in steps of 1$^\circ$C.}
Given this quantization noise, a relative temperature lag of 5\% could be hard to identify when $|T_e-T_0|>20^\circ$C.
So for small system temperature variations, it is again unlikely that a contemporary temperature sensor is able to distinguish between active and passive cooling.
For a smartphone-size cooling surface, the relative temperature lag varies significantly depending on the situation.
For a large internal heat generation and heating, there is less than 5\% difference between passive and active cooling.
For the other cases, however, the discrepancy between the passive and active cooling can run up from nil to as high as 10\%, depending on the equilibrium temperature.
$\Delta\tau = 10\%$ is already noticeable at $|T_e-T_0|>10^\circ$C in the presence of 1$^\circ$C quantization noise.
{\color{black}The data for the tablet-sized cooling surfaces shows that the temperature difference between active and passive cooling can become as high as 50\%.
This implies that for the larger embedded systems radiative cooling should definitely be considered when designing a realistic thermal profile of the system.}
Generally speaking, we notice that the relative temperature lag $\Delta\tau$ for heating cases is smaller than for the cooling cases.
This can be explained via the inequality of Equation~\ref{eq:convective-inequality}.
The radiative heat transfer coefficient will have greater weight when the {\color{black}system}'s temperature is larger than the equilibrium temperature than when the temperature is below the equilibrium, hence inflating the discrepancy between active and passive cooling.
Also, the amount of internal heat generation affects the relative temperature lag.
It appears that the larger the internal heat generation, the smaller $\Delta\tau$ becomes.
Indeed, given the differential representation of the cooling law in Equation~\ref{eq:start}, for a fixed equilibrium temperature, we see that the convective cooling part can outweigh the radiative the larger the internal heat generation becomes.
Thus the larger the internal heat generation, the less sensitive the {\color{black}system} becomes to changes in the radiative or convective cooling, and the more active and passive cooling will resemble.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
{\color{black}We have introduced a new, more accurate cooling law for passively cooled embedded system-like devices subject to radiation, (natural) convection, and internal heat generation.}
The passive cooling law is analytically more complex than the commonly accepted exponential cooling law (which is technically sound for forcibly cooled {\color{black}systems}).
Unfortunately, the accurate solution for the passively cooled {\color{black}system} is a function of temperature: $t(T)$.
{\color{black}Either numerical approaches can be used to compute the exact inverse: $T(t)$, or one of our presented approximations can generate a good enough approximation to the cooling law.
The validation of the passive cooling law's accurate solution via \ac{CFD} and electrical-equivalence simulations demonstrated the cooling law's practical adequacy.}
Via analytical simulations, we showed that the difference between active and passive cooling depends on three factors: 1) the surface area of the object, 2) the internal heat generation, and 3) the equilibrium temperature.
For large objects, we showed that the difference between active and passive cooling can be significant.
For medium-sized ones, depending on the magnitude of the internal heat generation and equilibrium temperature, the discrepancy between active and passive cooling could tentatively go unnoticed.
For small surfaces, e.g., \acp{SoC}, an exponential cooling law is shown to be an appropriate approximation.
We also highlighted that the quantization noise of temperature sensors may conceal temporal information between active and passive cooling.
As the cooling law for passively cooled devices is quite elaborate to work with and the possible uses of a scientifically sound cooling law by \acp{TMU} are limited by the lack of accurate temperature sensors, we can state that, for systems minimizing overhead, assuming an exponential cooling law will likely not induce large perceptual deviations from reality.
As the cooling law for passively cooled devices is quite elaborate to work with and the possible uses of a scientifically sound cooling law by \acp{TMU} are limited by the lack of accurate temperature sensors, we can state that, for systems minimizing overhead, assuming an exponential cooling law will likely not induce large perceptual deviations from reality.
In this work we considered the cooling of an isothermal object.
In practical situations this assumption doesn't always hold.
To obtain a more realistic model we need to consider internal conduction, and hence also thermal hotspots.
The impact of these considerations on our heat model is part of our future work.
{\color{black}Moreover, embedded systems consist of multiple subsystems, e.g., a microprocessor, \acp{PCB}, and are covered by other objects, such as an {\small LCD} display, radio interface and others.}
The presence of these objects also interacts with the passive cooling of the entire computer system.
Most likely numerical methods will have to be deployed to gain a more {\color{black}detailed} understanding under such conditions.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcompsoc
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\else
\section*{Acknowledgment}
\fi
We would like to thank the staff at the Department of Bioengineering at Ghent University for the support with the simulation aspects of this work.
\appendices
\section{Applicability of the Passive Heat Equation}
\label{sec:Applicability}
Previously we assumed that the internal heat generation $H(T)$ was a linear function, i.e., polynomial of the first-order with coefficients elements of $\mathbb{R}^+$.
Given that the radiation absorbed or emitted by a body is described by a 4th-order polynomial, we discuss the implications of an arbitrary $H(T)$ up to the 3th-order.
We will show via logical reasoning that the analytic solution in the paper holds for $H(T)$ up to the 3th order under certain conditions.
Let us define a body that is radiating energy at a rate $-\delta$, and subject to other heat transfer mechanisms described by a polynomial $K(T)$, e.g., internal heat generation.
Let $K(T)$ be a polynomial of an order not larger than three.
Then the thermal energy storage rate into the body is equal to:
\begin{equation}
C \frac{dT}{dt} = -\delta T^4 + K(T) = -\delta T^4 + (\kappa_3 T^3 + \kappa_2 T^2 + \kappa_1 T + \kappa_0),\label{eq:KT}
\end{equation}
where we define $\delta\in\mathbb{R}^+_0$, $\kappa_{0,1,2,3}\in\mathbb{R}$, and $C$ is the thermal capacity of the system.
$\delta$ must be positive as $-\delta T^4$ represents the heat emitted by the body via radiation.
$\kappa_{0,1,2,3}$ are the constants of a polynomial describing the function $K(T)$.
To solve the differential in Equation~\ref{eq:KT} the roots need to be found.
In particular, we have solved the differential equation for a 4th-order polynomial assuming two real and two complex conjugate roots.
To find the roots of Equation~\ref{eq:KT} we evaluate it at the equilibrium temperature $T=T_e$, then $dT/dt=0$:
\begin{equation}
\delta T^4 = \kappa_3 T^3 + \kappa_2 T^2 + \kappa_1 T + \kappa_0.\label{eq:HTeq}
\end{equation}
This equality is visualized in Figure~\ref{fig:HT}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.0]
\draw[->] (-4,0) -- (4,0) node[right] {$T$};
\draw[->] (0,-0.5) -- (0,4.2) node[above] {$f(T)$};
\draw[scale=0.05,domain=-3:3,smooth,variable=\x,blue] plot ({\x/0.05},{(\x)^4});
\draw[scale=0.05,domain=-3.5:3.5,smooth,variable=\x,green,dashed] plot ({\x/0.05},{2*(\x)+20});
\draw[scale=0.05,domain=0.5:3.25,smooth,variable=\x,black,dashed] plot ({\x/0.05},{15*(\x)-17.75});
\draw[scale=0.05,domain=-4:3.5,smooth,variable=\x,red,densely dotted] plot ({\x/0.05},{-(\x)^2-3.5*(\x)+65});
\draw[scale=0.05,domain=-3.5:-1,smooth,variable=\x,gray,densely dotted] plot ({\x/0.05},{-4*(\x)^2-35*(\x)-50});
\draw[scale=0.05,domain=-3.5:2.5,smooth,variable=\x,purple,loosely dashed] plot ({\x/0.05},{-1.5*(\x)^3-2*(\x)^2+3.5*(\x)+30});
\foreach \Point in {(2.223603,24.44719*0.05), (-2,16*0.05), (1.552457,5.808692*0.05), (2.018136,16.58829*0.05), (-2.342428,30.10683*0.05), (-2.859212,66.83215*0.05), (2.642607,48.76748*0.05)}{
\node at \Point {\textbullet};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Visualization of Equation~\ref{eq:HTeq} for several variations of the right-hand side polynomial ($K(T)$).
Polynomials: 1st order (dashed), 2nd order (dotted), 3rd order (loosely dashed), and $\delta T^4$ (solid).
The black bullets represents the intersections of each polynomial with $\delta T^4$.}
\label{fig:HT}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
There the solid blue curve represents the contribution on the left-hand side and the other dashed lines are possible examples of the polynomial in the right-hand side.
It can be seen that it is easy to construct polynomials that have one or two intersections with $\delta T^4$.
Also curves can be constructed that intersect the $\delta T^4$ only in one point (for example the dashed black line in Figure~\ref{fig:HT}); such points are counted as two roots.
The dashed gray line is an example of a polynomial without any intersection with $\delta T^4$.
Only those polynomials with one or two intersections with $\delta T^4$ have physical meaning in the context discussed in this paper.
One or two intersections with $\delta T^4$ produce two real roots and two complex conjugate roots.
No intersections with $\delta T^4$ would imply that there exists no equilibrium temperature, i.e., the system is not thermally stable.
\section{Solving the Passive Heat Equation}
\label{sec:SolutionPassiveHeating}
The differential formulation of a passively cooled object with linear internal heat generation can be described as follows, as per Equation~\ref{eq:diff-passive}:
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d T}{d t} = \frac{1}{C} (- \epsilon \sigma S T^4 + ( \eta_1 - hS) T + ( \eta_0 + S( h T_a + \epsilon \sigma T^4_a ))).
\end{equation*}
The right-hand side is a fourth-order polynomial and the equality can be rephrased as:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d T}{d t} = -\kappa_4 T^4 + \kappa_3 T^3 + \kappa_2 T^2 + \kappa_1 T + \kappa_0,\label{eq:pokjmnsd}
\end{equation}
where the constants $\kappa_4\in\mathbb{R}^+_0$ and $\kappa_{\{0,1,2,3\}}\in\mathbb{R}^+$.
Rearranging this equation yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\int \frac{1}{ T^4 - \frac{\kappa_3}{\kappa_4} T^3 - \frac{\kappa_2}{\kappa_4} T^2 - \frac{\kappa_1}{\kappa_4} T - \frac{\kappa_0}{\kappa_4}} d T & = & -\kappa_4 \int d t \label{eq:kappa-sides}.
\end{eqnarray}
The integration of the fraction on the left-hand side can be achieved via partial fractions decomposition:
\begin{equation}
\int\frac{1}{(T-\omega_1)(T-\omega_2)(T-\omega_3)(T-\omega_4)} d T \label{eq:init}
\end{equation}
The roots $\omega_*$ of the 4th order polynomial in the denominator can be obtained via Ferrari's theorem, and other approximate methods such as Netwon's and the secant.
Given that there exist a maximum of one or two real unique values for $T$ that satisfy
\begin{equation*}
\kappa_4 T^4 = \sum_{i=0}^3 \kappa_i T^i,
\end{equation*}
we can state that two roots are real, say $\omega_{\{1,2\}}$; the other two roots are complex conjugates\footnote{Appendix~\ref{sec:Applicability} shows that for our applications this is the case.}.
This means that $\Re(\omega_3)=\Re(\omega_4)$ and $\Im(\omega_3)=-\Im(\omega_4)$, which simplifies a few things.
As the initial differential equation is real, we are looking for a real solution too; thus the imaginary part must equate to zero.
This is however automatically taken care of as the product of the two complex roots yield a real sum:
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{(T-\omega_3)(T-\omega_4)} = \frac{1}{(T-\Re(\omega_3))^2+\Im(\omega_3)^2}.
\end{equation*}
Whence, Equation \ref{eq:init} becomes
\begin{equation}
\int\frac{A}{(T-\omega_1)}+\frac{B}{(T-\omega_2)}+\frac{C T + D}{(T-\Re(\omega_3))^2+\Im(\omega_3)^2} ~d T. \label{eq:split}
\end{equation}
Henceforth we define $\alpha=\Re(\omega_3)$ and $\beta=\Im(\omega_3)$.
The values for $A$, $B$, and $D$ are found by equating Equation~\ref{eq:init} and Equation~\ref{eq:split}, which can be expressed as a system of equations:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\begin{cases}
0 & =~ A+B+C \\
0 & =~ D-\omega_1 (B+C)-\omega_2 (A+C)-2\alpha(A+B) \\
0 & =~ \alpha^2 (A+B) +\beta^2(A+B) +2\alpha (\omega_2 A + \omega_1 B) \\
& \quad \quad \quad -(\omega_1+\omega_2) D +\omega_1\omega_2 C \\
1 & =~ -\alpha^2 ( \omega_2 A + \omega_1 B) - \beta^2 (\omega_2 A + \omega_1 B) +\omega_1\omega_2 D
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
and can be solved via Gaussian elimination.
So we obtain the expressions for $A$, $B$, $C$ and $D$:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:constants}
\begin{empheq}{align}
A & =~ \frac{1}{ (\omega_1-\omega_2)((\alpha^2+\beta^2)-\omega_1 (2\alpha-\omega_1))} \\
B & =~ -A \frac{\alpha^2 + \beta^2 - \omega_1 (2\alpha-\omega_1) }{\alpha^2 + \beta^2 - \omega_2 (2\alpha- \omega_2) } \\
C & =~ -(A+B) \\
D & =~ A (2\alpha-\omega_1) + B (2\alpha- \omega_2)
\end{empheq}
\end{subequations}
Continuing with Equation~\ref{eq:split}, this yields:
\begin{equation*}
A\ln|T-\omega_1 | + B\ln|T-\omega_2 | + \int\frac{CT+D}{(T-\alpha)^2+\beta^2} d T + c_0,
\end{equation*}
where $c_o$ is an integration constant.
The last term on the right-hand side may be integrated via substitution, where $u=(T-\alpha)^2$, yielding $du = 2(T-\alpha)d T$, and also $v=\frac{T-\alpha}{\beta}$, giving $dv = \frac{1}{\beta}d T$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
& & \int\frac{CT+D}{(T-\alpha)^2+\beta^2} d T \\
& & = \int\frac{C(T-\alpha)}{(T-\alpha)^2+\beta^2} d T +\int\frac{\alpha C+D}{(T-\alpha)^2+\beta^2} d T \\
& & = \frac{C}{2} \ln| (T-\alpha)^2 + \beta^2| + \frac{\alpha C+D}{\beta}\arctan\left( \frac{T-\alpha}{\beta} \right) + c_1.
\end{eqnarray*}
where $c_1$ is an integration constant. Then the solution to Equation~\ref{eq:split} is as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
& & A\ln|T-\omega_1 | + B\ln|T-\omega_2 | + \frac{C}{2} \ln| (T-\alpha)^2+ \beta^2| \nonumber\\
& & \quad\quad + \frac{\alpha C+D}{\beta}\arctan\left( \frac{T-\alpha}{\beta} \right) + c_1,
\end{eqnarray}
where $A$, $B$, $C$ and $D$ are given in Equations~\ref{eq:constants}, and $\omega_*$ are the real roots of the polynomial in the denominator on the left-hand side, $\alpha=\Re(\omega_3)$, $\beta=\Im(\omega_3)$, and $c_1$ is a (new) integration constant satisfying the initial conditions.
Now we can complete Equation~\ref{eq:kappa-sides}:
\begin{eqnarray*}
t & = & -\frac{1}{\kappa_4}\bigg(A\ln|T-\omega_1 | + \frac{C}{2} \ln| (T-\alpha)^2+ \beta^2| + c_o \nonumber\\
& & \quad\quad + B\ln|T-\omega_2 | + \frac{\alpha C+D}{\beta}\arctan\left( \frac{T-\alpha}{\beta} \right)\bigg).
\end{eqnarray*}
\section{Derivations of Approximations for $f(T)=t$}
\label{sec:approx_derivation}
The exact passive cooling law as presented is of the form $f(T)=t$.
For practical reasons we desire a formulation of the form $f(t)=T$.
Unfortunately inverting the exact passive heat equation is challenging.
We develop three approximations to the exact passive cooling law which are more easily invertible.
\subsection{Quadratic Approximation}
Stefan-Boltzmann's law of radiation states that the energy emitted by radiation is proportional to $T^4$ (Equation \ref{eq:Stefan-Boltzmann-law}).
Because of this term the polynomial of Equation~\ref{eq:diff-passive} is of the fourth-order.
More specifically, it are the two imaginary roots of the fourth order polynomial that introduce the \emph{arctan} in Equation~\ref{eq:solution-passive}.
If we were to approximate $T^4$ with a second-order polynomial and assert real roots, then we could get rid of the dependency of the \emph{arctan}, and isolating $T$ would be more straightforward.
The quadratic approximation
\begin{eqnarray}
T^4 & = & q_0 + q_1 T + q_2 T^2 \nonumber \\
& = & 29700057265 - 251483462\,T + 598262\,T^2\label{eq:temperature-approximation}
\end{eqnarray}
introduces an error between -0.041\% and 0.072\% for $20^\circ$C $< T < 65^\circ$C, which is very acceptable.
Then the quadratic approximation to Equation~\ref{eq:pokjmnsd} would be equal to solving
\begin{equation}
\frac{dT}{dt} = \kappa_2 T^2 + \kappa_1 T + \kappa_0.\label{eq:approx:quadratic:begin}
\end{equation}
The solution to this equation, assuming two real roots ($\omega=(-\kappa_1 \pm \sqrt{\kappa_1^2-4\kappa_2\kappa_0}/(2\kappa_2))$) and that $\kappa_2 < 0$:
\begin{equation}
t = -\frac{1}{\kappa_2}\left(A\ln|T-\omega_1 | + B\ln|T-\omega_2 | + c_o \right),\label{eq:thesolutionapprox}
\end{equation}
where $A = 1/(\omega_2-\omega_1)$ and $B = -A$.
Now we can isolate $T$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
t + \frac{c_o}{\kappa_2}& = & -\frac{A}{\kappa_2}\left(\ln|T-\omega_1 | - \ln|T-\omega_2 | \right) \\
-\frac{\kappa_2 t + c_o}{A} & = & \ln\left( \frac{|T-\omega_1 |}{|T-\omega_2 |} \right) \\
c_oe^{-\frac{\kappa_2}{A}t } & = & \frac{|T-\omega_1 |}{|T-\omega_2 |}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Let's define $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ such that $\omega_1 < \omega_2$.
As we are operating in the temperature range $0^\circ \text{C} < T < 100^\circ\text{C}$ and given the shape of the quadratic approximation, $T$ will always be larger than $\omega_1$.
Hence we can assume that $T-\omega_1 > 0$.
The absolute value of $T-\omega_2$ forces us to distinguish two cases, i.e. where $T > \omega_2$ and the case for $T < \omega_2$.
Bear in mind that $\omega_2$ is also the equilibrium temperature $T_e$ of the system.
This corresponds either to the heating or the cooling process, respectively.
For $T > \omega_2$ we have
\begin{eqnarray}
T-\omega_1 & = & (T-\omega_2) c_o e^{-\frac{\kappa_2}{A}t} \nonumber\\
T & = & \frac{\omega_1-\omega_2 c_o e^{-\frac{\kappa_2}{A} t}}{1-c_oe^{-\frac{\kappa_2}{A}t }} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and accordingly for $T < \omega_2$, or the heating process, we get:
\begin{equation}
T = \frac{\omega_1+\omega_2 c_o e^{-\frac{\kappa_2}{A} t}}{1+c_oe^{-\frac{\kappa_2}{A}t }},\label{eq:approx:quad}
\end{equation}
where $c_o$ is an integration constant to meet the initial condition $f(0)=T_0$, and given by \begin{equation*}
c_o = \frac{|T_0-\omega_1|}{|T_0-\omega_2|}
\end{equation*}
The roots $\omega_*$ are are easily found as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\omega_1 = \frac{-\kappa_1 + \sqrt{\kappa_1^2-4 \kappa_2 \kappa_0}}{2\kappa_2} \quad\text{and}\quad \omega_2 = \frac{-\kappa_1 - \sqrt{\kappa_1^2-4 \kappa_2 \kappa_0}}{2\kappa_2}.
\end{equation*}
The equilibrium temperature $T_e$ is defined by the positive root $\omega_2$.
In the above derivation, we have fixed the coefficients $q_*$ in Equation~\ref{eq:temperature-approximation}.
These values were chosen to fit best in a certain temperature range.
To be more universally applicable, however, the coefficients could be generated dynamically such that they are optimally tailored to the temperature range of concern.
\subsection{First Order O'Sullivan Approximation}
O'Sullivan~\cite{Sullivan:newton} presented an approximation for a cooling law including convection and radiation, but without the presence of internal heat generation.
We extend his approximation with internal heat generation.
We will use an alternative formulation of the internal heat generation such that we can more easily apply our variable substitution later on: $H(T)=\eta_1 T + \eta_0 = \eta_1 (T-T_a) + \eta_1 T_a + \eta_0$.
The initial definition of the passive heat Equation~\ref{eq:diff-passive} then becomes:
\begin{eqnarray*}
-C \frac{\mathrm{d} T}{\mathrm{d} t} & = & \epsilon\sigma S (T^4-T_a^4) + (hS-\eta_1)(T-T_a) \\
& & \quad - ( \eta_1 T_a + \eta_0).
\end{eqnarray*}
Let's introduce the variable $\theta = T-T_a$:
\begin{equation*}
-C \frac{\mathrm{d} \theta}{\mathrm{d} t} = \epsilon\sigma S ((\theta + T_a)^4-T_a^4) + (hS-\eta_1)\theta - ( \eta_1 T_a + \eta_0).
\end{equation*}
Now, we can apply binomial expansion to $(\theta - T_a)^4$, whence:
\begin{eqnarray}
-C \frac{\mathrm{d} \theta}{\mathrm{d} t} & = & \epsilon\sigma S ((\theta^4 + 4T_a\theta^3 + 6T_a^2\theta^2 + 4 T_a^3 \theta \nonumber\\
& & \quad + T_a^4)-T_a^4) + (hS-\eta_1)\theta - ( \eta_1 T_a + \eta_0) \nonumber\\
& = & k\theta^4 + l\theta^3 + m\theta^2 + n\theta + p, \label{eq:approx:osilluvian}
\end{eqnarray}
where the coefficients for surfaces around 1\,dm$^2$ are as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
k & = & \epsilon\sigma S \quad(\sim 10^{-10})\\
l & = & 4\epsilon\sigma ST_a \quad(\sim 10^{-7})\\
m & = & 6\epsilon\sigma S T_a^2 \quad(\sim 10^{-5})\\
n & = & (hS-\eta_1+4 \epsilon\sigma S T_a^3) \quad(\sim 0.01)\\
p & = & -( \eta_1 T_a + \eta_0) \quad(\sim 1).
\end{eqnarray*}
Now, if $(T-T_a)$ is not too large the series on the right-hand side of Equation~\ref{eq:approx:osilluvian} converges reasonably fast~\cite{Sullivan:newton}.
Depending on the accuracy desired, the higher-order coefficients may be dropped.
Let's see how well a first-order and a second-order approximation behaves.
As expected, the first-order approximation yields also an exponential law:
\begin{equation*}
-C \frac{\mathrm{d} \theta}{\mathrm{d} t} = n\theta + p \quad \Rightarrow \quad \theta = c_oe^{-\frac{n}{C}t} - \frac{p}{n},
\end{equation*}
where $c_o$ is an integration constant such that $\theta(t=0)=T_0-T_a$:
\begin{equation*}
c_o = \theta_0+\frac{p}{n} = (T_0-T_a) + \frac{p}{n}.
\end{equation*}
And so the first-order O'Sullivan solution is:
\begin{equation}
T = \left(T_0-T_a + \frac{p}{n}\right) e^{-\frac{n}{C}t} - \frac{p}{n} + T_a.\label{eq:approx:osullivan:first}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Second-Order O'Sullivan Approximation}
The second-order O'Sullivan approximation is a bit more complex compared to the first-order O'Sullivan approximation.
Moreover, the derivation looks also significantly different from the original derivation of O'Sullivan~\cite{Sullivan:newton}, given the presence of the constant term $p$ in Equation~\ref{eq:approx:osilluvian}.
The second-order O'Sullivan approximation is similar to the coefficient approximation in the sense that solving
\begin{equation}
-C\frac{\mathrm{d} \theta}{\mathrm{d} t} = m\theta^2 + n\theta + p\label{eq:approx:osullivan:begin}
\end{equation}
is similar to solving Equation~\ref{eq:approx:quadratic:begin}.
Thus the solution for the second-order O'Sullivan approximation will be the same as for the quadratic approximation, except for the constants definition.
We can thus state that the second-order O'Sullivan approximation is given by:
\begin{equation}
T = \frac{\omega_1 \pm \omega_2c_oe^{-\frac{m}{AC}t}}{1\pm c_oe^{-\frac{m}{AC}t}}+T_a,\label{eq:approx:osullivan:second:solution}
\end{equation}
where ''$\pm$'' becomes ''$+$'' for $T_e > T_0$, and ''$-$'' for $T_e < T_0$.
$\omega_*$ is given by:
\begin{equation*}
\omega_1 = \frac{-\sqrt{n^2-4pm}-n }{2m} \quad \text{and} \quad \omega_2 = \frac{\sqrt{n^2-4pm}-n}{2m}.
\end{equation*}
The constant $A$ and $c_o$, such that $\theta(0)=\theta_0$, are defined as:
\begin{equation*}
A = -\frac{1}{\omega_2-\omega_1}\quad \text{and} \quad c_o = \frac{|\theta_0-\omega_1|}{|\theta_0-\omega_2|},
\end{equation*}
where $\theta_0=T_0-T_a$.
The equilibrium temperature $T_e$ is defined by $\omega_2+T_a$.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) enable the monitoring of large areas via many low powered sensor nodes (SNs)
with data acquisition, processing and communication capabilities \cite{Romer}.
However, WSN design is challenged by
the high optimization complexity typical of multi-agent systems~\cite{Bernstein},
necessitating decentralized SN operation based on \emph{local} information and limited feedback,
and needs to explicitly consider the resource constraints of SNs
In this two part paper, we present a {feedback-based} cross-layer framework for distributed sensing and estimation of a time-correlated random process at a fusion center (FC),
based on noisy measurements collected from nearby SNs,
which accounts for cross-layer factors such as the shared wireless channel, resulting in collisions among SNs, the sensing and transmission costs,
and the \emph{local} state and local view of the SNs.
{In order to cope with the uncertainties and stochastic dynamics introduced by these cross-layer components,}
the FC broadcasts feedback information to the SNs, based on the estimation quality achieved, thus enabling
adaptation of their sensing-transmission action.
We design joint sensing-transmission policies with
the goal to minimize the mean squared estimation error (MSE) at the FC,
under a constraint on the sensing-transmission cost incurred by each SN.
The optimal policy dictates that, when the estimation quality is poor, only the SNs with the best quality activate to improve the estimation quality at the FC, otherwise all SNs remain idle to preserve energy, at the cost of estimation quality degradation.
This first part provides a theoretical foundation for the reduction of the system complexity,
arising from the local asymmetries
due to the decentralized operation of SNs, their local state and local view, and the multi-agent nature of the system,
whereas Part II \cite{MichelusiP2}, informed by this theory,
investigates the design of practical schemes with low complexity.
If one had to optimize and operate the system under these asymmetries, the complexity would be enormous,
\emph{i.e.}, exponential in the number of SNs, since a policy would need to be defined for each SN, and jointly optimized based on the specific local statistical properties of each SN.
We achieve complexity reduction and derive structural properties of the optimal policy by exploiting the \emph{statistical symmetry}
and the \emph{large network approximation}. \emph{Statistical symmetry} consists in the fact that,
despite the fluctuations in the local state of the SNs and the resulting asymmetries across the WSN,
all SNs locally experience, in the long-term, the same statistical view of the system.
The design implication is \emph{policy symmetry}, \emph{i.e.}, all SNs can employ a common policy to map
their local state to a sensing-transmission action, thus significantly reducing the policy space and the optimization complexity.
An example of statistical symmetry arises in a target tracking application: SNs closer to the target can estimate its position more accurately, whereas SNs farther away estimate it with poor accuracy; statistical symmetry implies that,
as the target moves around within the sensing area along its trajectory, and as we consider a large number of instances of these trajectories
in different time frames, the subset of SNs close to the target varies over time but, in the long-term,
assuming "good" placement of the SNs (a survey on this topic is presented in \cite{Younis}),
the statistic of the distance to the target experienced by each SN is the same for all SNs.
On the other hand, the \emph{large network} approximation implies that
a large number of SNs are deployed, so that a sufficiently large (with respect to the channel/energy resource constraints of the system) set of SNs
can sense the underlying process with high accuracy in each slot, despite the temporal and spatial fluctuations in the \emph{local} accuracy state experienced across the WSN. Equivalently, in the target tracking application, there is a sufficiently large pool of SNs close to the target, which can thus estimate its position accurately.
The design implication is \emph{sensing diversity}, \emph{i.e.},
due to the constraints resulting from cross-layer factors such as the limited channel shared among SNs and the finite transmission resources available to the SNs,
only a few SNs with the best accuracy state need to be activated, so that the local accuracy fluctuations across the WSN can be neglected, with a consequent reduction of the state space and of the optimization complexity.
We analytically and numerically show that this approximation performs well in small-medium sized WSNs as well.
Despite the complexity reduction, the DP algorithms developed in Part I still have high complexity.
Therefore, the aim of Part II is to design \emph{myopic policies} based on the structural properties derived in Part I,
which can be implemented with lower complexity and achieve near-optimal performance
(no performance degradation with respect to the DP policies has been observed in our numerical evaluations).
We consider a \emph{coordinated scheme}
where the FC centrally activates each SN, and
a \emph{decentralized scheme}, where the SNs activate in a decentralized fashion,
based on the feedback information and on their local accuracy state.
Our analysis and numerical comparison against a technique proposed in~\cite{Msechu},
which does not include these cross-layer factors,
reveal the importance of a \emph{cross-layer approach} in the design of WSNs,
and of \emph{adaptation enabled by FC feedback} to cope with the consequent uncertainties and stochastic dynamics.
The problem of decentralized estimation and detection has seen a vast research effort in the last decade,
especially in the design of optimal schemes
for parameter estimation \cite{Xiao,Thatte,Xiao2}, hypothesis testing \cite{Ray,Tsitsiklis,Chamberland}, tracking \cite{Saber,Epstein} and random field estimation \cite{Fang}.
{Distributed estimation in bandwidth-energy constrained environments has been considered in \cite{Chieh,Ribeiro,Msechu,Junlin}, for a static setting.}
Estimation and detection problems exploiting
feedback information from the FC have been investigated in \cite{Dogandzic,Peng,Kreidl,Dey},
\emph{e.g.}, enabling adaptation of the SNs' quantizers in the estimation of a finite state Markov chain \cite{Dey}.
A consensus based approach for distributed multi-hypothesis testing has been studied in~\cite{Saligrama}.
Differently from these works, we employ a cross-layer perspective, \emph{i.e.}, we jointly consider and optimize the resource constraints typical of WSNs,
such as the shared wireless channel, resulting in collisions among SNs, the time-varying sensing capability of the SNs, their decentralized decisions,
and the cost of sensing and data transmission, and {propose a feedback mechanism from the FC to enable} \emph{adaptation} and cope with the random fluctuations in the overall measurement quality collected at the FC,
induced by these cross-layer factors.
This is in contrast to, \emph{e.g.}, \cite{Dey}, where adaptation serves to cope with the distortion introduced by quantization.
We do not consider the problem of quantizer design,
and focus instead on a \emph{censoring} approach \cite{Appadwedula,Msechu},
\emph{i.e.}, quantization is fixed and sufficiently fine-grained, so that the measurements received at the FC can be approximated as Gaussian.
In fact, in light of our cross-layer design perspective, quantization may be less relevant due to the overhead required to perform essential tasks such as
synchronization and channel estimation~\cite{Appadwedula}.
Distributed Kalman filtering for WSNs has been proposed in \cite{Olfati},
using a consensus approach and local Kalman filters at each SN.
In this paper, Kalman filtering is employed only at the FC, which collects unfiltered observations from the SNs.
In fact, due to the poor estimation capability of SNs and their energy constraints, which force them to
remain idle most of the time,
the performance gain achievable by exploiting the time-correlation via local Kalman filtering may be small.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\scalebox{0.5}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (0,0) -- (-0.7,-0.35);
\node at (-1.6,-.5) {Estimate $\hat X_{k}$};
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (3,0) -- (0+0.5,0);
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (-2.12,2.12) -- (0-0.3535,0+0.3535);
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (0,-3) -- (0,0-0.5);
\node at (6,-2) {Process $X_k$};
\draw [fill=black,draw=black,thick,text=white] (0,0) circle [radius=0.5];
\draw [fill=gray,draw=black,thick,text=white] (3,0) circle [radius=0.5];
\node at (3,0) {SN1};
\node at (4,0) {$Y_{1,k}$};
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (3.7,0) -- (3.5,0);
\def2.12+0.6{3.5}
\def-2.12-0.25{0.35}
\draw [fill=white, ultra thick] (2.12,2.12) circle [radius=0.5];
\node at (2.12,2.12) {SN2};
\node at (2.83+0.2,2.83-0.2) {$Y_{2,k}$};
\draw [ultra thick,dashed, ->] (0,0) -- (2.47-0.7,2.47-0.7);
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (2.62,2.62) -- (2.47,2.47);
\def2.12+0.6{2.12+0.6}
\def-2.12-0.25{2.12-0.25}
\draw [fill=white, ultra thick] (0,3) circle [radius=0.5];
\node at (0,3) {SN3};
\node at (0,4) {$Y_{3,k}$};
\draw [ultra thick,dashed, ->] (0,0) -- (0,2.5);
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (0,3.7) -- (0,3.5);
\def2.12+0.6{0.6}
\def-2.12-0.25{3-0.25}
\draw [fill=gray,draw=black,thick,text=white] (-2.12,2.12) circle [radius=0.5];
\node at (-2.12,2.12) {SN4};
\node at (-2.83,2.83) {$Y_{4,k}$};
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (-2.62,2.62) -- (-2.47,2.47);
\def2.12+0.6{-2.12-1.2-0.6}
\def-2.12-0.25{2.12-0.25}
\draw [fill=white, ultra thick] (-3,0) circle [radius=0.5];
\node at (-3,0) {SN5};
\node[above] at (-1.5,0) {$\mathbf D_{k+1}$};
\node at (-4,0) {$Y_{5,k}$};
\draw [ultra thick,dashed, ->] (0,0) -- (-2.5,0);
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (-3.7,0) -- (-3.5,0);
\def2.12+0.6{-3.5-1.2}
\def-2.12-0.25{0.35}
\draw [fill=white, ultra thick] (-2.12,-2.12) circle [radius=0.5];
\node at (-2.12,-2.12) {SN6};
\node at (-2.83-0.2,-2.83+0.2) {$Y_{6,k}$};
\draw [ultra thick,dashed, ->] (0,0) -- (-2.47+0.7,-2.47+0.7);
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (-2.62,-2.62) -- (-2.47,-2.47);
\def2.12+0.6{-2.12-1.2-0.6}
\def-2.12-0.25{-2.12-0.25}
\draw [fill=gray,draw=black,thick,text=white] (0,-3) circle [radius=0.5];
\node at (0,-3) {SN7};
\node at (0,-4) {$Y_{7,k}$};
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (0,-3.7) -- (0,-3.5);
\def2.12+0.6{0-1.2-0.6}
\def-2.12-0.25{-3-0.25}
\draw [fill=white, ultra thick] (2.12,-2.12) circle [radius=0.5];
\node at (2.12,-2.12) {SN8};
\node at (2.83,-2.83) {$Y_{8,k}$};
\draw [ultra thick,dashed, ->] (0,0) -- (2.47-0.7,-2.47+0.7);
\draw [ultra thick, ->] (2.62,-2.62) -- (2.47,-2.47);
\def2.12+0.6{2.12+0.6}
\def-2.12-0.25{-2.12-0.25}
\node [text=white] at (0,0) {FC};
\draw[->,decorate, decoration={snake, segment length=7mm, amplitude=1mm}] (5,-1.7) -- (4,-0.3);
\draw[->,decorate, decoration={snake, segment length=7mm, amplitude=1mm}] (4.4,-2) -- (3,-2.5);
\draw[->,decorate, decoration={snake, segment length=7mm, amplitude=1mm}] (6,-1.7) -- (3.6,2.4);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{A WSN for distributed estimation, with FC quality feedback.
Each SN decides to either remain idle with cost $0$ or to collect and transmit to the FC the measurement $Y_{n,k}$ of $X_k$ with local measurement SNR $S_{M,n,k}$ and cost $c_{\mathrm{TX}}+\phi S_{M,n,k}$. The shared wireless channel results in collisions and packet losses. The FC,
based on the measurements received, computes an MMSE estimate of $X_k$, $\hat X_k$, and broadcasts the instruction $\mathbf D_{k+1}$ based on the estimation quality
achieved,
which is used by the SNs to adjust their sensing-transmission parameters for the next slot.
\label{fig:WSN}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
This paper is organized as follows.
In Sec.~\ref{probform}, we motivate our approach and summarize the main results.
In Sec.~\ref{sysmo}, we present the system model and the optimization problem.
In Sec.~\ref{analysis}, we present
the analysis of the coordinated and decentralized schemes.
In Sec.~\ref{numres}, we provide numerical results.
In Sec.~\ref{conclusions}, we conclude the paper.
The analytical proofs are provided in the Appendix.
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\section{Motivation}
\label{probform}
Consider a WSN, depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:WSN}, with one FC, whose goal
is to track a \emph{stationary Markov} process $\{X_k,\ k\geq 0\}$,
based on measurements collected by $N_S$ nearby SNs.
The probability density function (if $X_k$ is continuous, or probability mass function, if $X_k$ is discrete) of $X_{k+1}$ given $X_k$ is denoted as
$p_{X}(X_{k+1}|X_k)$. In this paper, we consider the scalar linear Gaussian state space model
\begin{align}
\label{markovstate}
X_{k+1}=\sqrt{\alpha}X_k+Z_k,
\end{align}
where $k\in\mathbb N\equiv\{0,1,2,\dots\}$ is the slot index,
$\alpha\in [0,1)$ is the \emph{time-correlation parameter} and $Z_k\sim\mathcal N(0,\sigma_Z^2)$,
so that $X_{k+1}|X_k\sim\mathcal N(\sqrt{\alpha} X_k,\sigma_Z^2)$.
This model arises, for instance, in temperature tracking applications, where $X_k$ represents the temperature fluctuations around its mean \cite{Tandeo}.
We denote the statistical power of $X_k$ as $\sigma_X^2=\frac{\sigma_Z^2}{1-\alpha}$,
and assume $\sigma_X^2=1$, since any other value can be obtained by scaling.
Each SN incurs the transmission cost $c_{\mathrm{TX}}$ to report its measurement to the FC.
The $N_S$ SNs share
a set of $B{\leq}N_S$ orthogonal single-hop wireless channels to report their measurements to the FC.
We employ the collision channel model, \emph{i.e.},
the transmission on a given channel is successful if and only if one SN transmits in that channel.
This model is commonly employed in the analysis of multi-access communication schemes,
and lends itself to analysis.\footnote{Other channel models can be accommodated by defining, more generally, a probability mass function (PMF) $
p_{R|T}(r|t)\triangleq\mathbb P(R_k=r|T_k=t),\ r\in\{0,1,\dots,t\}$, where
$T_k$ and $R_k$ are the number of SNs that transmit and of packets successfully received at the FC, respectively.}
Referring to the model (\ref{markovstate}),
assume for simplicity $B{=}1$
and that each SN measures $X_k$ noiselessly (the noisy case with $B{\geq}1$ is considered in the rest of the paper).
Let $O_{n,k}$ be the \emph{transmission outcome} for SN $n$, \emph{i.e.}, $O_{n,k}{=}1$ if and only if its transmission is successful.
Then, if at least one measurement is collected at the FC, \emph{i.e.}, $\prod_n(1{-}O_{n,k}){=}0$,
the MSE is $0$. On the other hand, if no measurements are successfully received, \emph{i.e.}, $\prod_n(1{-}O_{n,k}){=}1$, then
$X_k$ is estimated via prediction. Therefore, if the transmission has been successful in slot $k{-}J_k{-}1$, for some $J_k{\geq}0$,
so that $X_{k-J_k-1}$ is perfectly known at the FC,
but transmission failures or no transmission attempts occurred in slots $k{-}J_k,k{-}J_k{+}1,\dots,k$, then $X_k$ is estimated as $\hat X_k=\sqrt{\alpha}^{J_k+1}X_{k-J_k-1}$ and
the MSE at the end of slot $k$ is $(1{-}\alpha^{J_k+1})$.
Due to the decentralized sensing-transmission decision of the SNs and the
shared wireless channel, which may result in collisions among SNs, random and unpredictable fluctuations in the transmission outcome $O_{n,k}$ may occur at the FC,
so that the MSE evolves randomly over time. In order to control the uncertainty and system dynamics introduced by these cross-layer factors, we thus propose a
feedback-based adaptive scheme where
the SNs adapt their activation strategy over time, \emph{i.e.}, whether to sense-transmit their measurement with cost $c_{\mathrm{TX}}$ (denoted as $A_{n,k}=1$) or remain idle
with no cost (denoted as $A_{n,k}=0$), based on \emph{quality feedback} from the FC, captured by the state variable $J_k$.
The goal is to design the activation policy so as to minimize the expected MSE
$\bar M\triangleq\mathbb E[\prod_n(1-O_{n})(1-\alpha^{J+1})]$
at the FC,\footnote{The slot index $k$ is removed for simplicity to denote steady-state regime.}
under SN sensing-transmission cost constraints, $\bar C_n=\mathbb E[A_{n}c_{\mathrm{TX}}]\leq \epsilon/N_S,\ \forall n$.
We consider the following schemes.
\vspace{-3mm}
\subsection{Coordinated scheme}
\label{coordscheme}
In this scheme, the FC centrally schedules the activation $A_{n,k}$ of each SN.
One design approach to optimize the MSE
is to maximize the number of measurements collected at the FC in each slot, under the cost constraint for each SN.
This is denoted as \emph{max aggregate SNR scheme} (MAX-SNR) in the rest of the paper.
If $\epsilon\geq c_{\mathrm{TX}}$, the optimal strategy dictates to activate randomly one and only one SN in each slot,
resulting in a successful transmission, hence the MSE is $0$ in each slot (Theorem \ref{thm1}). We thus have
$\bar M=0$, $\bar C_n{=}\frac{c_{\mathrm{TX}}}{N_S}{\leq}\frac{\epsilon}{N_S}$, hence
a \emph{non-adaptive} scheme is optimal in this case.
\vspace{-3mm}
\subsection{Decentralized scheme}
\label{distscheme}
\noindent Unfortunately, the coordinated scheme is not scalable to large WSNs,
due to the centralized scheduling performed by the FC.
Therefore, a decentralized approach, where the SNs make local decisions, leveraging only local information
and minimal feedback information, is more practical.
We thus devise
a decentralized scheme, where each SN activates with common probability $q_k$ in slot $k$.
Following the same design principle of optimizing the expected number of measurements collected at the FC (MAX-SNR scheme),
we define a \emph{non-adaptive} (NA) scheme where each
SN activates with probability $q_k{=}\zeta/N_S$ in each slot, where we have defined the normalized transmission probability per channel $\zeta{\in}[0,N_S]$.
In this case, $\{J_k\}$ is a Markov chain.
Using the \emph{large network approximation} $N_S{\gg}1$ with fixed $\zeta$,
its transition probabilities are
$\mathbb P(J_{k+1}{=}j{+}1|J_k{=}j){\simeq}1{-}\zeta e^{-\zeta}$,
$\mathbb P(J_{k+1}{=}0|J_k{=}j){\simeq}\zeta e^{-\zeta}$,
and the steady-state probability of $J_k{=}j$ is given by $\pi_J(j){\simeq}\zeta e^{-\zeta}(1-\zeta e^{-\zeta})^j,j{\geq}0$.
By averaging over $\pi_J(j)$,
the average SN cost and MSE
are
\begin{align}
\bar C_n^{(NA)}=\frac{\zeta}{N_S}c_{\mathrm{TX}},\
\bar M^{(NA)}=\frac{(1-\alpha)(1-\zeta e^{-\zeta})}{1-\alpha+\alpha\zeta e^{-\zeta}}.
\label{NA}
\end{align}
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{Main system parameters}
\vspace{-5mm}
\label{tab1}
\begin{center}
\footnotesize
\scalebox{0.88}{
\begin{tabular}{|c| l | c | l | c | l | c | l |}
\hline\T\B $\{X_k\}$& random process to be tracked
&
$S_A$& local ambient SNR
&
$Y_{n,k}$& measurement of SN $n$ in slot $k$
&
$\gamma_{n,k}$& accuracy state with
s.s.d. $\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma)$
\\\hline\T\B
$\alpha$& time-correlation parameter
&$S_{M,n,k}$& local measurement SNR
&$A_{n,k}$& activation of SN $n$, slot $k$
&$B_{n,k}$& channel ID for SN $n$, slot $k$
\\\hline\T\B
$\Lambda_k$& aggregate SNR at FC
& $\phi S_{M,n,k}$& sensing cost
& $c_{\mathrm{TX}}$& transmission cost
&$B$& \# channels available, $B\leq N_S$
\\\hline\T\B
$V_k$ & prior variance
&$\hat V_k$ & posterior variance
&$q$ & SN activation probability
& $N_S$ & \# of SNs, $N_S\geq B$
\\\hline\T\B
$\theta{\triangleq}\frac{\phi}{c_{\mathrm{TX}}}$& normalized unitary sensing cost &
$\bar M_{\delta}$ & average MSE
&
$\bar C_{\delta}^{n}$ &
\multicolumn{3}{l|}{
average sensing-transmission cost of SN $n$
}
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{table*}
Unfortunately, this design approach
fails to achieve good performance in general,
since the decentralized SN activation and the collisions among SNs result in
random fluctuations in the number of measurements collected at the FC (which may be zero in case of collisions),
hence high uncertainty and poor MSE performance.
In order to control the uncertainty in the system, we propose an adaptive scheme
where the activation probability $q_k$ is adapted over time by the FC, based on the current quality
state $J_k$. Such adaptive policy is denoted as $q(\cdot){=}\zeta(\cdot)/N_S$.
The value of the activation probability $q_k{=}q(J_k){=}\zeta(J_k)/N_S$ is broadcasted by the FC at the beginning of each slot.
In particular, consider the myopic policy (MP), which
determines $q_k{=}q_{MP}(j){=}\zeta_{MP}(j)/N_S$ in state $J_k{=}j$ so as to
optimize a trade-off between the instantaneous
expected MSE and the cost for each SN,
\begin{align}
\label{MP}
\zeta_{MP}(j)=\arg\min_\zeta (1-\zeta e^{-\zeta})(1-\alpha^{j+1})+\lambda\zeta,
\end{align}
where $\lambda{\geq}0$ captures the desired trade-off, $(1{-}\zeta e^{-\zeta})$ is the probability that
no measurements are received at the FC, and $(1{-}\alpha^{j+1})$ is the corresponding MSE achieved.
The solution to this optimization problem is studied in Part II, and is given by
$\zeta_{MP}(j){=}0$ if $\lambda{\geq}(1{-}\alpha^{j+1})$,
otherwise it is the unique $\zeta\in[0,1]$ solution of
$e^{-\zeta}(1{-}\alpha^{j+1})(1{-}\zeta){=}\lambda$ (see \cite[Corollary~2]{MichelusiP2}).
Using the bound $e^{-\zeta}{\leq}1$ in (\ref{MP}),
we obtain the approximate MP (AMP), upper bound to $\zeta_{MP}(j)$,
\begin{align}
\label{AMP}
\zeta_{AMP}(j)=\left[1-\frac{\lambda}{1-\alpha^{j+1}}\right]^+\geq \zeta_{MP}(j),\ \forall j.
\end{align}
The AMP
$\zeta_{AMP}(j)$ is an increasing function of $j$,
\emph{i.e.}, the higher the uncertainty (the larger $J_k{=}j$), the higher the activation probability,
which approaches $\left[1-\lambda\right]^+$ for $j\to\infty$.
\emph{Hence, AMP has the desirable property that,
the higher the uncertainty in the current estimate, the more the SNs are
incentivized to activate, at higher cost, in order to estimate $X_k$ accurately at the FC.}
Under AMP, we have
\begin{align}
\pi_J(j)=\frac{\prod_{i=0}^{j-1}(1-\zeta_{AMP}(i) e^{-\zeta_{AMP}(i)})}{
\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\prod_{i=0}^{l-1}(1-\zeta_{AMP}(i) e^{-\zeta_{AMP}(i)})
},\ j\geq 0,
\end{align}
so that the average SN cost and MSE
are given by
\begin{align*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\!\!\!\!\bar C_n^{(AMP)}&\!\!\!\!\!\!=\!
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\pi_J(j)\frac{\zeta_{AMP}(j)}{N_S}c_{\mathrm{TX}},\\
\!\!\!\!\bar M^{(AMP)}&\!\!\!\!\!\!=\!
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\pi_J(j)(1-\zeta_{AMP}(j) e^{-\zeta_{AMP}(j)})(1\!-\!\alpha^{j+1}).\!
\end{array}\right.
\end{align*}
By varying $\zeta{\in}[0,1]$ in (\ref{NA}), $\lambda{\geq}0$ in (\ref{AMP}), we obtain
the cost-MSE trade-off depicted in Fig.~\ref{TOYEX},
which shows that AMP reduces the sensing-transmission cost for each SN by 30\% with respect to NA.
Therefore,
adaptation
to the quality state yields performance gains in the cost-MSE trade-off and
effectively copes with the uncertainty introduced by the network and cross-layer components.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = .8\linewidth,trim = 10mm 4mm 10mm 9mm,clip=true]{figexample_c}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{Trade-off between network cost and MSE. $\alpha=0.95$, $c_{\mathrm{TX}}=1$.
\label{TOYEX}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
In the next sections, we will extend the analysis to the more general case $B{\geq}1$,
where the SNs collect noisy measurements of $X_k$, whose quality is affected by an internal \emph{accuracy state} evolving as a Markov chain,
and by control performed by each SN.
In Theorem~\ref{thm1},
we will show that,
in the coordinated scheme,
the MAX-SNR scheme, which maximizes the
expected aggregate SNR collected at the FC in each slot under the SN cost constraint,
is optimal in the \emph{best}-$\gamma$ scenario, where
all SNs have deterministically the best accuracy state,
under some conditions on the maximum cost for each SN, $\epsilon/N_S$.
In Theorem~\ref{thm2}, we will show that this strategy is near-optimal for \emph{large networks} in the \emph{Markov}-$\gamma$ scenario,
where the accuracy state of each SN follows a Markov chain.
For the decentralized scheme, we derive structural properties
and exploit the large network approximation to design a DP algorithm with lower complexity.
In Part II, we will further investigate the design of myopic policies for this more general setting,
for both the coordinated and decentralized schemes.
\begin{remark}
This framework and the following analysis can also be applied to other time-correlated signals, \emph{e.g.}, the two state Markov chain
\begin{align}
X_{k+1}=X_k\oplus Z_k,\ X_{k},Z_k\in\{0,1\},
\end{align}
where $\oplus$ denotes the sum modulo 2,
and $Z_k$ has distribution $p_{Z|X}(z|x){\triangleq}\mathbb P(Z_k{=}z|X_k{=}x),z,x{\in}\{0,1\}$.
This model arises, for instance, in spectrum sensing applications \cite{MicheISIT},
where $X_k$ denotes the channel occupancy state ($X_k{=}0$ if idle, $X_k{=}1$ if busy).
In this case, the quality feedback is captured by the log-likelihood ratio $\ln(\mathbb P(X_k{=}1|\text{history})|\mathbb P(X_k{=}0|\text{history}))$,
reflecting the current detection accuracy, and the expected MSE can be replaced with the expected detection error probability.
The model (\ref{markovstate}) can also be extended to the multi-dimensional case, \emph{e.g.},
in target tracking applications where the vector $X_k$ represents the position and speed in slot $k$.
In this case, $\sqrt{\alpha}$ is replaced by a proper matrix \cite{Xiao}, and the feedback quality is represented by the error covariance matrix (or by its trace, for
dimensionality reduction purposes).
\end{remark}
\section{System Model and Optimization Problem}
\label{sysmo}
In this section, we present the system model. The main parameters are listed in Table \ref{tab1}.
Time is slotted and all SNs are assumed to be perfectly synchronized.\footnote{Note, however, that
we also presume random access, which allows for some robustness against imperfect synchronization \cite{Gaudenzi}.}
Each slot includes three~phases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{FC instruction} $\mathbf D_k$, broadcasted by the FC (Sec.~\ref{FCinstruct});
\item \emph{Sensing and transmission to FC}: given $\mathbf D_k$, each SN selects its
sensing-transmission action (Sec. \ref{ph2});
\item \emph{Estimation at FC}: given the measurements collected, the FC estimates $X_k$ via Kalman filtering (Sec.~\ref{P3}).
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{-5mm}
\subsection{Sensing and transmission to FC}
\label{ph2}
\noindent Each SN, at the beginning of slot $k$, given the instruction $\mathbf D_k$ broadcasted by the FC,
selects (possibly, in a randomized fashion)
the sensing-transmission parameters $(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k},B_{n,k})$,
where $A_{n,k}{\in}\{0,1\}$ is the \emph{activation} decision of SN $n$,
$S_{M,n,k}{\geq}0$ is the \emph{local measurement SNR} specified below, and $B_{n,k}{\in}\{0,1,2,\dots,B\}$ is the \emph{channel index}.
If $A_{n,k}{=}0$, SN $n$ remains idle, hence $S_{M,n,k}{=}0$ (no measurement collected) and $B_{n,k}{=}0$ (no channel selected).
On the other hand, if $A_{n,k}{=}1$, then $B_{n,k}{\in}\{1,2,\dots,B\}$ and
the measurement of $X_k$ collected by SN $n$ is given by
\begin{align}
\label{Ynk}
Y_{n,k}=\gamma_{n,k}X_{k}+W_{A,n,k}+W_{M,n,k},
\end{align}
where $W_{A,n,k}{\sim}\mathcal N(0,1/S_A)$ is the \emph{ambient noise},
and $W_{M,n,k}{\sim}\mathcal N(0,1/S_{M,n,k})$ is the \emph{measurement noise} introduced by the sensing apparatus,
independent of each other, over time and across SNs,
$S_{A}$ is the \emph{local ambient SNR}, and $S_{M,n,k}$ is the
\emph{local measurement SNR}, controlled by the $n$th SN, resulting in the sensing cost $\phi S_{M,n,k}$, for some $\phi\geq 0$.
Note that this assumption is practical. For instance,
SN $n$ may compute an average from a controlled number $M_{n,k}$ of independent measurements, each with
fixed ambient noise and i.i.d. measurement noise with variance $\sigma_M^2$
and cost $c_S$,
resulting in the local measurement SNR $S_{M,n,k}=M_{n,k}/\sigma_M^2$ and in the overall
sensing cost $c_SM_{n,k}=(c_S\sigma_M^2)S_{M,n,k}$.
We assume that
a fixed quantization scheme is employed, \emph{i.e.}, a fixed number of bits is transmitted to the FC,\footnote{Therefore,
the ambient SNR $S_A$ and noise $W_{A,n,k}$ can also be interpreted, respectively, as the quantization SNR floor and the Gaussian approximation of the quantization error.}
and that each SN is unaware of its own distance to the FC
and it does not employ power adaptation, but it
transmits with constant power, so as to provide a given coverage requirement,
resulting in the overall transmission cost $c_{\mathrm{TX}}$, common to all SNs.
The FC is assumed to be within the coverage area
of each SN. A varying $c_{\mathrm{TX}}$ can be easily incorporated with increased book-keeping.
We define the \emph{normalized unitary sensing cost} $\theta\triangleq\frac{\phi}{c_{\mathrm{TX}}}$.
No cost is incurred if the SN remains idle.
The overall sensing-transmission cost
is thus $c_{SN}(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k}){\triangleq}A_{n,k}(c_{\mathrm{TX}}+\phi S_{M,n,k})$.
We define the \emph{sample average sensing-transmission cost for SN $n$} over a time horizon of length $T+1$ as
\begin{align}
\label{ctn}
C_n^{T}(A_{n,0}^T,S_{M,n,0}^T)=\frac{1}{T+1}\sum_{k=0}^{T}c_{SN}(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k}).
\end{align}
The \emph{accuracy state} $\gamma_{n,k}$, taking values in the finite set $\Gamma$, models the ability of SN $n$ to accurately measure $X_k$.
We model it as a Markov chain with transition probability $\mathbb P(\gamma_{n,k+1}{=}\gamma_2|\gamma_{n,k}{=}\gamma_1){=}P_\gamma(\gamma_1;\gamma_2)$
and steady-state distribution $\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma)$,
i.i.d. across SNs, and we let $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k=(\gamma_{1,k},\gamma_{2,k},\dots,\gamma_{N_S,k})$.
{Such a model arises, \emph{e.g.}, in a target tracking application, where the power of the received signal diminishes with the distance, which
evolves following Markov dynamics as a function of the relative motion of the SN and the target \cite{Xiao}.
The Markov assumption on $\gamma_{n,k}$ is used for analytical tractability, but the following analysis requires only the existence of
the steady-state distribution $\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma)$, and therefore it applies to non-Markov dynamics as well.}
In practice, $\gamma_{n,k}$ varies slowly over time, \emph{e.g.}, as a function of the SN position with respect to the
source of the process $X_k$, and therefore it can be tracked accurately
from the sample mean and sample variance estimates of the measurement noise.
We denote the best accuracy state as $\gamma_{\max}{=}\max\{\Gamma\}$,
and, without loss of generality, we assume $\gamma_{\max}{=}1$ and $\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma_{\max}){>}0$.
We denote the general scenario where $\gamma_{n,k}$ follows a Markov chain as \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario,
and the special cases where $\gamma_{n,k}{=}\gamma_{\max},\forall n,k$, deterministically
and $\gamma_{n,k}$ is i.i.d. over time as \emph{best-}$\gamma$ and \emph{i.i.d.-}$\gamma$ scenarios, respectively.
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem22}
Note that the local accuracy state may vary significantly over both time and space, yielding instantaneous \emph{asymmetries} in the WSN. Typically, design of
asymmetric systems suffers from the curse of dimensionality. Herein, we assume that \emph{statistical symmetry} holds, in the sense that, in the long term, the SNs have the same statistical view of the system, despite the local temporal and spatial fluctuations of the state.
As a consequence, we assume \emph{policy symmetry}, \emph{i.e.}, all SNs employ the same policy to map
their local state to a sensing-transmission action, thus significantly reducing the policy space and the optimization complexity.
\end{remark}
\subsection{MMSE estimator at the FC via Kalman filtering}
\label{P3}
\noindent The weighted average measurement
\begin{align}
\label{bari}
\bar Y_{k}\triangleq\frac{\sum_{n}O_{n,k}\frac{S_{n,k}}{\gamma_{n,k}}Y_{n,k}}{\sum_{n}O_{n,k}S_{n,k}}
\end{align}
is a sufficient statistic for $X_k$,
where $S_{n,k}$ is the \emph{local SNR} for SN $n$, defined as
\begin{align}
\label{Slocal}
S_{n,k}=\frac{\mathbb E[(\gamma_{n,k}X_{k})^2|\gamma_{n,k}]}{\mathbb E[(W_{A,n,k}+W_{M,n,k})^2]}=
\gamma_{n,k}^2 \frac{S_{A}S_{M,n,k}}{S_{A}+S_{M,n,k}}.
\end{align}
Given the transmission outcome and $X_k$,
$\bar Y_k$ is a Gaussian random variable with mean $X_k$ and variance
$\Lambda_k^{-1}$,
where we have defined the \emph{aggregate SNR} collected at the FC as
\begin{align}
\label{Stot}
\Lambda_k\triangleq\sum_{n=1}^{N_S}O_{n,k}S_{n,k}.
\end{align}
Let $\hat X_{k-1}$ and $\hat V_{k-1}$ be the posterior mean (\emph{i.e.}, the MMSE estimate)
and variance of $X_{k-1}$ at the FC at the end of slot $k-1$,
\emph{i.e.}, $X_{k-1}\sim \mathcal N(\hat X_{k-1},\hat V_{k-1})$ is the belief of $X_{k-1}$ at the FC.
Before collecting the measurements from the SNs in slot $k$,
using~(\ref{markovstate}),
the belief of $X_{k}$ is $X_{k}\sim\mathcal N(\sqrt{\alpha} \hat X_{k-1},V_k)$,
where $V_k$ is the \emph{prior variance} of $X_k$,
defined recursively as
\begin{align}
\label{nu}
&V_k=\alpha \hat V_{k-1}+\sigma_Z^2=
1-\alpha(1-\hat V_{k-1})\triangleq \nu(\hat V_{k-1}).
\end{align}
Then, upon collecting the weighted average measurement $\bar Y_k$ (\ref{bari})
with aggregate SNR $\Lambda_k$,\footnote{We assume that each active SN, in addition to $Y_{n,k}$, also provides to the FC the value of $\gamma_{n,k}$
and $S_{n,k}$, which is employed in the Kalman filter.}
the FC updates the \emph{posterior variance} $\hat V_k$ and mean $\hat X_{k}$ of $X_{k}$ as
\begin{align}
\label{nu2}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\hat V_k=\frac{V_k}{1+V_k\Lambda_k}
\triangleq \hat \nu(V_{k},\Lambda_k),
\\
\hat X_{k}=\sqrt{\alpha} \hat X_{k-1}+\Lambda_k\hat V_k\left(\bar Y_k -\sqrt{\alpha}\hat X_{k-1}\right).
\end{array}\right.
\end{align}
The function $\nu(\hat V_{k-1})$ in (\ref{nu}) determines the prior variance of $X_k$, given the posterior variance of $X_{k-1}$,
whereas $\nu(V_k,\Lambda_k)$ in (\ref{nu2}) determines the posterior variance of $X_k$, given its prior variance $V_k$,
as a function of the aggregate SNR $\Lambda_k$ collected at the FC.
The MSE in slot $k$ is thus
\begin{align}
&\mathbb E\left[\left.(\hat X_{k}- X_{k})^2\right|V_{k},\Lambda_k\right]
=\hat \nu(V_{k},\Lambda_k).
\end{align}
We define recursively $\hat\nu^0(V_0;\Lambda_0^{0})=\hat \nu(V_{0},\Lambda_0)$
and, for $k>0$,
\begin{align}
\label{nukrec}
\hat\nu^k(V_0;\Lambda_0^{k})=\hat\nu\left(\hat\nu^{k-1}(V_0;\Lambda_0^{k-1}),\Lambda_k\right),
\end{align}
where $\Lambda_0^k=(\Lambda_0,\Lambda_1,\dots,\Lambda_k)$ is the aggregate SNR sequence collected at the FC
from slot $0$ to slot $k$. Then,
we can write $\hat V_k=\hat\nu^k(V_0;\Lambda_0^{k})$.
We define the \emph{sample average MSE} under $\Lambda_0^T$ over a time horizon of length $T+1$ as
\begin{align}
\label{RT}
R_T(V_0;\Lambda_0^T)=\frac{1}{T+1}\sum_{k=0}^{T}\hat\nu^k(V_0;\Lambda_0^{k}).
\end{align}
Note that the prior and posterior variances $V_k$ and $\hat V_k$ take value between $[0,1]$,
where the extreme values $0$ and $1$ correspond, respectively, to
minimum ($X_k$ perfectly known) and maximum ($X_k$ is completely unknown) uncertainty.
Therefore, $R_T(V_0;\Lambda_0^T)\in [0,1],\ \forall T,V_0,\Lambda_0^T$, and the system is stable.
\vspace{-4mm}
\subsection{FC instruction policy}
\label{FCinstruct}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{FC instruction policy}
\vspace{-8mm}
\label{tabins}
\begin{center}
\footnotesize
\scalebox{0.83}{
\begin{tabular}{|c| c | c | c |}
\hline\T\B
\multirow{2}{*}{\em Scheme} & \multirow{2}{*}{\em Activity $A_{n,k}$} & \em Local measurement & \multirow{2}{*}{\em Channel ID $B_{n,k}$}\\
& &\em SNR $S_{M,n,k}$ &
\\\hline\T\B
{\bf Coordinated} & Centralized, $@$ FC & Centralized, $@$ FC & Centralized, $@$ FC
\\\hline\T\B
\multirow{2}{*}{{\bf Decentralized}} & Local, w.p. $q_k(\omega_{n,k})$ & Local, $\sim S_{M,k}(\omega_{n,k})$ & \multirow{2}{*}{Local, random}
\\
& $q_k(\cdot)$ given by FC & $S_{M,k}(\cdot)$ given by FC &
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\vspace{-9mm}
\end{table}
\noindent At the beginning of slot $k$,
the FC broadcasts an
\emph{instruction} $\mathbf D_k{\in}\mathcal D$, which, together with the local accuracy state $\gamma_{n,k}$,
is used by SN $n$ to select $(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k},B_{n,k})$ as in Sec. \ref{ph2}. We consider the following schemes, summarized in Table \ref{tabins}:
\subsubsection{Coordinated scheme}
In the coordinated scheme, given $V_k$ and $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k$, the FC schedules the sensing-transmission action $d_{n,k}{=}(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k},B_{n,k})$ of each SN, so that $\mathbf D_k{=}(d_{1,k},d_{2,k},\dots,d_{N_{S},k})$.
Note that each SN is required to report its accuracy state to the FC, whenever its value changes,
so that $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{k}$ is perfectly known at the FC at the beginning of slot $k$.
Letting $\pi_{\boldsymbol{\gamma},k}$ be the belief of $\boldsymbol\gamma_{k}$ at the FC, we have that
$\pi_{\boldsymbol{\gamma},k}(\boldsymbol\gamma){=}\chi(\boldsymbol\gamma{=}\boldsymbol\gamma_{k})$,
where $\chi(\cdot)$ is the indicator function.
In Sec.~\ref{commover}, we will analyze the cost of communication overhead to keep such state information at the FC.
The value $\mathbf D_k$ is selected according to some (possibly, non-stationary) \emph{instruction policy}
$\delta_k(\mathbf d|V_k,\pi_{\boldsymbol{\gamma},k})\triangleq\mathbb P(\mathbf D_{k}=\mathbf d|V_k,\pi_{\boldsymbol{\gamma},k})$.
\subsubsection{Decentralized scheme}
In the decentralized scheme, the FC specifies
$\mathbf D_k{=}(q_k(\cdot),S_{M,k}(\cdot))$,
where $q_k{:}\Gamma{\mapsto}[0,1]$ and $S_{M,k}{:}\Gamma{\mapsto}[0,\infty)$
are, respectively,
the activation probability and
the local measurement SNR functions employed by each SN to select their sensing-transmission strategy in a decentralized manner, as a function of the local accuracy state $\gamma_{n,k}$.
Therefore, $\mathbf D_k$ takes value in the set $\mathcal D\equiv ([0,1]^\Gamma\times\mathbb R_+^\Gamma)$,
and is generated according to some (possibly, non-stationary) policy $\delta_k(\mathbf d|V_k,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,k}){\triangleq}\mathbb P(\mathbf D_{k}{=}\mathbf d|V_k,\pi_{\boldsymbol{\gamma},k})$, where
$\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,k}(\boldsymbol\gamma_k)=\mathbb P(\boldsymbol\gamma_k|\mathcal H_k)$
is the belief state of the accuracy state vector $\boldsymbol\gamma_k$, given the history of observations collected up to time $k$ at the FC, $\mathcal H_k$.
Given
$\mathbf D_k{=}(q_k(\cdot),S_{M,k}(\cdot))$
and the local accuracy state $\gamma_{n,k}$,
SN $n$ chooses its action $(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k},B_{n,k})$
as $A_{n,k}{=}1$ with probability $q_k(\gamma_{n,k})$,
$A_{n,k}{=}0$ otherwise; if $A_{n,k}{=}1$, then
$S_{M,n,k}{=}S_{M,k}(\gamma_{n,k})$ and $B_{n,k}$ is chosen uniformly from the set of channels $\{1,2,\dots, B\}$
{(if $A_{n,k}{=}0$, then $S_{M,n,k}{=}B_{n,k}{=}0$).}
Due to the randomized channel accesses, this scheme may result in collisions among SNs.
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{remark}
\label{PMF}
The choice of a randomized uniform channel access decision by the SNs is due to their decentralized operation and
lack of coordination between them. However, other channel access schemes can be accommodated by defining, more generally, the PMF $p_{R|T}(r|t),\ r\in\{0,1,\dots,t\}$.
\end{remark}
For both schemes, given the instruction policy $\delta$,
the sequence $\{(V_k,\pi_{\boldsymbol{\gamma},k}),k{\geq}0\}$ is a Markov chain.
In fact, the instruction $\mathbf D_k$ is chosen according to
$\delta_k(\mathbf D_{k}|V_k,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,k})$.
Each SN decides its action $(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k},B_{n,k})$ based on
$\mathbf D_k$ and $\gamma_{n,k}$, so that the aggregate SNR collected at the FC, $\Lambda_k$, is a random variable
which only depends on $\mathbf D_k$ and $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{k}$ and is independent of the past.
Finally, given $\Lambda_k$, from (\ref{nu}) and (\ref{nu2}) the next prior variance state is
$V_{k+1}{=}\nu(\hat \nu(V_{k},\Lambda_k))$, and $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{k+1}$
only depends on $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{k}$, whose distribution is $\pi_{\boldsymbol{\gamma},k}$, and is independent of other past events, so that the Markov property holds.
For the decentralized scheme, the next belief state $\pi_{\boldsymbol{\gamma},k+1}$ can be computed as a function of $\pi_{\boldsymbol{\gamma},k}$
the measurements collected in slot $k$, and channel collisions.
On the other hand, for the coordinated scheme, $\pi_{\boldsymbol{\gamma},k+1}$ is a function of $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{k+1}$,
whose value is fed back by the SNs.
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{remark}
\label{remiid}
If $\alpha{=}0$, the process $X_k$ is i.i.d., hence $V_k{=}1,\ \forall k$. In this case, both schemes do not adapt to the quality feedback $V_k$, but only to the belief on the accuracy state
$\pi_{\boldsymbol{\gamma},k}$. On the other hand, in the time-correlated case $\alpha\in (0,1)$, adaptation to the quality state $V_k$ may be necessary to achieve optimality, \emph{e.g.}, by instructing the SNs to remain idle if the quality of the estimate is good enough.
\end{remark}
\vspace{-8mm}
\subsection{Performance metrics and optimization problem}
\label{sec:optprob}
\noindent Given the initial value of the prior variance $V_0$, the initial distribution $\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0}$, and the instruction policy $\delta$,
we define the average MSE and sensing-transmission cost of SN $n$ over a finite horizon of length $T+1$
as
\begin{align}
\label{Cest}
&\bar M_{\delta}^{T}(V_0,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0})=\mathbb E\left[\left.R_T(V_0;\Lambda_0^T)\right|
V_0,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0}\right],
\\\label{CSN}
& {\bar C_{\delta}^{T,n}(V_0,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0})=\mathbb E\left[\left.
C_n^{T}(A_{n,0}^T,S_{M,n,0}^T)
\right|V_0,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0}\right],}
\end{align}
{
where $R_T(V_0;\Lambda_0^T)$ is the sample average MSE given by (\ref{RT}),
and $C_n^{T}(A_{n,0}^T,S_{M,n,0}^T)$
is the \emph{sample average sensing-transmission cost for SN $n$}, given by (\ref{ctn})}.
The expectation is computed with respect to the activation, local measurement SNR, accuracy state and medium access processes
$\{\mathbf D_k,A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k},\gamma_{n,k},O_{n,k},n\in\{1,2,\dots,N_S\},k\in\mathbb N\}$, induced by policy $\delta$.
The goal is to determine $\delta^*$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{optprob}
\!\!\!\!\delta^*\!\!=\!\arg\min_{\delta} \bar M_{\delta}^{T}(V_0,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0}),
\text{s.t. }\bar C_{\delta}^{T,n}(V_0,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0})\!\leq\!\frac{\epsilon}{N_S},\forall n,\!\!
\end{align}
where $\epsilon{>}0$ is the maximum network cost constraint.
Alternatively,
we consider the Lagrangian formulation
\begin{align}
\label{optproblag}
\!\!\!\!\delta^*=&\arg\min_{\delta} \bar M_{\delta}^{T}(V_0,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0})
+\frac{\lambda}{c_{\mathrm{TX}}}\sum_{n=1}^{N_S}\bar C_{\delta}^{T,n}(V_0,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0}),
\end{align}
where $\lambda>0$ is the Lagrange multiplier, which trades off MSE and sensing-transmission cost.
In particular, we are interested in the infinite horizon $T{\to}\infty$ (average long-term)
and $V_0{=}1$,
so that we will drop the dependence on $T$ and $V_0$ in the following treatment, whenever possible.
By varying $\epsilon$ in (\ref{optprob}) (respectively, $\lambda$ in (\ref{optproblag})),
we obtain different operational cost-MSE points $(\bar C_{\delta}^{n}(\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0}),\bar M_{\delta}(\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0}))$.
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{remark}
\label{remoutage}
Note that the posterior variance process $\{\hat V_k,k{\geq}0\}$ may exhibit significant fluctuations over time, which may be undesirable.
These fluctuations can be reduced by imposing a constraint on the frequency that a given MSE threshold $\hat v_{\mathrm{th}}$ is overcome,
defined by the \emph{outage} event $\hat V_k\geq\hat v_{\mathrm{th}}$, and by the time average expected outage
\begin{align}
\bar O_{\delta}^{T}(V_0,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0})=\frac{1}{T+1}
\mathbb E\left[\left.\sum_{k=0}^T\chi(\hat V_k\geq\hat v_{\mathrm{th}})\right|V_0,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0}\right].
\end{align}
The constraint $\bar O_{\delta}^{T}(V_0,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0}){\leq}\sigma$
can then be added to the optimization problem (\ref{optprob}), or the Lagrangian term $\mu \bar O_{\delta}^{T}(V_0,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0})$
to (\ref{optproblag}).
The following DP algorithm (\ref{DPgen}) can be straightforwardly extended to this case. Its analysis is left for future~work.
\end{remark}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\section{Analysis}
\label{analysis}
\noindent For the finite horizon $T{<}\infty$, for both the coordinated and decentralized schemes, the optimal instruction policy $\delta^*$,
which is the solution of (\ref{optproblag}), can be found
via DP \cite{Bertsekas2005}, by solving recursively, backward in time from $k=T$ to $k=0$,
\begin{align}
\label{DPgen}
&\bar W^{T-k}(V_{k},\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,k})
=\min_{\delta_k(\cdot)}
\mathbb E\left[\left.
\bar W^{T-k-1}(V_{k+1},\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,k+1})\right|\delta_k\right]\nonumber
\\&
+\mathbb E\left[\left.
\hat \nu(V_{k},\Lambda_k)+
\frac{\lambda}{c_{\mathrm{TX}}}\sum_{n=1}^{N_S}c_{SN}(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k})\right|\delta_k\right],
\end{align}
where $V_{k+1}{=}\nu(\hat \nu(V_{k},\Lambda_{k}))$ and $\bar W^{-1}(V_{T+1},\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,T+1}){=}0$.
The minimizer is the optimal instruction policy $\delta_k^*(\cdot)$ in slot $k$,
and $\bar W^{T}(V_0,\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,0})/(T+1)$ yields the optimal cost function for the Lagrangian problem (\ref{optproblag}).
The infinite horizon scenario $T\to\infty$ can be approximated by choosing $T$ sufficiently large.
In general, (\ref{DPgen}) has high complexity, due to the large action space, non-convex nature, and the dependence on the accuracy state belief
$\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,k}$.
In particular, in the coordinated scheme, the optimization is over the joint action $(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k},B_{n,k})$
of each SN, as a function of $V_k$ and $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k$ and time $k$.
On the other hand, in the decentralized scheme, the optimization is over functions
$q_k{:}\Gamma{\mapsto}[0,1]$ and $S_{M,k}{:}\Gamma{\mapsto}[0,\infty)$.
To overcome these dimensionality issues,
in Secs.~\ref{centr} and \ref{deccentr} we derive structural properties of the optimal policy and of the cost function by exploiting the \emph{statistical symmetry}
and the \emph{large network} approximation $N_S{\gg}1$,
which enable a more efficient solution of (\ref{DPgen}). In Part II, we will further reduce the complexity by proposing
near-optimal myopic policies.
Theorem \ref{lowbound} lower bounds the optimal MSE under any scheme.
\begin{thm}
\label{lowbound}
If $T=\infty$, we have
$\bar M_{\delta^*}\!\!\geq\!\!\hat\nu^*(\bar \Lambda^*)$,
where
\begin{align}
\label{nuing}
&\!\!\hat\nu^*(x)\triangleq\frac{
\sqrt{\!(1\!-\!\alpha)^2(1\!+\!x^2)\!+\!2(1\!\!-\!\!\alpha^2)x}
\!-\!(1\!-\!\alpha)(1\!+\!x)
}
{
2\alpha x
},
\\
\label{maxagg}
&\!\!\!\!\bar\Lambda^*\!\!=\!\max_{\delta}\mathbb E\left[\left.\Lambda_k\right|\delta\right]\!,\text{s.t.}
\mathbb E\left[\left.c_{SN}(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k})\right|\delta\right]\!\!\leq\!\!\frac{\epsilon}{N_S},\!\forall n.\!\!\!
\end{align}
\end{thm}
\noindent\emph{Proof:}
The proof follows from the fact that $R_T(1;\Lambda_0^T)$ is a convex function of $\Lambda_0^T$ (Prop.~\ref{propV} in App.~\ref{appprop}),
hence $\bar M_{\delta^*}^T{\geq}R_T(1;\mathbb E\left[\left.\Lambda_0^T\right|\delta^*\right])$.
Letting $\bar \Lambda{=}\frac{1}{T+1}\sum_{k}\mathbb E\left[\left.\Lambda_k\right|\delta^*\right]$ be the average aggregate SNR, we have
$R_T(1;\mathbb E\left[\left.\Lambda_0^T\right|\delta^*\right]){\geq}R_T^*(\bar\Lambda)$,
where $R_T^*(\bar\Lambda)$ is defined in (\ref{RTstar}). Since $R_T^*(x)$ is a decreasing function of $x$ (Theorem~\ref{thm3} in App.~\ref{appprop}) and
$\bar\Lambda{\leq}\bar\Lambda^*$ as a result of the optimization in (\ref{maxagg}),
we also have $R_T^*(\bar\Lambda){\geq}R_T^*(\bar\Lambda^*)$. Finally, in the limit $T{\to}\infty$, using Corollary~\ref{corollary} in App.~\ref{appprop},
we obtain $\bar M_{\delta^*}{\geq}\underset{T\to\infty}{\lim}R_T^*(\bar\Lambda^*){=}\hat \nu^*\left(\bar\Lambda^*\right)$, proving the theorem.\hfill\QED
The policy solving the optimization problem (\ref{maxagg}) is denoted as the \emph{max aggregate SNR scheme} (MAX-SNR). In each slot, it maximizes the expected
aggregate SNR collected at the FC, under the cost constraint for the SNs.
MAX-SNR is non-adaptive, since it is independent of $V_k$.
The lower bound in Theorem \ref{lowbound} can be achieved only if the aggregate SNR $\Lambda_k{=}\bar\Lambda^*$ is collected deterministically in each slot
(Corollary~\ref{corollary} in App.~\ref{appprop}).
However, this lower bound is, in general, not achievable,
since the cross-layer factors introduce uncertainties and random fluctuations of the aggregate SNR $\Lambda_k$ around its mean, thus
degrading the MSE performance. Hence, MAX-SNR may achieve poor performance in general, as shown in Sec. \ref{numres}.
We now analyze both schemes.
\vspace{-3mm}
\subsection{Analysis of Coordinated scheme}
\label{centr}
\noindent In the coordinated scheme, collisions can be avoided by scheduling at most one SN to transmit in each channel.
Without loss of optimality, the SNs are scheduled to transmit, in order, in
the channels with ID $1,2,\dots B$. Therefore,
if $A_{n,k}{=}1$, we let $B_{n,k}{=}\sum_{m=1}^{n}A_{m,k}$. This channel scheduling is optimal, since the $B$ orthogonal channels are symmetric and interchangeable.
We proceed as follows. We first derive structural properties of the optimal policy and of the DP
algorithm by exploiting the statistical symmetry of the WSN for the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario, yielding a lower bound to the MSE
achievable under the \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario.
Based on that, we then
design low-complexity policies for the
\emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario,
which are shown to be near-optimal for large WSNs.
\subsubsection{\emph{Best-}$\gamma$ scenario}
In this case, the belief $\pi_{\boldsymbol{\gamma},k}$ is constant and can be neglected.
Prop. \ref{optsymm} states the optimality of \emph{policy symmetry}, \emph{i.e.}, due to the statistical symmetry of the WSN,
it is optimal for the FC to schedule actions \emph{uniformly} randomly across SNs.
In other words, the SNs incur the same sensing-transmission cost
and have the same sensing capabilities, hence there is no preference of one SN over another.
Let
\begin{align*}
\mathcal D^{(O)}\equiv\{\mathbf D\in\mathcal D:A_{n}\geq A_{n+1},\forall n; S_{M,n}\geq S_{M,n+1},\forall n\}
\end{align*}
be an ordered subset of instructions. We have that any instruction $\mathbf D{\in}\mathcal D$ can be obtained
by permutation of some $\mathbf D^{(O)}{\in}\mathcal D^{(O)}$. Additionally, let $\mathcal D(\mathbf D^{(O)})$ be the subset of instructions in
$\mathcal D$ obtained by permutation of the entries of $\mathbf D^{(O)}$,
so that $\mathcal D{\equiv}\cup_{\mathbf D^{(O)}\in\mathcal D^{(O)}}\mathcal D(\mathbf D^{(O)})$.
\begin{propos}
\label{optsymm}
In the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario,
one optimal instruction policy $\delta^*$ for (\ref{optprob}) or (\ref{optproblag}) satisfies, $\forall V_k$,
\begin{align*}
\delta_k^*(\mathbf D|V_{k})= \delta_k^*(\mathbf D^{(O)}|V_{k}),\ \forall \mathbf D\in \mathcal D(\mathbf D^{(O)}),\
\forall \mathbf D^{(O)}\in\mathcal D^{(O)}.
\end{align*}
\end{propos}
\noindent\emph{Proof:}
See App.~\ref{Proofoptsymm}.
\hfill\QED
\noindent
We denote an instruction policy satisfying the hypothesis of Prop.~\ref{optsymm}
as a \emph{symmetric instruction policy}. Such a policy is symmetric with respect to the SN scheduling, and induces
the same expected cost for each SN, so that the superscript $n$ in (\ref{CSN}) can be neglected.
To generate a symmetric instruction policy,
the FC first selects
one ordered instruction $\mathbf D^{(O)}$ from the lower-dimensional set $\mathcal D^{(O)}$, and then
assigns, in order, each component of $\mathbf D^{(O)}=(d_1^{(O)},d_2^{(O)},\dots,d_{N_S}^{(O)})$ to a random SN, until
all of them have been scheduled.
The following proposition
demonstrates the optimality of
allocating the same local measurement SNR to all active SNs.
\begin{propos}
\label{lem2}
In the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario,
the optimal $\delta^*$ allocates $S_{M,n,k}=S_{M,k}$ for all $n$ such that $A_{n,k}=1$.
\end{propos}
\noindent\emph{Proof:}
See App.~\ref{Proofoptsymm}.
\hfill\QED
\noindent
This result follows from the concavity of the aggregate SNR with respect to the SNR allocation of the SNs.
Under the resource constraints, it is thus optimal for the SNs to employ the same SNR, in order to maximize the aggregate SNR collected at the FC.
From Props. \ref{optsymm} and \ref{lem2}, it follows that, in the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario, it is sufficient for the FC to choose, in each slot $k$,
the number of SNs to activate $t_k\in\{0,1,\dots,B\}$, and their common local measurement SNR $S_{M,k}$. The $t_k$ active SNs
are then chosen uniformly from the set of SNs.
For a given pair $(t_k,S_{M,k})$,
the aggregate SNR collected at the FC is thus $\Lambda_k=t_k\frac{S_AS_{M,k}}{S_A+S_{M,k}}$.
The MSE performance is governed by the aggregate SNR $\Lambda_k$ collected at the FC. Since the FC
can control $(t_k,S_{M,k})$, we can optimize these two quantities to minimize the sensing-transmission cost
in order to collect the target aggregate SNR $\Lambda_k$ at the FC,
denoted as $(t^*(\Lambda_k),S_{M}^*(\Lambda_k))$,
yielding the following proposition.
\begin{propos}
\label{lem3}
Let $\Lambda{<}BS_A$ be the target aggregate SNR collected at the FC.
In the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario,
if $\Lambda{=}0$, then $t^*(0){=}0$ and $S_{M}^*(0)=0$.
Otherwise ($\Lambda>0$), let
\begin{align*}
\Lambda_{\mathrm{th}}(t)\triangleq\frac{2S_At(t+1)}
{\sqrt{1+4S_A\theta t(t+1)}+2t+1};
\end{align*}
then $t^*(\Lambda){=}\min\{t,B\}$
and $S_{M}^*(\Lambda)=\frac{S_A\Lambda}{t^*(\Lambda)S_A-\Lambda}$, where $t{\geq}1$ is the unique value such that $\Lambda\in[\Lambda_{\mathrm{th}}(t-1),\Lambda_{\mathrm{th}}(t))$.
\end{propos}
\noindent\emph{Proof:}
See App.~\ref{Proofoptsymm}.
\hfill\QED
\noindent From Prop.~\ref{lem3}, it follows that it is sufficient for the FC to determine, in each slot $k$,
the target aggregate SNR $\Lambda_k$. The number of SNs activated is then given by $t_k=t^*(\Lambda_k)$,
and the common local measurement SNR is $S_{M,n,k}=S_{M}^*(\Lambda_k)$.
Note that $\Lambda_{\mathrm{th}}(t)$ is an increasing function of $t$, implying that an increasing number of SNs need to be activated
as the aggregate SNR requirement $\Lambda_k$ increases.
Moreover, $\Lambda_{\mathrm{th}}(t)$ is an increasing function of $S_A$
and decreasing function of the normalized unitary sensing cost $\theta$, so that, as $S_A$ grows or $\theta$ diminishes,
less SNs need to be activated.
In fact, $S_A$ determines the error floor in the measurement collected by each SN.
Therefore, as $S_A$ increases and the ambient noise becomes less relevant, it is sufficient to activate
a smaller number of SNs with higher SNR, in order to reduce the transmission cost.
Similarly, as $\theta$ grows, the
transmission cost becomes less and less relevant with respect to the sensing cost, hence
more SNs can be activated.
We thus obtain:
\noindent {\bf COORD-DP: DP algorithm for the coordinated scheme, \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario.}
For $k=T,T-1,\dots,0$, solve, $\forall V_k{\in}[1-\alpha,1]$,
\begin{align}\label{DPgenCOORD}
\nonumber
&\bar W^{T-k}(V_{k})
=\!\!\!\!\min_{\Lambda_k\in [0,BS_A)}
\bar W^{T-k-1}(\nu(\hat \nu(V_{k},\Lambda_{k})))
\\&
+\hat \nu(V_{k},\Lambda_k)
+\frac{\lambda}{c_{\mathrm{TX}}} t^*(\Lambda_k)c_{SN}\left(1,S_{M}^*(\Lambda_k)\right),
\end{align}
where $\bar W^{-1}(V_{T+1})=0$.
The optimizer, $\Lambda_k^*(V_k)$, is the optimal aggregate SNR collected at the FC in slot $k$.
\hfill\QED
Note that, by exploiting the statistical symmetry of the WSN, we have enabled a significant complexity reduction with respect to
(\ref{DPgen}), since the optimization is only over the aggregate SNR sequence, rather than the joint action $(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k},B_{n,k})$ of each SN.
The next theorem characterizes regimes of $\epsilon$ where the optimal policy is the MAX-SNR scheme.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm1}
In the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario with $T\to\infty$,
\\(i) if $\epsilon=tc_{\mathrm{TX}}(1+\sqrt{\theta S_A})$, for some $t=1,2,\dots,B$,
$\delta^*$ is the MAX-SNR scheme,
with $t_k^*=t$, $S_{M,k}^*=\sqrt{\frac{S_A}{\theta}},\ \forall k$;
\\(ii) if $\epsilon>Bc_{\mathrm{TX}}(1+\sqrt{\theta S_A})$,
$\delta^*$ is the MAX-SNR scheme,
with $t_k^*=B$, $S_{M,k}^*=\frac{1}{\theta}\left(\frac{\epsilon}{Bc_{\mathrm{TX}}}-1\right),\ \forall k$;
\\(iii) in both cases, $\bar M_{\delta^*}=\hat\nu^*\left(t_k^*\frac{S_AS_{M,k}^*}{S_A+S_{M,k}^*}\right)$, where $\hat\nu^*(x)$ is given by (\ref{nuing}),
and $\bar C_{\delta^*}=\frac{\epsilon}{N_S}$.
\end{thm}
\noindent\emph{Proof:}
See App.~\ref{Proofthm1}.
\hfill\QED
Theorem \ref{thm1} follows from the fact that, in the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario, the FC can deterministically control the quality of the measurements
collected in each slot (aggregate SNR $\Lambda_k$), \emph{i.e.}, there are no uncertainties. If the condition on
$\epsilon$ given by Theorem~\ref{thm1} is satisfied, the FC can thus schedule each SN so as to collect a constant aggregate SNR (the highest possible, under the resource constraints, as dictated by the MAX-SNR scheme), thus achieving the lower bound in Theorem~\ref{lowbound} (see comments therein).
On the other hand, if the condition on $\epsilon$ is not satisfied, the FC may need to resort to time-sharing in order to best exploit all available resources. The policy
in this case can be obtained via the DP in (\ref{DPgenCOORD}).
Note that, in case (i), the local measurement SNR $S_{M,k}^*$ only depends on $S_A$ and $\theta$.
In particular, it is an increasing function of $S_A$ and decreasing function of $\theta$.
In fact, if $S_A$ increases, the error floor represented by the ambient noise diminishes, hence
more accurate measurements can be collected; similarly, if $\theta$ increases, sensing becomes more costly, hence
$S_{M,k}^*$ diminishes.
On the other hand, in case (ii), sensing-transmission resources are abundant to SNs, hence $B$ SNs are activated in order to saturate all $B$ channels.
$S_{M,k}^*$ in this case is selected in such a way as to use up all available resources.
\subsubsection{\emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario}
\label{MarkovCOORD}
In this case, $\gamma_{n,k}$ fluctuates over time, thus causing random fluctuations
in the aggregate SNR collected at the FC.
The optimal policy is difficult to characterize,
due to the high dimensionality of the problem.
Herein, we define a sub-optimal policy, based
on the optimal DP policy derived in the previous section.
To this end,
let $r(\cdot;\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k):\{1,2,\dots,N_S\}\mapsto\{1,2,\dots,N_S\}$
be a ranking of SNs indexed by $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k$, such that $r(m;\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k)$
is the label of the SN with the $m$th highest accuracy state,
\emph{i.e.}, $\gamma_{r(1;\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k),k}\geq\gamma_{r(2;\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k),k}\geq,\dots,\geq\gamma_{r(N_S;\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k),k}$.
Let $\delta^*$ be the optimal policy solving
(\ref{optprob}) or (\ref{optproblag}) for the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario,
$\{t_k^*,S_{M,k}^*,\Lambda_k^*,k\geq 0\}$ be the sequence of number of active SNs, local measurement and aggregate SNRs generated by such policy
in the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario.
Denote the optimal MSE and cost in the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario as
$\bar M_{\delta^*}^{\gamma_{\max}}$ and $\bar C_{\delta^*}^{\gamma_{\max}}$, respectively.
Clearly, $\Lambda_k^*$ is an upper bound to the aggregate SNR collected at the FC in the
\emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario, due to the fluctuations in the local accuracy state.
Let $\{\tilde V_k,k{\geq}0\}$ be a \emph{virtual prior variance process}, obtained as if all measurements were collected with
the best accuracy state $\gamma_{\max}$. Starting from $\tilde V_0=V_0$, this can be generated recursively as $\tilde V_{k+1}=\nu(\hat\nu(\tilde V_k,\Lambda_k^*))$.
We define the \emph{sub-optimal coordinated DP policy} (SCDP) as follows.
\noindent
\textbf{SCDP}:
Given $(\tilde V_k,\boldsymbol\gamma_k)$, SCDP allocates the $t_k^{*}$ SNs with the best accuracy state,
with local measurement SNR $S_{M,k}^{*}$,
\begin{align}
\!\!\nonumbe
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\!\!\!\!A_{r(m;\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k),k}\!=\!1,\ \!\!S_{M,r(m;\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k),k}\!=\!S_{M,k}^*,\forall m\!=\!1,2,\!\dots\!,\!t_k^*,
\\
\!\!\!\!A_{r(m;\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k),k}\!=\!0,\ \forall m>t_k^*.\hfill\QED
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
We have the following theorem.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm2}
In the \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario, if $N_S\geq \frac{B-1}{\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma_{\max})}$,
under SCDP,
$\!\bar C_{\delta^*}\!=\!\bar C_{\delta^*}^{\gamma_{\max}}\!$ and
\begin{align}
&
\!\!\!0\!\leq\!\bar M_{\delta^*}\!\!-\!\bar M_{\delta^*}^{\gamma_{\max}}
\!\!\leq\!
\frac{1}{1\!-\!\alpha}\!\exp\!\left\{\!\!-\frac{\left(N_S\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma_{\max})\!-\!B\!+\!1\right)^2}{2N_S\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma_{\max})}\!\!\right\}\!.\!\!\!
\label{inex}
\end{align}
\end{thm}
\noindent\emph{Proof:}
See App.~\ref{Proofthm2}.
\hfill\QED
\noindent{Theorem \ref{thm2} states that SCDP
achieves the same sensing-transmission cost as the optimal policy in the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario.
This is by construction and due to the statistical symmetry property, since all SNs experience the same steady-state distribution of their local accuracy state,
hence each of them belongs to the set of $t_k^*$ best SNs with the same frequency.
On the other hand, the MSE gap with respect to the lower bound represented by the optimal policy in the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario
decreases exponentially with the network size $N_S$.
Therefore, SCDP is nearly optimal for $N_S$ sufficiently large.}
Alternatively,
a densely deployed WSN
provides \emph{sensing diversity}, \emph{i.e.}, in each slot, a sufficiently large pool of SNs
can sense $X_k$ with high accuracy, despite the fluctuations in the \emph{local} accuracy state of each SN.
SCDP can be optimized efficiently via
the DP in (\ref{DPgenCOORD}) for the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario,
and is given by Theorem~\ref{thm1}, if the condition on $\epsilon$ holds.
\vspace{-4mm}
\subsection{Analysis of Decentralized scheme}
\label{deccentr}
\noindent In this section, we analyze the decentralized scheme.
By adapting the DP in (\ref{DPgen}) to this case, we obtain
\begin{align}
\label{DP}
&\bar W^{T-k}(V_{k},\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,k})
=
\min_{\!\!\!\!\!\!\!(q,S_M):\Gamma\mapsto[0,1]\times[0,\infty)\!\!\!\!\!\!\!}
\mathbb E\left[\left.\hat \nu\left(V_{k},\Lambda_k\right)\right|q,S_M\right]
\nonumber\\&
+
\frac{\lambda}{c_{\mathrm{TX}}} \!\!\!\sum_{\boldsymbol\gamma\in\Gamma^{N_S}}\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,k}(\boldsymbol\gamma)\sum_{n=1}^{N_S}q(\gamma_n) c_{SN}(1,S_{M}(\gamma_n))
\nonumber
\\&
+
\mathbb E\left[\left.
\bar W^{T-k-1}\left(\nu\left(\hat \nu\left(V_{k},\Lambda_k\right)\right),\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,k+1}\right)\right|q,S_M\right],
\end{align}
where
$\Lambda_k{=}\sum_{n}O_{n,k}\gamma_{n}^2S_AS_{M}(\gamma_{n})/(S_A{+}S_{M}(\gamma_{n}))$,
whose distribution depends on $q(\cdot)$ and $S_M(\cdot)$ via $(O_{n,k},\gamma_n),\forall n$.
As in the coordinated scheme, we first study the \emph{best}{-}$\gamma$ scenario, and then
extend our analysis to the \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario.
\subsubsection{\emph{Best-}$\gamma$ scenario}
\label{bestomegadistr}
Letting $\gamma_n{=}1,\forall n$, we obtain $\Lambda_k{=}\frac{R_kS_AS_{M}}{S_A+S_{M}}$,
where $R_k{=}\sum_{n=1}^{N_S}O_{n,k}$ is the number of packets successfully received at
the FC, with PMF $p_R(R_k;q)$
\begin{propos}
\label{psr}
If the SNs activate with probability~$q$,
\begin{align*}
p_R(r;q)\!\!=\!\!
\sum_{k=r}^{B}\!
\frac{(-1)^{k-r}N_S!}{(N_S-k)!}\!\!
\left(\begin{array}{c}\!\!\!\!B\!\!\!\!\\\!\!\!\!r\!\!\!\!\end{array}\right)\!\!
\left(\begin{array}{c}\!\!\!B-r\!\!\!\\\!\!\!k-r\!\!\!\end{array}\right)\!\!
\left(\frac{q}{B}\right)^{k}\!\!
\left(1\!-\!k\frac{q}{B}\right)^{\!\!N_S-k}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!.
\end{align*}
\end{propos}
\noindent\emph{Proof:}
See App.~\ref{proofoflemchannel}.
\hfill\QED
\noindent We employ the large network approximation $N_S{\gg}1$ to approximate $p_R(r;q)$.
We define the \emph{normalized activation probability per channel},
$\zeta=qN_S/B$, and let $N_S\to\infty$ with $\zeta$ fixed.
We thus obtain the following corollary of Prop.~\ref{psr}.
\begin{corol}
\label{corol1}
When $N_S\to\infty$,
$R_k$
has binomial distribution with $B$ trials and success probability $\zeta e^{-\zeta}$
in each channel, denoted as $p_R(R_k;\zeta)$.
\end{corol}
\noindent {The implication is that the successes/collisions are independent across channels, each Bernoulli distributed.
This is not true for finite $N_S$, since the transmissions are coupled (each active SN transmits on a unique channel), hence
the successes/collisions are correlated across channels,
but it enables a good tractable approximation for finite $N_S$.}
Using the large network approximation, DP is given as follows.
\noindent {\bf DEC-DP: DP algorithm for the decentralized scheme, \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario.}
For $k=T,T-1,\dots,0$, solve, $\forall V_k{\in}[1-\alpha,1]$,
\begin{align}
\label{DPzeta}
&\!\!\!\!\bar W^{T-k}(V_{k})
\!\!=\!\!\min_{\zeta,S_{M}}\!\sum_{r=0}^Bp_R(r;\zeta)\hat \nu\left(\!\!V_{k},r\frac{S_AS_M}{S_A\!\!+\!\!S_M}\!\right)
\!\!+\!\!\frac{\!\lambda\zeta\!}{\!c_{\mathrm{TX}}\!} c_{SN}(1,\!S_{M}\!)
\nonumber
\\&
\!+\!\sum_{r=0}^Bp_R(r;\zeta)
\bar W^{T-k-1}\left(\nu\left(\hat \nu\left(V_{k},r\frac{S_AS_M}{S_A+S_M}\right)\right)\right),
\end{align}
where $\bar W^{-1}(V_{T+1})=0$.
The optimizer, $(\zeta_k^*(V_k),S_{M,k}^*(V_k))$, is the optimal normalized activation probability and local measurement SNR pair in slot $k$.
\hfill\QED
The activation probability when $N_S<\infty$ can then be approximated by $q_{k}^*(V_k)\simeq\zeta_k^*(V_k) B/N_S$.
Due to the shared wireless channel, the transmission probability of the SNs should be bounded, as stated in the following proposition.
\begin{propos}
\label{zetaopt}
When $N_S\to\infty$, the normalized transmission probability per channel satisfies $\zeta_k^*(V_k)\leq 1$.
\end{propos}
\noindent\emph{Proof:}
See App.~\ref{proofoflemchannel}.
\hfill\QED
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem2}
Note that, if $B{=}1$, the success rate $N_Sq(1{-}q)^{N_S-1}$ is maximized by $q{=}1/N_S$, \emph{i.e.}, $\zeta{=}1$.
Any $q{>}1/N_S$ ($\zeta{>}1$) incurs higher cost and collision probability, hence worse MSE performance, and is thus sub-optimal.
Therefore, Prop.~\ref{zetaopt} holds trivially for $B{=}1,\forall N_S$.
For $B>1$, this result holds for $N_S\to\infty$, since channel outcomes are decoupled in this case (Corollary~\ref{corol1}).
\end{remark}
From Prop.~\ref{zetaopt}, the minimization in the DP stage (\ref{DPzeta})
can be confined to $\zeta\in [0,1]$, thus reducing the search space.
\subsubsection{\emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario}
\label{MarkovDIST}
The optimal policy for this case is difficult to characterize, due to the high dimensionality of the problem.
Similar to the coordinated scheme, we define the following \emph{sub-optimal decentralized DP policy} (SDDP).
To this end, let $(\zeta_k^*(V_k),S_{M,k}^*(V_k))$ be the optimal policy under the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario, obtained via (\ref{DPzeta}).
\noindent\textbf{SDDP}:
Given $V_k$,
the activation probability is defined as
\begin{align}
q_k(V_k,\gamma)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1,&\gamma >\gamma_{\mathrm{th}},\\
\frac{\frac{B}{N_S}\zeta_k^{*}(V_k)-\sum_{\gamma>\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}}\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma)}{\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma_{\mathrm{th}})},
&
\gamma=\gamma_{\mathrm{th}},\\
0,&\gamma<\gamma_{\mathrm{th}},
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
and the local measurement SNR as $S_{M,n,k}\!{=}S_{M,k}^*\!(V_k)$,
where $\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}{\in}\Gamma$ uniquely solves
$\!\!\!\underset{\gamma\geq \gamma_{\mathrm{th}}}{\sum}\!\!\!\!\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma){\geq}
B\zeta_k^{*}(V_k)/N_S{>}\!\!\!\!\underset{\gamma{>}\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}}\sum\!\!\!\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma)$.\hfill\QED
\noindent Note that, under SDDP,
$\sum_{\gamma}q_k(V_k,\gamma)\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma)N_S/B{=}\zeta_k^{*}(V_k)$,
\emph{i.e.}, each SN activates with \emph{marginal} normalized probability $\zeta_k^{*}(V_k)$,
with respect to the steady-state distribution of $\gamma_{n,k}$.
For the \emph{i.i.d.-}$\gamma$ scenario, we have the following proposition.
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{propos}
SDDP is optimal in the \emph{i.i.d.-}$\gamma$ scenario,
if $N_S{\geq}\frac{B}{\pi_\gamma(\gamma_{\max})}$.
\end{propos}
As in the coordinated scheme, this result is a consequence of the fact that a densely deployed WSN
provides \emph{sensing diversity}, \emph{i.e.}, in each slot, a sufficiently large pool of SNs
can sense the underlying process with high accuracy, despite the fluctuations in the \emph{local} accuracy state of each SN.
In particular, if $N_S{\geq}B/\pi_\gamma(\gamma_{\max})$,
then SDDP yields $q_k(V_k,\gamma_{\max})=\frac{B\zeta_k^{*}(V_k)}{N_S\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma_{\max})}$,
$q_k(V_k,\gamma)=0,\forall\gamma<\gamma_{\max}$, so that only the SNs with the best accuracy state may activate, and no loss is incurred with respect to
the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario.
On the other hand, if $N_S{<}B/\pi_\gamma(\gamma_{\max})$,
the FC may resort to the SNs with lower accuracy to sense and report their measurement.
The DP (\ref{DP}) for the general case has high complexity, due
to the high-dimensional action space (the activation probability and local measurement SNR are functions of the accuracy state) and state space
(the belief $\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,k}$ is part of the state).
Moreover, the optimal DP policy in the \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario is cumbersome to operate, since the FC needs to track the
belief $\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,k}$.
In contrast, SDDP has lower optimization and operational complexity, since it is optimized for the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario and
it does not require the FC to track $\pi_{\boldsymbol\gamma,k}$.
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\subsection{Cost of communication overhead}
\label{commover}
\noindent In this section, we evaluate the communication overhead required to implement the two schemes,
assuming the sub-optimal DP policy is used in the \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario.
In the \emph{uplink} channel (SNs to FC), each SN incurs the cost $c_{\gamma}$ to report its accuracy state to the FC.
On the other hand, in the
\emph{downlink} channel (FC to SNs), the FC incurs the cost $c_{V}$ to feed back the quality state $V_k$, and $c_{SC}$ to schedule each SN to activate.
The mapping of $V_k$ to the corresponding sensing-transmission action is stored in each SN in a look-up table.
\subsubsection{Coordinated scheme}
In this scheme, the SNs need to report their accuracy state, whenever it changes.
Therefore, the (average long-term) uplink communication overhead of the network is $\bar C_{UOH}{=}N_Sc_{\gamma}\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma}\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma)(1{-}P_\gamma(\gamma;\gamma))
$, which grows with the WSN size.
In particular, $\bar C_{UOH}{=}0$ in the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario and
$\bar C_{UOH}{=}N_Sc_{\gamma}\left(1{-}\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma}\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma)^2\right)$ in the \emph{i.i.d.-}$\gamma$ scenario;
in the general \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario, $\bar C_{UOH}$ is small if $P_\gamma(\gamma;\gamma)\simeq 1,\ \forall \gamma$, \emph{i.e.}, the accuracy state varies slowly over time.
In the downlink channel, the FC schedules each SN individually, hence the downlink communication overhead is $t_k^*c_{SC}$ in slot $k$, since $t_k^*$ are scheduled to activate.
Since $t_k^*\leq B$, the average long-term downlink communication overhead satisfies $\bar C_{DOH}\leq Bc_{SC}$.
\subsubsection{Decentralized scheme}
In this scheme, the SNs do not report their local accuracy state to the FC, hence $\bar C_{UOH}=0$.
On the other hand, in the downlink channel, the FC broadcasts the quality state $V_k$ in each slot, hence $\bar C_{DOH}=c_V$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = .85\linewidth,trim = 10mm 4mm 10mm 9mm,clip=true]{figB5NS20_c}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{MSE as a function of the network cost, $N_S=20$.
\label{NS100B1}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
Note that, unlike the coordinated scheme, the decentralized one incurs no uplink communication overhead cost. If $Bc_{SC}>c_V$,
it incurs also a smaller downlink communication overhead cost. Therefore, overall, the decentralized scheme is more scalable to large WSNs. As we will see in the next section,
this improved scalability and lower communication overhead come at the cost of MSE degradation.
\vspace{-3mm}
\section{Numerical Results}\label{numres}
\noindent In this section, we provide numerical results.
Unless otherwise stated, we consider a WSN of size $N_S{\in}\{20,100\}$ (\emph{small} and \emph{large} WSN, respectively).
We model $\{\gamma_{n,k}\}$
as a Markov chain taking values in the set $\Gamma{\equiv}\{\sqrt{i/10},i{=}1,2,\dots,10\}$, with transition probabilities
$P_\gamma(\gamma;\gamma){=}0.9$,
$P_\gamma(\sqrt{1/10};\sqrt{2/10}){=}P_\gamma(1;\sqrt{9/10}){=}0.1$,
$P_\gamma(\sqrt{i/10};\sqrt{(i+1)/10}){=}P_\gamma(\sqrt{i/10};\sqrt{(i-1)/10}){=}0.05$, $i{=}2,3,\dots,9$.
We let $c_{\mathrm{TX}}{=}1$,\footnote{{Note that the choice $c_{\mathrm{TX}}=1$ is without loss of generality, since, by scaling
$c_{\mathrm{TX}}$ and $\phi$ by the same value, while keeping the normalized unitary sensing cost $\theta$ constant,
the long-term sensing-transmission cost scales accordingly, without changing
the form of the optimal policy, and without providing any further insights.}} $S_A=20$, $\phi=0.25$, $\alpha=0.96$, and $B=5$.
We consider the following schemes for the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario:
\noindent
$\bullet$ \emph{COORD-DP}: coordinated scheme, obtained via the DP in (\ref{DPgenCOORD}) or given by
Theorem~\ref{thm1}, if the condition on $\epsilon$ holds;
\noindent$\bullet$ \emph{DEC-DP}: the decentralized scheme considered in Sec.~\ref{deccentr},
obtained via the DP in (\ref{DP});
\noindent
$\bullet$ \emph{COORD-SNR}:
MAX-SNR policy for the coordinated scheme (see (\ref{opwreter})),
determined in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm1} in App.~\ref{Proofthm1};
\noindent
$\bullet$ \emph{DEC-SNR}:
MAX-SNR policy for the decentralized scheme,
\begin{align*}
(\zeta^*,S_M^*){=}\underset{\zeta,S_M}{\arg\max}\frac{\mathbb E[\left.R_k\right|\zeta]S_AS_M}{S_A+S_M}\ \text{s.t.}\ B\zeta(c_{\mathrm{TX}}+\phi S_M)\leq\epsilon,
\end{align*}
where, from Corollary~\ref{corol1}, $\mathbb E[\left.R_k\right|\zeta]=B\zeta e^{-\zeta}$.
The DP policies are obtained after $T_{DP}{=}100$ DP iterations, and are evaluated in both \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$
and \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenarios,
using Monte-Carlo simulation over $T{=}10^5$ slots.
The above policies in the \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario are defined similarly to
SCDP (Sec. \ref{MarkovCOORD}) and SDDP (Sec. \ref{MarkovDIST}).
Note that COORD-SNR and DEC-SNR are non-adaptive.
On the other hand, COORD-DP and DEC-DP adapt to the quality state $V_k$ fed back by the~FC.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = .85\linewidth,trim = 10mm 4mm 10mm 9mm,clip=true]{figB5NS100_c}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{MSE as a function of the network cost, $N_S=100$.
\label{NS10B1}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
In Figs. \ref{NS100B1} and \ref{NS10B1}, we plot the
MSE (\ref{Cest}) as a function of the network cost (\ref{CSN})
for $N_S{=}20$ and $N_S{=}100$, respectively, obtained by varying the parameters $\epsilon$ and $\lambda$.
We plot also the lower bound for COORD-DP, given by Theorem~\ref{lowbound} for the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario,
which is computed in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm1} in App.~\ref{Proofthm1}.
We notice that, in the large WSN scenario, both COORD-DP and DEC-DP in the \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario (SCDP and SDDP, respectively) approach
the lower bound given by the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario.
Therefore, SCDP and SDDP
perform well at a fraction of the complexity with respect to the globally optimal policy derived via DP in the \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario.
This is a result of \emph{sensing diversity}, \emph{i.e.}, in each slot, a sufficiently large pool of SNs
can sense the underlying process with high accuracy, despite the fluctuations in the \emph{local} accuracy state of each SN.
On the other hand,
DEC-DP
in the \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario (SDDP)
incurs a small degradation in the small network scenario with respect to the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario, since, in this case,
also the SNs with lower accuracy state activate.
Interestingly, COORD-DP yields good performance also in the small network scenario.
In fact, despite the fluctuations in the accuracy state of each SN, COORD-DP always activates the
best SNs, whereas the selection is randomized and decentralized for DEC-DP.
Moreover, COORD-DP closely approaches the lower bound given by Theorem~\ref{lowbound},
and, in some cases, achieves the bound (see Theorem~\ref{thm1}). In contrast, we have verified that the lower bound of Theorem~\ref{lowbound}
for the decentralized scheme (not plotted in the figure) is loose.
This is because the lower bound of Theorem~\ref{lowbound} can be achieved only if the FC collects \emph{deterministically} a constant aggregate SNR sequence,
as dictated by the MAX-SNR scheme:
such constant SNR sequence can be closely replicated in
the coordinated scheme, by scheduling individually each SN and avoiding collisions; on the other hand, in the decentralized scheme, the activation decisions of the SNs are randomized and collisions occur, so that the FC experiences wide random fluctuations of
the aggregate SNR sequence around its mean.
Finally, we note that, by adapting the sensing-transmission strategy to the quality state $V_k$,
COORD-DP and DEC-DP can achieve
significant cost-savings
with respect to the respective non-adaptive schemes COORD-SNR and DEC-SNR,
up to
74\% (for $N_S=20$) and 20\% (for $N_S=100$) for the decentralized scheme,
and up to 35\% for the coordinated one. Therefore, the maximization of the average aggregate SNR collected at the FC,
initially proposed in Sec. \ref{probform},
is not a good design criterion,
since it does not effectively cope with the fluctuations and the stochastic dynamics
induced by cross-layer factors such as the time-varying accuracy states, the decentralized sensing-transmission decisions of the SNs, and the channel collisions.
In Fig.~\ref{DISTDPSTRUC_B5}, we plot the structure of DEC-DP as a function of $V_k$.
We note that, as $V_k$ increases,
\emph{i.e.}, the estimate of $X_k$ is less accurate,
both $\zeta^*(V_k)$ and $S_M^*(V_k)$ increase,
in order to improve the estimation accuracy ($S_M^*(V_k)$ exhibits fluctuations due to the numerical optimization).
On the other hand, when the estimation accuracy is good ($V_k<0.2$)
the activation probability is zero, so that the SNs can
save energy.
This result is in line with the myopic policy, studied in Part~II.
Finally, note that $\zeta^*(V_k)<1,\ \forall V_k$ (Prop.~\ref{zetaopt}).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = .85\linewidth,trim = 10mm 4mm 10mm 9mm,clip=true]{figDPdistB5_c}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{Structure of DEC-DP as a function of the prior variance $V_k$.
The corresponding simulated network cost is $1.6619$ and the MSE is $0.124$.
\label{DISTDPSTRUC_B5}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
Finally, we compare our proposed decentralized technique to a technique proposed in \cite{Msechu}.
Therein, the estimation of a random \emph{static} parameter is considered, and decentralized censoring is employed to minimize the transmission cost of the SNs,
based on the informativeness of the measurements collected, similar to \cite{Appadwedula} for a static detection problem.
Note that (i) \cite{Msechu} assumes error-free transmissions; (ii)
it does not model the sensing cost and the ability of the SNs to tune the local measurement SNR $S_{M,n,k}$, \emph{e.g.},
by controlling the number of samples collected;
(iii) it assumes a static scenario, \emph{i.e.}, a single slot is considered and the parameter to be estimated does not vary over time.
In our framework, in contrast, (i) transmissions are prone to collisions; (ii) $S_{M,n,k}$ is a control parameter, with cost $\phi S_{M,n,k}$;
(iii) the process to be tracked is time-correlated, and the SNs have an internal accuracy state evolving as a Markov chain.
Our proposed feedback loop enables adaptation of the sensing-transmission strategy in order to cope with the dynamics induced by these
cross-layer factors.
Since \cite{Msechu} does not consider our model exactly, we have extended it to accommodate our cross-layer dynamic setting as follows.
We denote this scheme as \emph{modified}-[17] (Mod-[17]).
Given the prior variance $V_k$ and mean $\sqrt{\alpha}\hat X_{k-1}$ of $X_k$ at the beginning of slot $k$,
all SNs perform a measurement with common measurement SNR $S_M$. Then,
SN $n$ censors its measurement (denoted as $C_{n,k}{=}1$) if
\begin{align}
\label{censrule}
\left|Y_{n,k}-\gamma_{n,k}\sqrt{\alpha}\hat X_{k-1}\right|<\tau\sqrt{\gamma_{n,k}^2V_k+S_A^{-1}+S_M^{-1}},
\end{align}
where the term within the square root is the variance of $Y_{n,k}$, given $(\sqrt{\alpha}\hat X_{k-1},V_k,\gamma_{n,k})$,
and transmits it otherwise ($C_{n,k}=0$).
In other words, $Y_{n,k}$ is transmitted if and only if it significantly deviates from its expected value $\sqrt{\alpha}\hat X_{k-1}$~\cite{Msechu}.
The threshold $\tau$, common to all SNs, determines the transmission probability $q$ of the SNs. From the censoring rule
(\ref{censrule}), $q=2(1-Q(\tau))$,
where $Q(x)$ is the normal Gaussian cumulative distribution function.
Note that, in this scheme, all SNs sense in each slot, so that a fixed sensing cost $\phi S_M$ is incurred, as opposed to our scheme,
where each SN either activates by sensing and transmitting or remains idle. On the other hand, transmissions occur with probability
$q=2(1-Q(\tau))$, so that, on average, the sensing-transmission cost is $qc_{\mathrm{TX}}+\phi S_M$ in each slot.
We define the pair $(q,S_M)$ so as to optimize the aggregate SNR collected at the FC, under the sensing-transmission cost constraint,
\emph{i.e.}, using the approximation in Corollary~\ref{corol1} for the channel successes
and (\ref{Stot}), and assuming the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenario,
\begin{align*}
(q^*\!\!,\!S_M^*)\!=\!\!\!\!&\underset{q\in[0,1],S_M\geq 0}{\arg\max}\!\!\!\!qN_Se^{-\frac{qN_S}{B}}\!\!\frac{S_AS_M}{S_A\!+\!S_M},
\text{s.t. }qc_{\mathrm{TX}}\!+\!\phi S_M\!\!\leq\!\!\frac{\epsilon}{N_S}\!.
\end{align*}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = .85\linewidth,trim = 10mm 4mm 10mm 9mm,clip=true]{MSE_comp_c}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{MSE as a function of the network cost, comparison between Mod-[17] and DEC-DP;
$N_S=100$, \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenario.
\label{MSE_comp}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
Unfortunately for this scheme, the optimal estimator is not the linear Kalman filter. In fact,
censored measurements provide indirect feedback to the FC, which can be exploited to infer $X_k$.
The optimal approach is then for the FC to compute a posterior belief of $X_k$,
involving cumbersome numerical integration,
given the measurements collected and the indirect feedback signal,
based on which an MMSE estimate of $X_k$ can be obtained.
However, note that, in our setting, the FC cannot differentiate between a censored measurement (which provides the indirect feedback signal
$C_{n,k}{=}1$ given by (\ref{censrule})) or a collision (uncensored but lost, thus providing the indirect feedback signal $C_{n,k}{=}0$),
so that the computation of the posterior belief requires a cumbersome marginalization over these events, and over the value of
the accuracy state $\gamma_{n,k}$ in (\ref{censrule}).
In order to overcome this difficulty, we use the idealized assumption that the FC is genie-aided, \emph{i.e.}, it knows which SN censored its measurement, as well as the accuracy state $\gamma_{n,k}$ of each SN. \emph{This information is not available to the decentralized scheme proposed in this paper, thus yielding a lower-bound to the cost-MSE trade-off achievable by Mod-[17]}. The posterior distribution of $X_k$, given the observations collected at the FC, the collision outcome,
the censoring outcome and accuracy state of each SN, is evaluated numerically. Based on it,
the MMSE estimate of $X_k$ (posterior mean) and its posterior variance $\hat V_k$ are computed.
Finally,
the Gaussian approximation is used, so that
the next prior belief is
$X_{k+1}{\sim}\mathcal N(\sqrt{\alpha}\hat X_{k},\nu(\hat V_{k}))$. This scheme is then repeated in each slot.
In Fig. \ref{MSE_comp}, we evaluate the trade-off between network cost and MSE
under Mod-[17] and DEC-DP, via Monte-Carlo simulation over 3000 slots.
We notice that Mod-[17] incurs a significant performance degradation with respect to DEC-DP, despite the idealized assumption that
the censoring and collision outcomes, as well the accuracy state of each SN, are known to the FC under Mod-[17] (such information is not available to DEC-DP).
In fact, Mod-[17] does not employ a cross-layer perspective, \emph{i.e.}, it neglects the cost of sensing (each SN senses in each slot), and the shared wireless channel,
which results in collisions and uncertainty in the number of measurements collected at the FC.
This is also confirmed by the more frequent collisions incurred by Mod-[17] with respect to DEC-DP, as shown numerically in Fig.~\ref{num_coll}.
Additionally, Mod-[17] is not designed to cope with the time-correlated dynamics considered in our model.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = .85\linewidth,trim = 10mm 4mm 10mm 9mm,clip=true]{num_coll_c}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{Average number of collisions per slot as a function of the network cost, comparison between Mod-[17] and DEC-DP;
$N_S=100$.
\label{num_coll}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-3mm}
\section{Conclusions}\label{conclusions}
In this paper, we have proposed a cross-layer distributed sensing-estimation framework for WSNs,
which exploits the quality feedback information from the FC.
Our cross-layer design approach allows one to model the time-varying capability
of the SNs to accurately sense the underlying process,
the scarce channel access resources shared by the SNs, as well as sensing-transmission costs.
We have proposed a coordinated scheme, where the FC schedules the action of each SN,
and a more scalable decentralized scheme, where each SN performs a local decision to sense-transmit or remain idle.
Despite the curse of dimensionality typical of the design of WSNs and multi-agent systems in asymmetric environments,
we have
exploited the statistical symmetry of the network and a large WSN approximation to derive structural properties of the optimal policy,
which enable a more efficient optimization via DP.
We have shown that a dense WSN provides \emph{sensing diversity}, \emph{i.e.},
only a few SNs suffice to sense accurately and transmit, with no degradation in the MSE,
despite the local fluctuations in the observation quality.
Our analysis and numerical results show that the proposed schemes achieve near-optimal performance
also for small-medium sized WSNs, and outperform non-adaptive schemes that do not exploit the quality feedback from the FC
and a technique proposed in the literature.
We have evaluated the communication overhead of both schemes,
proving that the decentralized one
meets both goals of energy efficiency and scalability, requiring no coordination and minimal feedback information.
\appendices
\vspace{-3mm}
\section{}
\label{Proofoptsymm}
\noindent\emph{Proof of Prop.~\ref{optsymm}:}
We refer to the optimization problem (\ref{optprob}) only. In fact, for any $\lambda>0$,
there exists $\epsilon>0$ such that the optimal policy for the problem (\ref{optproblag}) is also optimal for the problem (\ref{optprob}).
Let $\delta$ be an optimal instruction policy for (\ref{optprob}).
Let $\hat\delta$ be a new policy defined as, $\forall \mathbf D^{(O)}$,
\begin{align*}
&\hat \delta_k(\mathbf D|V_{k})\!=\!\frac{1}{|\mathcal D(\mathbf D^{(O)})|}\!\sum_{\tilde{\mathbf D}\in \mathcal D(\mathbf D^{(O)})}\!\!\!\delta_k(\tilde{\mathbf D}|V_{k}),\
\forall \mathbf D\in \mathcal D(\mathbf D^{(O)}).
\end{align*}
$\hat\delta$ obeys the statement of the proposition.
The distribution of the aggregate SNR collected at the FC
under the two instruction policies $\delta$ and $\hat \delta$ is identical, since the SNs are symmetric.
By induction on $k$, it follows that $\hat V_k$ has the same distribution under the two instruction policies
$\delta$ and $\hat\delta$, hence
$\bar M_{\delta}^{T}(V_0)=\bar M_{\hat{\delta}}^{T}(V_0)$.
Similarly,
$\bar C_{\hat{\delta}}^{T,n}(V_0)=\frac{1}{N_S}\sum_{n=1}^{N_S}\bar C_{\delta}^{T,n}(V_0)\leq\frac{\epsilon}{N_S},\ \forall n$,
hence $\hat\delta$ is also optimal.
\hfill\QED
\noindent\emph{Proof of Prop.~\ref{lem2}:}
Consider two ordered instructions $\mathbf D^{(O)}=(d_{1}^{(O)},d_{2}^{(O)},\dots,d_{N_S}^{(O)})$, $\tilde{\mathbf D}^{(O)}{=}(\tilde d_{1}^{(O)},\tilde d_{2}^{(O)},\dots,\tilde d_{N_S}^{(O)}){\in}\mathcal D^{(O)}$, such that,
$d_{n}^{(O)}{=}\tilde d_{n}^{(O)}{=}(0,0,0),\forall n>t$,
$d_{n}^{(O)}=(1,S_{M,n},B_n)$ and $\tilde d_{n}^{(O)}=(1,\tilde S_{M},B_n),\forall n\leq t$, where
\begin{align}
\label{sm}
\tilde S_{M}=
\frac{
\sum_{m=1}^{t}A_mS_{M,m}/(S_A+S_{M,m})
}
{
\sum_{m=1}^{t}A_m/(S_A+S_{M,m})
},
\end{align}
for some $t\in\{1,2,\dots,B\}$.
If ${\mathbf D}^{(O)}$ (respectively, $\tilde{\mathbf D}^{(O)}$) is chosen in slot $k$,
then the actions $d_{n}^{(O)}$ (resp., $\tilde d_{n}^{(O)}$) are scheduled randomly to the SNs,
so that $d_n^{(O)}$ (resp., $\tilde d_{n}^{(O)}$) is assigned to SN $m$ with marginal probability $1/N_S$.
Then,
the aggregate SNR collected at the FC under both ${\mathbf D}^{(O)}$ and $\tilde{\mathbf D}^{(O)}$ is $\Lambda_k=\sum_{n=1}^{t}\frac{S_AS_{M,n}}{S_A+S_{M,n}}=\sum_{n=1}^{t}\frac{S_A\tilde S_{M}}{S_A+\tilde S_{M}}$.
Therefore, ${\mathbf D}^{(O)}$ and $\tilde{\mathbf D}^{(O)}$ attain the same MSE performance in slot $k$, $\hat V_k=\hat \nu(V_{k},\Lambda_k)$.
On the other hand,
the cost for each SN under ${\mathbf D}^{(O)}$ and $\tilde{\mathbf D}^{(O)}$ satisfies
\begin{align}
&
\mathbb E[c_{SN}(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k})|\tilde{\mathbf D}^{(O)}]
=
\frac{t}{N_S}c_{SN}(1,\tilde S_{M})
\\&\nonumber
\leq
\frac{t}{N_S}c_{SN}\left(1,\frac{1}{t}\sum_{n=1}^{t}S_{M,n}\right)
=\mathbb E[c_{SN}(A_{n,k},S_{M,n,k})|{\mathbf D}^{(O)}],
\end{align}
where we have used the fact that (\ref{sm}) is an increasing function of $S_A$, hence $\tilde S_{M}\leq\frac{1}{t}\sum_{n=1}^{N_S}A_nS_{M,n}$,
and $c_{SN}\left(1,S_M\right)$ is increasing in $S_M$.
We conclude that a lower cost is incurred by the ordered
instruction $\tilde{\mathbf D}^{(O)}$, while achieving the same MSE accuracy as $\mathbf D^{(O)}$. The proposition is thus proved.
\hfill\QED
\noindent\emph{Proof of Prop.~\ref{lem3}:}
The target aggregate SNR $\Lambda_k$
can be collected at the FC by scheduling $t_k>\Lambda_k/S_A$ SNs to
sense with local measurement SNR $S_M=\frac{S_A\Lambda_k}{t_kS_A-\Lambda_k}$ and to transmit.
The MSE and the next state $V_{k+1}$ is a function of the current state $V_k$ and aggregate SNR $\Lambda_k$.
Hence, given $\Lambda_k$, $t_k$ can be uniquely chosen to minimize the expected cost in slot $k$,
$t^*(\Lambda)=\arg\min_{t}
\frac{t}{N_S}c_{SN}\left(1,\frac{S_A\Lambda}{tS_A-\Lambda}\right)$.
Its solution yields Prop.~\ref{lem3}, but is omitted due to space constraints.
\hfill\QED
\vspace{-3mm}
\section{}
\label{Proofthm1}
\noindent\emph{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm1}:}
From Theorem~\ref{lowbound}, $\bar M_{\delta^*}\!\!\geq\!\!\hat\nu^*(\bar \Lambda^*)$,
where
\begin{align}
\label{opwreter}
\!\!\!\bar\Lambda^*\!\!\!=\!\max_{p,S_M}\!\!\sum_{t=1}^B\!\!\frac{p(t)tS_AS_M\!(t)}{S_A+S_M(t)},\!
\text{s.t.}\!\!\sum_{t=1}^B\!\!p(t)t\!\left(c_{\mathrm{TX}}\!+\!\phi S_{M}\!(t)\right)\!\leq\!\epsilon.\!\!\
\end{align}
Using the Lagrangian method to optimize over $S_M(\cdot)$, we have
\begin{align*}
&S_M^*(\cdot)\!=\!\arg\max_{S_M}\!\!\sum_{t=1}^Bp(t)t\!\left[\frac{S_AS_M(t)}{S_A+S_M(t)}-\mu\left(c_{\mathrm{TX}}+\phi S_{M}(t)\right)\right]\!.\!\!
\end{align*}
yielding $S_M^*(t){=}S_A\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu \phi}}-1\right)^+{\triangleq}\bar S_M,\forall t$.
Optimizing with respect to $\bar S_M$ in (\ref{opwreter}), we obtain $\bar S_{M}^*=\frac{1}{\theta}\left(\frac{\epsilon}{\bar m c_{\mathrm{TX}} }-1\right)$, where $\bar m\triangleq\sum_{t=1}^Bp(t)t$. Finally,
optimizing over $\bar m$,
\begin{align}
&\bar\Lambda^*\!=\max_{\bar m\in [0,\min\{\epsilon/c_{\mathrm{TX}},B\}]}\frac{\bar mS_A(\epsilon-c_{\mathrm{TX}}\bar m)
}{\bar m\left(\phi S_A-c_{\mathrm{TX}}\right)+\epsilon
}.
\end{align}
Computing the derivative with respect to $\bar m$, it can be shown that the argument of the optimization is increasing in $\bar m$ if and only if
$\bar m\leq\frac{\epsilon}{c_{\mathrm{TX}}+\sqrt{\phi S_Ac_{\mathrm{TX}}}}$,
so that $\bar m^*=\min\{\frac{\epsilon}{c_{\mathrm{TX}}+\sqrt{\phi S_Ac_{\mathrm{TX}}}},B\}$.
Then,
if $\epsilon=tc_{\mathrm{TX}}(1+\sqrt{\theta S_A})$, for some $t=1,2,\dots,B$, as in the statement of Theorem~\ref{thm1},
we obtain $\bar m^*=t$, $\bar S_{M}^*=\sqrt{S_A/\theta}$, hence
$\bar\Lambda^*=t\frac{S_AS_M^*}{S_A+S_M^*}$.
If $\epsilon>Bc_{\mathrm{TX}}(1+\sqrt{\theta S_A})$,
we obtain $\bar m^*=B$, $\bar S_{M}^*=\frac{1}{\theta}\left(\frac{\epsilon}{Bc_{\mathrm{TX}}}-1\right)$, hence
$\bar\Lambda^*=B\frac{S_AS_M^*}{S_A+S_M^*}$.
The achievability of the lower bound follows from the following Prop.~\ref{lem1}, when $\Lambda_k=\bar\Lambda^*,\ \forall k$.
\begin{propos}
\label{lem1}
Let $V_0{=}1$ and $\Lambda_0^{T}{=}\bar \Lambda\mathbf 1_{T+1}$ be a constant sequence,
where $\mathbf 1_m$ is the $m$-dimensional vector of ones. Then,
\begin{align}
\lim_{T\to\infty}R_T(1;\bar \Lambda\mathbf 1_{T+1})=\hat\nu^*(\bar \Lambda).
\end{align}
\end{propos}
\noindent\emph{Proof:}
Due to space constraints, a proof outline is provided.
Note that $\hat\nu^*(\bar \Lambda)$ is a fixed point of
$\hat V_k{=}\hat \nu(\nu(\hat V_{k-1}),\bar\Lambda){=}\hat V_{k-1}$, so that, if $\hat V_{k-1}{=}\hat\nu^*(\bar \Lambda)$ and $\Lambda_k{=}\bar\Lambda$, then $\hat V_k{=}\hat V_{k-1}{=}\hat\nu^*(\bar \Lambda)$.
First, we show by induction that $\{\hat V_k,k{\geq}0\}$ is a strictly decreasing sequence and $\hat V_k{>}\hat\nu^*(\bar \Lambda),\forall k$.
In fact, let $\hat V_k{\in}(\hat\nu^*(\bar \Lambda),1]$ (this is true for $k{=}0$, since $V_0{=}1$).
Since $\hat\nu^*(\Lambda)$ is a decreasing function of $\Lambda$,
there exists a unique $\hat\Lambda{\in}(0,\bar \Lambda)$ such that $\hat V_k{=}\hat\nu^*(\hat\Lambda){=}\hat \nu(\nu(\hat V_{k}),\hat\Lambda)$,
hence
\begin{align}
\hat V_{k+1}=\hat\nu(\nu(\hat V_{k}),\bar\Lambda)
<\hat\nu(\nu(\hat V_{k}),\hat\Lambda)=\hat V_{k},
\end{align}
since $\hat\nu(V,\Lambda)$ is a decreasing function of $\Lambda$.
Since $\hat\nu(\nu(\hat V),\Lambda)$ is increasing in $\hat V$ and $\hat V_k>\hat\nu^*(\bar\Lambda)$, we obtain
\begin{align}
\hat\nu^*(\bar\Lambda)=\hat\nu(\nu(\hat\nu^*(\bar\Lambda)),\bar\Lambda)<
\hat\nu(\nu(\hat V_k),\bar\Lambda)=\hat V_{k+1},
\end{align}
hence $\hat V_k{\in}(\hat\nu^*(\bar \Lambda),\hat V_{k+1})$.
It follows that
$\lim_{k\to\infty}\hat V_k{=}\hat\nu^*(\bar \Lambda)$ and $\lim_{T\to\infty}R_T(1;\bar \Lambda\mathbf 1_{T+1}){=}\hat\nu^*(\bar \Lambda)$.
\hfill\QED
\noindent Theorem~\ref{thm1} is thus proved.
\hfill\QED
\vspace{-3mm}
\section{}
\label{Proofthm2}
\noindent\emph{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm2}:}
The equality $\bar C_{\delta^*}^{\gamma_{\max}}{=}\bar C_{\delta^*}$ is trivial, since
the sequence $\{t_k^*,S_{M,k}^*,k{\geq}0\}$ is common to the \emph{best-}$\gamma$ and \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ scenarios.
Let $\Lambda_0^T$ and $\Lambda_0^{T,*}$ be the realization of the aggregate SNR sequence collected at the FC in the \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ and \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenarios, respectively, when
$\{t_k^*,S_{M,k}^*,k{\geq}0\}$ is scheduled.
Let $Q_k{=}\chi(\text{less than $B$ SNs have accuracy $\gamma_{n,k}{=}\gamma_{\max}$})$.
Then, $(1{-}Q_k)\Lambda_k^*{\leq}\Lambda_k{\leq}\Lambda_k^*,\forall k$.
In fact, if $Q_k{=}0$, then at least $B$ SNs have the best accuracy state,
and the FC will schedule $t_k^*{\leq}B$ of those SNs to activate, so that
$\Lambda_k{=}\Lambda_k^*$.
Let $V_k$, $\hat V_k$ and $V_k^*$, $\hat V_k^*$ be the prior and posterior variances in slot $k$
in the \emph{Markov-}$\gamma$ and \emph{best-}$\gamma$ scenarios, respectively, so that
$\bar M_{\delta^*}^{T}=\frac{1}{T+1}\mathbb E\left[\sum_{k=0}^T\hat V_k|V_0\right]$ and
$\bar M_{\delta^*}^{T,\gamma_{\max}}=\frac{1}{T+1}\sum_{k=0}^T\hat V_k^*$.
Note that, since $\Lambda_k{\leq}\Lambda_k^*,\forall k$, then $\hat V_k{\geq}\hat V_k^*,\forall k$, from which
the left-hand inequality in Theorem \ref{thm2} follows.
Let $\bar k$ be a slot index such that $Q_{\bar k-1}{=}1$ and $Q_j{=}0,\forall j{=}\bar k,\bar k{+}1,\dots,\bar k{+}J{-}1$, for some $J{>}0$.
Since $\Lambda_k{=}\Lambda_k^*$ when $Q_k{=}0$, we have
\begin{align}
\sum_{k=\bar k}^{\bar k+J-1}\hat V_k=
\sum_{k=\bar k}^{\bar k+J-1}\hat\nu^{k-\bar k}(V_{\bar k};\Lambda_{\bar k}^{k,*}).
\end{align}
Since $\hat\nu^{k-\bar k}(V_{\bar k};\Lambda_{\bar k}^{k,*})$ is an increasing concave function of $V_{\bar k}$,
and $1\geq V_{\bar k}\geq V_{\bar k}^*\geq 1-\alpha$,
using (\ref{derivV}) and $D_n\geq 1$ we obtain
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{k=\bar k}^{\bar k+J-1}\hat V_k\leq\!\!\!\!
\sum_{k=\bar k}^{\bar k+J-1}\left[\hat V_k^*
+
\left.\frac{\mathrm d\hat\nu^{k-\bar k}(v;\Lambda_{\bar k}^{k,*})}{\mathrm d v}\right|_{v=V_{\bar k}^*}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!(V_{\bar k}-V_{\bar k}^*)\right]
\nonumber\\&
\leq
\sum_{k=\bar k}^{\bar k+J-1}\left[\hat V_k^*+\alpha^{k-\bar k+1}\right]
\leq
\hat V_{\bar k}^*+\frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha}+\sum_{k=\bar k+1}^{\bar k+J-1}\hat V_k^*.
\end{align*}
By using the inequality $\hat V_k\leq 1$ when $Q_k=1$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{k=0}^{T}\hat V_k\leq
(1-Q_0)\hat V_0^*
\!+\!\sum_{k=1}^{T}\!\left[
(1-Q_k)(1-Q_{k-1})\hat V_k^*+Q_k
\right]
\nonumber\\&
\!+\!Q_0\!+\!\sum_{k=1}^{T}\!(1\!-\!Q_k)Q_{k-1}\!\left(\hat V_{k}^*\!+\!\frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha}\right)
\!\!=
\!\!\sum_{k=0}^{T}\hat V_k^*
\!+Q_0(1\!-\!\hat V_0^*)
\nonumber\\&
\!\!+\!\!\sum_{k=1}^{T}\!
\left[
\frac{\alpha(1-Q_k)Q_{k-1}}{1-\alpha}
+Q_k(1-\hat V_k^*)
\right]
\!\leq\!
\sum_{k=0}^{T}\!\left(\hat V_k^*+\frac{Q_k}{1-\alpha}\right)\!.
\end{align*}
Assuming
$\boldsymbol{\gamma}_k$ is at steady-state,
and letting
\begin{align*}
\mathcal Q\triangleq \mathbb P(Q_k=1)\!
=\!\sum_{i=0}^{B-1}\left(\begin{array}{c}\!\!\!N_S\!\!\!\\i\end{array}\right)\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma_{\max})^i
(1\!-\!\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma_{\max}))^{N_S-i},
\end{align*}
we obtain
$\bar M_{\delta^*}^{T}=\mathbb E\!\left[R_T(V_0;\Lambda_0^T)|V_0\right]\leq
\bar M_{\delta^*}^{T,\gamma_{\max}}\!+\!\frac{\mathcal Q}{1\!-\!\alpha}
$. Finally,
(\ref{inex}) follows from
$\mathcal Q\leq \exp\left\{-\frac{\left(N_S\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma_{\max})-B+1\right)^2}{2N_S\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma_{\max})}\right\}$ (Chernoff's inequality)
when $N_S\pi_{\gamma}(\gamma_{\max})\geq B-1$.
\hfill\QED
\vspace{-3mm}
\section{}
\label{proofoflemchannel}
\noindent\emph{Proof of Prop.~\ref{psr}:}
Let $U(t,b)$ be the number of combinations of $t$ transmissions over $b$ channels, all unsuccessful.
We have $U(t,1){=}1{-}\chi(t{=}1)$, since
the transmission is successful if and only if $t{=}1$, when $b{=}1$.
For $b>1$, we have the recursion
\begin{align*}
&U(t,b)=\sum_{n=0,n\neq 1}^t\left(\begin{array}{c}t\\n\end{array}\right)U(t-n,b-1),
\end{align*}
\emph{i.e.}, $n$ SNs transmit in the first channel (where $n\neq 1$, otherwise
a successful transmission occurs), and the remaining $t-n$ SNs in the remaining $b-1$ channels.
By induction, it can be proved that, for $t\geq 0$, $b\geq 1$,
\begin{align}
\nonumber
&U(t,b)\!=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{k=0}^{\min\{t,b-1\}}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!(-1)^k\!\!
\left(\begin{array}{c}\!\!b\!\!\\\!\!k\!\!\end{array}\right)\!\!
\frac{t!}{(t-k)!}
(b-k)^{t-k}
\!+b!\chi(t=b)(-1)^b,
\\&
\text{hence }p_{R|T}(r|t)=\left(\begin{array}{c}B\\r\end{array}\right)\frac{t!}{(t-r)!}\frac{U(t-r,B-r)}{B^t},
\end{align}
since there are $B!/r!/(B-r)!$ combinations
of $r$ channels where the transmission is successful (\emph{i.e.}, one and only one SN transmits),
$\frac{t!}{(t-r)!}$ ways of selecting $r$ SNs to transmit in the successful channels, and
$U(t-r,B-r)$ combinations of allocating the $t-r$ remaining nodes to the $B-r$ unsuccessful channels;
$B^t$ is the number of combinations to allocate $t$ SNs to $B$ channels.
$p_R(r;q)$ is then given by
\begin{align*}
p_R(r;q)=
\sum_{t=r}^{N_S}
\left(\begin{array}{c}\!\!\!\!N_S\!\!\!\!\\\!\!\!\!t\!\!\!\!\end{array}\right)
q^t(1-q)^{N_S-t
\left(\begin{array}{c}\!\!\!B\!\!\!\\\!\!\!r\!\!\!\end{array}\right)\frac{t!U(t-r,B-r)}{(t-r)!B^t},
\end{align*}
yielding Prop.~\ref{psr} after algebraic manipulation.
\hfill\QED
\noindent\emph{Proof of Prop.~\ref{zetaopt}:}
Let $\zeta^{(1)}>1$ and $\zeta^{(2)}=1$.
We show that the cost-to-go function $\bar W^{T-k}(V_{k})$ computed under
$\zeta^{(2)}$ lower bounds the cost-to-go function computed under $\zeta^{(1)}$, for any value of the SNR $S_M$,
so that, necessarily, the minimizer of the DP stage (\ref{DPzeta}) is such that $\zeta_{k}^*(V_k)\leq 1$.
Neglecting additive and multiplicative terms independent of $\zeta$ and letting $S_T=\frac{S_AS_M}{S_A+S_M}$,
we write the cost-to-go function under a generic $\zeta$ as
\begin{align}
\label{DPzeta2}
&f(\zeta)
\triangleq
-\sum_{r=1}^B\mathbb P(R_k\geq r|\zeta)
\\&
\times\left[\hat \nu\left(V_{k},(r-1)S_T\right)-\hat \nu\left(V_{k},rS_T\right)-(W(r-1)-W(r))\right],
\nonumber
\end{align}
where $W(r){\triangleq}\bar W^{T-k-1}\left(\nu\left(\hat \nu\left(V_{k},rS_T\right)\right)\right)$.
It can be proved by induction that
$W(r{-}1){>}W(r)$. Hence, from (\ref{DPzeta2})
we obtain $f(\zeta^{(2)}){<}f(\zeta^{(1)})$ since
$\mathbb P(R_k\geq r|\zeta^{(2)}){\geq}\mathbb P(R_k\geq r|\zeta^{(1)}),\forall r$ (from Corollary \ref{corol1})
and $\hat \nu\left(V_{k},(r-1)S_T\right){>}\hat \nu\left(V_{k},rS_T\right)$,
thus proving the proposition.
\hfill\QED
\vspace{-3mm}
\section{}
\label{appprop}
\begin{propos}\label{propV}
$\hat\nu^T(V_0;\Lambda_0^{T})$ and $R_T(V_0;\Lambda_0^T)$ are convex functions of $\Lambda_0^T$, decreasing in $\Lambda_k$,
concave increasing in $V_0$.
\end{propos}
\noindent\emph{Proof:}
We prove the property for $\hat\nu^k(V_0;\Lambda_0^{k})$.
The same property holds for
$R_T(V_0;\Lambda_0^T)$, using (\ref{RT}).
Let $\mathbf X_k=[N_k, D_k]^T$ be defined recursively as
$\mathbf X_{-1}=\left[\frac{V_0-(1-\alpha)}{\alpha}, 1\right]^T$ and, for $k\geq 0$,
$\mathbf X_{k}=\mathbf P_k\mathbf X_{k-1}$, where
\begin{align}
\mathbf P_k=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha & 1-\alpha
\\
\alpha\Lambda_k&1+(1-\alpha)\Lambda_k
\end{array}\right].
\end{align}
Then, it can be shown by induction, by using the update equations $\nu(\cdot)$, $\hat \nu(\cdot)$ in (\ref{nu}) and (\ref{nu2}),
that $\hat V_k=N_k/ D_k$.
We have $\mathbf X_{k}=\mathbf P_{k:0}\mathbf X_{-1}$,
where $\mathbf P_{k:i}=\mathbf P_k\times\mathbf P_{k-1}\times\dots\times \mathbf P_i$, for $k\geq i$.
Notice that $\mathbf X_0{=}(V_0,1{+}V_0\Lambda_0)^T{>}0$ (non-negative entries),
so that $\mathbf X_i{>}0$ (entry-wise) by induction.
The derivative of $\hat\nu^k(V_0;\Lambda_0^{k})$ with respect to $\Lambda_i$ is given by
\begin{align}
\label{derivSi}
&\frac{\mathrm d\hat\nu^k(V_0;\Lambda_0^{k})}{\mathrm d \Lambda_i}
=-\frac{1}{ D_k^2}
\mathbf X_{k}^T
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1
\\
-1&0
\end{array}\right]
\frac{\mathrm d\mathbf X_{k}}{\mathrm d\Lambda_i}
\\&\nonumber
=
\!-
\mathbf X_{k}^T
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1
\\
-1&0
\end{array}\right]
\mathbf P_{k:i+1}
\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\1\end{array}\right]
\frac{N_{i}}{ D_k^2}
=-\alpha^{k-i}\frac{N_i^2}{ D_k^2}<0,
\end{align}
where the last equality follows by induction on $k$.
Therefore, $\hat\nu^k(V_0;\Lambda_0^{k})$ is a decreasing function of $\Lambda_i$.
We now compute the Hessian matrix $\mathbf H$ of $\hat\nu^k(V_0;\Lambda_0^{k})$, with components
$\mathbf H_{i,j}=\frac{\mathrm d^2\hat\nu^k(V_0;\Lambda_0^{k})}{\mathrm d \Lambda_i\mathrm d \Lambda_j}$.
For $j\geq i$ (the case $j<i$ is obtained by symmetry of $\mathbf H$), since $N_i$ is independent of $\Lambda_j$,
from (\ref{derivSi})
we obtain
\begin{align*}
\mathbf H_{i,j}
\!\!=\!\!\frac{\!\mathrm d^2\hat\nu^k(V_0\!;\!\Lambda_0^{k})\!}{\mathrm d \Lambda_i\mathrm d \Lambda_j}
\!\!=\!\!
\frac{\!2N_i^2\alpha^{k-i}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!}{ D_k^3}[0,\!1]\frac{\mathrm d\mathbf X_k}{\mathrm d\Lambda_j}
\!\!=\!\!
\frac{\!2N_i^2\!N_{j}\alpha^{k-i}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!}{ D_k^3}
[0,\!1]\mathbf P_{k:j+1}\!\!
\left[\begin{array}{c}\!\!\!0\!\!\!\\\!\!\!1\!\!\!\end{array}\right]\!\!.
\end{align*}
Let $\mathbf D$ be a $(k+1)\times(k+1)$ diagonal matrix with diagonal entries
$\mathbf D_{i,i}=N_i^2\alpha^{k-i}$. Then,
\begin{align}
\label{f}
[\mathbf D^{-1}\mathbf H\mathbf D^{-1}]_{i,j}
=
\frac{2}{ D_k^3}
\frac{[0,1]\mathbf P_{k:j+1}[0,1]^T}
{N_j\alpha^{k-j}}\triangleq f_j.
\end{align}
Note that $\mathbf D^{-1}\mathbf H\mathbf D^{-1}=
\mathbf E
\mathbf F\mathbf E^T
$, where $\mathbf E$ is an upper-triangular matrix
with all non-zero entries equal to $1$ on the diagonal and upper off-diagonal entries,
and all other entries equal to zero,
and $\mathbf F$ is a diagonal matrix with diagonal elements $\mathbf F_{i,i}=f_i-f_{i+1},i<k$ and $\mathbf F_{k,k}=f_k$,
Finally, we obtain
$\mathbf H=
(\mathbf D\mathbf E)
\mathbf F(\mathbf D\mathbf E)^T$,
and therefore $\mathbf H$ is positive definite if and only if
$\mathbf F$ is, that is,
if and only if
$f_i>f_{i+1},\forall i<k$ and $f_k>0$.
From (\ref{f}) we have $f_k=\frac{2}{ D_k^3N_k}>0$.
On the other hand, for $i<k$,
$f_i>f_{i+1}$ is equivalent to
\begin{align}
[0,1]\mathbf P_{k:i+1}[0,1]^T
N_{i+1}
>
\alpha
[0,1]\mathbf P_{k:i+2}[0,1]^T
N_i,
\end{align}
and,
using the fact that $\mathbf P_{k:i+1}
=\mathbf P_{k:i+2}\mathbf P_{i+1}$,
$N_{i+1}=[\alpha,1-\alpha]\mathbf X_i$ and
$N_{i}=[1,0]\mathbf X_i$,
we obtain
\begin{align}
&[0,1]\mathbf P_{k:i+2}
\left[\mathbf P_{i+1}[0,1]^T[\alpha,1-\alpha]
-[0,1]^T[\alpha,0]\right]
\mathbf X_i
\nonumber\\&
=
(1-\alpha)[0,1]\mathbf P_{k:i+2}
\mathbf P_{i+1}\mathbf X_i
=
(1-\alpha) D_k
>
0,
\end{align}
hence $\hat\nu^k(V_0;\Lambda_0^{k})$ is convex with respect to $\Lambda_0^k$.
We have
\begin{align}
\label{derivV}
&\frac{\mathrm d\hat\nu^k(V_0;\Lambda_0^{k})}{\mathrm d V_0}
=
-\frac{1}{ D_k^2}
\mathbf X_{k}^T
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1
\\
-1&0
\end{array}\right]
\frac{\mathrm d\mathbf X_{k}}{\mathrm dV_0}
\\\nonumber
&=
-\frac{1}{ D_k^2}
[
V_0,1+V_0\Lambda_0
]
\mathbf P_{k:1}^T\!\!
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1
\\
-1&0
\end{array}\right]\!\!
\mathbf P_{k:1}\!\!
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\!\!\!1\!\!\!\\\!\!\!\Lambda_0\!\!\!
\end{array}
\right]
\!=\!
\frac{\alpha^{k}}{ D_k^2}>0,
\end{align}
where the last step follows by induction. Furthermore,
\begin{align*}
\frac{\mathrm d^2\hat\nu^k(V_0;\Lambda_0^{k})}{\mathrm d V_0^2}
\!\!=\!\!-\frac{2\alpha^{k}}{ D_k^3}[0,1]\frac{\mathrm d\mathbf X_{k}}{\mathrm dV_0}
\!=\!
-\frac{2\alpha^{k}}{D_k^3}[0,1]
\mathbf P_{k:1}\!\!
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\!\!\!1\!\!\!\\\!\!\!\Lambda_0\!\!\!
\end{array}
\right]\!\!<\!\!0,
\end{align*}
thus proving that $\hat\nu^k(V_0;\Lambda_0^{k})$ is concave increasing in $V_0$.
\hfill\QED
\noindent The next theorem
addresses the optimization problem
\begin{align}
\label{RTstar}
\!\!\!\!R_T^*(\bar\Lambda)=\!\!\!\min_{\Lambda_0^T,\Lambda_k\geq 0,\forall k} R_T(1;\Lambda_0^{T}),
\ \text{s.t.}\
\frac{1}{T+1}\sum_{k=0}^T\Lambda_k=\bar\Lambda,
\end{align}
whose minimizer is denoted as $\Lambda_0^{T*}(\bar\Lambda)$.
To this end, we define $\Lambda_{0,-1}^*=\Lambda_{1,-1}^*=\infty$ and, for $m\geq 0$,
\begin{align*}
\Lambda_{0,m}^*\!\!\triangleq\!\!\frac{\sqrt{\frac{1-\alpha^{m+2}}{1-\alpha^{m+1}}}-1}{1-\alpha},\
\Lambda_{1,m}^*\!\!\triangleq\!\!\Lambda_{0,m}^*\left(\!\!1\!-\!\alpha\sqrt{\frac{1-\alpha^{m+1}}{1-\alpha^{m+2}}}\right)\!\!.
\end{align*}
\begin{thm}
\label{thm3}
Let $\bar \Lambda>0$, and let $m\geq 0$ uniquely solve
\begin{align}
\label{cond}
\!\!\!\!\!\frac{\Lambda_{0,m}^*\!\!\!+\!(T\!-\!m\!-\!1)^+\!\Lambda_{1,m}^*}{T+1}\!\!\leq\!\!\bar \Lambda\!\!<\!\!\frac{\Lambda_{0,m-1}^*\!\!+\!(T\!-\!m)^+\!\Lambda_{1,m-1}^*}{T+1}.\!\!\!
\end{align}
Then, if $m\geq T$, and omitting the dependence of $\Lambda_0^{T*}$ on $\bar \Lambda$,
\begin{align}
&\Lambda_0^*=(T+1)\bar \Lambda\in [\Lambda_{0,m}^*,\Lambda_{0,m-1}^*),\ \Lambda_k^*=0,\ k>0;
\\&
\label{RT1}
R_T^*(\bar\Lambda)=1-\frac{1}{T+1}\frac{1-\alpha^{T+1}}{1-\alpha}\frac{(T+1)\bar \Lambda}{1+(T+1)\bar \Lambda}.
\end{align}
Otherwise,
\begin{align*}
\!\!R_T^*(\bar\Lambda)
\!\!=\!\!
1\!-\!\frac{T\!-\!m}{T\!+\!1}\hat v^*(\Lambda_1^*)
\!-\!\frac{1-\alpha^{m+1}}{(T\!+\!1)(1\!-\!\alpha)}
\frac{\nu(\hat v^*(\Lambda_1^*))}
{1\!+\!\nu(\hat v^*(\Lambda_1^*))\Lambda_{T-m}^*\!\!\!\!\!\!\!},
\end{align*}
where $\Lambda_{k}^*=0,\ \forall k\geq T-m+1$,
\begin{align}
\label{Si}
&\Lambda_k^*=(1-\alpha)\Lambda_0^*\frac{1+\Lambda_0^*}{1+(1-\alpha)\Lambda_0^*},\ k\leq T-m-1,\\
&\Lambda_{T-m}^*\!\!=\!\!\frac{1+\Lambda_0^*}{1\!+\!(1\!-\!\alpha)\Lambda_0^*}\!\!\left[\!\!\sqrt{1\!-\!\alpha^{m+1}}\sqrt{(1\!+\!\Lambda_0^*)^2\!-\!\alpha\Lambda_0^{*2}}\!-\!1\!\right],
\nonumber
\end{align}
and $\Lambda_0^*{\in}[\Lambda_{0,m}^*,\Lambda_{0,m-1}^*)$ uniquely solves, for $\Lambda_1^*$ and $\Lambda_{T-m}^*$ given by (\ref{Si}),
$\bar \Lambda{=}\frac{\Lambda_0^*+(T-m-1)\Lambda_1^*+\Lambda_{T-m}^*}{T+1}$.
\end{thm}
\noindent\emph{Proof:}
Note that there is a one-to-one mapping between $\Lambda_0^{T*}(\bar\Lambda)$ defined in the theorem
and $\bar \Lambda$.
In fact, $\Lambda_k^*$ is a non-decreasing, continuous function of $\Lambda_0^*$, so that the sample mean
$\bar \Lambda=\frac{1}{T+1}\sum_{i=0}^T \Lambda_i^*$ is an increasing function of $\Lambda_0^*$.
Moreover, the condition (\ref{cond}) is equivalent to $\Lambda_0^*\in[\Lambda_{0,m}^*,\Lambda_{0,m-1}^*)$.
Therefore, we can equivalently prove that, for any $T{\geq}0,m{\geq}0,\Lambda_0^*\in[\Lambda_{0,m}^*,\Lambda_{0,m-1}^*)$,
$\Lambda_0^{T,*}$ as defined in the theorem minimizes $R_T(1;\Lambda_0^T)$ among all the SNR sequences with sample mean
$\bar \Lambda=\frac{1}{T+1}\sum_{i=0}^T \Lambda_i^*$.
Let $m\geq 0,T\geq 0,\Lambda_0\in[\Lambda_{0,m}^*,\Lambda_{0,m-1}^*)$,
and $\Lambda_1^T$ as in the theorem.
We have
$\frac{\mathrm dR_T(1;\Lambda_0^T)}{\mathrm d\Lambda_i}=-Z_i^2$,
wher
\begin{align}
\label{Zi}
Z_i\triangleq \sqrt{\frac{1}{T+1}\sum_{k=i}^{T}\alpha^{k-i}\frac{N_i^2}{ D_k^2}}
\end{align}
(see proof of Prop.~\ref{propV} in App.~\ref{appprop}).
Since $R_T(\Lambda_0^T)$ is a convex function of $\Lambda_0^T$ (Prop.~\ref{propV}) and $\Lambda_i=0,\forall i\geq (T-m)^++1$, $\Lambda_0^T$ is optimal if and only if
$\sum_{i=0}^{T}\beta_iZ_i^2\leq 0$,
for all $\beta_0^T$ such that $\sum_{i=0}^{T}\beta_i=0$ (due to sample mean constraint)
and $\beta_i\geq 0,\forall i\geq (T-m)^++1$.
Equivalently, using ,$\beta_0=-\sum_{i=1}^{T}\beta_i$,
\begin{align}
\beta_0Z_0^2+\sum_{i=1}^{T}\beta_iZ_i^2=
\sum_{i=1}^{T}\beta_i(Z_i^2-Z_0^2)\leq 0,
\end{align}
for all vectors $\beta_1^T$ such that $\beta_i\geq 0,\forall i\geq (T-m)^++1$, \emph{i.e.},
\begin{align}
\label{48}
\!\!\!\!Z_i=Z_{i-1},\forall i\!\leq\!(T-m)^+,\
Z_i\leq Z_{T-m},\forall i\!>\!(T-m)^+\!\!.\!\!
\end{align}
By rearranging the terms and using the expression of $Z_i$ in (\ref{Zi}), (\ref{48}) is equivalent to
\begin{align}
\label{ddd}
&\frac{\alpha^{i+1}\hat V_i^2}{N_{i+1}^2-\alpha N_i^2}
=
\sum_{k=i+1}^{T}\frac{\alpha^{k}}{ D_k^2},\ \forall i\leq (T-m)^+-1,
\end{align}
Equivalently, $Z_{i}\leq Z_{(T-m)^+},\ \forall i\geq T-m+1$, and
\begin{align}
\label{aaa}
&\!\!\!\frac{\hat V_{T-m-1}^2}{1-\alpha N_{T-m-1}^2/N_{T-m}^2\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!}
=
\hat V_{T-m}^2\frac{1-\alpha^{m+1}\!\!\!\!}{1-\alpha},\text{ if }m\leq T-1,
\\
\label{bbb}
&\!\!\!\frac{\hat V_{i-1}^2}{\!1\!-\!\alpha N_{i-1}^2/N_{i}^2\!}
\!\!=\!\!
\frac{\hat V_{i}^2}{1\!-\!\alpha N_{i}^2/N_{i+1}^2\!\!\!\!},
\forall i\!\!\leq\!\!T\!-\!m\!-\!1,\text{if }\!m\!<\!T\!-\!1,\!\!\!
\end{align}
where in (\ref{aaa}) we have used the fact that $\Lambda_k{=}0,\forall k{\geq}T{-}m{+}1$, hence $ D_k{=}D_{k-1}{=}D_{T-m}$;
in (\ref{bbb}) we have combined the equations (\ref{ddd}) for $i$ and $i{+}1$.
From (\ref{bbb})
for $i{=}1,2,\dots,T{-}m{-}1$, note that $\hat V_i{>}\hat V_{i-1}$ if and only if $N_{i}^2{<}N_{i-1}N_{i+1}$.
This in turn is equivalent to $\hat V_i{<}\hat V_{i-1}$,
thus we must necessarily have $\hat V_i{=}\hat V_{i-1}{=}\hat V_0,\forall i{=}1,2,\dots,T{-}m{-}1$,
and therefore $\Lambda_i{=}\Lambda_1,\forall i{=}1,2,\dots,T{-}m{-}1$ and
$\hat V_i{=}\hat\nu^*(\Lambda_1),\forall i{=}0,1,\dots,T{-}m{-}1$.
It follows that, for a given $\Lambda_0\in[\Lambda_{0,m}^*,\Lambda_{0,m-1}^*)$ with $m<T-1$ and $V_0=1$, we have $\hat V_0=1/(1+\Lambda_0)$.
Then, (\ref{bbb}) implies
\begin{align*}
\hat V_i
=
\hat\nu(\nu(\hat V_{i-1}),\Lambda_i)
=
\hat\nu(\nu(\hat V_{0}),\Lambda_1)
=\hat V_0,
\ \forall i\leq T-m-1,
\end{align*}
yielding
$
\Lambda_i=\Lambda_1
=
\Lambda_0
(1-\alpha)\frac{1+\Lambda_0}
{
1+(1-\alpha)\Lambda_0
},\ \forall i\leq T-m-1.
$
thus proving the optimality of (\ref{Si}) for $i\leq T-m-1$.
Finally, using (\ref{aaa}) and the fact that $\hat V_{T-m-1}=\hat V_0$, we have
\begin{align*}
&\hat V_{T-m}^2\frac{1-\alpha^{m+1}}{1-\alpha}
=
\frac{\hat V_{0}^2}{1-\alpha\Lambda_{0}^2/\Lambda_{1}^2}
=
\frac{\hat V_{0}^2}{1-\alpha}\frac{(1-\alpha(1-\hat V_0))^2}{1-\alpha(1-\hat V_0)^2},
\nonumber\\
&\Rightarrow\Lambda_{T-m}
=
\frac{\frac{1}{\hat V_0}\sqrt{1-\alpha^{m+1}}\sqrt{1-\alpha(1-\hat V_0)^2}-1}{1-\alpha(1-\hat V_0)},
\end{align*}
yielding (\ref{Si}).
To obtain a feasible solution, we must have $\Lambda_{T-m}\geq 0$, \emph{i.e.},
$\!\Lambda_0\!\geq\Lambda_{0,m}^*,
$
which holds by assumption.
Finally, we prove by induction on $m$ that
$Z_{i}{\leq}Z_{(T-m)^+},\forall i$.
This trivially holds with equality for $i=0,1,\dots, (T-m)^+$, as proved in the first part of the proof.
Therefore, we need to prove the inequality for $i\geq (T-m)^++1$.
We have that $Z_i$ is a continuous function of $\Lambda_0$.
Now, let $m\geq 0$ and assume that $Z_{i}\leq Z_{(T-m)^+},\forall \Lambda_0\in[\Lambda_{m,1}^*,\Lambda_{m-1,0}^*)$.
We show that this implies that $Z_{i}\leq Z_{(T-m-1)^+},\forall \Lambda_0\in[\Lambda_{m+1,1}^*,\Lambda_{m,0}^*)$.
Let $\Lambda_0\in[\Lambda_{m+1,1}^*,\Lambda_{m,0}^*)$.
For $i\geq (T-m-1)^+-1$, using the fact that $\Lambda_i=0,\forall i\geq T-m$, we have
$
Z_i\!=\!\sqrt{\frac{1-\alpha^{T-i+1}}{(T+1)(1-\alpha)}}\hat V_i.
$
Using $\hat V_i=1-\alpha^{i-(T-m-1)^+}(1-\hat V_{(T-m-1)^+})$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
&Z_{(T-m-1)^+}-Z_{i}
\!\propto\!\hat V_{(T-m-1)^+}\sqrt{1-\alpha^{T-(T-m-1)^++1}}
\nonumber\\&
-\sqrt{1-\alpha^{T-i+1}}
[1-\alpha^{i-(T-m-1)^+}(1-\hat V_{(T-m-1)^+})].
\end{align*}
By inspection, using the fact that $\hat V_{(T-m-1)^+}=\hat V_0=\frac{1}{1+\Lambda_0}$, $Z_{(T-m-1)^+}-Z_{i}$
is a decreasing function of $\Lambda_0$, minimized by $\Lambda_0=\Lambda_{0,m}^*$.
Using $\left[Z_{(T-m)^+}\!-\!Z_{(T-m-1)^+}\right]_{\Lambda_0=\Lambda_{0,m}^*}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!=0$
and the induction hypothesis,
we thus obtain
\begin{align}
&Z_{(T-m-1)^+}\!\!\!-Z_{i}
\!\geq\!
\left[Z_{(T-m-1)^+}\!\!\!-\!Z_{i}
\!=\!
Z_{(T-m)^+}\!\!\!-\!Z_{i}\right]_{\Lambda_0=\Lambda_{0,m}^*}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\geq 0,
\nonumber
\end{align}
thus proving the induction step and the theorem.
\hfill\QED
\noindent Corollary \ref{corollary} follows from Theorem~\ref{thm3} and Prop.~\ref{lem1} in App.~\ref{Proofthm1}.
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{corol}
\label{corollary}
$R_\infty^*(\bar\Lambda)
\triangleq\lim_{T\to\infty}R_T^*(\bar\Lambda)=\hat \nu^*\left(\bar\Lambda\right),
$
achievable by the constant aggregate SNR sequence $\Lambda_k=\bar\Lambda,\ \forall k$.
\end{corol}
\vspace{-5mm
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtranS}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sect1}
The origin of the theory of backward stochastic differential equations (BSDEs) can be traced back to the work by Bismut \cite{B-1973} and, especially, the paper by Pardoux and Peng \cite{PP-1990}, who were the first to consider the general BSDEs driven by a Brownian motion. Since then, the theory of BSDEs attracted a great interest because of its application in stochastic control theory, PDEs and mathematical finance (see, e.g., \cite{EPQ-1997,EQ-1995,HIM-2005,PP-1992,P-1991,RE-2000}).
However, despite the fact that prices of financial assets are usually modeled as semimartingales,
applications of BSDEs in finance beyond the Brownian setting are relatively rare (see, e.g., \cite{CCR-2014,CCR-2014b,MS-2005,MT-2003c,M-2009}). The BSDEs driven by a semimartingale were already introduced by
Chitashvili \cite{C-1983}, but since then BSDEs driven by a general martingale were not extensively studied.
Carbone et al. \cite{CFS-2008} and El Karoui and Huang \cite{ELH-1997} examined BSDEs driven by a c\`{a}dl\`{a}g
martingale without postulating the predictable representation property (PRP), whereas Li \cite{L-2003} examined
BSDEs driven by a one-dimensional continuous martingale enjoying the PRP.
In this note, we first establish some results for BSDEs driven by one- and multi-dimensional martingales.
Our approach is largely motivated by results and methods developed in Carbone et al. \cite{CFS-2008} and El Karoui and Huang \cite{ELH-1997}. However, for simplicity of presentation, we only consider here the BSDEs driven by continuous martingales with the PRP, whereas in \cite{CFS-2008,ELH-1997} the authors studied the BSDEs driven by a c\`{a}dl\`{a}g martingale $M$ without postulating the PRP, but under the additional assumption that the underlying filtration is quasi-left continuous. Under the latter assumption, the predictable quadratic variation $\langle M\rangle$ of $M$ is continuous. It is worth noting that all results and a priori estimates established in this note will still be valid in this more general framework.
Our main goal is to prove the existence, uniqueness and comparison theorems covering the BSDEs introduced \cite{BR-2014,NR-2014,NR-2014a}, where the pricing and hedging of contingent claims in financial models with funding costs is studied. We mention that Mocha and Westray \cite{MW-2012} and Tevzadze \cite{T-2008}, established a comparison theorem for the case of the quadratic growth and, in \cite{T-2008}, for a special choice of a generator. For the linear growth case, Carbone et al. \cite{CFS-2008} gave the comparison results for BSDEs driven by a one-dimensional c\`{a}dl\`{a}g martingale (see Theorem 2.2 in \cite{CFS-2008}). To this end, they used the Dol\'{e}ans exponential of a c\`{a}dl\`{a}g martingale and they imposed the requirement it is a positive, uniformly integrable martingale and, in addition, satisfies some integrability conditions (see, in particular, Lemma 2.2 in \cite{CFS-2008} or equation \eqref{condis} in Section \ref{sect2} of this work), which are not easy to verify and may be too restrictive for applications). We stress in this regard that the results from \cite{CFS-2008,MW-2012,T-2008} are not sufficient for the purposes studied in \cite{BR-2014,NR-2014,NR-2014a}, since the assumptions made in these papers fail to
hold in the context of a typical financial model. Consequently, some extensions of the existing comparison theorems for BSDEs driven by multi-dimensional martingales are needed to demonstrate the existence of non-empty intervals for fair bilateral prices (or bilaterally profitable prices), as well as the monotonicity of prices with respect to the initial endowment of an agent. In Section \ref{sect5}, we show that Theorems \ref{comparison theorem 2x} and \ref{appendix wellposedness theorem for lending special BSDE} are suitable tools to handle BSDEs derived in market model with funding costs when dealing with a collateralized contract.
For further applications of results from this work, we refer to Section 5 in \cite{NR-2014} and Section 3.3 in \cite{NR-2014a}.
To summarize, our main goal is to extend results from \cite{CFS-2008} for BSDEs driven by multi-dimensional martingales and to relax rather stringent assumptions postulated in \cite{CFS-2008}.
This work is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sect2}, we recall some definitions and results from \cite{CFS-2008}
and we consider the extended BSDEs driven by one-dimensional continuous martingale. In Section \ref{sect3}, we study BSDEs driven by a multi-dimensional continuous martingale $M$. We first obtain the existence, uniqueness, and stability results for solutions to these BSDEs under the assumption that the generator satisfies to $m$-Lipschitz condition. Next, we prove the comparison theorem
(see Theorem \ref{comparison theorem 2x}) for BSDEs with a uniformly $m$-Lipschitzian generator. The goal of Section \ref{sect4} is to analyze alternative assumptions regarding the process $m$ arising in representation \eqref{edded} of the quadratic variation $\langle M\rangle$ (see Assumptions \ref{assumption 2 for m} and \ref{assumption 3 for m}). We conclude the paper by demonstrating in Section \ref{sect5} that the assumptions of Theorems \ref{comparison theorem 2x} and \ref{appendix wellposedness theorem for lending special BSDE} are satisfied by a particular class of BSDEs that arise in the context of financial models with funding costs studied in related papers \cite{BR-2014,NR-2014,NR-2014a}. We also show that our comparison result is a suitable tool for deriving the bounds for unilateral prices of a collateralized contract in a financial market with funding costs.
\newpage
\section{BSDEs Driven by a One-Dimensional Martingale} \label{sect2}
Let us stress that main goal of this work is to examine BSDEs driven by a multi-dimensional martingale.
For the sake of completeness, we first provide in this section a minor extension of results from Carbone et al. \cite{CFS-2008} when a one-dimensional driving martingale $M$ is complemented by a predetermined driving process $U$ (see equation \eqref{general BSDE 2}), which arises in financial applications studied in Section \ref{sect5}. Moreover, we provide here a discussion of assumptions made in \cite{CFS-2008}, since we aim to relax some of them in the foregoing section.
We assume that we are given a filtered probability space $(\Omega, {\cal G}, \gg , \P)$ satisfying the usual conditions of right-continuity and completeness. As customary, we assume that the $\sigma$-field ${\cal G}_0$ is trivial.
Let $M$ be a real-valued, continuous, square-integrable martingale on this space.
We postulate that $M$ has the predictable representation property with respect to the filtration $\gg$ under $\P$.
We denote by $\langle M\rangle$ the quadratic variation process of $M$, which is a continuous, increasing, $\gg$-adapted
process vanishing at zero such that $M^{2}-\langle M\rangle$ is a continuous (uniformly integrable) martingale.
We introduce the following notation, for any non-negative constant $\lambda $, \hfill \break
$\Hlamo$ -- the subspace of all real-valued, $\gg$-adapted processes $X$ satisfying
\be \label{eddedvxx}
\|X\|_{\Hlamo}^{2}:= \EP \bigg[ \int_{0}^{T}e^{\lambda \langle M\rangle_{t}} X^2_{t}\,
d\langle M\rangle_{t} \bigg]<\infty ,
\ee
$L^{2}_{\lambda}$ -- the space of all real-valued, $\mathcal{G}_{T}$-measurable random variables $\eta$ such that
\bde
\|\eta\|_{L^2_{\lambda}}^{2} := \EP \Big[e^{\lambda \langle M\rangle_{T}} \eta^{2} \Big]<\infty.
\ede
Note that $L^{2}_{0} = L^2 (\rr)$ is the space of $\mathcal{G}_{T}$-measurable,
square-integrable random variables.
\subsection{BSDEs with a Uniformly Lipschitzian Generator} \label{sect2.1}
Assume that we are given a real-valued, continuous martingale $M$, a process $U$, and a random variable $\eta $.
We consider the following BSDE driven by $M$ and $U$, with generator $h$ and the terminal value $\eta $, for $t \in [0,T]$,
\be \label{general BSDE 2}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
dY_t = Z_t \, dM_t - h(t, Y_t , Z_t )\, d\langle M\rangle_{t} + dU_t ,\medskip\\
Y_{T}= \eta .
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
In Section \ref{sect2}, we work under the following standing assumption imposed on the generator $h$.
\bhyp \label{assumption 1 for the driver of the general BSDE}
The generator $h:\Omega \times[0,T] \times \rr \times \rr \rightarrow \rr$ is a ${\cal G}\otimes\mathcal{B}([0,T])\otimes\mathcal{B}(\rr)\otimes\mathcal{B}(\rr)$-measurable function such that $h(\cdot,y,z)$ is a $\gg$-adapted process for any fixed $(y,z)\in\rr \times \rr$ and the process $h(\cdot,0,0)$ belongs to $\Hlamo $.
\ehyp
We adopt the following definition of a solution to BSDE (\ref{general BSDE 2}). It is clear from this definition
that we restrict our attention to solutions $(Y,Z)$ from the space $\Hlamo \times \Hlamo$.
\bd \lab{defrr}
A {\it solution} to BSDE (\ref{general BSDE 2}) is a pair $(Y,Z)\in \Hlamo \times \Hlamo$ of
processes satisfying (\ref{general BSDE 2}), $\mathbb{P}$-a.s., such that $Z$ is $\gg$-predictable and
$Y-U$ is a continuous process.
\ed
We emphasize that Definition \ref{defrr} postulates the continuity of the process $Y-U$, rather than $Y$. Obviously, if
we assume that $U$ is $\gg$-progressively measurable (resp. $\gg$-predictable or continuous), then $Y$ will share this property as well. For any natural $d$, we denote by $\| \cdot \|$ the Euclidean norm in ${\mathbb R}^d$.
In this section, we set $d=1$, but the next definition also applies to the multi-dimensional case.
\bd \label{ulip}
We say that the generator $h$ satisfies the {\it uniform Lipschitz condition} if there exists a constant $L$ such that, for all $t\in[0,T]$ and all $y_{1},y_{2}, z_{1},z_{2}\in\rr^d$,
\be \label{uniformly Lipschitz for the driver}
|h(t,y_{1},z_{1})-h(t,y_{2},z_{2})|\leq L\left(|y_{1}-y_{2}|+\|z_{1}-z_{2}\|\right).
\ee
\ed
The next definition hinges on a minor adjustment of the terminology used in Carbone et al. \cite{CFS-2008} and El Karoui et al. \cite{EPQ-1997}
\bd \lab{stand}
We say that $(h, \eta ,U)$ is a $(\lambda ,L)$-{\it standard parameter} if: \hfill \break
(i) $h:\Omega \times[0,T] \times \rr \times \rr \rightarrow \rr$ satisfies the uniform Lipschitz
condition \eqref{uniformly Lipschitz for the driver} with a constant $L$, \hfill \break
(ii) the process $h(\cdot,0,0)$ belongs to $ \Hlamo $, \hfill \break
(iii) a random variable $\eta $ belongs to $L^{2}_{\lambda}$, \hfill \break
(iv) a real-valued, $\gg$-adapted process $U$ belongs to $\Hlamo $ and $U_{T}\in L^{2}_{\lambda}$.
\ed
The next result is an almost immediate consequence of Theorem 2.1 in \cite{CFS-2008}, where the case
of $U=0$ was examined.
\begin{theorem}
Assume that $(h,\eta ,U )$ is a $(\lambda ,L)$-standard parameter for some $\lambda>\lambda_{0}(L)$ where
\bde
\lambda_{0}(L):=\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
2\sqrt{2}L, & L\leq\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2},\medskip\\
2L^{2}+1, & L>\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}.
\end{array}
\right.
\ede
Then BSDE (\ref{general BSDE 2}) has a unique solution $(Y,Z)\in \Hlamo \times \Hlamo $. Moreover, the process $Y-U$ satisfies
\bde
\EP \bigg[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}e^{\lambda\langle M\rangle_{t}} (Y_{t}-U_{t})^{2}\bigg]<\infty.
\ede
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let us set $\wh Y_t = Y_t - U_t$. Then
\be \label{transferred general BSDE 1}
\wh Y_t = \wh \eta - \int_t^T Z_u \, dM_u +\int_t^T \wh h(u, \wh Y_u , Z_u )\, d\langle M\rangle_{u}
\ee
where $\wh \eta = \eta - U_T$ and $\wh h(t,\wh Y_t, Z_t ) : =h(t,\wh Y_t + U _t , Z_t )$.
Since, by assumption, the processes $h(\cdot,0,0)$ and $U$ belong to $\Hlamo $ and condition
(\ref{uniformly Lipschitz for the driver}) holds, we have $\wh h(\cdot,0, 0)=h(\cdot,U , 0)\in \Hlamo$.
Moreover, it is easy to check that $\wh \eta \in L^{2}_{\lambda}$ and $\wh h$ satisfies (\ref{uniformly Lipschitz for the driver}). Therefore, $(\wh{h}, \wh \eta )$ is also a $(\lambda ,L)$-standard parameter and thus BSDE (\ref{transferred general BSDE 1}) has a unique solution $(\wh{Y},Z)\in \Hlamo \times \Hlamo $, by virtue of Theorem 2.1 in \cite{CFS-2008}. Moreover, the process $\wh{Y}$ is continuous and it satisfies
\bde
\EP \bigg[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}e^{\lambda\langle M\rangle_{t}}\wh{Y}^2_{t}\bigg]<\infty.
\ede
We conclude that the pair $(Y,Z)$ with $Y:=\wh Y + U \in \Hlamo$ is a unique solution to BSDE (\ref{general BSDE 2}).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Comparison Theorem: One-Dimensional Case} \label{2.2}
We now focus on the comparison theorem of BSDE driven by a one-dimensional continuous martingale.
Let $\mathcal{E}(M)$ denote the Dol\'eans exponential of a continuous martingale $M$, that is,
\bde
\mathcal{E}_t(M):=\exp\left\{M_{t}-\frac{1}{2}\langle M\rangle_{t}\right\}.
\ede
From Novikov's criterion (see, for instance, Corollary 1.1 in Kazamaki \cite{K-1994}), it is known that if $\langle M\rangle_{T}$ is bounded, then $\EP [ \mathcal{E}_t(M)]=1$ for all $t \in [0,T]$.
For a given function $h:\Omega \times[0,T] \times \rr \times \rr \rightarrow \rr$, we introduce the following processes
\begin{align*}
&\Delta_{Y}h_{t}=\frac{h(t,Y^{1}_{t},Z^{1}_{t})-h(t,Y^{2}_{t},Z^{1}_{t})}{Y^{1}_{t}-Y^{2}_t}\,\I_{\{Y^{1}_{t}\neq Y^{2}_t\}}, \\
&\Delta_{Z}h_{t}=\frac{h(t,Y^{2}_{t},Z^{1}_{t})-h(t,Y^{2}_{t},Z^{2}_{t})}{Z^{1}_{t}-Z^{2}_t}\, \I_{\{Z^{1}_{t}\neq Z^{2}_t\}}.
\end{align*}
From Theorem 2.2 in Carbone et al. \cite{CFS-2008} (see also conditions (i)--(ii) in Lemma 2.2 in \cite{CFS-2008}),
we obtain the following version of the comparison theorem for solutions to BSDEs.
\begin{theorem} \label{comparison theorem 1}
Let $(h^i, \eta^i ,U)$ be a $(\lambda^i ,L^i)$-standard parameter and
let $(Y^{i},Z^{i})$ be the unique solution of the following BSDE, for $i=1,2$,
\be\label{general BSDE 3}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
dY_t^{i} =Z^{i}_t \, dM_t - h^{i}(t, Y^{i}_t , Z^{i}_t )\,d\langle M\rangle_{t} + dU_t,\medskip\\
Y_{T}^{i}=\eta^{i}.
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
Suppose that $\mathcal{E}\big( \int_{0}^{\cdot }\Delta_{Z}h^{1}_{u}\, dM_{u}\big)$ is a positive,
uniformly integrable martingale and
\be \label{condis}
\EP \left[\left(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\exp\left\{\int_{0}^{t}\Delta_{Y}h^{1}_{u}\,d\langle M\rangle_{u}\right\}\right)^{2}
\left(\mathcal{E}_T \Big(\int_{0}^{\cdot }\Delta_{Z}h^{1}_{u}\, dM_{u}\Big)\right)^{2}\right]<\infty.
\ee
If $\eta^{1}\ge\eta^{2}$ and $h^{1}(\cdot ,Y^{2} , Z^{2})\ge h^{2}(\cdot ,Y^{2}, Z^{2}),\, \P\otimes \Leb$-a.e., then
$Y^{1}_{t}\ge Y^{2}_{t}$ for any $t\in[0,T]$.
\end{theorem}
Alternatively, one can consider the following assumptions: $h^{1}(\cdot ,Y^{1}, Z^{1})\ge h^{2}(\cdot ,Y^{1}, Z^{1})$, $\P\otimes \Leb$-a.e., $\eta^{1}\ge\eta^{2}$, $\mathcal{E}(\int_{0}^{\cdot }\Delta_{Z}h^{2}_{u}\,dM_{u})$
is a positive uniformly integrable martingale, and
\bde
\EP \left[\left(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\exp\left\{\int_{0}^{t}\Delta_{Y}h^{2}_{u}\,d\langle M\rangle_{u}\right\}\right)^{2}
\left(\mathcal{E}_T \Big(\int_{0}^{\cdot }\Delta_{Z}h^{2}_{u}\, dM_{u}\Big)\right)^{2}\right]<\infty.
\ede
Then the assertion of Theorem \ref{comparison theorem 1} is still valid.
Let us make some important observations regarding condition \eqref{condis} in Theorem \ref{comparison theorem 1}.
Since $h^1$ satisfies the uniform Lipschitz condition, the processes $|\Delta_{Y}h^1_{u}|$ and $|\Delta_{Z}h^1_{u}|$
are both bounded by $L$. Next, if we assume that $M$ is a continuous, square-integrable martingale then, from Remark 1.3 in \cite{K-1994}, we deduce that the Dol\'eans exponential $\mathcal{E}(\int_{0}^{\cdot }\Delta_{Z}h^1_{u}\,dM_{u})$
is a positive, uniformly integrable martingale. Furthermore, if we assume that $\langle M\rangle_{T}$ is bounded, then $\langle \int_{0}^{\cdot }\Delta_{Z}h^1_{u}\,dM_{u}\rangle_T$ is also bounded and thus, using Novikov's criterion,
we conclude condition \eqref{multid BSDE} is satisfied. It is worth stressing that the postulate that
$\langle M\rangle_{T}$ is bounded is very restrictive, since it is not likely to hold in further applications
of BSDEs driven by a martingale.
\brem \label{remark for cadlag martingale}
Let us now consider the case where $M$ is a c\`{a}dl\`{a}g martingale. Then the Dol\'{e}ans exponential $\mathcal{E}(M)$
is the unique solution of the SDE
\bde
\mathcal{E}_{t}(M)=1+\int_{0}^{t} \mathcal{E}_{u-}(M)\, dM_{u}.
\ede
It is known that $\mathcal{E}(M)$ is a local martingale and equals (we denote $\Delta M_{u}=M_{u}-M_{u-}$)
\bde
\mathcal{E}_{t}(M)=\exp \left\{M_{t}-M_{0}-\frac{1}{2}\langle M \rangle_{t}\right\}\prod_{0< u \leq t}(1+\Delta M_{u})e^{-\Delta M_{u}}
\ede
where $\langle M \rangle = \langle M^c \rangle$ (as usual, $M^c$ stands for the continuous martingale part of $M$).
If the martingale $M$ is square-integrable with $\Delta M_{s}>-1$ and $\langle M\rangle_{T}$ is bounded, then $\mathcal{E}(M)$ is a positive, square-integrable (thus uniformly integrable) martingale (see \cite{LM-1978} or Remark 1.3 in \cite{K-1994}). Therefore, if $\Delta \big( \int_{0}^{\cdot }\Delta_{Z}h^{1}_{u}\, dM_{u} \big) >-1$ and $\langle \int_{0}^{\cdot}\Delta_{Z}h^{1}_{u}\, dM_{u}\rangle_{T}$ is bounded, we still have that $\mathcal{E}\big(\int_{0}^{\cdot }\Delta_{Z}h^{1}_{u}\, dM_{u}\big)$ is a positive, uniformly integrable martingale. Hence if $\langle M\rangle_{T}$ is bounded, then condition \eqref{condis} holds.
\erem
\brem \label{remark for multi-dimensional case}
To directly extend the results of this subsection to BSDEs driven by a multi-dimensional martingale $M=(M^1,\dots ,M^d)^*$,
one could consider the following generalization of BSDE \eqref{general BSDE 2}
\be \label{multid BSDE}
dY_t = Z_t^{\ast} \, dM_t - \Iast d\langle M\rangle_{t}\, \hdd(t, Y_t , Z_t )\, + dU_t ,\quad Y_{T}= \eta
\ee
with the $\rr^d$-valued generator $\hdd: \Omega \times[0,T] \times \rr \times \rr^d \rightarrow \rr^d$ where
$\Iast =(1,1, \dots ,1)$.
Unfortunately, the term $ \Iast d\langle M\rangle_{t}\, \hdd(t, Y_t , Z_t )$ in \eqref{multid BSDE} seems to be rather untractable and thus we focus on BSDE \eqref{special BSDE} driven by a multi-dimensional martingale in which the matrix-valued process $\langle M\rangle$ can be factorized (see equation \eqref{mm33}), although we also make some comments about solvability of BSDE \eqref{multid BSDE} in Section \ref{sect4.1}.
Suppose that we manage to prove the comparison theorem for BSDE (\ref{multid BSDE}) driven by a multi-dimensional martingale analogous to Theorem~\ref{comparison theorem 1}. Since the boundedness of $\langle M\rangle_{T}$ may fail to hold, typically,
a straightforward application of a multi-dimensional extension of Theorem \ref{comparison theorem 1} would not be possible anyway, since it would require to verify the conditions imposed on the Dol\'eans exponential $\mathcal{E}(M)$ and this task is rather hard.
In next section, we will study BSDEs driven by multi-dimensional continuous martingales, since such BSDEs play an important r\^ole in numerous financial applications where market models with several risky assets are introduced and studied. Our main goal is to establish a version of a comparison theorem in which, in particular, the boundedness of $\langle M\rangle_{T}$ is not postulated (see Theorem~\ref{comparison theorem 2x}).
\erem
\section{BSDEs Driven by a Multi-Dimensional Martingale} \lab{sect3}
In this section, we first revisit results from \cite{CFS-2008,ELH-1997} and we establish in Section \ref{sect3.1} their extensions to the case when an additional driving term $U$ appears in our BSDE under the $m$-Lipschitz condition \eqref{Lipschitz for the driver}. In Section \ref{sect3.2}, we study the special case when the generator satisfies the uniform
$m$-Lipschitz condition \eqref{Lipschitz for the driverx}. The goal of Section \ref{sect3.3} is to establish
the main comparison theorem for BSDEs driven by a multi-dimensional martingale (see Theorem \ref{comparison theorem 2x}).
Let $M=(M^{1},M^{2},\ldots,M^{d})^{\ast}$ (by $^{\ast}$, we denote the transposition), where the processes $M^i,\, i=1,2,\dots , d$ are continuous, square-integrable martingales on the filtered probability space $(\Omega, {\cal G}, \gg , \P)$. We postulate
that $M$ has the predictable representation property with respect to the filtration $\gg$ under $\P$. We denote
by $\langle M \rangle$ the quadratic (cross-) variation process of $M$, so that $\langle M \rangle_{t}$ takes values in
$\rr^{d \times d}$ and the $(i,j)$th entry of the matrix $\langle M \rangle_{t}$ is $\langle M^{i},M^{j}\rangle_{t}$.
As in \cite{CFS-2008,ELH-1997}, we henceforth work under the following standing assumption regarding the continuous
process of finite variation $\langle M \rangle$, so that it is implicitly assumed that the processes $m$ and $Q$
in equation \eqref{mm33} are given.
\bhyp \label{edded}
We assume that there exists an $\rr^{d \times d}$-valued $\gg$-adapted process $m$ and a $\gg$-adapted, continuous,
bounded, increasing process $Q$ with $Q_0=0$ such that, for all $t \in [0,T]$,
\be \label{mm33}
\langle M\rangle_{t}=\int_{0}^{t} m_{u} m_{u}^{\ast}\, dQ_{u}.
\ee
\ehyp
From Proposition 2.9 in Chapter II of Jacod and Shiryaev \cite{JS-2003} (see also \cite{ELH-1997,MW-2012,M-2009}), we know that Assumption \ref{edded} is met by an arbitrary continuous, square-integrable martingale and the factorization \eqref{mm33} of the process $\langle M\rangle$ is not unique. For instance, if we set $Q:=\arctan(\sum_{i=1}^{d}\langle M^{i},M^{i}\rangle)$, then $Q$ is $\gg$-adapted, continuous, increasing process, which is bounded by $\frac{\pi}{2}$. Moreover, the Kunita-Watanabe inequality shows that for all $1\leq i,j\leq d$ the process $\langle M^{i}, M^{j}\rangle$ is absolute continuous with respect to $Q$, and thus the Radon-Nikodym theorem allows us to obtain an $\rr^{d \times d}$-valued, $\gg$-predictable process $D$, which is positive semi-definite. Furthermore, we can factorize $D$ as $D=mm^{\ast}$ for an $\rr^{d \times d}$-valued, $\gg$-predictable processes $m$. In particular, if $M$ is a $d$-dimensional Brownian motion, then we can simply choose $Q_{t}=t$ for all $t\in[0,T]$ and $m=I$, where $I$ stands for the $d$-dimensional identity matrix.
Let us make some comments on alternative technical assumptions regarding the measurability of $m$. In some papers, such as \cite{ELH-1997,MW-2012,M-2009}, the authors take $m$ as a predictable process, which can be constructed as above, for instance. However, on the one hand, usually it is sufficient to take $m$ as an adapted process to obtain the well-posedness of BSDEs. On the other hand, when we consider the stochastic integral with respect to $M$, where $m$ appears in the integrand, usually it suffices that $m$ is progressively measurable. In particular, if $Q_{t}=t$ (which, obviously, implies that the process $\langle M\rangle $ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure), then it is enough to postulated that $m$ is adapted (for more details, see Remark 2.11 in Chapter 3 of Karatzas and Shreve \cite{KS-1998}).
It is also clear that $m_{u}m_{u}^{\ast}$ is a square matrix and it is positive semi-definite, so that $(m_{u}m_{u}^{\ast})^{\frac{1}{2}}$ is well-defined (for notation, see Remark \ref{notat55}). If $m_{u}m_{u}^{\ast}$ is positive definite, then $m_{u}m_{u}^{\ast}$ is invertible, and thus we can also define $(m_{u}m_{u}^{\ast})^{-\frac{1}{2}}$. Finally,
we note that if $m_u$ is a symmetric matrix (i.e., $m_u=m_u^{\ast}$), then $m_{u}=m^{\ast}_{u}=(m_{u}m_{u}^{\ast})^{\frac{1}{2}}$.
Regarding the symmetry of $m$ in \eqref{mm33}, observe that the condition $\langle M\rangle_{t}=\int_{0}^{t}m_{u}m_{u}^{\ast}\,dQ_{u}$
with $m$ being an $\rr^{d \times d}$-valued, $\gg$-adapted process is equivalent to
$\langle M\rangle_{t}=\int_{0}^{t}\bar{m}_{u}\bar{m}_{u}^{\ast}\,dQ_{u}$ with $\bar{m}$ being a symmetric
$\rr^{d \times d}$-valued, $\gg$-adapted process. Indeed, it suffices to take $\bar{m}_{u}=(m_{u}m_{u}^{\ast})^{\frac{1}{2}}$.
Therefore, without loss of generality, we may and do assume that $m$ takes values in the space of symmetric matrices.
\brem \label{notat55}
We denote by $\norm a \norm $ the norm of a $d \times d$ matrix $a$, where $\norm a \norm^2 :=\text{Tr}(a a^{\ast})$. For a
positive semi-definite matrix $a$, we denote by $a^{\frac{1}{2}}$ the unique square root of $a$, i.e., $a^{\frac{1}{2}}a^{\frac{1}{2}}=a$. Recall that there exists an orthogonal matrix $O$ and a diagonal matrix $b$ with non-negative diagonal elements such that $a=O^{\ast}b O$. The square root of $b$ is also a diagonal matrix, denoted by $b^{\frac{1}{2}}$, with diagonal elements equal to square roots of diagonal elements of $b$. Then we set $a^{\frac{1}{2}}=O^{\ast}b^{\frac{1}{2}}O$. Moreover, if $a$ is positive definite, then the inverse of $a^{\frac{1}{2}}$, denoted as $a^{-\frac{1}{2}}$, is well defined.
\erem
\subsection{BSDEs with an $m$-Lipschitzian Generator} \label{sect3.1}
In this section, we study the following BSDE driven by a $d$-dimensional martingale $M = (M^1,\dots , M^d)^*$
and a real-valued, $\gg$-adapted process $U$, for $t \in [0,T]$,
\be \label{special BSDE}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
dY_t = Z_t^{\ast} \, dM_t -h(t, Y_t , Z_t )\,dQ_{t} + dU_t,\medskip\\
Y_{T}=\eta .
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
Recall that we work under the standing assumption that $M$ satisfies Assumption \ref{edded}. We also make throughout
the following technical assumption regarding the measurability of the generator $h$.
\bhyp \label{assumption standard generator}
Let $h:\Omega \times[0,T] \times \rr \times \rr^{d} \rightarrow \rr$ be a ${\cal G}\otimes\mathcal{B}([0,T])\otimes\mathcal{B}(\rr)\otimes\mathcal{B}(\rr^d)$-measurable function such that $h(\cdot,\cdot,y,z)$ is a $\gg$-adapted process for any fixed $(y,z)\in\rr \times \rr^d$.
\ehyp
Before stating the definition of a solution
to BSDE \eqref{special BSDE}, we need to introduce some notation and define suitable spaces of processes in which will search
for solutions. To this end, following \cite{CFS-2008}, we first introduce the following version of the
Lipschitz condition for the generator $h$.
\bd \label{mlip}
We say that $h$ satisfies the {\it $m$-Lipschitz condition} if there exist two strictly positive and $\gg$-adapted processes $\rho $ and $\theta$ such that, for all $t\in[0,T]$ and $y_{1},y_{2}\in\rr,\, z_{1},z_{2}\in\rr^d$,
\be \label{Lipschitz for the driver}
|h(t,y_{1},z_{1})-h(t,y_{2},z_{2})|\leq \rho_{t}|y_{1}-y_{2}|+\theta_{t}\| m_{t}^{\ast}(z_{1}-z_{2})\|.
\ee
\ed
We set $\alpha_{t}^{2}=\rho_{t}+\theta_{t}^{2}$ for $t \in [0,T]$ and we define
the process $N_{t}:=\int_{0}^{t} \alpha_{u}^{2} \,dQ_{u}$ for $t \in [0,T]$.
For a fixed $\lambda\ge0$, we denote by $\wHlamd$ the subspace of all $\rr^{d}$-valued, $\gg$-adapted processes $X$ with the norm $\|\cdot \|_{\wHlamd }$ given by
\be \label{defhh}
\|X\|_{\wHlamd}^{2}:=\EP \bigg[ \int_{0}^{T}e^{\lambda N_{t}}\|X_{t}\|^{2}\,dQ_{t} \bigg] <\infty .
\ee
Let $\wh{L}^{2}_{\lambda}$ stand for the space of all real-valued, $\mathcal{G}_{T}$-measurable
random variables $\eta$ such that
\be \label{defhhh}
\|\eta \|_{\wh{L}^2_{\lambda}}^{2}=\EP \left[e^{\lambda N_{T}}\eta^{2}\right]<\infty .
\ee
It is clear that the spaces in which we will search for solutions depend on the generator $g$.
In fact, from the next definition, it transpires that the process $m$ is also used for this purpose.
\bd
A {\it solution} to BSDE (\ref{special BSDE}) is a pair $(Y,Z)$ of $\gg$-adapted processes satisfying (\ref{special BSDE}) for all
$t \in [0,T]$ and such that: $(\alpha Y, m^{\ast}Z)\in\wHlamo \times \wHlamd$, the process $Z$ is $\gg$-predictable, and the process $Y-U$ is continuous.
\ed
Note that if, in addition, the process $U$ is $\gg$-progressively measurable (resp. $\gg$-predictable), then $Y$ is $\gg$-progressively measurable (resp. $\gg$-predictable) as well.
One can object that the definition of a solution to BSDE (\ref{special BSDE}) under the $m$-Lipschitz condition
is somewhat artificial, since it is tailored to the method of the proof of the existence and uniqueness theorem
(see, for instance, Theorem 3.2 in \cite{CFS-2008}). In the next subsection, we will impose a stronger uniform $m$-Lipschitz condition and we will reduce the complexity of the definition of a solution to BSDE (\ref{special BSDE}).
The next definition is a counterpart of Definition \ref{stand} of a $(\lambda ,L)$-standard parameter.
To be more precise, we deal here with the notion of the $(\lambda , m ,Q, \rho , \theta )$-{\it standard parameter}
but, for the sake of conciseness, we decided to call it simply a $(\lambda , m )$-{\it standard parameter}.
\bd \lab{defstan}
We say that the triplet $(h,\eta ,U)$ is a $(\lambda , m )$-{\it standard parameter} if: \hfill \break
(i) $h:\Omega \times [0,T] \times \rr \times \rr^{d} \rightarrow \rr$ satisfies the $m$-Lipschitz
condition with processes $\rho $ and $\theta $, \hfill \break
(ii) the process $\alpha^{-1}h(\cdot,0,0)$ belongs to $\wHlamo$, \hfill \break
(iii) a random variable $\eta $ belongs to $\wh{L}^{2}_{\lambda}$, \hfill \break
(iv) $U$ is a real-valued, $\gg$-adapted process
such that $\alpha U\in\wHlamo$ and $U_{T}\in \wh{L}^{2}_{\lambda}$.
\ed
The proof of the next result hinges on Theorem 3.2 in Carbone et al. \cite{CFS-2008}.
\begin{theorem} \label{1 wellposedness theorem for special BSDE}
Let $(h,\eta ,U)$ be a $(\lambda , m)$-standard parameter for some $\lambda>3$.
Then BSDE (\ref{special BSDE}) has a unique solution $(Y,Z)$ such that $(\alpha Y, m^{\ast}Z)\in\wHlamo
\times \wHlamd $. Moreover, the process $Y-U$ satisfies
\bde
\EP \bigg[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}e^{\lambda N_{t}}(Y_{t}-U_{t})^{2} \bigg]<\infty.
\ede
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We set $\wh Y_t := Y_t - U_t$, so that (\ref{special BSDE}) becomes
\be \label{transferred special BSDE}
\wh Y_t = \wh \eta - \int_t^T Z^*_u \, dM_u + \int_t^T \wh h(t, \wh Y_u , Z_u )\, dQ_{u}
\ee
where $\wh \eta := \eta - U_T$ and $\wh h(t,\wh Y_t, Z_t ) : =h(t,\wh Y_t + U _t , Z_t )$. Since $h(\cdot,0,0)\in\wHlamo$, $\alpha U\in\wHlamo$ and (\ref{Lipschitz for the driver}), we have $\wh h(\cdot,0, 0)=h(\cdot,U, 0)\in\wHlamo$. Moreover, it is easy to check that $\wh \eta \in \wh{L}^{2}_{\lambda}$ and the function $\wh h$ satisfies (\ref{Lipschitz for the driver}). Therefore, $(\wh{h}, \wh{\eta} )$ is a $(\lambda , m)$-standard parameter as well. Consequently, from Theorem 3.2 in \cite{CFS-2008}, we deduce that BSDE (\ref{transferred special BSDE})
has a unique solution $(\wh{Y},Z)$ such that $(\alpha \wh{Y}, m^{\ast}Z)\in\wHlamo \times \wHlamd$. Moreover, $\wh{Y}$ is continuous and satisfies $\EP \big[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}e^{\lambda N_{t}}\wh{Y}^2_{t} \big]<\infty$.
It is now not hard to check that $(Y,Z)$ with $Y:=\wh Y + U$ is a unique solution to BSDE (\ref{special BSDE}) and $(\alpha Y, m^{\ast}Z) \in \wHlamo \times \wHlamd $, since $\alpha \wh{Y} \in\wHlamo$ and $\alpha U\in\wHlamo$.
\end{proof}
We also have the following stability result, which extends Proposition 3.1 in \cite{CFS-2008}.
\bp \label{1 stability of BSDE}
Let $(h^i,\eta^i,U^i)$ be a $( \lambda , m)$-standard parameter with $\lambda>3$ and let $(Y^i,Z^i)$
be the solution to the following BSDE, for $i=1,2$,
\be\label{special BSDE 2}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
dY_t^{i} =Z^{i,\ast}_t \, dM_t - h^{i}(t, Y^{i}_t , Z^{i}_t )\,dQ_{t} + dU_t^{i},\medskip\\
Y_{T}^{i}=\eta^{i}.
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
If we denote $Y=Y^{1}-Y^{2}$, $Z=Z^{1}-Z^{2}$, $U=U^{1}-U^{2}$, $\eta=\eta^{1}-\eta^{2}$ and $h=h^{1}-h^{2}$, then
\bde
\EP \bigg[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}e^{\lambda N_{t}}(Y_{t}-U_{t})^{2}\bigg]+\|\alpha Y\|^2_{\wHlamo}+\|m^{\ast}Z\|^2_{\wHlamd }
\leq K_{1}\Delta
\ede
where $K_1$ is a constant and
\bde
\Delta=\left[ \|\eta-U_{T}\|^{2}_{\wh{L}^2_{\lambda}}+\|\alpha U\|^2_{\wHlamo }
+ \| \alpha^{-1}h(t,Y^{2}-U^{2},Z^{2})\|^2_{\wHlamo}\right].
\ede
\ep
\begin{proof}
From Theorem \ref{wellposedness theorem for special BSDE}, we know that there exists a unique solution $(Y^{i},Z^{i})$ of BSDEs (\ref{special BSDE 2}) for $i=1,2$. Let $\wh{Y}^{i}=Y^{i}-U^{i}$ and $\wh{Y}=\wh{Y}^{1}-\wh{Y}^{2}$.
Then, similarly as in the proof of Proposition 3.1 in \cite{CFS-2008}, we obtain (note that the value of a constant $K_{1}$ may vary from place to place in what follows)
\be\label{estimate 1}
\|\alpha\wh{Y}\|_{\wHlamo}^{2}+\|m^{\ast}Z\|_{\wHlamd }^{2}
\leq K_{1}\left[\|\eta-U_{T}\|^{2}_{\wh{L}^2_{\lambda}}+\|\alpha U\|_{\wHlamo}^{2}+
\|\alpha^{-1}h(t,\wh{Y}^{2},Z^{2})\|_{\wHlamo }^{2}\right]
\ee
and thus $\|\alpha Y\|_{\wHlamo }^{2} +\|m^{\ast}Z\|_{\wHlamd }^{2} \leq K_{1}\Delta $. We will now show that
\be \label{dece}
\EP \bigg[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}e^{\lambda N_{t}} \wh{Y}^2_t \bigg]\leq K_{1}\Delta.
\ee
Indeed, since
\bde
\wh{Y}_t=\eta-U_{T}-\int_{t}^{T}Z^{\ast}_{u}\,dM_{u} +\int_{t}^{T}
(h^{1}(u, Y^{1}_{u} , Z^{1}_{u} )-h^{2}(u, Y^{2}_{u} , Z^{2}_{u} ))\,dQ_{u},
\ede
an application of the It\^o formula to $e^{\lambda N_{t}}\wh{Y}^2_t$ yields
\begin{align*}
e^{\lambda N_{t}} \wh{Y}_t^{2}&=e^{\lambda N_{T}}(\eta-U_{T})^{2}
-2\int_{t}^{T}e^{\lambda N_{u}}\wh{Y}_{u}Z^{\ast}_{u} \,dM_{u}-\lambda\int_{t}^{T}e^{\lambda N_{u}}\alpha^2_u \wh{Y}_{u}^{2}\, dQ_{u} \\ &\ \ \ +2\int_{t}^{T} e^{\lambda N_{u}}\wh{Y}_{u}(h^{1}(u, Y^{1}_{u} , Z^{1}_{u} )-h^{2}(u, Y^{2}_{u} , Z^{2}_{u} ))\,dQ_{u}.
\end{align*}
The Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality and standard calculus yield
\bde
\EP \bigg[\sup_{t\in[0,T]} e^{\lambda N_{t}}\wh{Y}^2_t \bigg] \leq K_{1}\left[\Delta+\|\alpha\wh{Y}\|_{\wHlamo }^{2}
+\|m^{\ast}Z\|_{\wHlamd }^{2}\right].
\ede
From (\ref{estimate 1}), it now follows that \eqref{dece} is valid, which completes the proof of the proposition.
\end{proof}
\subsection{BSDEs with a Uniformly $m$-Lipschitzian Generator} \label{sect3.2}
Our next goal is to analyze alternative assumptions under which the existence, uniqueness, and comparison theorems for
BSDE \eqref{special BSDE} can be established. To this end, we consider the case where the processes $\rho$ and $\theta$ in (\ref{Lipschitz for the driver}) are bounded, that is, there exists a constant $\wh{L} >0$ such that $0\leq \rho_{t},\theta_{t}\leq \wh{L}$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. Since the process $Q$ in Assumption \ref{edded} is bounded, under the assumption that the processes $\rho$ and $\theta$ are bounded as well, the process $N$ is bounded and thus the classes of processes and random variables
satisfying the inequalities \eqref{defhh} and \eqref{defhhh} do not depend on the choice of $\lambda$. In other words, the sets $\wHlamd $ and $\wh{L}^{2}_{\lambda}$ are independent of $\lambda$.
Hence we may take $\lambda=0$ and, since the norms $\|\cdot\|_{\wHlamd }$ and $\|\cdot\|_{\wHzerd}$ are equivalent, for our further purposes, the space $\wHlamd $ may be formally identified with $\wHzerd $. Similarly, the norms $\|\cdot\|_{\wh{L}^2_{\lambda}}$ and $\|\cdot\|_{\wh{L}^2_{0}}$ are equivalent in that case, so that we may identify the spaces $\wh{L}^{2}_{\lambda}$ and $\wh{L}^{2}_{0} = L^2 (\rr)$. Finally, we observe that the norms $\|\cdot\|_{\wHzerd }$ and $\|\cdot\|_{\wh{L}^2_{0}}$ are obviously independent of $N$ (thus also of $\rho$ and $\theta$).
To summarize, if the processes $\rho$ and $\theta$ are bounded, then the spaces $\wHlamd$ and $\wh{L}^{2}_{\lambda}$ do not depend on $\lambda,\, \rho$ and $\theta$. Therefore, if the processes $\rho$ and $\theta$ in the $m$-Lipschitz condition for $h$ are bounded, then we may assume, without loss of generality, that $\rho_{t} =\theta_{t} = \wh{L}$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. Then the process $\alpha = \wh{L}+ \wh{L}^2 $ is constant as well.
\bd \label{assumption 1 for the driver of the special BSDE}
We say that $h$ satisfies the {\it uniform $m$-Lipschitz condition} if there exists a constant $ \wh{L} >0$ such that,
for all $t\in[0,T]$ and all $y_{1},y_{2}\in\rr,\, z_{1},z_{2}\in\rr^d$,
\be \label{Lipschitz for the driverx}
|h(t,y_{1},z_{1})-h(t,y_{2},z_{2})|\leq \wh{L} \big( |y_{1}-y_{2}|+ \| m_{t}^{\ast}(z_{1}-z_{2})\| \big).
\ee
\ed
In view of Definition \ref{assumption 1 for the driver of the special BSDE} and the preceding discussion regarding
the spaces $\wHlamd$ and $\wHzerd$, we propose the following modification of Definition \ref{defstan}.
\bd \label{defstanx}
We say that the triplet $(h,\eta ,U)$ is an $(m ,\wh{L})$-{\it standard parameter} if: \hfill \break
(i) $h:\Omega \times [0,T] \times \rr \times \rr^{d} \rightarrow \rr$ satisfies the
uniform $m$-Lipschitz condition with a constant $\wh{L}$, \hfill \break
(ii) the process $h(\cdot,0,0)$ belongs to $\wHzero $, \hfill \break
(iii) a random variable $\eta $ belongs to $\wh{L}^{2}_{0}$, \hfill \break
(iv) $U$ is a real-valued, $\gg$-adapted process
such that $U \in \wHzero$ and $U_{T}\in \wh{L}^{2}_{0}$.
\ed
By a rather straightforward application Theorem \ref{1 wellposedness theorem for special BSDE} and Proposition \ref{1 stability of BSDE}, we obtain the following results for BSDEs with generators satisfying the uniform $m$-Lipschitz condition.
The proofs of both results are almost immediate and thus they are omitted.
\begin{theorem} \label{wellposedness theorem for special BSDE}
If $(h,\eta ,U)$ is an $(m ,\wh{L} )$-standard parameter, then BSDE (\ref{special BSDE}) has a unique
solution $(Y,Z)$ such that $(Y, m^{\ast}Z) \in \wHzero \times \wHzerd $. Moreover, the process $Y-U$ satisfies
\bde
\EP \bigg[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}(Y_{t}-U_{t})^{2} \bigg] < \infty.
\ede
\end{theorem}
\bp \label{stability of BSDE}
Let $(h^i,\eta^i,U^i)$ be an $(m,\wh{L}_i)$-standard parameter and let $(Y^i,Z^i)$
be the solution to the following BSDE, for $i=1,2$,
\be \label{special BSDE 2x}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
dY_t^{i} =Z^{i,\ast}_t \, dM_t - h^{i}(t, Y^{i}_t , Z^{i}_t )\,dQ_{t} + dU_t^{i},\medskip\\
Y_{T}^{i}=\eta^{i}.
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
If we denote $Y=Y^{1}-Y^{2}$, $Z=Z^{1}-Z^{2}$, $U=U^{1}-U^{2}$, $\eta=\eta^{1}-\eta^{2}$ and $h=h^{1}-h^{2}$, then
\bde
\EP \Big[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}(Y_{t}-U_{t})^{2}\Big] + \|Y\|_{\wHzero }^{2}
+ \|m^{\ast}Z\|_{\wHzerd }^{2} \leq K_{1}\widetilde{\Delta}
\ede
where $K_1$ is a constant and
\bde
\widetilde{\Delta}=\left[ \|\eta-U_{T}\|^{2}_{\wh{L}^2_{0}}+\|U\|_{\wHzero}^{2}+
\|h(t,Y^{2}-U^{2},Z^{2})\|_{\wHzero }^{2}\right].
\ede
\ep
\subsection{Comparison Theorem: Multi-Dimensional Case} \label{sect3.3}
Our next goal, and in fact the main motivation for this work, is to extend Theorem \ref{comparison theorem 1} to BSDE (\ref{special BSDE}) driven by a multi-dimensional martingale. It is worth noting that in \cite{MW-2012,T-2008}, the authors established some versions of the comparison theorem for BSDEs with generators satisfying the quadratic growth condition. For this purpose, they
needed to make some additional assumptions. In the paper by Mocha and Westray \cite{MW-2012}, the comparison theorem is proven using the $\theta$-technique under the postulate that $m$, the terminal value $\eta$, and solution $Y^1$ and $Y^2$ have exponential moments of all orders (see Theorem 5.1 in \cite{MW-2012}). Tevzadze \cite{T-2008} examined the case when the terminal condition is bounded, and he focussed on bounded solutions $Y$ complemented by BMO martingale component. He established the comparison theorem using the linearization technique under a certain integrability condition imposed on the process $(mm^{\ast})^{-1}\nabla h (\cdot , Y,Z, \wt{Z}) $ (see condition (L.2) in Theorem 2 in \cite{T-2008}). Let us remark that even if the generator is uniformly $m$-Lipschitzian, his result requires the trace $\text{Tr}[(mm^{\ast})^{-1}]$ to be bounded, which is used the ensure the validity of condition (L.2) (see Remark on page 12 in \cite{T-2008}). We will discuss this condition in more detail later on (see Assumption \ref{assumption 2 for m}).
In our framework, when dealing with the BSDEs with a uniformly $m$-Lipschitzian generator, we do not need the boundedness of $\text{Tr}[(mm^{\ast})^{-1}]$ since, by using the linearization technique, we can obtain comparison theorem under standard assumptions. The crucial difference is that in the proof of Theorem \ref{comparison theorem 2x} we take the `density process' $q$ different to the one employed in \cite{T-2008}.
Throughout this subsection, we work under Assumptions \ref{edded}--\ref{assumption standard generator} complemented by
the following standing assumption.
\bhyp \label{inver}
The matrix $m_{t}$ in representation \eqref{mm33} of the process $\langle M\rangle$ is invertible for all $t \in [0,T]$.
\ehyp
The invertibility of $m_{t}$ allows us to define the auxiliary function $\wh{h}(t,y,z):=h(t,y,m^{-1}_{t}z)$ where $h$ is an arbitrary generator satisfying the uniform $m$-Lipschitz condition. Then the function $\wh{h}$ is uniformly Lipschitzian, since \eqref{Lipschitz for the driverx} entails that
\be \label{Lipschitz m for the driver}
|\wh{h}(t,y_{1},z_{1})-\wh{h}(t,y_{2},z_{2})|\leq \wh{L} \big( |y_{1}-y_{2}|+ \| z_{1}-z_{2}\| \big).
\ee
Let us denote $\wt{Z}_{t,i}^{k}=(m_t^{\ast}Z_t^{k})_{i}$ for $k=1,2$ and $i=1,2,\ldots,d$. For every $j=2,\ldots,d$ and $t \in [0,T]$, we define the following processes
\begin{align*}
&\delta_{Y} \wh{h}_{t}=\frac{\wh{h}(t,Y^{1}_{t},\wt{Z}^{1}_{t})-\wh{h}(t,Y^{2}_{t},\wt{Z}^{1}_{t})}
{Y^{1}_{t}-Y^{2}_t}\, \I_{\{Y^{1}_{t}\neq Y^{2}_t\}}, \\
&\delta_{\wt{Z}_{1}} \wh{h}_{t}=\frac{\wh{h}(t,Y^{2}_{t},\wt{Z}^{1}_{t,1},\wt{Z}^{1}_{t,2},\ldots,\wt{Z}^{1}_{t,d})
-\wh{h}(t,Y^{2}_{t},\wt{Z}^{2}_{t,1},\wt{Z}^{1}_{t,2},\ldots,\wt{Z}^{1}_{t,d})}{\wt{Z}^{1}_{t,1}-\wt{Z}^{2}_{t,1}}
\, \I_{\{\wt{Z}^{1}_{t,1}\neq \wt{Z}^{2}_{t,1}\}},\\
&\delta_{\wt{Z}_{j}}\wh{h}_{t}=\frac{\wh{h}(t,Y^{2}_{t},\ldots,\wt{Z}^{2}_{t,j-1},\wt{Z}^{2}_{t,j},
\wt{Z}^{1}_{t,j+1},\ldots,\wt{Z}^{1}_{t,d})
- \wh{h}(t,Y^{2}_{t},\ldots,\wt{Z}^{2}_{t,j-1},\wt{Z}^{1}_{t,j},
\wt{Z}^{1}_{t,j+1},\ldots,\wt{Z}^{1}_{t,d})}{\wt{Z}^{1}_{t,j}-\wt{Z}^{2}_{t,j}}
\, \I_{\{\wt{Z}^{1}_{t,j}\neq \wt{Z}^{2}_{t,j}\}},
\end{align*}
and write $\delta_{\wt{Z}}h_{t}:=(\delta_{\wt{Z}_{1}}h_{t},\ldots,\delta_{\wt{Z}_{d}}h_{t})$.
We are now in a position to establish the following comparison theorem in which Assumption \ref{assumption 2 for m} is not postulated.
\begin{theorem} \label{comparison theorem 2x}
We postulate that Assumption \ref{edded} holds with a $\gg$-progressively measurable process $m$ and
Assumptions \ref{assumption standard generator}--\ref{inver} are valid. We consider the following two BSDEs, $i=1,2$,
\be \label{special BSDEi}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
dY_t^{i} =Z^{i,\ast}_t \, dM_t - h^{i}(t, Y^{i}_t , Z^{i}_t )\,dQ_{t} + dU_t^{i},\medskip\\
Y_{T}^{i}=\eta^{i}.
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
Assume that: \hfill \break
(i) the triplet $(h^i,\eta^i ,U^i)$ is an $(m ,\wh{L}_i)$-standard parameter for $i=1,2$, \hfill \break
(ii) the processes $h^i(\cdot,\cdot,y,z),\, i=1,2$ are $\gg$-progressively measurable for every fixed $(y,z)\in\rr \times \rr^{d}$, \hfill \break
(iii) $U^1$ and $U^2$ are $\gg$-progressively measurable processes such that the process $U^{1}-U^{2}$ is decreasing. \hfill \break
If $\eta^{1}\ge\eta^{2}$ and $h^{1}(\cdot,Y^{2}, Z^{2})\ge h^{2}(\cdot ,Y^{2}, Z^{2}),\, \P\otimes \Leb$-a.e., then $Y^{1}_{t}\ge Y^{2}_{t}$ for every $t\in[0,T]$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since $(h^i,\eta^i ,U^i)$ is an $(m ,\wh{L}_i )$-standard parameter for $i=1,2$,
BSDE (\ref{special BSDEi}) has a unique solution $(Y^i,Z^i)$ such that $(Y^i, m^{\ast}Z^i)\in\wHzero \times \wHzerd$.
Let us denote
$$
Y=Y^{1}-Y^{2},\ Z=Z^{1}-Z^{2},\ \eta=\eta^{1}-\eta^{2},\ U=U^{1}-U^{2} ,
$$
and $h=h^{1}(\cdot ,Y^{2} , Z^{2})-h^{2}(\cdot ,Y^{2} , Z^{2})$.
Also, let us write $a=\delta_{Y}\wh{h}^{1}$ and $b=\delta_{\wt{Z}} \wh{h}^{1}$. Noticing that $\wh{h}(t,y,m_t^{\ast}z)=h(t,y,z)$, we deduce that the pair $(Y,Z)$ solves the following linear BSDE
\bde
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
dY_t =Z_t^{\ast} \, dM_t - (a_{t}Y_{t}+b_{t}m^{\ast}_{t}Z_{t}+h_{t})\,dQ_{t}+dU_{t},\medskip\\
Y_{T}=\eta.
\end{array}
\right.
\ede
Since assumption (i) implies that the generator $h^{1}$ satisfies the uniform $m$-Lipschitz condition \eqref{Lipschitz for the driverx} with a constant $\wh{L}^1$, it is clear that the function $\wh{h}^{1}$ is uniformly Lipschitzian with the same constant and thus the processes
$a$ and $b$ are bounded, specifically, $|a_t|\leq \wh{L}_1$ and $\|b_t \|\leq \sqrt{d} \wh{L}_1$ for all $t \in [0,T]$.
Let us write $c := m m^{\ast }$ and let us define the `density process' $q$ by
the following expression
\bde
q_{t}:=\exp\left\{\int_{0}^{t}a_{u}\,dQ_{u}+\int_{0}^{t}b_{u} c_{u}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\, dM_{u}
-\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{t}\|b_{u}\|^{2}\, dQ_{u}\right\}.
\ede
From equation (\ref{mm33}), we have $d\langle M\rangle_{t}= c_t \, dQ_t$ and thus
\bde
\Big \langle\int_{0}^{\cdot}b_{u} c_u ^{-\frac{1}{2}}\, dM_{u} \Big\rangle_T
=\int_{0}^{T}\text{Tr}\Big[\big(b_{u}c_u ^{-\frac{1}{2}}\big)^{\ast}
b_{u}c_u ^{-\frac{1}{2}} c_u \Big] \, dQ_u
=\int_{0}^{T}\|b_{u}\|^{2}\, dQ_u\leq d \wh L_1^{2}Q_T.
\ede
Recall that the increasing process $Q$ is assumed to be bounded. Hence $q$ is a strictly positive process and, from Novikov's criterion, the inequality
\be \label{eqqq}
\EP \bigg[ \sup_{t\in[0,T]}q^2_{t} \bigg] < \infty
\ee
is valid. Moreover, an application of the It\^o formula yields
\begin{align*}
dq_{t}&=q_{t}b_{t}c_{t}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\,dM_{t}+q_{t}\Big(a_{t}-\frac{1}{2}\,\|b_{t}\|^{2}\Big)\,dQ_{t}+\frac{1}{2}\,q_{t}\text{Tr}
\Big[ \big(b_{t}c_{t}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\big)^{\ast}b_{t}c_{t}^{-\frac{1}{2}}
c_{t}\Big]\, dQ_{t}\\ &=q_{t}b_{t}c_{t}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\,dM_{t}+q_{t}a_{t}\,dQ_{t},
\end{align*}
and thus, by another application of the It\^o formula, we obtain
\begin{align*}
d (q_{t}Y_t) & =q_{t}Z_t^{\ast} \, dM_t - q_{t}(a_{t}Y_{t}+b_{t}m^{\ast}_{t}Z_{t}+h_{t})\,dQ_{t}+q_{t}\, dU_{t}\\
&\quad\mbox{}+Y_{t}q_{t}b_{t}c_t^{-\frac{1}{2}}\, dM_{t}+Y_{t}q_{t}a_{t}\, dQ_{t}+d\langle Y, q\rangle_t \\
& =q_{t}\big( Z_t^{\ast}+Y_{t}b_{t}c_{t}^{-\frac{1}{2}} \big)\, dM_t-q_{t}(b_{t}m^{\ast}_{t}Z_{t}+h_{t})\,dQ_{t}+q_{t}\, dU_{t}+q_{t}\text{Tr}\left[Z_{t}b_{t} c_{t}^{-\frac{1}{2}} c_{t}\right]dQ_{t}\\
& =q_{t}\big( Z_t^{\ast}+Y_{t}b_{t}c_{t}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\big)\, dM_t-q_{t}h_{t}\, dQ_{t}+q_{t}\, dU_{t}+q_{t}(b_{t}m_t^{\ast}Z_{t}-b_{t}c_{t}^{\frac{1}{2}}Z_{t})\,dQ_{t}\\
& =q_{t}\big( Z_t^{\ast}+Y_{t}b_{t}c_{t}^{-\frac{1}{2}} \big)\, dM_t-q_{t}h_{t}\, dQ_{t}+q_{t}\, dU_{t}
\end{align*}
where the last equality holds since $m^{\ast}_t=(m_{t}m_{t}^{\ast})^{\frac{1}{2}}=c_t^{\frac{1}{2}}$.
Since $(Y,m^{\ast}Z)\in \wHlamo \times \wHlamd $ and inequality \eqref{eqqq} holds, the process $\wh M$ given by
\be \label{defmmm}
\wh M_t := q_{t}Y_{t}-q_{0}Y_{0}+\int_{0}^{t}q_{u}h_{u}\,dQ_{u}-\int_{0}^{t}q_{u}\,dU_{u}
= \int_{0}^{t}q_{u}\big(Z_{u}^{\ast}+Y_{u}b_{u}c_{u}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\big)\, dM_{u}
\ee
is a local martingale. From Theorem \ref{wellposedness theorem for special BSDE}, we also have that, for $i=1,2$,
\be \label{eqqYU}
\EP \bigg[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}(Y_{t}^{i}-U_{t}^{i})^{2}\bigg]<\infty,
\ee
and thus we may check that $\wh M$ is a uniformly integrable martingale (see the last part of the proof).
Consequently, it is equal to the conditional expectation of its terminal value, which in turn implies that
\bde
q_{t}Y_{t}=\EP \bigg[\, q_{T}\eta+\int_{t}^{T}q_{u}h_{u}\,dQ_{u}-\int_{t}^{T}q_{u}\,dU_{u}\, \Big|\, \mathcal{G}_{t}\bigg]\ge0 .
\ede
Since we assumed that $\eta=\eta^{1}-\eta^{2}\geq 0,\, h_t =h^{1}(t,Y^{2} , Z^{2})-h^{2}(t,Y^{2} , Z^{2}) \geq 0 $ for all $t \in [0,T]$ and the process $U$ is decreasing with $U^1_0-U^2_0=0$, we conclude that the inequality $Y_{t}\ge0$ holds for all $t \in [0,T]$.
To complete the proof, it now remains to demonstrate that the local martingale $\wh M$, which is given by \eqref{defmmm},
is uniformly integrable. Let us first consider the term $q_{t}Y_{t}$. Since $U$ is a decreasing process, we have that
$|U_{t}|\leq |U_{T}|+|U_{0}|$ and thus, since $U_{T}$ is assumed to belong to $\wh{L}^{2}_{0}$,
\be \label{eqqU}
\EP \bigg(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|U_{t}|^{2}\bigg)\leq 2\EP \left(|U_{T}|^{2}+|U_{0}|^{2}\right)<\infty.
\ee
Then, by combining (\ref{eqqq}) with (\ref{eqqU}), we obtain
\begin{align*}
\EP \bigg(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|q_{t}Y_{t}|\bigg)& \leq \bigg[\EP \bigg(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|q_{t}|^{2}\bigg)\bigg]^{1/2}\bigg[\EP \bigg(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|Y_{t}|^{2}\bigg)\bigg]^{1/2}\\
& \leq 2 \bigg[\EP \bigg(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|q_{t}|^{2}\bigg)\bigg]^{1/2}\bigg[\EP \bigg(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|Y_{t}-U_{t}|^{2}\bigg)+\EP \bigg(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|U_{t}|^{2}\bigg)\bigg]^{1/2}<\infty
\end{align*}
where we also used \eqref{eqqYU} to establish the last inequality.
Now let us consider the integral $\int_{0}^{t}q_{u}h_{u}\,dQ_{u}$.
Since the generators $h^1$ and $h^2$ satisfy the uniform $m$-Lipschitz condition, there exists some constant $K$,
which may vary from line to line in the following discussion, such that the process
$h_t = h^{1}(t,Y^{2} , Z^{2})-h^{2}(t,Y^{2} , Z^{2})$ satisfies
\[
|h_{t}|\leq K \big( |h^{1}(t,0,0)|+|h^{2}(t,0,0)|+|Y^{2}_{t}|+|m_t^{\ast}Z_{t}^{2}|\big).
\]
Since $(Y^2, m^{\ast}Z^2)\in \wHzero \times \wHzerd $ and $h^{i}(\cdot,0,0)\in\wHzero $, we see that $h\in\wHzero $.
Therefore, using the boundedness of $Q$, we get
\begin{align*}
\EP \bigg(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\Big|\int_{0}^{t}q_{u}h_{u}\,dQ_{u}\Big| \bigg)&\leq \EP \bigg(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\bigg(\int_{0}^{t}|q_{u}h_{u}|^{2}\,dQ_{u}\bigg)^{1/2}Q_{T}^{1/2}\bigg)
\leq K\EP\bigg(\int_{0}^{T}|q_{u}h_{u}|^{2}\,dQ_{u}\bigg)^{1/2}\\
& \leq K\EP \bigg(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|q_{t}|\bigg(\int_{0}^{T}|h_{u}|^{2}\,dQ_{u}\bigg)^{1/2}\bigg)\\
& \leq K\bigg[\EP \bigg(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|q_{t}|^{2}\bigg)\EP \bigg(\int_{0}^{T}|h_{u}|^{2}\,dQ_{u}\bigg)\bigg]^{1/2}
<\infty
\end{align*}
where the last inequality holds in view of \eqref{eqqq} and the previously established property that $h\in\wHzero $.
Finally, we focus on the term $\int_{0}^{t}q_{u}\,dU_{u}$. From (\ref{eqqq}) and (\ref{eqqU}), we have
\begin{align*}
\EP \bigg(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\Big|\int_{0}^{t}q_{u}\,dU_{u}\Big|\bigg)&\leq \EP \bigg(|U_T -U_{0}| \sup_{t\in[0,T]}|q_{t}|\bigg) \leq \bigg[\EP |U_T-U_{0}|^{2} \, \EP \bigg(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|q_{t}|^{2}\bigg)\bigg]^{1/2}
<\infty.
\end{align*}
Consequently, from the definition of $\wh{M}$, we obtain
\[
\EP \bigg(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|\wh{M}_{t}|\bigg)<\infty,
\]
which implies that $\wh M$ is a uniformly integrable martingale.
\end{proof}
\brem \label{remark for comparison theorem 2}
If $\eta^{1}\ge\eta^{2}$ and $h^{1}(\cdot ,Y^{1}, Z^{1})\ge h^{2}(\cdot ,Y^{1}, Z^{1}),\, \P\otimes \Leb$-a.e.,
then one can also prove that $Y^{1}_{t}\ge Y^{2}_{t}$ for every $t\in[0,T]$.
\erem
\brem \label{financial remark for comparison theorem}
In the above proof, we needed to ensure that the stochastic integral
\be \label{inhh}
\int_{0}^{t}b_{u}(m_{u}m^{\ast}_{u})^{-\frac{1}{2}}\, dM_{u},
\ee
and thus also the process $q$, are well defined. From the monograph by Karatzas and Shreve \cite{KS-1998} (see Chapter 3, Definition 2.9), we know that the stochastic integral \eqref{inhh} is well defined when the processes $b$ and $m$ are $\gg$-progressively measurable. For this reason, we require that the processes $m,\, U^{i}$, as well as the process $h^{i}(\cdot,y,z)$,
for any fixed $(y,z)\in\rr \times \rr^{d}$, are $\gg$-progressively measurable.
Furthermore, from \cite{KS-1998} (Chapter 3, Remark 2.11), if $Q_{t}=t$ in (\ref{mm33}), then the stochastic integral \eqref{inhh} is well defined, provided that the processes $b$ and $m$ are $\gg$-adapted (not necessarily $\gg$-progressively measurable). Therefore, when $Q_{t}=t$, the adaptedness is sufficient. Let us mention that in our financial applications, we usually have $Q_{t}=t$ (see \cite{BR-2014,NR-2014,NR-2014a}). In Section \ref{sect5}, we provide an example of a financial market model, in which we may take $Q_{t}=t$.
\erem
\section{BSDEs with a Lipschitzian Generator} \label{sect4}
It is fair to acknowledge that the concept of a (uniformly) $m$-Lipschitzian generator,
although very convenient for the mathematical analysis of BSDE \eqref{special BSDE}, can be seen as
somewhat artificial from a more practical point of view. Indeed, typically a particular class
of BSDEs arises in a natural way when solving problems within a given framework, so the shape of
the BSDE and its generator is imposed by the problem at hand, rather than arbitrarily postulated.
The goal of this section is to provide a link between BSDEs \eqref{special BSDE} with uniformly $m$-Lipschitzian
generators and some classes of BSDEs arising in various applications to stochastic optimal control and
financial mathematics. We will also make some pertinent comments on solvability of BSDEs given by (\ref{multid BSDE}).
\subsection{BSDEs with a Uniformly Lipschitzian Generator} \label{sect4.1}
In the case of BSDEs driven by a Brownian motion, it is common to suppose that the generator is uniformly Lipschitzian,
as we also postulated in the case of BSDEs driven by a one-dimensional martingale (see condition \eqref{uniformly Lipschitz for the driver}). By contrast, most of existing studies of BSDEs driven by a multi-dimensional martingale hinge on the postulate that the generator satisfies some form of the $m$-Lipschitz condition. The latter choice seems to be motivated mainly by mathematical convenience.
Since our comparison theorem requires the generator to be uniformly $m$-Lipschitzian, the following natural question thus arises. Suppose that a generator $h$ satisfies the uniform Lipschitz condition \eqref{uniformly Lipschitz for the driver}. Does this mean that $h$ satisfies the uniform $m$-Lipschitz condition \eqref{Lipschitz for the driverx} as well? To answer this question, we need to take a closer look on the term $m$ appearing in factorization (\ref{mm33}). In the case of a general process $m$, the following assumption may be introduced.
\bhyp \label{assumption 2 for m}
There exists a constant $K_m>0$ such that, for all $t\in[0,T]$,
\be \label{mmu}
\norm m_{t}\norm+\norm(m_{t}m_{t}^{\ast})^{-\frac{1}{2}}\norm\leq K_m .
\ee
\ehyp
As shown in the next lemma, condition \eqref{mmu} is a convenient way of ensuring that the uniform $m$-Lipschitz condition \eqref{Lipschitz for the driverx} for a generator $h$ holds. It is fair to acknowledge, however, that
condition \eqref{mmu} has a shortcoming that it is not satisfied in a typical market model and thus its usefulness is somewhat limited in the context of problems arising in financial mathematics.
\bl \label{lemma for different generator}
Under Assumption \ref{assumption 2 for m}, the generator $h$ satisfies the uniform Lipschitz condition \eqref{uniformly Lipschitz for the driver} if and only if it satisfies the uniform $m$-Lipschitz condition \eqref{Lipschitz for the driverx}.
\el
\begin{proof}
It is clear that when \eqref{Lipschitz for the driverx} is combined with \eqref{mmu} then condition \eqref{uniformly Lipschitz for the driver} holds for some constant $L$. To show that the converse implication is valid as well, we assume that (\ref{uniformly Lipschitz for the driver}) holds with a constant $L$. Under Assumption \ref{assumption 2 for m}, we have that $\norm (m_{t}m_{t}^{\ast})^{-\frac{1}{2}}\norm\leq K_m$, which implies that the eigenvalues of $m$ are all greater than or equal to $\lambda_m :=1/K_m$. Consequently, we obtain
\bde
\|m_{t}^{\ast}z\|^{2}=z^{\ast}m_{t}m_{t}^{\ast}z\ge \Lambda_m \|z\|^{2}
\ede
where $\Lambda_m = \lambda^2_m$. Therefore, upon setting $\widehat{L}= L \max (1,K_m)$, we conclude that (\ref{Lipschitz for the driverx}) is valid.
\end{proof}
It is clear that Assumption \ref{assumption 2 for m} implies that there exists a constant $k_m$ such that
$\norm m_{t} \norm \ge k_m >0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. Then the random variable
$\langle M\rangle_{T}$ given by \eqref{mm33} is bounded, since the process $Q$ was assumed to be bounded.
Moreover, from above lemma, we know that under Assumption \ref{assumption 2 for m}, all the results in Section \ref{sect3} hold for BSDEs (\ref{special BSDE}) with a uniformly Lipschitzian generator.
We argue that Assumption \ref{assumption 2 for m} would be also convenient when dealing with BSDE (\ref{multid BSDE}), which has the following form
\be \label{multid BSDExx}
dY_t = Z_t^{\ast} \, dM_t - \Iast d\langle M\rangle_{t}\, \hdd(t, Y_t , Z_t ) + dU_t ,\quad Y_{T}= \eta ,
\ee
with the generator $\hdd: \Omega \times[0,T] \times \rr \times \rr^d \rightarrow \rr^d$ satisfying the
measurability Assumption~\ref{assumption standard generator}.
\newpage
To the best of our knowledge, due to its complexity, the BSDE of this shape was not yet studied in detail in the existing literature. Under Assumptions \ref{edded} and \ref{assumption 2 for m}, BSDE (\ref{multid BSDExx}) may be represented as follows
\be \label{multid BSDE 2}
dY_t = Z_t^{\ast} \, dM_t - \Iast m_{t}m^{\ast}_{t}\, \hdd(t, Y_t , Z_t )\, dQ_{t}\, + dU_t ,\quad Y_{T}= \eta ,
\ee
where we make the assumption that the $\rr^d$-valued generator $\hdd$ is uniformly Lipschitzian, specifically,
there exists a constant $L_d>0$ such that, for all $t\in[0,T]$ and all $y_{1},y_{2}\in\mathbb{R},\, z_{1},z_{2}\in\mathbb{R}^d$,
\[
\|\hdd(t,y_{1},z_{1})-\hdd(t,y_{2},z_{2})\|\leq L_d \big( |y_{1}-y_{2}|+ \|z_{1}-z_{2}\| \big).
\]
The following proposition shows that the classes of BSDEs (\ref{special BSDE}) and
(\ref{multid BSDE 2}) with uniformly Lipschitzian generators are essentially equivalent.
\bp
Under Assumptions \ref{edded} and \ref{assumption 2 for m}, the problem of solving BSDE (\ref{multid BSDE 2}) with a uniformly Lipschitzian $\rr^d$-valued generator $\hdd$ is essentially equivalent to solving BSDE (\ref{special BSDE}) with a uniformly Lipschitzian real-valued generator $h$.
\ep
\begin{proof}
Assume first that the $\rr^d$-valued generator $\hdd$ in BSDE \eqref{multid BSDE 2} is uniformly Lipschitzian.
Then we define the associated real-valued generator $h$ by setting $h(t,y,z):=\Iast m_{t}m^{\ast}_{t}\, \hdd(t, y , z)$. In view of the inequality $\norm m \norm \leq K_m$ (see Assumption \ref{assumption 2 for m}), it is clear that the generator $h$ is also uniformly Lipschitzian. This means that BSDE (\ref{multid BSDE 2}) can be reduced to BSDE (\ref{special BSDE}) with a uniformly Lipschitzian generator $h$. Hence if the answer to the well-posedness problem for BSDE (\ref{special BSDE}) is positive, then the same property is enjoyed by BSDE (\ref{multid BSDE 2}).
Conversely, we observe that to any real-valued generator $h$ we may associated the $\rr^d$-valued generator $\hdd$.
To this end, we may simply take $\hdd:=(mm^{\ast})^{-1}(h,0,\ldots,0)^{\ast}$. Since now the real-valued generator $h$ is assumed to be uniformly Lipschitzian, in view of the inequality $\norm (mm^{\ast})^{-\frac{1}{2}}\norm \leq K_m$, we conclude that the associated $\rr^d$-valued generator $\hdd$ is also uniformly Lipschitzian. Therefore, if a result yielding the existence and uniqueness of a solution to BSDE (\ref{multid BSDE 2}) with a uniformly Lipschitzian generator $\hdd$ is available, then this result covers BSDE (\ref{special BSDE}) as well.
\end{proof}
Let us now consider the comparison theorem for BSDEs (\ref{multid BSDE 2}). Suppose that the generator $\hdd$ is uniformly Lipschitzian and, in addition, $m, U$ are $\gg$-progressively measurable and $\hdd(\cdot,\cdot,y,z)$ is $\gg$-progressively measurable for every fixed $(y,z)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}$. Then one can establish a version of the comparison theorem for BSDEs (\ref{multid BSDE 2}) by either using Theorem \ref{comparison theorem 2x} or directly from the results of
Tevzadze \cite{T-2008} (in the latter case, by employing also the boundedness of $\langle M\rangle_{T}$). In such case,
the assumption that $h^{1}(\cdot,Y^{2}, Z^{2})\ge h^{2}(\cdot ,Y^{2}, Z^{2}),\, \P\otimes \Leb$-a.e., should
be replaced by
\bde
\Iast mm^{\ast} \hdd^{1}(\cdot,Y^{2}, Z^{2})\ge \Iast m m^{\ast} \hdd^{2}(\cdot ,Y^{2}, Z^{2}),
\quad \P\otimes \Leb-\text{a.e.},
\ede
which seems to be cumbersome to verify. For the reasons explained above, we leave this task for a future study,
and we henceforth focus on alternative assumptions on a generator that, as will be shown in Section \ref{sect5},
are satisfied by BSDEs arising in market models with funding costs.
\subsection{BSDEs with a Uniformly $\mathbb{\XX}$-Lipschitzian Generator} \label{sect4.2}
We stress that Assumption \ref{assumption 2 for m} covers the case when the process
$m$ in (\ref{mm33}) is not explicitly known. In a typical applications, we have more information about the
shape of the generator $h$ and perhaps also the process $m$.
The motivation for the setup studied in this subsection comes from various applications of BSDEs in financial mathematics (see, e.g., the seminal paper by El Karoui et al. \cite{EPQ-1997}). To specify our setup, we start by defining the matrix-valued process
$\XX$, which is given by
\be \label{eqss}
\XX_{t}:=
\begin{pmatrix}
X^{1}_{t} & 0 & \ldots & 0 \\
0 & X^{2}_{t} & \ldots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & \ldots & X^{d}_{t}
\end{pmatrix}
\ee
where the auxiliary processes $X^i,\, i=1,2,\dots ,d$ are assumed to be $\gg$-adapted.
\newpage
The auxiliary processes $X^i,\, i=1,2,\dots ,d$ arise naturally in some applications, so there their choice is not arbitrary,
but depends on a particular application at hand. In some instances, it may happen that $X^i = M^i$ for all $i$ but, typically, the processes $X^i$ and $M^i$ will be different, albeit they are usually closely related. For instance, the martingales $M^i,\, i=1,2,\dots ,d$ and the auxiliary processes $X^i,\, i=1,2,\dots ,d$ may be obtained from a predetermined family of some underlying processes either through integration or by solving stochastic differential equations driven by processes from this family.
For an explicit illustration of the last statement, we refer to Section~\ref{sect5}.
In this subsection, we postulate that the generator $h$ can be represented as $h(t,y,z)= g (t,y,\XX_{t}z )$ for some
function $g:\Omega \times[0,T] \times \rr \times \rr^{d} \rightarrow \rr$
satisfying Assumption \ref{assumption standard generator}. Then BSDE \eqref{special BSDE} can be represented as follows
\be \label{special BSDEmm}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
dY_t = Z_t^{\ast} \, dM_t - g(t,Y_t,\XX_{t}Z_t )\, dQ_{t} + dU_t,\medskip\\
Y_{T}=\eta .
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
Suppose that equation \eqref{mm33} holds for some $\rr^{d \times d}$-valued, $\gg$-adapted process $m$
and the generator $h(t,y,z)= g (t,y,\XX_{t}z)$ where the function $g$ satisfies the uniform
Lipschitz condition. We are now going to address following natural question: under which assumptions about $M,m$ and $\mathbb{\XX}$, the generator $h$ satisfies the (uniform) $m$-Lipschitz condition?
We first observe that to ensure that the generator $h$ satisfies the $m$-Lipschitz condition, it suffices to postulate that a strictly positive lower bound for the norm $\norm m \norm$ exists. However, to ensure that $h$ satisfies the uniform $m$-Lipschitz condition, we still need to postulate, in addition, that the processes $X^{i}$ are bounded as well.
To sum up, if we postulate that the process $\norm m \norm$ is bounded away from zero and the processes $X^{i},\, i=1,2,\ldots,d$ are bounded, then the generator $h$ is both uniformly Lipschitzian and uniformly $m$-Lipschitzian. Obviously, the boundedness of the driving martingale is a very restrictive condition, since it is unlikely to be satisfied in most applications.
Fortunately, in a typical application, one has more information about the driving martingales, which can be used to describe
a suitable class of generators. This observation allows us to introduce Assumption \ref{assumption 3 for m} and to argue that the comparison theorem can still be applied, despite the fact that Assumption \ref{assumption 2 for m} fails to hold.
In Assumption \ref{assumption 3 for m}, we will employ the following standard definition of ellipticity.
\bd \label{non-degenerate}
We say that an $\rr^{d \times d}$-valued process $\gamma$ satisfies the {\it ellipticity} condition if there exists a constant $\Lambda>0$ such that
\be \label{elli}
\sum_{i,j=1}^{d}\left(\gamma_{t}\gamma^{\ast}_{t}\right)_{ij}a_{i}a_{j}\ge \Lambda \|a\|^{2}
\ \text{ for all } a\in \rr^{d} \text{ and } t\in[0,T].
\ee
\ed
For the justification of the next assumption in the context of financial models driven by a multi-dimensional Brownian motion,
see Section \ref{sect5}.
\bhyp \label{assumption 3 for m}
The $\rr^{d \times d}$-valued, $\gg$-adapted process $m$ in equation \eqref{mm33} is given by
\[
m_{t}m_{t}^{\ast}= \XX_{t}\gamma_{t}\gamma_{t}^{\ast}\mathbb{\XX}_{t}
\]
where $\gamma = [\gamma^{ij}]$ is a $d$-dimensional square matrix of $\gg$-adapted processes satisfying
the ellipticity condition \eqref{elli}.
\ehyp
The following definition is natural when dealing with a generator $h(t,y,z)= g ( t,y, \mathbb{\XX}_{t} z )$.
\bd
We say that a generator $h$ satisfies the {\it uniform $\XX$-Lipschitz condition} if there exists a constant $\wt{L}$ such that, for every $y_1, y_2 \in \rr$ and $z_1 , z_2 \in \rr^d$,
\be \label{special generator}
|h(t,y_1,z_1)-h(t,y_2,z_2)|\leq \wt{L} \big( |y_1 - y_2|+ \|\XX_{t} (z_1-z_2) \|\big).
\ee
\ed
Let us note that condition \eqref{special generator} is equivalent to the following condition: there exists a constant
$\wt{L}_0$ such that, for every $y_1, y_2 \in \rr$ and $z_1 , z_2 \in \rr^d$,
\be \label{special generatorc}
|h(t,y_1,z_1)-h(t,y_2,z_2)|\leq \wt{L}_0 \Big( |y_1 - y_2|+\sum_{i=1}^{d}|X^{i}_{t}(z_1^{i}-z_2^{i}) |\Big)
\ee
where $z_k = (z^1_k, z^2_k,\dots , z^d_k)^{\ast}$ for $k=1,2$. It is worth emphasizing that this condition is frequently satisfied by generators of BSDEs are obtained by analyzing the dynamics of trading strategies (see, for instance, the generator $\wt{f}_l$ given by \eqref{drift function lending}).
The next lemma shows that a combination of conditions \eqref{elli} and \eqref{special generator}
ensures that a generator is uniformly $m$-Lipschitzian.
\bl \label{lemma special m generator property}
If Assumption \ref{assumption 3 for m} holds and the generator $h$ is uniformly $\XX$-Lipschitzian,
then $h$ is uniformly $m$-Lipschitzian with $\wh{L} = \wt{L} \max \big( 1, \Lambda^{-1/2} \big)$ where
$\Lambda$ is the constant of Definition \ref{non-degenerate}.
\el
\begin{proof}
Assumption \ref{assumption 3 for m} yields, for every $z \in \rr^d$,
\be \label{non-degenerate inequality}
\| m_{t}^{\ast} z \|^2 = z^{\ast}m_{t}m_{t}^{\ast}z=z^{\ast}\XX_{t}\gamma_{t}\gamma_{t}^{\ast}\XX_{t}z
\geq \Lambda \|\XX_{t} z \|^2 .
\ee
By combining \eqref{special generator} and (\ref{non-degenerate inequality}), we obtain
\[
|h(t,y_1,z_1)-h(t,y_2,z_2)| \leq \widetilde{L} \big(|y_1- y_2|+ \|\XX_{t} (z_1-z_2) \|\big)
\leq \wt{L} |y-\wt{y}|+ \wt{L} K \| m_{t}^{\ast}(z_1 - z_2) \|,
\]
and thus the generator $h$ satisfies the uniform $m$-Lipschitz condition with $\wh{L}= \wt{L} \max \big( 1, \Lambda^{-1/2} \big)$.
\end{proof}
We are in a position to establish the existence and uniqueness result for BSDE \eqref{special BSDE}
under either of Assumptions \ref{assumption 2 for m} and \ref{assumption 3 for m}. Note that if
Assumption \ref{assumption 2 for m} is postulated, then we assume, in addition, that the processes
$X^i,\, i=1,2,\dots ,d$ are bounded.
\begin{theorem} \label{appendix wellposedness theorem for lending special BSDE}
Assume that the generator $h$ can be represented as $h(t,y,z)= g (t,y,\XX_{t}z)$
where the function $g:\Omega \times [0,T] \times \rr \times \rr^{d} \rightarrow \rr$
satisfies the uniform Lipschitz condition, so that there exists a constant $\bar L$ such that,
for every $y_1, y_2 \in \rr$ and $z_1 , z_2 \in \rr^d$,
\be \label{lipmm}
|g(t,y_{1},z_{1})-g(t,y_{2},z_{2})|\leq \bar{L} \big( |y_{1}-y_{2}|+\|z_{1}-z_{2}\| \big).
\ee
Let the process $h(\cdot,0,0)$ belong to $\wHzero $, the random variable $\eta $ belong to $\wh{L}^{2}_{0}$, and $U$ be a real-valued, $\gg$-adapted process such that $U \in \wHzero$ and $U_{T}\in \wh{L}^{2}_{0}$. Assume that one of the following holds: \hfill \break
(i) the process $m$ satisfies Assumption \ref{assumption 2 for m} and the process $\XX$ is bounded, \hfill \break
(ii) the process $m$ satisfies Assumption \ref{assumption 3 for m} some constant $\Lambda >0 $. \hfill \break
Then BSDE \eqref{special BSDE} has a unique solution $(Y,Z)$ such that $(Y, m^{\ast}Z)\in\wHzero \times \wHzerd$.
Moreover, the processes $Y$ and $U$ satisfy $$\EP \bigg[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|Y_{t}-U_{t}|^{2}\bigg]<\infty .$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(i) We first postulate that Assumption \ref{assumption 2 for m} holds and the process $X^{i}$ is bounded for every $i=1,2,\ldots,d$. One can deduce that $h$ satisfies the uniform $m$-Lipschitz condition with a constant $\wh{L}$, which depends on the bounds for $X^{i}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,d$, as well as on the lower bound for $\norm m \norm $.
Therefore, the statement is an immediate consequence of Theorem \ref{wellposedness theorem for special BSDE}.
\noindent (ii) Since $h(t,y,z)= g (t,y,\XX_{t}z)$ where the function $g$
satisfies the uniform Lipschitz condition, it is clear that $h$ satisfies the uniform $\XX$-Lipschitz condition
with $\wt{L}= \bar{L}$. From Assumption \ref{assumption 3 for m} and Lemma \ref{lemma special m generator property},
we deduce that $h$ satisfies the uniform $m$-Lipschitz condition $\wh{L} = \bar{L} \max \big( 1, \Lambda^{-1/2} \big)$. Hence, once again, the assertion follows by an application of Theorem \ref{wellposedness theorem for special BSDE}.
\end{proof}
\newpage
\section{BSDEs in Market Models with Funding Costs} \label{sect5}
We will now demonstrate that the comparison theorem established in Section \ref{sect3} can be applied
to obtain lower and upper bounds on unilateral prices in a market model under funding costs.
For the detailed analysis of issues related to the postulated trading mechanism, the no-arbitrage property of the market,
and the pricing and hedging of a collateralized contract, the reader is referred to \cite{BR-2014,NR-2014,NR-2014a}. In this section, we will focus on the r\^ole of BSDEs in producing inequalities yielding the range of fair bilateral prices.
\subsection{Risky Assets and Funding Accounts} \label{sect5.1}
Let us first recall the following setting of \cite{BR-2014} for the market model.
Throughout the paper, we fix a finite trading horizon date $T>0$ for our model of the financial market.
Let $(\Omega, \cG, \gg , \P)$ be a filtered probability space satisfying the usual conditions of right-continuity and completeness, where the filtration $\gg = (\cG_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$ models the flow of information available to all traders. For convenience, we assume that the initial $\sigma$-field $\cG_0$ is trivial. All processes introduced in what follows are implicitly assumed to be $\gg$-adapted and any semimartingale is assumed to be c\`adl\`ag.
For $i=1,2, \dots, d$, we denote by $S^i$ the {\it ex-dividend price} of the $i$th risky asset with the {\it cumulative dividend stream} $A^i$. The risk-free {\it lending} (resp., {\it borrowing}) {\it cash account} $B^l$ (resp., $B^b$) is used for unsecured lending (resp., borrowing) of cash. We denote by $B^{i,b}$ {\it funding account} associated with the $i$th risky asset.
The corresponding short-term interest rates $r^{l},r^{b},r^{i,b}$ are non-negative and bounded processes, the bounded processes $B^l$ and $B^r$ satisfy $dB^l_{t}=r^{l}_{t}B^l_{t}\, dt$ and $dB^b_{t}=r^{b}_{t}B^b_{t}\, dt$
with $B^l_{0}= B^r_0= 1$, so that the inequalities $B^l_t \geq 1$ and $B^b_t \geq 1$ hold for all $t \in [0,T]$.
Finally, we also introduce the funding accounts $B^{C,l}$ and $B^{C,b}$ for the margin account represented by a process
$C$. It is assumed throughout that $0\leq r^l_t\leq r^b_t$ and $r^l_t\leq r^{i,b}_t$ for all $t \in [0,T]$.
For convenience, we introduce the matrix-valued process $\mathbb{S}$ given by
\[
\mathbb{S}_{t}:=
\begin{pmatrix}
S^{1}_{t} & 0 & \ldots & 0 \\
0 & S^{2}_{t} & \ldots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & \ldots & S^{d}_{t}
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
The discounted cumulative prices of risky assets are given by the following expressions
\bde
\wt S^{i,l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t = (B^l_t)^{-1}S^i_t + \int_{(0,t]} (B^l_u)^{-1} \, dA^i_u
\ede
where $A^i$ is the {\it dividend process} of the $i$th risky asset, so that
\be \label{cumulative dividend risk asset price1}
d\wt S^{i,l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t=(B^l_t)^{-1}\big(dS^i_t - r^l_t S^i_t \, dt + dA^i_t\big).
\ee
The following assumption corresponds to Assumptions \ref{mm33} and \ref{assumption 3 for m} (see also Assumption 4.2 in \cite{NR-2014}). Note that here $\PT^l$ is a probability measure equivalent to $\P$ on $(\Omega , \cG_T)$.
\bhyp \label{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price}
We postulate that: \hfill \break
(i) the process $\wt S^{l,\textrm{cld}} = ( \wt S^{1,l,\textrm{cld}}, \dots , \wt S^{d,l,\textrm{cld}})^*$ is a continuous, square-integrable, $(\PT^l , \gg)$-martingale and has the predictable representation property with respect to the filtration $\gg$ under~$\PT^l$, \hfill \break
(ii) there exists a $\gg$-adapted, bounded, increasing process $Q$ such that the equality
\be \label{gmma1}
\langle \wt S^{l,\textrm{cld}}\rangle_{t}=\int_{0}^{t}m^{l}_{u}(m_{u}^{l})^{\ast}\,dQ_u
\ee
holds, where a $\gg$-adapted process $m^{l}$ is such that the $d$-dimensional square matrix $m^{l}$ is invertible and
admits the representation
\be \label{gmma2}
m^{l}(m^{l})^{\ast} = \mathbb{S} \gamma \gamma^{\ast} \mathbb{S}
\ee
where a $d$-dimensional square matrix $\gamma $ of $\gg$-adapted processes satisfies the ellipticity condition~\eqref{elli}.
\ehyp
It is worth noting that Assumption \ref{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} can be easily met when the prices of risky assets are given by the diffusion-type model. For example, we may assume that each risky asset $S^i,\, i=1, 2, \dots ,d$ has the ex-dividend price dynamics under $\P$ given by
\[
dS^i_t = S^i_t \bigg( \mu^i_t \, dt + \sum_{j=1}^d \sigma^{ij}_t \, dW^j_t \bigg), \quad S^i_0>0 ,
\]
or, equivalently, the $d$-dimensional process $S=(S^{1},\ldots,S^{d})^{\ast}$ satisfies
\[
dS_{t}=\mathbb{S}_{t}(\mu_{t} \, dt+\sigma_{t} \, dW_{t})
\]
where $W = (W^1, \dots , W^d)^{\ast}$ is the $d$-dimensional Brownian motion, $\mu = (\mu^1, \dots , \mu^d)^{\ast}$ is an $\rr^d$-valued, $\ff^W$-adapted process, $\sigma = [\sigma^{ij}]$ is a $d$-dimensional square matrix of $\ff^W$-adapted processes satisfying the ellipticity condition (see Definition \ref{non-degenerate}). We now set $\gg = \ff^W$ and we recall that the $d$-dimensional Brownian motion $W$ enjoys the predictable representation property with respect to its natural filtration $\ff^W$. Hence this property is shared by the $\PT^{l}$-Brownian motion $\wt{W}$, which is defined by equation \eqref{wtw2}.
Assuming that the corresponding dividend processes are given by $A^i_t = \int_0^t \kappa^i_{u} S^i_{u} \, du $,
we obtain
\bde
d\wt S_t^{i,l,\textrm{cld}}=(B_{t}^{l})^{-1} \big( dS^i_t+ dA^i_t-r_{t}^{l}S_{t}^{i}\, dt \big)
=(B_{t}^{l})^{-1}S^{i}_{t}\bigg( \big( \mu^i_t+\kappa^i_t-r_{t}^{l} \big)\,dt + \sum_{j=1}^d \sigma^{ij}_t \, dW^j_t \bigg).
\ede
If we denote $\mu+\kappa-r^{l}= (\mu^1+\kappa^{1}-r^{l}, \dots , \mu^d+\kappa^{d}-r^{l})^{\ast}$, then the above equation becomes
\bde
d\wt S_t^{l,\textrm{cld}}=(B_{t}^{l})^{-1}\mathbb{S}_{t}\Big( \big(\mu_t+\kappa_t-r_{t}^{l}\big)\,dt+ \sigma_t \, dW_t \Big).
\ede
We set $a:=\sigma^{-1}(\mu+\kappa-r^{l})$ and we define the probability
measure $\PT^{l}$ equivalent to $\P$ on $(\Omega , {\cal F}^W_T)$ by setting
\bde
\frac{d\PT^{l}}{d\P}=\exp\bigg\{-\int_{0}^{T}a_{t}\, dW_{t}-\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{T}|a_{t}|^{2}\, dt\bigg\}.
\ede
From the Girsanov theorem, we obtain
\bde
d\wt S_t^{l,\textrm{cld}} = (B_{t}^{l})^{-1}\mathbb{S}_{t} \sigma_t \, d\wt{W}_t
\ede
where the process $\widetilde{W}:=(\widetilde{W}^{1},\widetilde{W}^{2},\ldots,\widetilde{W}^{d})^{\ast}$, which is
given by
\be \lab{wtw2}
d\widetilde{W}_{t} := dW_{t}+a_{t}\, dt = dW_{t}+\sigma_t^{-1}(\mu_t+\kappa_t-r^{l}_{t})\,dt,
\ee
is a Brownian motion under $\PT^{l}$. Therefore, if the processes $\mu,\, \sigma$ and $\kappa$ are bounded, then the process
$\wt S^{l,\textrm{cld}}$ is a continuous, square-integrable, $(\PT^{l}, \ff^W )$-martingale.
In this sense, the probability measure $\PT^{l}$ is an equivalent martingale measure for the present setup.
Furthermore, $\wt S^{l,\textrm{cld}}$ and $m^l$ satisfy conditions \eqref{gmma1}--\eqref{gmma2} with $Q_t := t$ and
$\gamma_t :=(B^{l}_t)^{-1}\sigma_t$ for all $t \in [0,T]$.
Obviously, $m^{l}(m^{l})^{\ast}$ is invertible and thus all conditions in Assumption \ref{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} are satisfied. One should observe that it is natural to identify the processes $\wt S^{l,\textrm{cld}}$ and $\mathbb{S}$ with the processes $M$ and $\XX$ in Section \ref{sect4.2}, respectively.
The following assumption corresponds to Assumptions \ref{mm33} and \ref{assumption 2 for m} (see also Assumption 4.1 in \cite{NR-2014}). Note that it requires the prices of risky assets to be bounded.
\bhyp \label{xx2}
We postulate that: \hfill \break
(i) the process $\wt S^{l,\textrm{cld}} = ( \wt S^{1,l,\textrm{cld}}, \dots , \wt S^{d,l,\textrm{cld}})^*$ is a continuous, square-integrable, $(\PT^l , \gg)$-martingale and has the predictable representation property with respect to the filtration $\gg$ under~$\PT^l$, \hfill \break
(ii) there exists an $\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$-valued, $\gg$-adapted process $m$ such that \eqref{gmma1} holds
where $m^l(m^l)$ is invertible and there exists a constant $K_m>0$ such that, for all $t\in[0,T]$,
\be \label{mmc2x}
\norm m^l_{t}\norm+\norm(m^l_{t}(m^l_{t})^{\ast})^{-\frac{1}{2}}\norm\leq K_m,
\ee
(iii) the price processes $S^{i},\, i=1,2,\ldots,d$ of risky assets are bounded.
\ehyp
\brem
In the special case where the assets prices are assumed to be uncorrelated, the volatility matrix $\sigma$ is diagonal with the entry $\sigma^{ii}$ denoted as $\sigma^i$, so that the dynamics of the price process of the $i$th risky asset become
\bde
dS^i_t = S^i_t \big( \mu^i_t \, dt + \sigma^{i}_t \, dW^i_t \big).
\ede
If we postulate that $\mu^i ,\sigma^i$ and $\kappa^i$ are bounded, $\mathbb{F}^W$-adapted processes and the processes $\sigma^i$ are bounded away from zero, specifically, $|\sigma^i_t | > C^i >0$ for all $i$ and $t \in [0,T]$, then Assumption \ref{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} is satisfied.
\erem
\subsection{BSDEs for Unilateral Prices under Funding Costs} \label{sect5.2}
We henceforth postulate that condition \eqref{gmma1} holds with $Q_t = t$.
Recall from \cite{BR-2014,NR-2014} that the process $A^{C}:=A+C+F^{C}$ models all cash flows from a collateralized contract $(A,C)$. In particular, the process $F^C$, which represents the cumulative interest of margin account, depends on the adopted collateral convention (see Section 4 in \cite{BR-2014} and, in particular, equation (2.12) in \cite{NR-2014}). For brevity, we write
\bde
A^{C,l}_t= \int_0^t (B^l_{u})^{-1}\, dA^C_{u}.
\ede
We say that a contract $(A,C)$ is {\it admissible under} $\PT^l$ if the process $A^{C,l}$ belongs to the space $\wHzero$
and the random variable $A^{C,l}_{T}$ belongs to $\widehat{L}^{2}_{0}$ under~$\PT^l$.
Let the mapping $\wt{f}_l : \Omega \times [0,T] \times \rr \times \rr^{d} \to \rr$ be given by (see equation
(2.16) in \cite{NR-2014})
\be \label{drift function lending}
\wt{f}_l( t, y ,z ): = (B^l_t)^{-1} f_l(t,B^l_t y ,z ) - r^l_t y
\ee
and $f_l : \Omega \times [0,T] \times \rr \times \rr^{d} \to \rr$ equals
\bde
f_l(t, y,z) := \sum_{i=1}^d r^l_t z^i S^i_t
- \sum_{i=1}^d r^{i,b}_t( z^i S^i_t )^+
+ r^l_t \Big( y + \sum_{i=1}^d ( z^i S^i_t )^- \Big)^+
- r^b_t \Big( y + \sum_{i=1}^d ( z^i S^i_t )^- \Big)^- .
\ede
The following result describes the prices and replicating strategies for the hedger with an initial endowment $x$.
An analogous result holds for his counterparty, that is, the holder of the contract $(-A,-C)$ (see Propositions 4.1 and 4.2 in \cite{NR-2014}, as well as Theorem \ref{inequality proposition for both positive initial wealth} in the foregoing subsection).
\bt \label{hedger ex-dividend price}
Let either Assumption \ref{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} or Assumption \ref{xx2} be satisfied with $Q_t=t$. Then for any real number $x \geq 0$ and any contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PT^l$, the hedger's ex-dividend price satisfies $P^{h}(x,A,C) = B^l (Y^{h,l,x} - x) - C$ where $(Y^{h,l,x}, Z^{h,l,x})$ is the unique solution to the BSDE
\begin{equation} \label{BSDE with positive x for hedger}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l}
dY^{h,l,x}_t = Z^{h,l,x,\ast}_t \, d \wt S^{l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
+\wt{f}_l \big(t, Y^{h,l,x}_t, Z^{h,l,x}_t \big)\, dt + dA^{C,l}_t, \medskip\\
Y^{h,l,x}_T=x.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
The hedger's unique replicating strategy $\phi $ can be obtained from $(Y^{h,l,x}, Z^{h,l,x})$. Specifically,
$\phi$ equals $\phi = \big(\xi^1,\dots ,\xi^d, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b},\psi^{1,b},\dots ,\psi^{d,b}, \eta^b, \eta^l\big)$
where, for every $t\in[0,T]$ and $i=1,2,\ldots,d,$
\bde
\xi^i_{t}= Z^{h,l,x,i}_{t}, \quad
\psi^{i,b}_t = -(B^{i,b}_t)^{-1} (\xi^i_t S^i_t)^+, \quad
\eta^b_t =- (B^{C,b}_t)^{-1}C_t^+, \quad
\eta^l_t =(B^{C,l}_t)^{-1} C_t^-,
\ede
and
\begin{align*}
&\psi^{l}_t = (B^l_t)^{-1} \Big( B^l_tY^{h,l,x}_{t} + \sum_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^+, \\
&\psi^{b}_t = - (B^r_t)^{-1} \Big(B^l_tY^{h,l,x}_{t}+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^-.
\end{align*}
\et
\proof
It is clear that the function $\wt{f}_l$ can be represented $\wt{f}_l(t,y,z)= g_l( t,y, \mathbb{S}_{t}z)$ where the
function $g_l$ is uniformly Lipschitzian. Furthermore, $\wt{f}_l$ satisfies (\ref{special generatorc}) and thus, in view of condition (ii) in Assumption \ref{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price}, it satisfies the uniform $m$-Lipschitz condition. Finally, it is obvious that $\wt{f}_l(t,0,0)=0$ for all $t \in [0,T]$, so that trivially
$\wt{f}_l(\cdot ,0,0)\in \wHzero$. In view of the preceding discussion, we conclude that Theorem \ref{appendix wellposedness theorem for lending special BSDE} can be used to establish the existence and uniqueness of a solution to BSDE \eqref{BSDE with positive x for hedger}.
Consequently, using the solution $(Y^{h,l,x}, Z^{h,l,x})$, we can find the hedger's ex-dividend price $P^{h}(x,A,C)$ and the replicating strategy $\phi$ when the process $A^{C,l}$ represents the discounted cash flows of a collateralized financial contract $(A,C)$ in a market model with funding costs introduced in Section 2.3 of \cite{NR-2014}. For the detailed financial interpretation of each component of the replicating strategy $\phi $, the interested reader is referred to Sections 2.2--2.3 in \cite{NR-2014}.
\endproof
\subsection{The Range of Fair Unilateral Prices} \label{sect5.3}
We conclude this paper by showing that Theorem \ref{comparison theorem 2x} is suitable for studying the bounds for fair or profitable prices (see Definitions 3.9 and 3.10 in \cite{NR-2014}) of the collateralized contract when the two parties have, possibly different, initial endowments $x_1$ and $x_2$. For the sake of concreteness, we postulate here that the hedger and the counterparty have both non-negative initial endowments, which are denoted as $x_1$ and $x_2$, respectively. For other possible situations, we refer to Propositions 5.2--5.4 in \cite{NR-2014}.
\bt \label{inequality proposition for both positive initial wealth}
Let either Assumption \ref{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} or Assumption \ref{xx2} be satisfied with $Q_t=t$. If the initial endowments satisfy $x_{1}\ge0$ and $x_{2}\ge0$, then for any contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PT^l$ we have, for every $t\in[0,T]$,
\be \label{eqq1}
P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)\leq P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C).
\ee
Hence the range of fair bilateral prices $[P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C),\, P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C)]$ is non-empty almost surely.
\et
\proof We assume that $x_{1}\ge0$ and $x_{2}\ge0$. From Proposition \ref{hedger ex-dividend price}, we know that $P^{h} (x_{1},A,C) = B^l (Y^{h,l,x_{1}} - x_{1}) - C$ where $(Y^{h,l,x_{1}}, Z^{h,l,x_{1}})$ is the unique solution to the BSDE
\be
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l}
dY^{h,l,x_{1}}_t = Z^{h,l,x_{1},\ast}_t \, d \wt S^{l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
+\wt{f}_l \big(t, Y^{h,l,x_{1}}_t, Z^{h,l,x_{1}}_t \big)\, dt + dA^{C,l}_t, \medskip\\
Y^{h,l,x_{1}}_T=x_{1}. \nonumber
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
Using similar arguments, but applied to $(x_2,-A,-C)$, we show that the counterparty's price equals $P^{c}(x_{2},-A,-C) =- (B^l (Y^{c,l,x_{2}} - x_{2})+C )$ where $(Y^{c,l,x_{2}}, Z^{c,l,x_{2}})$ is the unique solution to the BSDE
\be
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l}
dY^{c,l,x_{2}}_t = Z^{c,l,x_{2},\ast}_t \, d \wt S^{l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
+\wt{f}_l \big(t, Y^{c,l,x_{2}}_t, Z^{c,l,x_{2}}_t \big)\, dt - dA^{C,l}_t, \medskip\\
Y^{c,l,x_{2}}_T=x_{2}.\nonumber
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
Therefore, to prove \eqref{eqq1}, it suffices to establish the following
inequality
\bde
-B^l_t (Y^{c,l,x_{2}}_t - x_{2}) - C_t \leq B^l_t (Y^{h,l,x_{1}}_t - x_{1}) - C_t ,
\ede
which is manifestly equivalent to $-Y^{c,l,x_{2}}_t + x_{2} \leq Y^{h,l,x_{1}}_t - x_{1}$.
If we denote $\bar{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}:=Y^{h,l,x_{1}} - x_{1}$ and $\bar{Z}^{h,l,x_{1}}=Z^{h,l,x_{1}}$, then the pair $(\bar{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}},\bar{Z}^{h,l,x_{1}})$ is the unique solution of the following BSDE
\be\label{transferred BSDE for hedger 1}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l}
d\bar{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t = \bar{Z}^{h,l,x_{1},\ast}_t \, d \wt S^{l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
+\wt{f}_l \big(t, \bar{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t+x_{1}, \bar{Z}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t \big)\, dt + dA^{C,l}_t, \medskip\\
\bar{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_T=0.
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
Similarly, $(\bar{Y}^{c,l,x_{2}}, \bar{Z}^{c,l,x_{2}}):=\big(-Y^{c,l,x_{2}}+x_{2},\, \bar{Z}^{c,l,x_{2}}_t=-Z^{c,l,x_{2}}\big)$ is the unique solution of the BSDE
\be\label{transferred BSDE for counterparty 1}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l}
d\bar{Y}^{c,l,x_{2}}_t = \bar{Z}^{c,l,x_{2},\ast}_t \, d \wt S^{l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
-\wt{f}_l \big(t, -\bar{Y}^{c,l,x_{2}}_t+x_{2}, -\bar{Z}^{c,l,x_{2}}_t \big)\, dt + dA^{C,l}_t , \medskip\\
\bar{Y}^{c,l,x_{2}}_T=0.
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
Note that (\ref{transferred BSDE for hedger 1}) and (\ref{transferred BSDE for counterparty 1}) have
the same term $dA^{C,l}_t$ and the same terminal condition $\eta = 0$. Also, we already know from the preceding subsection that the
generator $\wt{f}_l$ satisfies the conditions of the comparison Theorem \ref{comparison theorem 2x}.
Hence if either (see Theorem \ref{comparison theorem 2x})
\be \label{inequality for the lending drivers 1}
-\wt{f}_l \big(t, \bar{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t+x_{1}, \bar{Z}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t \big)
\ge\wt{f}_l \big(t, -\bar{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t+x_{2}, -\bar{Z}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t \big), \quad \PT^l\otimes \Leb-\aaee
\ee
or (see Remark \ref{remark for comparison theorem 2})
\be \label{inequality for the lending drivers 2}
-\wt{f}_l \big(t, \bar{Y}^{c,l,x_{2}}_t+x_{1}, \bar{Z}^{c,l,x_{2}}_t \big)
\ge\wt{f}_l \big(t, -\bar{Y}^{c,l,x_{2}}_t+x_{2}, -\bar{Z}^{c,l,x_{2}}_t \big), \quad \PT^l\otimes \Leb-\aaee
\ee
then the inequality $\bar{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}\ge\bar{Y}^{c,l,x_{2}}$ holds $\PT^l\otimes \Leb$-a.e. To establish both
\eqref{inequality for the lending drivers 1} and \eqref{inequality for the lending drivers 2}, it suffices to
show that
\be \label{inequality for the lending drivers 3}
-\wt{f}_l \big(t, y+x_{1}, z \big)
\ge \wt{f}_l \big(t, -y+x_{2}, -z \big)\ \text{ for all } (y,z)\in \rr \times \rr^{d}, \quad \PT^l\otimes \Leb-\aaee
\ee
To complete the proof of the theorem, it suffices to note that the elementary inequality \eqref{inequality for the lending drivers 3} holds, as shown in Lemma \ref{lemnew1} below.
\endproof
\bl \label{lemnew1}
Assume that $x_{1}\ge0$ and $x_{2}\ge0$. Then the mapping $\wt{f}_l : \Omega \times [0,T] \times \mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d} \to \mathbb{R}$ given by equation \eqref{drift function lending} satisfies \eqref{inequality for the lending drivers 3}.
\el
\proof
Let us denote $\zzti = (B^l_t)^{-1} z^i S^i_t$. Then
\be
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
\delta &:=\wt{f}_l \big(t, y+x_{1}, z \big)+\wt{f}_l \big(t, -y+x_{2}, -z \big)\medskip\\
&=- r^l_t (y+x_{1})+ f_l(t,B^l_t (y+x_{1}), z)- r^l_t (-y+x_{z})+ f_l(t,B^l_t (-y+x_{2}),-z)\medskip\\
&=- r^l_t (x_{1}+x_{2})-\sum_{i=1}^d r^{i,b}_t|\zzti |+r^l_t (\delta_{1}^{+}+\delta_{2}^{+})-r^b_t (\delta_{1}^{-}+\delta_{2}^{-}) \nonumber
\end{array}
\ee
where we denote
\be
\delta_{1}:= y+ x_{1}+\sumik_{i=1}^d (\zzti)^{-}, \quad
\delta_{2}:=- y+ x_{2}+\sumik_{i=1}^d (-\zzti)^{-}.\nonumber
\ee
From $r^l\leq r^b$, we have
\bde
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
\delta&=- r^l_t (x_{1}+x_{2})-\sum_{i=1}^d r^{i,b}_t|\zzti |+r^l_t (\delta_{1}^{+}+\delta_{2}^{+})-r^b_t (\delta_{1}^{-}+\delta_{2}^{-})\medskip\\
& \leq - r^l_t (x_{1}+x_{2})-\sum_{i=1}^d r^{i,b}_t|\zzti|+r^l_t (\delta_{1}+\delta_{2})\medskip\\
&=- r^l_t (x_{1}+x_{2})-\sum_{i=1}^d r^{i,b}_t|\zzti|+r^l_t (x_{1}+x_{2})+\sum_{i=1}^d r^l_t|\zzti|\medskip\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^d (r^l_t-r^{i,b}_t)|\zzti|\leq 0.\nonumber
\end{array}
\ede
We thus conclude that $\delta\leq0$, so that (\ref{inequality for the lending drivers 3}) is valid.
\endproof
\vskip 10 pt
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgement.}
The research of Tianyang Nie and Marek Rutkowski was supported under Australian Research Council's
Discovery Projects funding scheme (DP120100895).
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.